User talk:Lothar von Richthofen/Archive2

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bzuk (talk • contribs)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lothar von Richthofen. You have new messages at Halofanatic333's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Viktor Yushchenko

Hi! Yushchenko is, in fact, 10th prime-minister. Here's the proper list of prime-ministers: Government Portal You don't need to read. Just count... Invest in knowledge (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Lothar von Richthofen. I would much appreciate if you could do that because we really need to understand the numeration. And I also think that this table looks way too complicated with all those numbers, dashes and brackets.

Metalstorm

Nah, just another webzine. Non-professional contributors, i.e. they don't get paid as music journalists, and their material hasn't to the best of my knowledge been published elesewhere (either on the net or in print form) by an independent, third-party commercial body. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] January 2011

Hi, I'm glad that at least one person decided to answer me in the discussion page, however im extremely disappointed, because it seems clearly that you're going to be "a judge in your own case" in this edit war. I you please have a little bit of decency, ask some other admin, someone objective, to take care of that. Thank you.--83.12.91.242 (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, have you read my latest entry in the discussion page? I can only agree on a compromise. Please reformulate my edit to your liking, changing the cotroversial (in your opinion) words, but leave the essential information, don't let this article continue to be such a malevolent deceptive pean of people who made such terrible (or in the way more to your liking, at least accused of) atrocities. Don't let it be a mere description of false Zwick's movie. Here you have even more testimonies of witnesses:http://torrentflux.wordpress.com/2008/05/24/tewje-bielski-i-jego-partyzanci/ ,http://www.naszdziennik.pl/index.php?dat=20080531&typ=my&id=my01.txt You can use google translate, I think it could be at least a bit helpful. Btw. I think we should change the name to its original form "Tewje" as this werid "Tuvia" thing is only a feckless phonetic record in english. It would be more like "Tev-yeah".--83.12.91.242 (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Good addition to history of History of Azerbaijan

I kept your edit -- good eye! And used the Rjbronn sourced version. The most honest contributions appear to be from Lothar von Richthofen & Rjbronn.

Good job!

FactPatrolFactPatrol (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Refs in the lead

Hello. Well, according to WP:LEAD, as you know, the lead should summarize the whole article. Refs are not preferred as they may become redundant. However, it is not a strict policy. Novice7 | Talk 03:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm extremely sorry. Yes, BLPs have to be very accurate and so, I guess it's okay. The reason I asked the user to fix the lead is that I spotted some statements which were not present in the article. I thought I should just let him/her know about the Lead. And some statements definitely need citations, even if they're in the lead. Thanks for pointing out my big mistake. I'm sorry again for making such a mess. I'll surely try to keep this in mind. Oh, I forgot something. I forgot to tell him that if he removes citations from the lead, he must cite them in the body wherever appropriate. I've notified Live Light of this. Novice7 | Talk 12:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't reply before. Sorry. Thank you for pointing out my big mistake. In future too, if you see me make any kind of mistake, be free to notify me about that too :) Novice7 | Talk 15:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Indo Global Education Foundation

Hilarious: he's removed the content from his Facebook page to avoid db-copyvio. Still, you're right, it's no longer demonstrably copyvio, so you were right to decline the speedy. Thanks, Borkificator (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about this.

Would you be so kind as to e-mail me, jigalypuff at gmail dot com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.193.56 (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you have been online, again I ask you please mail me. Mark Nutley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.193.56 (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying yourself. Unfortunately, I don't use my private email for Wikipedia-related things for privacy reasons. Perhaps there is some other way? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That`s ok, it`s not wiki related. I wish to discuss something regarding the holodomor but it is not for a wiki article, thanks. Mark Nutley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.193.56 (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be glad to discuss in some other forum, but I try to keep my email for real-life things only. I do hope that you understand; I don't want to seem like I'm being hostile or anything. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a real life thing :) Look here Mail me if you should like to contribute, thank you for your time. Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.218.93 (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Egyptian protests

I made a comment here that I think you should address. Thank you. Silverseren^C 21:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Super Bowl XLV

If the game [Super Bowl XLV] summery section needs work, then feel free to get started. I don't object to edits, just removal of the whole thing. So far you have not pointed to a single factual error in the section.Chainclaw (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Tom Rosenthal

Hello

Just wondering about the edit you made to the Tom Rosenthal page. You deleted the following paragraph

"*The sweatshirt that Rosenthal is wearing in the above photo belongs to fellow comic and rival Liam Williams. As a 'prank' for the final show of the Lunchtime Club 2010 run, Rosenthal and Williams swapped over-garments, with the latter comedian performing in Rosenthal's golf jumper."

Now, I was at The Lunchtime Club show on the last day and I can confirm that the above is true and actually happened. May I add the paragraph back? I may have an audio file to back this up, but I'm not certain of the quality.

