User talk:Wüstenfuchs/Archive 7

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Aleppo separation line
Made a comment. EkoGraf (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Re-Al-Nusra Front
No problem, I should have also stated in my changes what I had done.

I didn't remove the sentence - "The group has also referred to the USA and Israel as enemies of Islam and has attacked the religious beliefs of non-Sunnis in Syria, including the Alawites." - I just moved it to a new paragraph underneath where it was (still under Ideology) and added some information from the Telegraph interview that suggested that not all of the fighters wish to engage in attacks against the Christian and Alawite populations, and that instead a lot of the more hard line rhetoric comes from the foreign jihadist elements within the front. I also added their HQ as Homs as the Front member interviewed in the Telegraph article states, "We are based in Homs, but our attacks are reaching Damascus." Of course it's possible that he's only referring to the specific franchise of the front of which he is a member.

I agree that the two groups are currently able to work together operationally without problems, but I do feel it's important to note the unease a lot of the FSA feels towards the group. It was described in the article as -

"In certain parts of Syria, especially in the partly "liberated" northern areas of the country, the tension is palpable. Jihadist and secular rebel groups watch each other's military bases warily, unclasping the safety catches on their guns as they pass."

Even in the Times of Israel source currently used on the page the same fighter who calls them the "Special Forces of Aleppo" also expresses concern that the group is "too radical." Even though it's not affecting their current operations, I do feel how the fighters on the ground view each other is important for understanding the differences between these rebel groups involved in the war. If my edits to the page suggested an operational mistrust then naturally they deserved changing though.

MrPenguin20 (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

 * The next time, you should read the references before eliminating a text. You haven't noticed my edit summary either, right?. Durero (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. --RJFF (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Damascus (November 2012) (dubious)
Alhanuty is again trying to make a content fork with that article from Rif Dimashq campaign. He reverted my merger that editors previously agreed to without even talking. Your oppinion would be appreciated. Talk:Battle of Damascus (November 2012) EkoGraf (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S. I made a new proposal at Talk:Rif Dimashq campaign. EkoGraf (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay ecograk,I never knew about the proposal of dividing the rif dimashq offensive into two articles when I made the revert,and when I reverted it, I did it because of new events occurring as the fighting at the airport, what is happening now in rif dimashq is a new thing,back then it was a government offensive,now it is a rebel offensive,and I think the rebel offensive deserves an article itself. Alhanuty (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Reporting you
I'm reporting you. You have on multiple occasions and to multiple different Bosniak wikis changed Bosniaks from Bosniak to either Serb, Croat or if you have no Serb-written/Croat-written book as a reference, Yugoslav. You did this to Hasan Brkić, Meša Selimović and most recently Avdo Humo, among others --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Reporting me for what? -- Wüstenfuchs  03:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I explained --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Help needed
That's actually a different thing - the history of those two articles differs significantly because they're not identical concepts. What you should do is --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) make sure you've merged all the useful content
 * 2) include the bolded text of the redirect somewhere in the destination article, because of WP:R
 * 3) tag the "Republic of " redirect with R from merge
 * 4) change the class= parameter of the WikiProject templates on the redirect's talk page to say "redirect"

