User talk:Lothar von Richthofen/Archive3

Sabha
Confirmed, Sabha still loyalist-held. Source here. Quote. Hundreds of Chadian refugees were this week reported to have fled Kufra to the Gaddafi-controlled town of Sebha. EkoGraf (talk) 05:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Southern desert
I saw the reports. There definetly is some kind of fighting in the south. However, I still advise to be on the side of caution. No I don't think it should be combined to the Sabha clashes article (which I still think wasn't a too big of an event to warrant an article of its own) because that is a separate event from a month ago. And my reason that I am advising caution about the reports is that for now only the Wall street journal and a Spanish media outlet have reported on the possible story. No other mainstream media has reported on it. And again the everlasting propaganda war of this civil war. The rebels claimed to had compleat control of Brega for three days straight until they admited to control only a third of the town (and plus there are sporadic clashes in the areas of the town they claim to control). So I am again sceptical about this claim also. EkoGraf (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the rebels lost Al Qatrun. They have been pushed back to the south of the town. 150 vs 60-65 technicals, not an even match. I personaly didn't expect they would hold on to that town plus the other few villages around the province with only 300 fighters. Will you tell the map editors to adjust it or should I? EkoGraf (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems there has not been any fighting at Brega for 3-4 days now. If this continues we should maybe close the battle article. And I think that the result of the battle should say eather Loyalist victory or Indecisive. The factors that needed to be examined are that the rebels did manage to surround the town from the south and east, but loyalists still have compleat control of Brega and an open supply line to the west. EkoGraf (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:User pages
Hi Lothar,

Could you please undo your recent edit to WP:UP, at least for a while? You might not be aware that this particular issue is currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:User pages, and a self revert would lessen the likelihood that another admin will come along and lock down the whole page for edit warring. The close you cite is disputed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Rats, nevermind, someone else has already reverted (I type too slowly). Your comments on the talk page would be welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
LikeLakers2 (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Brega
Lothar see article discussion page, there had been a 3-week break between the previous battle/offensive and this one. That one is done and over. If there is a new battle, and thats a big IF considering rebels claimed 20 times by now to had taken Brega, than we start a new article. The fourth battle of Brega is over, the fifth may start, than we start a new article. Artillery duels/skirmishes don't constitute an all out offensive, which was the last time 3 weeks ago. EkoGraf (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ellsworths source talks about, rebel claimed, advances through the minefields along the 20 kilometers of the road, there was no battle for the town itself in the last three weeks. Its obvious that Reuters reporter was talking about those skirmishes and raids that have been ongoing not a full-on battle for the town. Except that Reuters reporter no one has been reporting a battle for the town in the last three weeks, only raids, skirmishes and halting advances through the minefield. EkoGraf (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't get it, no media outlets have reported a battle for Brega for three weeks now. That reuters reporter is just that, one reporter. We both know what he ment when he was saying that so please don't misrepresent. You are asking a source that confirms there was no battle for the town for three weeks. That is an impossible request, if there was no battle than no one will report on it, there would be no sources. And there have been no sources that there was an ongoing battle for the town. If we would go acording to the point of view of that reporter than the Battle of Brega has been ongoing for 4 months now. Fighting for the 20 kilometers of road toward Brega is not a battle for the town. EkoGraf (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, we had talked about that also. There is a BIG difference between a campaign (which are the Nafusa mountains thing) and a battle (which was the Brega thing). A campaign is a continues sequence of different battles over long periods of time with separate battles within it and long pauses between. Brega is one battle on itself which lasted from 14 July to 21 July. After that there was no more battle for the town except raids/skirmishes into the town and artillery duels which had already been ongoing for months before that. Hmmmm, here is what I propose, a compromise solution, we integrate the Fourth Battle of Brega into the Brega-Ajdabiya road campaign, and re-open that article. Would you be ok with that? I think Ellsworth proposed that and I was against it but if you insist on this than I think this could be a compromise because what that reporter said could be interpreted more in the meaning of continuing weeks of fighting for the road and not for the town. However way you turn it, you cant base the result of the battle on just one reporters statement (which was clearly poorly worded) if others like CNN, BBC, AP, AFP have clearly not reported on any battle for the last three weeks. EkoGraf (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Those reports you are pointing to now are reporting of artillery duels (rockets and mortars) over the frontline. That is not a battle for the town. And frontline is still at least 5 kilometers east of the town, per Ell's source itself, if not more. If this is a new battle for the town, which I would wait for at least one more day to confirm, than we start a new article because this may be a new offensive/battle to take the town. New offensive, new battle, new article. As far as your Ajdabiya comparison goes, it was agreed that that one was just a raid, and the BBC itself later stated that the push by the loyalists than was more along the lines of a major raid and not a battle to take the town. What the rebels did they attempted an all-out offensive to take the town which ended with 700 rebels dead or wounded per their own sources. EkoGraf (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