Thank you in anticipation.

Kel x — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplekelly (talk • contribs) 01:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt that this actually occurred. What I am concerned about is that this is giving far too much weight to a single, isolated act. This clothing-swap is, as far as I can tell, purely trivial and it should be kept off the article. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious.

Just out of interest, how did you find and revert my edit in Güyüm so quickly?194.66.70.48 (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It showed up in Special:RecentChanges. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Holodomor

Have you by any chance heard Father Stalin look at this this children`s song before? Given it is about the Holodomor I am hoping you may have. Tentontunic (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I responded to you on my talk page, I have watch listed this talk page should you prefer to respond further here, I am hoping for some pointers on were to look for further sourcing. Tentontunic (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Nokturnal Mortum

Hello!

I couldn't find any reliable source for the genres of this band but Encyclopaedia Metallum. Their music is the only proof for their genre. As for their NS stance, I've heard several claims from random people on the internet that they would've dropped it. I don't know, I tried to find an official statement from the band itself, but couldn't find any. Again, they're the only proof, for example - I ran their Ukrainian lyrics from their last album (Голос Сталі/Voice of Steel) through Google Translate and nothing NS or racial found only phantasmagorical, pagan-ish and nature themes.

Presenting Nokturnal Mortum only as a NSBM band seemed very incomplete to me. Gruesomehuman (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Metal Archives is not a reliable source. Neither are "random people on the internet". We go by what reliable sources say. The interview cited on the NM page clearly defines them as NSBM. Whatever your interpretations of their most recent songs are is completely irrelevant and WP:OR. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Greetings once again. Just wasted a little of my time to find a couple of "good" sources for their genre and lyrical concept(s). 1st one, in the topic of their association with NS, when the interviewer asks Varggoth his views about politics, he replies I never saw Nokturnal Mortum as political band. People say that some my views have political orientation. It’s shit. Now I’m not interested in any politic currents. Nokturnal Mortum art is not intended for solution of modern society problems. -An interview posted in 2008. Now, speaking of their genre, even in one of your sources, Varggoth describes his band being influenced by folk-ish elements, something also explained in my 2nd link; an old one as well, but makes no NS remarks. Gruesomehuman (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Libyan uprising

sorry for my error: I left a note at Talk:2011_Libyan_uprising#Reverting_to_the_correct_form.21 already before you corrected to the right version; as soon as I realized that there are more people than just me reverting and that the vandal (Jholmes3neq) did three edits with a normal editor doing an edit in between and thus a simple rv would not do. noclador (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Re-The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 vote of March 18

About "pro-Gadhafi". I meant they always regularly vote 'no' to tough measures, show undue sympathy to Gadhafi, politically softly-softly, and alike ('soft allies' if you like'). At no time do I mean their as far committed as Zimbabwe, who is fighting alongside Gadhafi like ('hard allies', you might say) or worshiping him like the Latin American "revolutionary" leaders. No one is apparently as deluded and as Hugo Chavez! It's all a matter of degrees.

The UK is anti-Gadhafi, but France is very anti-Gadhafi (oil?) and the USA got cold feet since it is worried about a new Afghanistan/Iraq style endless troop commitment crisis. Wipsenade (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That is all very well, but it seems to be WP:OR and should not be in the article. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The "sides" was my own POV and was not to be article added unlike the rest.Wipsenade (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if it's already there then no problem. I got it as news broke when I turned on my TV this morning. I the Googled up stuff. It was new and I thought I was first. If others got there first, I did not notice it. I just thought the main nations were mentioned, not places like Gabon to. It appears my notice was not a news exclusive, but out of date by several hours. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.Wipsenade (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Libyan NFZ

Apologizes, a mistake on my part. I noticed that some of the content in the side bar was in the wrong sections and I was trying to put it into the correct location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.191.180 (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Nafusa Mountains

If you could move those two talk pages to the new merged one that would be great. I simply forgot about doing that, however I don't know how to move two discussion pages into one personally. Also, I used the term fighting in the article's name because one editor objected to the use of the term Battle of or for because nobody in the media was using those terms. Do you have any suggestions? EkoGraf (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Responded on article talk page. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Black metal

As I have stated several times in the Black metal article, National Socialist Black metal does not exist, National Socialist Metal is the correct term, and as such the section regarding NSBM should be removed. The ideologies of Black metal are strictly against that of National Socialism, so you can understand that it does not exist, a band may say they are NSBM, however National Socialism is absolutely contrary to Black Metal. Please do not revert the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.157.213 (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This is purely personal opinion and catering to it would be giving undue weight and flagrantly ignoring reliable sources. One more removal, and you will be reported. Take it up on the talk page if you feel you have a legitimate case based on policy. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Octopuses