Disambiguation link notification for December 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Croatia–Syria relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 24 sata (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
Hello, I'm Epeefleche. I noticed that you recently removed some content from 2012 Egyptian protests without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! The more recent, updated info was supported by an RS ref, so there was no reason to delete it and revert to older news. Epeefleche (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring (multiple articles) and disruptive editing, as you did at Osman Karabegović. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
There is currently a discussion on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that may concern you. Regards -- Director  ( talk )  01:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I regret that I can not help you on this one, even though I would. I'm under block till 16 December. -- Wüstenfuchs  13:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian casualties
Need your help here Talk:Casualties of the Syrian civil war. EkoGraf (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I am still having trouble with that guy, I simply can not explain to him that he can not make unsourced OR edits. And he is of the opinion that the reason you are not engaged in the discussion anymore is because he convinced you that he is right. :P EkoGraf (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have been repeating to him the same thing, reliable sources, over and over and over but he just says that I am making excuses for not calling Palestinians as Syrians and...oh I have no idea...as far as I can figure he is a radical Israeli who has a fit at any mention of Palestinians being a national grouping and not an ethnic one because it would be a semi-recognition of a Palestinian state. He forwarded the issue at Village pump (miscellaneous) thinking he would get support but two other people told him the same thing we did but he is still going on and on about Palestinians being the same thing as Kurds or Assyrians. In any case I'm done talking to him. P.S. Happy New Year to you too mate! :D EkoGraf (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Now you've really done it and I'm close to filing a report against you
It has come to my attention that you have made large revisions and expansions to the article dealing with the history of Bosnia 1878-1918. As part of this you have deliberately removed sourced information and replaced everything with one single Croat source (Zovko). Either you re-insert by yourself the information you removed (you are perfectly aware of which one it is) or I shall do so and in the process possibly file a complaint against your offensive editing attitude. Spare us both the trouble. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been so kind as to restore the text myself as I couldn't stand by to look at your POV pushing which attempted to obscure the crucial influence of Serbia and Croatia on the ethnic conformation of Bosnian Christians during the 19th century. The text in question was cited and you removed it in order to promote your unbalanced view, much unacceptable. I will be closely monitoring your edit history from now on, as your brassy text deletion was completely out of line.Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was really hoping we could collaborate on a number of articles in the future but this sort of editorial behavior only serves to drive a wedge with other users. As a general rule, never remove sourced information without a very good reason at hand, and moreover, without replacing it with equivalent information that preserves the balance of the article. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice try, coming from someone who has been banned several times already for his aggressive contentious editing. There appears to be a dispute at every other article you have blessed with you presence and this is not about to cease in any foreseeable future it seems. Three sources are in question, two of them had page references, Mitokonja's didn't - however you removed all three. Obviously there was never any question about the page references but your refusal of promoting objectivity. In case page references lack, we add an appropriate note calling for the page number, and not take advantage of the situation to get rid of "inconvenient" citations altogether. Mitokonja's book is available at Google books in its entirety, page references should be no problem. Until then I will add a page number note. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Page referrals and Google books links have been added. Just an advice for the future: private sentiments should be left out from any editorial contributions. I don't think I will be going out on a limb if I claim that much of your sentiment has revealed itself as focused on undermining any historical base in the Bosniaks' distinction. Attempts to forcibly incorporate Bosniaks into any Croat national sentiment in the 21st century by refusing them a historical foundation are at best ridiculous; such initiatives failed miserably during the critical period at the turn of the 19th century and are certain to never succeed in modern times for obvious reasons (the Bosniaks are as of today a definite self-asserted community dominating several aspects of Bosnia) and are far from defenseless as to be pushed around by different adverse interests as in the past. The Serb and Croat nationalist struggle to entice and snare the Bosniaks has once and for all definitely reached a terminal point in history. Any continued efforts are highly offensive, aggressor-like and above all futile. Why am I telling you this? Because much of your outlook appears to reside in the 19th century, second world war or the Bosnian war. Times which will never again rear its ugly head, the world has moved on, so should you. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You are notorious, as has been seen in your never-ending battles with user Demir, to ignore other user's references, sometimes even downright lying about them. These are the two of the references you removed with the deceitful claim they lacked page references: As for Velikonja's book, pages 130-135 are indeed available at Google books (and this applies internationally). I have nevertheless updated the link. I'll quit the psychological analysis if you promise to cut out all the nauseating excuses which are barely fooling a child. The sources are not the same, you (for example) altered the (sourced) sentence "irredentist neighbors" into "Slavic neighbors" obviously with the goal of downplaying the historical distinction of Bosnia. So transparent, as much else. All sources I have preserved are available at Google books, which is a lot more than can be said about your "Zovko". Please scan a copy of the entire book and post it online :) Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sugar, Peter F. (1963). Industrialization of Bosnia-Hercegovina: 1878-1918. University of Washington Press. p. 201.
 * Ramet, Sabrina P. (2008). "Nationalism and the 'Idiocy' of the Countryside: The Case of Serbia". Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia at Peace and at War: Selected Writings, 1983-2007. LIT Verlag Münster. pp. 74–76. ISBN 3-03735-912-9.
 * Not to mention that you deliberately deleted the following cited quotation: speaking the Bosnian language and divided into three religions with equal rights. Apparently the notion of a "Bosnian language" seems to have been a thorn too great in the side of your editorial ambitions. In the future, how about citing a few more Anglophone sources? Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Happy new year to you as well! I am really hoping we can collaborate and get along but that will require mutual respect and understanding. Unfortunately, when Bosniaks/Serbs/Croats write about their own history things easily get out of hand; thus I wouldn't necessarily agree that they contribute anything Western scholars don't, rather on the contrary quite frankly. In addition, the internationally most acclaimed and renowned experts on Balkan history are actually Westerners and not natives of Balkan. I have no idea why the link isn't working out for you as I have also asked an acquaintance of mine in the US to try it (with success). The language you're referring to is Swedish since the link was in the country-code domain .se, I might try changing it to .com. However, easier would be if you could just visit Google books and have a look in Velikonja's book yourself, I can assure the relevant pages (130-135) are accessible . Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tudjmanism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-liberalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