73 dead and 627 wounded, 700. ;) It is ridiculos but not unheared of. There were I think five battles of Kharkov during world war two. Here is what we do. We reopen the Brega-Ajdabiya article. We declare the fourth Brega part of that campaign. Put some essential information on the battle in that article. The Brega-Ajdabiya campaign in essence continued after the battle, in the form it was before, because loyalists raid units also came a few times from the south to Ajdabiya's outskirts and shelled it. But we still need to keep a separate article for the fourth battle itself, because you yourself said that what happened between 14 and 21 July was in no way comparable to or part of any of the previous skirmishes and raids. It was very much its own battle. I will now update Brega-Ajdabiya accordingly. EkoGraf (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I updated Brega-Ajdabiya. EkoGraf (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this. And have decided the following, the two-phase solution. The fourth battle still ongoing with the first phase being a pro-gaddafi victory and second to be seen. And the brega-ajdabiya road outcome being like it was before Stalemate with a lead-in to the Fourth Brega battle (since the fourth can be regarded in part to be still ongoing). That I think could be ideal. What do you think? EkoGraf (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I did it, two-phase solution implemented. EkoGraf (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Zawiyah and source
Zawiyah is not part of Nafusa campaign, even though it may be a continuation of it in some form, Zawiyah is over 80 kilometers from the mountains. As for that rebel source, if it were a claim they captured the city I would doubt it, but I don't think they would have lied about having a tough time. :) Thus it must be true. XD EkoGraf (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That site is used for rebel propaganda to boost their morale, they use it to post only gains and victories. It is highly unlikely they would put up that kind of statement that could backfire on them, logic dictates it must be true in some part and deserves at least a mention. As for Zawiyah, when I included that raid from two months ago into the campaign you yourself said it isn't part of the campaign so we removed it. It's 80 kilometers from the mountains. It deserves some mention in the article yes I agree, but not in the box since its not part of that campaign. EkoGraf (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That CNN source is unreliable as much as the rebel site because CNN quoted a rebel commander, CNN's reporters didn't confirm it themselves personaly. The reb commander is as much unreliable as the rebel site. Thus both sources are unreliable. EkoGraf (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Zawiyah battle is a separate event from the Nafusa campaign even though it is conducted by the same rebel force. You telling me that if and when the Misrata rebels break out of their frontline and get to Tripoli we are still going to include Tripoli as part of the Misrata frontline battle? We have already closed the Brega-Ajdabiya road article and have put the fourth brega battle separate from it. What I may only agree to is a mention of the attempted offensive on Zawiyah by rebels based in the mountains but it is not by any means part of the same campaign. It's almost 100 kilometers away from the mountains. The Nafusa campaign is a campaign for the control of the mountains and the plains towns around it. The fight to take the coastal cities is already a totaly separate campaign. EkoGraf (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