Totally failed to see that it was a quote...my goof. But Octopodes is considered effete with Octopuses listed as the correct form in most major dictionaries. But, as you say, it's a quote the Octopi is correct here. Cheers. MrMarmite (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I know dictionaries like "octopuses". That makes no difference to me, really. I use "octopodes" for the same reason that I use "mitochondria" and "stomata", not "mitochondrions" and "stomas": it is the etymologically correct plural. Sure, it's pretentious, but we all have our peculiarities, or? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Just wanting to know what you feel is fair and right

For me specifically, I find the imposition of a topic ban when I've had little point of view on the topic to be a little silly. I have no driving desire to edit punctuation-related topics and the only reason I got involved in the Mex-Am War article in the first place was because someone asked for advice in dealing with the topic a few weeks back. I've generally been neutral on the issue though.

I'm really concerned that so many people are rushing to quick judgement on these editors. I've seen these editors in action, discussing and working together. And nothing is making me listen to every single point they make about dashes and hyphens, and in many cases, I go off to edit other things and check in later. But one thing I haven't had any doubt about is their sincerity in wanting to improve this article.

I'm just puzzled by the suggestion that Sandstein's proposal is the best (or only) thing we can come up with. -- Avanu (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, endless wars over titles aren't really productive. More improvement is made by referencing an unreferenced paragraph than in a dozen endless title-related spats. I have participated in numerous title-related discussions in my day. Some of them were quick and civil. Others have been absolute war-zones, with participants straying into the dangerous minefields of established ArbCom rulings and attendant discretionary sanctions. But I have never seen something so frivolous as this dash-war. I hear your talk of how well these editors work together, but then I see a full-protect over at WP:AT and I just don't know what to think.

As for a better solution, I can't answer that now. It's quite late where I am, and I am not thinking very clearly. I'll sleep on it and see if I can't get back to you tomorrow. Cheers, Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I have given the matter some hard thought, and this is what I have decided:

• The partisan editors involved in the dispute need some form of punishment or reprimand; their actions needlessly disrupted the project for a minor style issue.
• A long topic ban is a tad draconian, but a shorter one (~1 month) would not be unreasonable.
• At the very least, the editors should be put on probation for a period of a few months.
• A formal RfC would be a good thing to use to determine community consensus on the matter.
• The dispute is still lame to begin with, but the firestorm at AN indicates that leaving things at that will be insufficient.

Your thoughts? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone else suggested a 'binding RfC'. Honestly, I think that would be the best thing. The only reason this has been going on for so long is a lack of leadership. There can only be 1 title per article, so there is no place to allow for compromise (which is what people normally would shoot for).

When you have a lot of editors who all have reasonable points, supported by reliable sources, they will end up orbiting each other until someone figures out a way to bring them in for a landing. My personal opinion, having observed these editors for a while, is that they are all acting fairly close to reasonable and close to good faith, and just need a person to help things solidify into an acceptable conclusion. I don't think they need a stick or a beating. They need an admin who can set some additional ground rules and maybe a time limit and say "this is how the dispute will be moderated", and then it can end. -- Avanu (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you have too much personal attachment to this issue. A cursory glance at the Mex-Am war page and WP:AT immediately reveals edit-warring. Edit-warring is disruptive and not a correct way to solve disputes. It really doesn't matter one whit that you believe them to be nice people; they have broken certain rules of conduct. This should not go unpunished. In disputes, most people have valid points backed by RSes. That does not make reversions and counter-reversions OK. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what records you are looking at but I don't see where I have edit warred there, and I don't have much personal attachment to the issue. I'm also not sure how looking at the Article Titles guideline page reveals edit warring?

The sole thing I can think of is an incident at the Talk page for Mex-Am, where one editor had said something slightly uncivil, so I modified it to be more polite. The circumstance of this revert were a little unique, but after making it polite twice, in deference to the 3RR rule, I contacted Sandstein, so that he could politely weigh in. This is the approach I learned from others, shortly after starting to edit Wikipedia again a while back. Contacting Sandstein turned out to be the worst idea ever, but I still have faith in admins overall. -- Avanu (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

After looking *closer* at what you wrote, I am seeing you meant that the Mex-Am page had experienced edit-warring, not that I was necessarily the one doing it. I apologize for missing that distinction. Let me just say that I appreciate that you were willing to participate in the AN discussion, and honestly, I see hope for the issue, but I believe that the "binding RfC" or something else moderated is probably the answer. I am still getting familiar with Wiki practices and culture, so I might simply have a greater degree of optimism. Best wishes. -- Avanu (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

2nd Ajdabiya and 4th Brega talk pages merge

After reverting my merge of those talk pages with a "rv: cut-and-paste messes up revision history" comment you left them split. Having them split is not a solution.

