User talk:Victor falk/archive5

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification
Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of apartheid in Slovakia and the Czech Republic. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Csd/a7
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 04:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Taffy Jones
Hi, Victor falk. You were kind enough to comment on Articles_for_deletion/Taffy_jones -- some new information has come to light and you may wish to revise your recommendation. -- S Marshall  Talk / Cont  12:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Anders Blixt
I have nominated Anders Blixt, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Anders Blixt. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  MBisanz  talk 14:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Philippines–Romania relations has been nominated for deletion again here
You are being notified because you participated in a previous Afd regarding this article, either at Articles_for_deletion/Argentina–Singapore_relations or at Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations, and you deserve a chance to weigh in on this article once again. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anders Blixt


The article Anders Blixt has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No assertion of notability here. I'd mark for speedy, but best give a chance for someone to give it one. Why is he notable?

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Scott Mac (Doc) 23:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See [:See walk  victor falktalk 13:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anders_Blixt] walk  victor falktalk 13:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Abdus Sattar Ghazali article
I have opened a new AfD for the above article at Articles for deletion/Abdus Sattar Ghazali (2nd nomination). As you commented at the first AfD in February, I am letting you know, in case you wish to join in the discussion. Regards, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 12:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Illegal immigration in India
Hi,

I have somewhat enhanced the article Illegal immigration in India. Please review and comment on the talk page if the NPOV banner can be removed.

Thanks --Iball (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
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) 23:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

bradley manning
Hi, would you pay a visit to the bradley Manning discussion page ( and ,perhaps ,leave a few comments : I do feel lonely in face of silent reverting ) Thanks .Trente7cinq (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

3RR
Hi Victor, as you're reverting a lot at Bradley Manning, I wanted to make sure you knew about the 3RR policy for future reference; you technically violated it today. 3RR says we may not undo another editor's work more than three times in 24 hours. Every undoing counts toward 3RR, whether a complete or partial revert, whether the same or different material each time, whether the same or a different editor. See WP:3RR for more details. Cheers, SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't edit anymore today. I understand that you have contributed a lot to this article, but you should consider wp:own. walk victor falktalk 16:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said, I'm very happy to work with you, but you've been editing in a way that's not policy-compliant. And removing ABC News as a source because you think the reporter didn't do his job properly is really not on. If the article is to be submitted to FAC, it has to be policy-compliant, so there's just no point in making edits that would cause a problem there, because they'll have to be removed eventually.


 * There's also no point in using the article to somehow protect Bradley Manning. We're not here to protect or attack, just report what others report (we are stenographers), and no decision maker is going to be affected by what Wikipedia says anyway, so trying to push it in a certain direction is a waste of time. And in any event, if you want to protect him, his "odd behaviors" are likely to be the only thing that saves him. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
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) 16:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Manning
SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Kubrick Article
You and User:Hammersoft are in disagreement over the excessive use of copyrighted images in the article on Stanley Kubrick. As the uploader, I am not a neutral party. HS has restored the tag. Can we get this settled?--WickerGuy (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

User Else1211 Hi Victor Falk Who Is Martin H Administrator yes or no — Preceding unsigned comment added by Else1211 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Read, think, respond
You forgot to do the middle step in your recent contribution to the discussion. Spidey 104  23:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Vichy & Provisional Government