How is the rebel commander any more reliable than the rebel propaganda blog? They are the same. Hold of on your judgment at least until tomorrow when the situation clears. If it is still reported that the town is largely rebel-held I will remove the rebel propaganda source myself and throw it into the dustbin. EkoGraf (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Lets not kid ourselves, in this conflict what media outlets like CNN say is highly unreliable given they are the main media outlet of one of the conflicted sides (the US). CNN has shown a lot of times it is not neutral in its view. Hell, I belive more to what the BBC says than them, even though it too is the main media of one more conflicted side (the UK). Also, Reuters, AFP and the Guardian are far more independent in their reporting than CNN is. And none of them knows what is happening tonight in Gharyan or what the situation is. In any case I said I will remove it if it is confirmed on the contrary by tomorrow morning. I highly think that site is unreliable but a report of that kind from a rebel must mean something. Of course a rebel commander would say they are winning, its his job. Apparently today we saw the rebels were once again lying about Brega. They said they had complete control of the residential area, but today they are saying they had taken residential zone number 2 after taking number 3 the day before and they still had to take two more residential zones. That obviously means it wasn't the truth before when they said they had compleat control of New Brega. By that report today that means they are only holding 50 percent of New Brega, as for Old Brega, well, no comment. EkoGraf (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to support what Grant bud suggested, about the new campaign article. My suggestion is to call it the Western Tripolitanian Coastal Campaign, since it has moved from the mountains to the coast now. And include everything that is happening after Bir Ghanem onwards on the coast, like Zawiyah and the fighting at the border crossing into Tunisia today. EkoGraf (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Gharyan
I also think it should be merged. Not that much notable and not much of a battle. Suggest a merger at the article and I will support it. By the way, I am going to start later tonight that article on the coastal campaign since fighting is now at the border crossing and in Surman. EkoGraf (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the fighting now includes not only Az Zawiyah but Sorman, the border crossing and possibly Sabratha, I created this 2011 Libyan rebel coastal offensive. EkoGraf (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Nafusa campaign over
If it is confirmed that loyalists withdrew from Tiji and Badr and that the rebels captured Gharyan (said they took it today, yesterday, the day before yesterday, etc) than I think thats it. Those were the last towns in the plains at the foothills of the mountains and the last towns in the mountains themselves. The campaign is over. The to be continued part is now the coastal campaign, a new campaign. EkoGraf (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Zliten
We kinda touched on this over the proposal for a battle of Sabratha page (I don't really care much about this one, though I thought if the proposer felt strongly, we could at least give them a chance to prove themselves if they'd be willing to do the work), but I feel like there is a difference between two different approaches to how to cover the civil war. One is "broad", most consistently advocated by the now-banned Geromasis, which sought to delete or prevent the creation of unimportant articles and merge notable ones into broader "campaigns". The other would then be "fine", which I prefer, which tends to want minute coverage of individual battles and clashes. The first (at least, I suspect) makes it easier for editors to not have to rewrite intros and add information to multiple spots from the same source (which often covers multiple places), the second makes it easier for readers (at least, for me when I read) to locate info they want about a particular topic. Regarding Zliten and the broader "Misrata frontlines" conflict, I wanted to talk to you about which route you think we should take... I personally think we should make a second battle of Zliten page, as the current one says it ended a month ago, but there is currently fighting going on there now. Currently it is under the "Misrata frontlines" page... do you agree that we should have a separate Second Battle of Zliten page, or what do you think on the matter? --Yalens (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
I just wanted to thank you on your applaud, I have tried my outmost to balance the articles to make a realistic representation of the situations during the war. Still, I belive we may yet still work on editing this war since as of tonight out of three claimed captured Gaddafi sons one escaped, one was proven never to had been captured, and the third's faith remains unclear. XD Not to mention the reports that loyalists were managing to push back somewhat the rebels in the western part of the town. EkoGraf (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Cerejota (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Cerejota (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Msallata/Al-Qusbat
As you may have noticed, Msallata remains practically an island of green (not counting barely inhabited or uninhabited areas). It was red for a period, however due to a number of people on the talk page, it was changed to green. I have a problem regarding this- the claim by those on the talk page is that the city was never taken (the sources, which quote rebels at parts, are dismissed), but the current revision of the page has it retaken by the loyalist on a "???" date. Now, to me, this smacks of OR as it is not only sourceless, but also, if Msallata was never taken, it certainly could not be REtaken. I would prefer it either be reverted to Msallata as red because we at least have sources, or if not that, maybe indicate that the situation regarding Msallata is unclear. What is your view on the matter?--Yalens (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think I'll suggest unclear as a compromise. A recurring problem (to me at least) is that the page is so lively that the issue gets thoroughly ignored and I don't want to double post... I'll just start a third topic about it. And now there's Tarhuna- I don't trust Voice of Russia, as it doesn't take me very long to find the numerous examples of their bias on Libya (for example, a typical "commentary" from them- http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/08/26/55216809.html, not to mention that their general following judging from the people who fblike them tends to be Russophiles and Western communists, many of whom seem to be pro-Gaddafi judging from wall picture statements on their facebook profiles...), though for the record, I wouldn't put Voice of America on Wikipedia as a source either... though I suppose there's little I can do because it would come off as WP:IDONTLIKEIT (aside from OR, exactly what Fovezer and the others are in my opinion guilty of with regard to Msallata). Thanks for your input, anyhow.--Yalens (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply
From what I saw before someone deleted my revision is that the statement was not directly attacking you alone.-- Hallows  AG (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not implying that it is not a threat. I am only implying that the threat is not a personal attack against you.-- Hallows  AG (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
I really appreciate your revertions in Ganja, Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan articles about the ethnic groups tabels. Thank you. --Yerevanci (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, you would be interesed to know that the user Yerevanci is a sock of user Hovik. See here for the report. Thank you. Neftchi (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Dead horses can't drag me away
The recent revival of friend Boris' crusade here reminded me of another exercise in futility here. If you're even a little interested in AH, it's a great site. This particular thread is both infuriating & occasionally hilarious for the same sort of stubborn refusal to acknowledge facts. (Not to mention the amount you can learn from it about the planning & execution of amphibious landings, provided you don't demand citation on the spot. ;p) Thought you might also find it amusing. If not, do pass it on, if you know somebody who might be. (You can find me there as PHX1138. FYI, I have absoutely no financial or other interest there, beyond thinking it's a great site. {Not sure why I felt I had to say that... :/})  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura 03:39 & 03:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
So yeah thank you for informing me abotu this case. My previous account was Hovik95, but now I don't use it anymore, because I lost my password and email. So I creates a new one. Is there something wrong with it??? --Yerevanci (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