Cut-n-Paste is one of the ways to merge articles. I see no reason for a higher standard on rv-cleanliness on talk pages than on articles. Reverting edits is not needed on talk pages (outside special cases) and I have clearly stated where those comments came from. If you have a better solution to merge these talk pages, please implement it or at least suggest one.Ihosama (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:HISTMERGE. I placed a request at ANI for this to be properly done. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thnx. I believe that the merge in question falls squarely into Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#Parallel_versions. Anyway, thanks for pointing me to those pages.Ihosama (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Wazzin

Need your help. An editor with a single-purpose account is trying to fork of the battle at the border post into one small article. Which has already been explained in just one paragraph in the main article on the Nafusa mountains campaign. Another editor has already proposed the merger back to the main article. The discussion is here [1]. EkoGraf (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to MILHIST

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! Woody (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at WP:RSN. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ad hominem attack are considered personal attacks He did it first is not valid excuse. Focus on content not contributors. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, looking back, that was definitely a personal attack. I've removed it outright.

However, the discussion there is amongst a group of people who have very strong and at times diametrically opposed personal convictions about the subject at hand. It would be greatly appreciated if you could step in and give an opinion on the reliability of sources affiliated with Russian state media, so this does not become another Eastern European battleground (also so I can know if my source is OK to use). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Very mature. Hey there are people from the WP:ARBSCI who are still running around making mockery of the topic area who me and few other are contiually butt heads. It get heated at times and say thing more irrattedly then we mean too. I think it speak volumes you responded to this message and removed the attack. where as another certain individual merely blanked their page. Take care The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs)

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) 04:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Industrial black metal

I see nothing in there to suggest a legitimate subgenre of any note. Sure, there are black metal bands with industrial or electronic elements, but there are black metal bands with jazz elements; that doesn't make it a (sub)genre. They'd need non-trivial coverage dealing with it as a genre, but just labelling bands as "raw BM" this, or "electronic BM" that. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Brega–Ajdabiya road

Two editors have voiced their opinion the Battle of Brega–Ajdabiya road should be closed with an end date since there has been no fighting there since April 18, more than three weeks now. And I am of the same opinion. We should put in the results section that the battle ended with a stalemate and leave the subresults on the repulsed attack on Ajdabiya and repulsed attack on Brega. Because, by all acounts, the rebels are planning a totaly new offensive on Brega in the coming days and that would constitute a total new round of fighting separate from the one in mid-April. What do you think? EkoGraf (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I was actually just about to to pose a similar question to you. I agree, it should be considered over at this point. I'm interested to see if the Cyrenaican rebels can actually pull together a successful offensive this time around... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Doubt it...but we'll see. EkoGraf (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

About that new battle from today, I don't think it should be viewed as a continuation of the previous battle because that one has been over, like we concluded, for three weeks now. So that's done. This is a totaly new thing. However, I am having doubts about how big this battle was. There certainly was a battle. However, the rebels claim to have killed 57 loyalists at a price of only two of their own men? A kill ratio of 30:1? Getting a deja vu of US military claims on body counts during the Vietnam era. Plus, an earlier report [2] at the start of the battle, before the rebel officer was interviewed and there were claims of loyalist deaths, confirmed from medical sources that four rebels had been killed at that point, so obviously on the issue of their own fatalities the rebel officer was lying, so there's the question was he lying on the issue of loyalist casualties and how much? EkoGraf (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

On a side-note, started a new article here East Libyan Desert Campaign. EkoGraf (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, good. That needed to be created. Thank you. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, guess I was right. A more official rebel official now stating 36 loyalists died along with 6 rebels.[3] That is more conceivable than the previous claim, but still, even a 6:1 kill ratio is a bit over the top and unreliastic. But whatever, we write as it is reported. :) EkoGraf (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it was not even deliberate, just repeating rumours. 6:1 does seem a bit over the top, I agree. Then again, is this what all those foreign advisors have been up to? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Please

Stop adding fascist bias to Category:Communism. What you are doing is truly original research, since communism in its last phase is not totalitarian nor oligarchic (Thats what communist theory says, communist theory clearly states that the goal is a stateless and classless society.) I don't see why I'm the one posting original research, you are the one who adds unsourced criticism and bias. Please stop. Thank you XXPowerMexicoXx (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Your normative personal interpretation of communist theory is irrelevant. Communism in its real-world incarnations can be both totalitarian and oligarchic, and reliable sources will confirm that. Please do not insinuate that I am adding "fascist bias", as this is a clear personal attack on me. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

For "communist oligarchy": 126 results on Google scholar

For "totalitarian communism": 1230 results on Google scholar.