 * Victor,


 * 1) "Free French Forces" is a "force" = an "army", not a government. That was my point.
 * 2) J'avais déjà voté pour ce second ou troisième tour de changement de nom de l'article de Napoléon Ier et je viens aussi d'y laisser un petit commentaire. Quelque soit le résultat, il y aura toujours une proposition de changement de titre.
 * Cordialement,
 * --Frania W. (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You are too bold
I reverted your last edit because they were incorrect and redundant. In 1939-40 Finland didn't fight on the Axis side. There is no need in "(1937-45)" for Manchuko, because timeframe is needed for the countries that were at war during some periods of WWII only. For China or Britain it is not needed. BTW, China was not officially at war until Perl Harbor. Taking into account that your edits are frequently incorrect, I suggest you to discuss them on the talk page first. Remember, the WWII article is being read very frequently, so we have to be careful not to give wrong information here. Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. Third step in BRD. walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 00:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not only. This article is really very popular, so any change made there will be immediately red by a large amount of people. Therefore, it is highly desirable to avoid obvious factual errors. You made two obvious errors during last days: with "zone libre" and Finland. Therefore, it would be good (although not mandatory) if you either check your future edits for factual mistakes more carefully, or discuss them on the talk page first. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What was the error with Finland? I included (1939-1940) to refer to the winter war. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 00:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The error is that Finland was neither a German co-belligerent nor a puppet state in this war. Moreover, it even got a moral and legal support from France and Britain (they even contemplated military intervention on the Finnish side). In this situation, to place (1939-40) would create an impression that Finland fought on the German side, whereas it was absolutely untrue. To decide which party fought for the (not existing yet) Axis and which for the Allies in this war is simply senseless and incorrect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand. Earlier I had edited so it read (1939-1940 and 1941-44) when the URSS was listed as co-belligerent. There is a reason that (1941-44) is called the Continuation War. As you say, western opinion was totally on the side of the little plucky Finns against the big bad bolshies; as it directly lead to the invasion of Norway just ahead of the allied expeditionary corps meant for Northern Scandinanivia, it'd be nice if that information could be hinted at in the infobox. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 00:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In actuality, invasion of Norway should be seen in a context of the larger conflict between Germany and Anglo-French alliance, and the Winter war had no direct relation to that. And, importantly, I don't see any simple way to introduce this war into the frames of the Axis-vs-Allies conflict, because neither the USSR nor Finland belonged to these two block (both of which hadn't yet existed by that time, btw). In addition, not only British or French public opinion was on the Finnish side: Germany also morally supported Finland.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone suggested a tri-partite box. I don't support this, the conflict was primarily between the Axis and the others. Though I remember reading in the archive somebody arguing just that, that the war started in Spain and continued afterwards as the Cold War. But then it's no longer WWII but "The Global War against the Fascist and Capitalist Lackeys of the Bosheviks" or whatnot. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 01:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not until 1945
Hi, in the past, I had read some where that it says NOT until 1945 that Japan actually occupied Laos. Could you check whether it's true? 207.233.67.8 (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Emilia Carr
Some opinions for Delete has been raised. Perhaps if you feel like it you could specify why you voted Keep on the articles Afd. Or give an argument for why it should be kept in discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to tell you that the Afd has been closed as No Consensus. I feel it is a "victory" for the "Keepers".. It feels particularly good this time as the Afd discussion was at best really nasty. And it is much thanks to you because you raised a point that wasnt raised before. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike
Howdy Victor Falk, You restored "This account of first bringing the wounded children to the Combat Support Hospital appears to be contradicted by orders by radio that form part of the video record, which forbids it and orders that the children be handed over to local police." I didn't want to just pull it down (even though our last back and forth left the article better) but it strikes me as original research, any way of sourcing that language? ThanksV7-sport (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A cite video with the exact timestamp could be provided. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 18:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm actually curious to see how that would work. V7-sport (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Raymond Allen Davis
Thanks for your opinion, unfortunately the info removed was not referenced with reliable sources. If you are new to this page then I understand, but you may want to review the lengthy discussions that have taken place and determined that the info cannot be included until reliable sources are found (these would EXCLUDE: blogs, opinion pieces, editorials not appearing in recognized RS media outlets and most indigenous PK media sources). Thanks for your cooperation. Please feel free to re-add the material once reliable sources are found. Oh, and lastly, ip editing is perfectly acceptable on wiki. I have an account but dont bother signing in very often as I use multiple computers in multiple locations. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have had this page under observation for a while. Before we start an edit war, we could try to define exactly what is contentious. As there many different things you have removed, please state why for the each item. Consider using cn if you judge the source unreliable. You may re-write material if you think it is biased. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 20:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi
The Afd on Emilia Carr is in its final stages. Perhaps if youf eel like it you can just as me leave a message to the closing admin on why it should be kept on the Afd page.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"The Julian Assange legal proceedings"