re Holdomor pic
OK, yes, my bad, I went by the title and didn't read the description. Thanks for fixing my error.

The Commons title is a problem, then, and I hope to sort this out. There is a category there called "Holodomor hoax photos" (although this photo isn't in it) and I have a call in to the category creator to find out what that's about. It's probably perfectly legit, don't know.

This relates to an issue I'm having over a Holdomor photo at the article Soviet Union. See the talk page for the discussion, the "Photo removal" section at the bottom. It's outside my area of expertise and interest, but what seems to be a valid photo is being kept off the page. If you or anyone want to take a look at that issue, that'd be welcome. Herostratus (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Zawiya Raid
My point on the Citation needed thing was that the article is NAMED Zawiya raid, so the citation needed shouldn't be in the article. Maybe the article needs to be renamed, but it is definitely called a raid in the title of the article! Jeancey (talk) 03:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

RFC
I'm having a few issues with a particular editor, and I'm not entirely sure what the best approach is; I was wondering whether you could take a look. The issue is essentially this: said user generically dislikes list articles, preferring categories (despite long-standing consensus that the two are not mutually exclusive). To this end they nominated a bunch of the metal lists for deletion, although they subsequently admitted that they were looking for clean-up; examples are here, here and here. They also have a problem with artist nationality being recorded in llist articles (for example, this edit), although curiously they have no issue with date of formation being listed. The list articles were all kept following AfD, so their new tactic appears to be to delete everything without a source, which is fair enough if the editor has looked for sources themselves, but in this instance appears to be a pointed attempt to blank pages since they didn't get their own way at AfD. The latest, and most baffling altercation concerns the newly renamed (unilaterally by editor in question) list of Swedish death metal bands. Their unusual argument is that there is some huge distinction between a Swedish death metal band and a Swedish death metal band, although it is unclear where they have gleaned this distinction from. Nonetheless, I have done due diligence and found sources for everything on the list (initially Allmusic, although I have pointed said editor towards print sources (Daniel Ekeroth's Swedish Death Metal, Albert Mudrian's Improbable History, Terrorizer death metal specials etc.) but this particular chap is just removing all the sourced content (e.g this edit. A quick look at the talk page gives you a fairly clear idea of how they approach consensus-building; the "new inclusion criteria" have apparently been decided by him and him alone, and it far from clear exactly what they are. This kind of editing is essentially disruptive, but I'm not exacctly sure who to take the issue to... what do you reckon? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