There you have it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so many have criticized it and said it results in totalitarianism. But that is not what it intends (at least), and you will never find a source saying communism intends totalitarianism nor oligarchy. Greetings XXPowerMexicoXx (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's all well and good, I'm sure. But you have missed my point. The category should still be classified under oligarchy and totalitarianism because those have been produced under governments identified as communist. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Second battle for the Brega-Ajdabiya road

Should we create an article that covers what seems now a Second battle for the Brega-Ajdabiya road? Since 10 rebels, 36 loyalists, and now by some accounts 18 civilians (including 11 imams), have been killed in the last week in that area. We shouldn't reopen the old one, that one is well and trully done. It ended with a stalemate and there was no fighting for three weeks. Or maybe name this new round of fighting something else like May 2011 Brega-Ajdabiya clashes, or something. EkoGraf (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

An editor proposed at the talk page of the article to maybe create a second battle article. And besides me one more editor voiced support for such a move. EkoGraf (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd support that, but only weakly. The three-week lull in fighting doesn't break the continuity of the fighting there, IMO. Maybe another "phase" thing is warranted? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yefren

Video [4] from an Army soldier of loyalists in the city center and looting shops. This would confirm loyalists are in control of the Yefren city center. And plus today rebels in Zintan confirmed they have not had contact with Yefren for more than a week. I belive that earlier report by the rebels that the town had fallen is true and the city is now isolated from the rest of the mountains, thus in fact still under siege, as that was the term that was used, but under loyalist control. The rebels are most likely, like they themselves said in those earlier reports, still around Yefren in the mountain villages but they don't control Yefren anymore. EkoGraf (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. I think that Yafran has probably fallen at this point too, but using the video as a source is WP:OR. I still have my doubts about the original report, though. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Alhura

I didn't add it, it was already put there by someone else two or three days ago. I saw that someone removed it today, don't know who, so I put it back in. Actualy I didn't see which source was being quoted. Now that you pointed it out to me I see your reasoning and agree that it is an unreliable source. EkoGraf (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Misrata end date

Some editors have started a discussion that an end date needs to be set for the battle for Misrata. I would agree in principle to this, however, last night, a doctor said shells landed in the city and killed 10 people and wounded 20. The battle would be well and trully over when the shelling of the city totaly stops (artillery gets out of range). Also, one more question, would this be a Pyrrhic victory for the rebels given that both them and the population they were said to be protecting suffered 550-1,000 dead and up to 4,000 wounded? All reports suggest at least 35 percent of the dead or wounded were rebels. And it was implied there were 3,000-5,000 rebels in the city. That would than mean around 360 dead and 1,300 wounded out of that rebel force. 30-50 percent of their force. And the deffinition of a pyrrhic victory is that it's a victory that comes at a great cost to the victor. I would call it a great cost. Plus their hometown was trully demolished. EkoGraf (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, it is negative if 30-50 percent of your force is destroyed or immobilised. If it is grim than we write it grim. I would be against decisive, because this is not a definite victory. NATO itself said if loyalist managed to organise a counter-attack they would most likely retake a large chunk of territory lost, thus the recent gains are fragile. So in that case compromise, just victory, without decisive or phyrric, although it realy is negative if your whole city is destroyed. Also, that map from the new york times that emerged, it can be used to show the farthest point of advance by the loyalists during the battle since the current map would all be rebel-collored now. Someone should tell Raffy. EkoGraf (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, let's not jump the gun here, people have said half a dozen times in this war the beginning of the end and Gaddafi always made a huge U turn in the situation against the rebels. :) However, I agree, if the victory lasts, let's say three-four weeks, or the rebels manage to consolidate their gains by advancing further to Tripoli and taking more towns, than yes - decisive -. We add decisive than. Now we wait several more days to see if the shelling totaly stops (there was shelling last night) and than agree on an end date, the fall of the airbase date most appropriate, but wait a few more days. EkoGraf (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion? They wouldn't have won the battle if it weren't for NATO. They would have been most likely defeated over a month ago if NATO hadn't blasted those 50 or so tanks. As far as the decisive part goes...well...I would just like to point you to an article from today [5]. Fighting at the eastern and western gates of Misrata again, seven rebels dead. I am realy starting to doubt if it is over at all. We will see in the coming days or weeks. And based on what happened today, with the continued fighting, I would again urge to wait up on the decisive part. EkoGraf (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding decisive, after a week or so if the situation holds. I will add it myself if need be. :) By the way, in my oppinion, Gaddafi's air force wouldn't have had that much of an impact if they were still flying. While they were flying they were missing a lot and in essence couldn't hit anything, the deciding factor were the tanks and artillery. The loyalists would have most likely finished the job with only the ground troops, artillery and those 50 tanks, which they almost did until stopped in the city center, because the NATO air-strikes destroyed those 50 or so tanks. The rebels only faced light infantry after the air-strikes. Just being realistic. :) EkoGraf (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The decisive military winning factor were the tanks and artillery, but yes the scare factor was there due to the planes and helicopters. EkoGraf (talk) 21:50, 17 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) 23:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Nafusa