I see that your edits are being removed. --Arendal janitsjar (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Was the "whole investigation" called into question?
 * Perhaps try an edit first, without the "who said what" on Facebook.
 * Should one believe the expression, "Less is more"?
 * Yes: http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/1.2360485/bjorn-hurtig-man-kan-ifragasatta-hela-forundersokningen
 * That's a possibility. But it seems those quotes are already making the rounds in the Swedish blogosphere
 * I believe in that too. What is the absolute barest minimum? "The police officer leading the investigation didn't disclose her relation with one of the accusers?" <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 16:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (I am not sure if the lead interrogater, was (or is) the one leading the case. )
 * I suspect that the "allegations"-section of the biographical article, will "find its form", when notable english sources are introduced into the section. (I found one English article, by googling).
 * Thank you for efforts.--Arendal janitsjar (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Expressen calls "förhörsledare", meaning she was in charges for asking the question (and probably playing the bad cop, judging by her opinions of JA:). Plenty of English of sources already, , and more to come no doubt under the week-end. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 19:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Question
Hi, maybe now that the Afd has been closed you might feel like changing the Emilia Carr articles direction a bit. You had good ideas. Just to make the possibility of re-nomination in Afd less likely. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Julian Assange
Thanks for asking my opinion. I would oppose a meger. My reasoning against a merger can be found towards the bottom of the Articles_for_deletion/Swedish_Judicial_Authority_v._Julian_Assange discussion. Cheers. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikileaks cannot get rid him... Since he more or less is wikileaks. It's not true to say it has "nothing" to do. It has something, and the question is whether that "something" is relevant enough to be included in the template. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 14:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't want this discussion on my talkpage, if you want to discuss it, do so on the article talkpage, please stop posting on my talkpage for the time being, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, we can discuss it here if you prefer. I simply don't understand why it shouldn't be included; in particular what policies and guidelines. Unless there are some that I am unaware of, I think the template can be included. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 14:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Mohamed Bouazizi hospital.jpg
Hello, I think you probably missed one entry on that FFD page. I was referring to Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 18, and yes, that was the same image you just re-uploaded. We can't use it because it's a commercial news agency picture, from AFP. Per WP:CSD #7b, criteria for such items are particularly strict. They can only be used under a fair-use justification based on a very strong claim to "transformative use", i.e. typically critical commentary on the image as such (rather than on the event the image depicts). This is not the case here. You are welcome to take it to DRV if you object (although I don't think it would have a chance of succeeding), but I'm afraid until then I'll have to re-delete it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not a commercial agency picture . <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 21:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is still distributed and marketed by AFP . If you want to argue they have no commercial interest in it, you'd need to bring further arguments. Also, this would only alleviate the specific point of CSD F7b; the more general issue of the image failing WP:NFCC, as originally expressed in the FFD nomination, would still stand (we don't need to see the image to understand that Ben Ali visited Bouazizi in hospital.) As I told you, please take this to DRV if you must, but stop re-uploading the image in the meantime. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that both the AP and the AFD have distributed it, together with the San Diego Tribune stating it was released by the Tunisian Presidency Office, establishes that no one has an exclusive right to that picture. Re #8, the symbolism of the president face to face with the self-immolator is hard if not impossible to convey and describe it both comprehensively and from a neutral point of view" <sup style="color:green;">walk'' <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 22:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * More on the release of the picture: A handout picture released by the Tunisian Presidency shows President Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali, second left, visiting patient Mohamed Bouazizi at the Ben Arous hospital near Tunis on Dec. 28. Bouazizi died in hospital on Jan. 4 and Ben Ali fled the country on Jan. 14. . <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 22:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

edit summary and failing to discuss or follow WP:BRD
This edit under the circumstances of your previous additions and your lsack of even a single attempt at discussion has a misleading edit summary. Please don't do that again. Please take this as a warning, that f you continue to make such edits I will took at reporting you, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't get so excited just because I forgot an edit summary. There are plenty others that use constantly opaque summaries that in many cases are outright deceiving. I make it very easy to go through my contributions by copy-pasting my edits in the edit summary. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 13:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Urca de Lima Spanish Treasure Fleet 1715.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Urca de Lima Spanish Treasure Fleet 1715.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
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) 22:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Death of Sian O'Callaghan
Hi my friend if you feel like it please participate in this articles Afd. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Elephant Car.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Elephant Car.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Pfc bradley.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pfc bradley.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Manning / message on my talk page
Hi Victor falk ! Thank you for your message : I ve gone away from the subject ; sorry I can't tell if your edits were related to what I pointed in the discussion page. Courage !Trente7cinq (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)