About that edit.
This IP is held by a school, which means that many people will be vandalizing from here. The best solution is to ban this IP from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.143.98 (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Know a mod we can report 3RRs to?
For the Holodomor article, know someone involved to report crap to?Львівське (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but...
When you are being itchy on the revert trigger finger, maybe give someone a few seconds to finish their edits? I don't propose deletion often and I had forgotten how the template worked. My reasons are now added to the template. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.33.212.171 (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Gulf of Sidra offensive
Should we maybe rename Gulf of Sidra offensive to the Second Gulf of Sidra offensive and Late March 2011 Libyan rebel offensive to First Gulf of Sidra offensive? I think it fits the pattern real nicely. EkoGraf (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Research Advice re General People's Committee Article
Dear Lothar Von Richthofen,

I am writing a research paper on the history of Libyan political personnel and came across a wiki article you contributed to, which I translated from Arabic to English using google. The article is entitled “General People’s Committee” and can be accessed as follows: http://ar.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/اللجنة_الشعبية_العامة This article is exactly what I’m looking for, but there is a historical hole from 1990 – 2006. Do you have any idea why these dates are missing from the article? Do you have any information on this topic pertaining to 1990 – 2006 or know of any other sources I can consult to find the missing information? I have to submit my paper to my professor by Monday morning, so if you could prove any help at all, I would truly appreciate it! Please feel free to contact me directly via e-mail at agreen789@yahoo.com.

Thank you in advance for your time and hope to hear from you soon!

Sincerely, Ann Green --AGreen789 (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ghadames raid
Hello! Your submission of Ghadames raid 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! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 02:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied there, passed :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 15:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation
Dear Lothar von Richthofen: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Steven Zhang, at their talk page.

Re: Thanks
No problem at all: I was scanning through the DYK nominations page, and saw that it needed the references expanded, and that you wouldn't be able to do it for a few days, so figured I'd lend a hand.  Harrias  talk 07:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

hi
Hi, so I just wanted to let you know that i was being funny. Plus to Hitler was a very very naughty man — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovemoney1212121212 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Holodomor mediation
Hi there Lothar von Richthofen, this is just a reminder to submit your initial statement at the MedCab Holodomor mediation. We can't get the mediation under way until we have statements from each of the participating editors, so it will be very helpful if you could post it on the mediation page when you next have a chance. As a refresher, the statement must be no more than 250 words, and should answer the following four questions:


 * 1) What are your interests in regards to the Holodomor articles? How did you discover and start editing the article? Do you have any potential conflicts of interest?
 * 2) What problems you think have caused this dispute to require mediation?
 * 3) What is your view of the dispute at present, and what issues need to be addressed in this mediation, that would help resolve this dispute amicably? Give a list of issues, if possible.
 * 4) What do you hope to achieve through mediation?

Thank you very much for your participation. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that.
I no longer have the AE page on my watchlist, and was going to make the edit to drop "involved"/"uninvolved" altogether, but you beat me to it by an hour. Thanks for that. Russavia Let's dialogue 07:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ghadames raid
Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Holodomor statement deadline
Hello again Lothar von Richthofen, this is another reminder to submit your initial statement at the MedCab Holodomor mediation. The other mediators and I have decided to impose a deadline for initial statements of 00:00, 23 October 2011 UTC. If you have not submitted your initial statement by this time, then you will be excluded from the mediation. Thank you for your understanding. As another refresher, the statement must be no more than 250 words, and should answer the following four questions:


 * 1) What are your interests in regards to the Holodomor articles? How did you discover and start editing the article? Do you have any potential conflicts of interest?
 * 2) What problems you think have caused this dispute to require mediation?
 * 3) What is your view of the dispute at present, and what issues need to be addressed in this mediation, that would help resolve this dispute amicably? Give a list of issues, if possible.
 * 4) What do you hope to achieve through mediation?