Change name of Battles of the Nafusa mountains to Nafusa mountains campaign? EkoGraf (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I think I finaly get what's going on in Yafran based on this (dubiously reliable) source [6]. The loyalists hold the city center and much of the town but (based on what we heared previously) rebels are conducting constant raids against loyalists from the surrounding mountain villages. EkoGraf (talk) 06:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok on Yafran, situation unclear. As far as Gharyan goes, a New York Times article from yesterday confirmed the town is loyalist-held since early March. EkoGraf (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, misread your last post. My sincerest sincerest apologies. EkoGraf (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Civilian fatalities table

Going to attempt to make a new table in the casualties article in which exclusivly only civilian fatalities will be included. However, as far as Zawiyah, Nafusa and Second Benghazi goes, there we didn't have a civilian/rebel breakdown so those two will have to stay merged together. But we will note that those toll include possibly hundreds of civilians killed. But so we are clear those several hundred protesters that were killed in the first few days could not be considered civilians at this point because at the very least they can be seen as rebel activists now. Anyone after that that didn't have a weapon in their hands when killed is a civilian. EkoGraf (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Finally info on Yefren

FINALLY we got information on what's going on at Yefren. A man who managed to get out of there a few days ago gave this report [7]. It seems loyalists have managed to take the western part of the town, including the hospital, while some 500 rebels are still holding out in the eastern section of the town. The rebel commander in Zintan has stated they have written off Yefren as already being lost. The town of al-Galaa was also reported to be on the verge of being overrun with no more water supplies after they were poisoned. EkoGraf (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Misrata

Artillery struck the outskirts of the city yesterday. So that would mean some artillery units are still in range of the town. Thus I would wait at least one more week. However, I am leaning to decisive. EkoGraf (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Sana'a

What do you think Battle of Sana'a? Look good? EkoGraf (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yafran and Ryayna

A Zintan rebel spokesman confirmed yesterday that Yefren was under loyalist control but the rebels were still in the surrounding area. Here is the source [8] and I will quote it On Saturday, Juma Ibrahim, a rebel spokesman in Zintan, said Yafran remained under Gaddafi loyalist control. So I recommend that Yefren be collored green but with a blue ring because the rebels are in the surrounding mountain tops and caves and are still conducting raids against loyalists in the town from time to time. This would be the third time that the rebels confirmed the town has fallen. Also, this source [9] confirms that during the advance on Zintan last week loyalists advance through Ryayna and broken through two Zintan defence lines. I recommended to Rafy to change the map based on this new information but he thinks there is not enough evidence. I belive Yefren is blockaded, not under siege, in an attempt to punish the citizens for rising up by starving them out. Also, I belive that at the very least, if not changing Yefren to loyalist-held, Ryayna HAS to be changed to loyalist-held since they already advanced through it. What do you think? EkoGraf (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Zinjibar

I was thinking the same thing. Also, should we maybe make an article on the fighting on Misrata's outskirts now? I though something like Battle of Zliten-Misrata road but there is also fighting at Tawarga on the opposite end. Maybe Battle of the Misrata line or Battle of the Misrata frontline. What do you think? EkoGraf (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Created the article Battle of Zinjibar. EkoGraf (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Didn't get your reply about the Misrata idea. Also, if the situation in Yemen keeps going as it is going right now for another week we should think about changing the result of the uprising in the table of the Arab spring article to Ongoing civil war, just like Libya. EkoGraf (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Sana'a clashes are most definetly affiliated with the protests. They were a response by the tribes to Saleh not wanting to give up power and attacking protestors. As far as Zanjibar goes...well...that one isn't 100 percent connected, but it is connected somewhat because of the reports that Saleh gave up the city so he could prove a point to the protestors. So in essence Zinjibar is a result of Saleh's attempt at staying in power from a certain point of view. And I do belive this will go the way of a civil war if Saleh doesn't step aside, and, if it will be like what we saw in the last week, than it will be most definetly more bloodier than Libya. EkoGraf (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, we will see in the next couple of days, but this may very likely turn into a civil war. And when I said more bloodier than Libya I ment something Somalia-like because there are at least four opposition groups (northern Shiia, tribe confederation, Islamists, protestors) that want Saleh out but don't like eachother also so they may come into conflict with eachother also. EkoGraf (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I also said, wait about a week or two, than we see. EkoGraf (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Libyan civil war

I just wanted to personally let you know that I put in a request for deletion on the disambiguation page for "Libyan civil war", this way we can find out whether there is a consensus on the possibility of the pre-2011 conflicts being referred to as "Libyan civil wars". 174.114.87.236 (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Taiz

Yesterday two armed protestors (tribesmen) and three soldiers were killed in fighting in Taiz. If there are more clashes reported in Taiz today or tomorrow I will create an article. EkoGraf (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 Ta'izz clashes. EkoGraf (talk) 13:58, 3 June 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) 23:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sadiq al-Ahmar

Hello! Your submission of Sadiq al-Ahmar at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! cmadler (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Zawiyah

Would wait a day or two more to see if there realy is a big battle raging before starting an article. By the way, created this Battle of the Misrata frontline a few hours ago. EkoGraf (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the loyalists did claim to recapture the port in Misrata, but they never took reporters there. The report on the defeat of the rebels in Zawiyah was confirmed by foreign reporters who were taken to the center of the city. They stated that the city streets were secured and the square (which the rebels claimed was surrounded) was flying the green flag and not one of the journalists reported any fighting. The Misrata port claim didn't have any independent confirmation, Zawiyah does. I added a source on this in the results section but an anonymous user (obviously POV-pusher) removed it. EkoGraf (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

They claimed that they surrounded the city center/square. If it was surrounded, how did the reporters get in? Also, the journalists didn't report hearing or seeing any fighting. When the fighting was raging yesterday reporters were taken through the city under heavy police guard through the back streets. Not today. EkoGraf (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Geromasis|talk]]) 11:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Zawiyah is now definetly over. Contact with the rebel spokesman in the city has ceased and traffic has continued along the highway through Zawiyah. Geromasis and I were talking and I think both Second Zawiyah, Zlitan, Sabha and Brega (possibly also the fighting at Misrata during the weekend) should all be merged into one article, something like June 2011 Libyan rebel offensive. Because these look more like raids than battles. There has also not been anymore info from Zlitan for three days now and no new info from Sabha for two days. I think the rebel offensive has faltered. You agree on the merger? EkoGraf (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe not, because than we will have crossmixing with the fighting on the Misrata frontline. Hmmm, actualy now that I think about it, we better wait a few more days. EkoGraf (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Listen, I rethinked it once again. I think both Second Zawiyah, Zlitan and Sabha should all be merged into one article. Since it is obvious now that all three were raids, and all three ended in failure since there have been no reports of fighting from eather town for three-four days now. But it is obvious they were all co-ordinated, so they were connected. What do you think? EkoGraf (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it was co-ordinated to that extent. Simply put, Gaddafi at this time atleast has lost his offensive power. Logically only thing left is rebel gains, even if it is extremely slow. Zawiya was coordinated with those from Zintan no doubt about it, but Sabha and Zliten, and even Ghadames are just coincidences, probably because Gaddafi has withdrawn police in these areas to go fight near Zliten and Brega, making communication easier, so we know more about this stuff. Zenithfel (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

All happening at around the same time? June 9-11. Hmmmm, I don' belive that much in coincidences, in any case, all three can nicely fit into one article, and we can talk about the name later. EkoGraf (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Than we should at least rename both second zawiyah and zlitan to raids because they most certainly were not battles for those cities. You agree with this? EkoGraf (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Zliten battle still active, rebels hold a corner portion of city, because they were forced back. Gaddafi's forces are literally artillery shelling the city of Zliten itself:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/15/misrata-rebel-leader-appeal-nato

Zenithfel (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, just Zawiyah than. Will leave the subject of Zlitan for now. EkoGraf (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This may sound like a radical idea, but how about we create a separate article called "Engagements in fighting in Tripolitania" The article will feature engagements in fighting after March 19, when the UN resolution was put into action. We don't have to include battle of misrata, just state that it is a separate battle. This way we don't have to say "rebel offensive" when the offensive is not intense enough, or create a new battle page all the time. Tripolitania is everything from Zuara to Gharyan to Misrata Zenithfel (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm I think that the Nafusa mountains campaign preaty much covers everything, outside of the Misrata area of operations, that is going on, except for the Zawiyah raid. EkoGraf (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

When we were talking about coordination between those raids that happened in Zlitan and Zawiyah. You asked for a source. Here it is [10]. Rebels confirmed they were coordinating the attacks. Want to talk about that joint article now maybe? EkoGraf (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Assesment