Thanks again —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to note that there is only one day left before the deadline - if you want to take part in the mediation then now is the time to act. Regards —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it's been a hectic week. I'll try and slip in something within the next 24 hours. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

3-day semi
I semi'd your talk page for 3 days. If you'd prefer it not be protected, let me (or any admin) know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Increased to a month. Persistent little bugger, isn't he? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked several of his IPs already, but  there's no  stopping  him unless we make a range block...--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Another word
Hi Lothar. The use of "an" before words like "historical" or "hotel" is grammatically correct. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there was no intent to be rude. However when there are two acceptable spellings, it is normal to go with the original one, hence I thought a rollback acceptable as a "no brainer". However, I'm really chilled about this - it's just one letter! --Bermicourt (talk) 11:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion
Hey! I was wondering if I could get your opinion a dispute about the information in the Muammar Gaddafi article. here is the relevant talk page post where I explain everything, though the dispute happened on my talk page and through edits. Thanks! Jeancey (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Albania, the Light of the World
Hi, Didn't one of my countrymen shoot down your cousin? Sorry about that.

I have no personal stake in this.

There was a handy who's-on-the-team page at the BBC which said something useful along these lines.

But, as I have noticed often before, once the BBC makes a page go away, it really goes away.

I can't find it again.

They were using an Italian base just across the Adriatic from Albania. This is on a BBC map I could find.

So, given bad weather, etc., you might have need of a backup base.

Now, whether there was actual need of it ... ?

Joining a team requires a very high level of political decision-making since there can be repercussions. So a PM or President is involved whether or not the military did very much.

The military presumably would have gone on alert and increased patrols. Maybe even bought some bullets.

Now, your assessment of the overall situation sounds suspiciously like that thing I hesitate to mention.

Varlaam (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Second phase of the Battle of Sanaa
Since in the last two months fighting has restarted in full force in Sanaa and around it I have reopened that battle calling what happened in May and June phase one and September onwards phase two. Check it out Battle of Sana'a (2011), what do you think? EkoGraf (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, in essence I agree with you. But an editor pointed out that there were continuing low-level sporadic clashes in the city after the June cease-fire all up to the new round in September. So I'm not sure what to do. :/ EkoGraf (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for 2011–12 Hannover 96 Season
There is a deletion review here. Kingjeff (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

UXOs in Germany
Here are some sources regarding UXOs in Germany: Thanks for discovering this omission in the UXO article. Greetings from Germany :-) --Richterks (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * German Wikipedia on "Blindgänger" (UXOs)
 * German Wikipedia on "Langzeitzünder" (long-delay fuses)
 * Interview with an UXO expert: "It's estimated that the number of unexploded bombs in Germany totals more than 100,000, and each year several hundred are defused." (Article in Der Spiegel English and German)
 * "The area of Germany around Cologne was bombed heavily during World War II and finding unexploded ordinance is relatively commonplace, particularly during construction projects. Indeed, hardly a week goes by without an explosive being found somewhere in Germany. " (Article in Der Spiegel)
 * "Über 100.000 Fliegerbomben des Typs, der in Göttingen explodierte, sind im Zweiten Weltkrieg allein auf Hamburg niedergegangen, ihre Blindgängerquote betrug 13 Prozent. "Wir gehen davon aus, dass es in Hamburg noch 3000 unentdeckte Bomben gibt", sagt Stahl. Auch in Berlin sollen noch über 3000 Blindgänger im Untergrund verborgen sein. Zahlen für das gesamte Bundesgebiet existieren nicht, weil die Kampfmittelräumung Ländersache ist. Es könnten um die 100.000 sein, schätzen Experten. Vor allem in Großstädten und Ballungsräumen wie dem Ruhrgebiet ist die Gefahr am größten. Hier waren die Schwerpunkte der alliierten Luftangriffe. Entdeckt werden die Blindgänger meist bei Bauarbeiten. (...) 5500 Bomben werden jedes Jahr in Deutschland entschärft." (Article in Stern)

Mediation Cabal: Case update
Dear : Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Holodomor mediation issue two
Hi Lothar von Richthofen, this is a boilerplate message to let you know that we have moved on to issue two of the Holodomor mediation, victim estimates. At the moment we are accepting statements from all participants, so if you want to make your position on this issue known, then now would be a very good time to contribute. Your statement should be no longer than 200 words, and should include both your opinion on the issue and what you hope will be addressed in the mediation. We will be accepting statements until 00:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC), or until we have statements from all spokespersons. Please note, however, that even if you miss this deadline you are free to contribute to the mediation at any time. You can find the appropriate section on the mediation page here. All the best —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update
Dear : Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)