It looks to me like that they have reached a stalemate on all three fronts. There is very little chance that rebels will be able to break through loyalist lines any time soon at Brega. At Misrata/Dafniya, 1,000 rebels have been killed or wounded in the last month of fighting (out of a force of 3,000), so if they don't break out of Dafniya (loyalists manage to hold the line like at Brega) in the next two months they will most likely colapse. And the reports from the last few days are that loyalists managed to halt the attempted rebel advance from Nalut into the plains below. Not to mention the rebels are left without any money while Gaddafi still has hundreds of millions in his private stash. Also, Gaddafi is making a firm stand with the air-strikes and the deffections from his military are only around 100 soldiers per month, not as much as the west predicted. If there is no significant rebel advance by the end of August, by that time NATO will be close to the end of it's 90-day operation extention (predictions are member nations will not make a second extention), than I belive the whole war effort will be in jeopardy for the rebels and NATO and they will have to negotiate. They were right when they said that it's a matter of time, just it's a matter of time to see who lasts out the longest. By the way, you asked me about Bdama in Syria the other day. I don't think an article is neccessary, it was a small raid on a village, nothing major. EkoGraf (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Eko Graf, you do realise NATO TOLD THE NTC BACK. Misrata is a city of over 550,000, benghazi 700000-1.1 mil. NATO is planning to assassinate Gaddafi with his own officials or NATO own spies if they can't do it, and perhaps eventually death by bombs. If NATO can't win, the British and French will launch a ground invasion. Gaddafi will be wanted by the ICC, so its ok if they arrest him. NTC says that like Gaddafi, they will fight to the death. The NTC has yet to coordinate strikes with NATO, because NATO refuses. The fact is, is that Gaddaffi's offensive power has been destroyed, and the rebels will fight to the end. There are no plans for "negotiations". Tripoli security is now almost completely volunteer police, and rebels present in Tripoli are increasing. The European Union has "promised" to finally turn over funds to the NTC. NATO is only conducting 150 sorties a day, and in Kosovo they did 1000 a day. NATO claims of being "over worked" is bs, this is all intentional because they don't want the people form Benghazi or misrata coming to Tripoli and launching revenge attacks. Don't be so pessimistic. I7laseral (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a pessimist, I'm just a realist, there is a difference. Those funds the EU promised...they promised them a month ago...where are they? Also, if the British and French go in with a ground invasion, they would be in violation of the UN resolution (as if they haven't violated it already with picking a side in this war), with that their world credibility would be shot. Doesn't matter if an estimated 1.5 mil people are already on the rebel side, it's still a big unknown how many people are on the loyalist side. Even if it is just 100,000 it is enough for a long war. Like you said they destroyed his offensive power, but his defensive power (the rocket launchers) are preaty much still intact. The Brega frontline is a clear example of that. Also, I am still reserved on the question of the number of tanks that NATO claims to have destroyed. If I remember correctly they claimed to had destroyed 90 percent of the Serbian tanks in Kosovo, but it turned out they managed to destroy only 11 tanks during 78 days of bombing, so NATO's claims are not so verifiable as they would think. NTC not coordinating with NATO? What are those white guys with guns, dark glasses and satelite phones than doing on the frontline at Misrata that were filmed by a news crew? Yes you are right, they are hunting Gaddafi to kill him, even though they say they are not and the UN charter forbids the assasination of a country's leader. Why are they hunting him? Because they see Gaddafi's death (since he will not leave into exile) as the only solution to end the conflict since the rebels are not that much good in getting to Tripoli. The reports of an increase of rebels in Tripoli is coming exclusivly from the rebels themselves. If I remember correctly they claimed at one point that Gaddafi ran away to Venezuela, three battalions rebelled and took over Sirte for them and Khamis was killed (all proven to be untrue since than). So rebel claims, like loyalist claims, are not that much worth trusting (I personaly don't trust eather the loyalist or the rebels). If Gaddafi manages to stay alive and in power for two more months than it will be a totaly new ballgame, because NATO members will start pulling out of the war by all accounts. This is no longer a question of protecting civilians from the big bad Gaddafi. It's a question of NATO's purpose in the new world where increasingly they are no longer needed. They think if they can get rid of Gaddafi they can prove that NATO is still useful (good work on Afghanistan - 10 years and still ongoing). In my personal oppinion, I think that there are two sides behind the scenes in the West fighting with each other at the moment on the question of weather Gaddafi should leave or not (or kill him or not). The thing you pointed out about NATO telling the rebels to back of from Zliten is a clear example. Also the thing where NATO struck rebels who were advancing on Brega three times "accidentaly". And the US taking a back seat to all the action? That's a first for them. Obama is a smart one, I give him that. If NATO didn't intervine yes Gaddafi would have most likely killed several thousand people in Benghazi, but at least the war would have been over by the end of March. Now, it will last a LOT longer and a LOT more people will die than if they didn't intervine. They haven't saved anyone. It's all politics man, it's all politics, they don't give a crap about the civilians or the rebels or the loyalists. EkoGraf (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

if we want to talk we'll talk on my page, cause this is Lothar Von Richthofen's page. I7laseral (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

XD EkoGraf (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

...??? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Nalut

Any ways, why is Nalut still red. Its under attack. I7laseral (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Siege broken, loyalists pushed back to the plains below the town. Only shelling the town now. EkoGraf (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 2011 Sabha clashes

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)