GOCE Copy Edit Request - Flag of Syria
Hi Wüstenfuchs - I just wanted to send you a quick message to inform you that your requested copy edit of the article Flag of Syria is complete. Best of luck on your GA! PS - I also added some wikilinks to the article, and performed some minor spacing cleanup to the wiki markup. Cheers, Freebirdthemonk Howdy!  00:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: History of BiH (1878-1918)
"Bosnia and Herzegovina in Austria-Hungary" sounds like a good title, but because the occupation was made legit through the form of a condominium, I'm not sure if that should be the title. Please start a discussion on the talk page. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC/RM
Hi

Two of us have been working on fixing the listing created by adding an RfC tag to an RM. Basically, in making a page move, if it is uncontroversial, any autoconfirmed user can just make the move, unless there is something in the way preventing that, in which case there are a couple of ways to get an admin to make the move or at least remove the impediment.

In the case of a potentially controversial move there are basically three choices, one, if it is already an article with a lot of watchers, a discussion such as "should this be moved" can be held, and based on the outcome, moved or not.

There are two formal ways of asking for more help. One, WP:RM, which lists the page for seven days after which a decision is made. Two, WP:RfC, which lists the discussion for 30 days, after which a decision is made. It is really not necessary to use both, and just confuses the situation. I would recommend deciding on one of the two, a 7 day discussion or a 30 day discussion and just deleting the other template. I added a comment just to allow the RfC bot to work, and all of that can be deleted, including the section heading that was created. Please feel free to ask if you have any questions. Apteva (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Aleppo dispute
Need your help at the Aleppo battle article. An anonymous user is refusing to acknowledge the New York times as a reliable source and refusing to acknowledge there is a stalemate in Aleppo at the moment. And is thus edit warring. EkoGraf (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, he seems to have given up. EkoGraf (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * EkoGraf, you are the one that gave up; you gave up pushing your regime propagandist worldview backed by poor referencing. A pleasant consequence of this episode is that it nicely exposes you for what you are; edit-warring on an article, and then running to a 10 time blocked User like Wüstenfuchs for help. Your disruptive editing will continue to be monitored. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.201 (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, no... Anonymus is monitoring me! What to do, what to do?! -- Wüstenfuchs  19:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, monitoring EkoGraf. You are just an obvious loser Wüstenfuchs who gets blocked constantly. Sooner than later it will be a permanent block.
 * Those guys getting "constantly blocked" were ChronicalUsual. Not Wustenfuchs. Sopher99 (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How do we know that Wüstenfuchs and ChronicalUsual arn't the same person? They have identical editing histories, have both been blocked countless times, as well as both displaying a flawed grasp of the English language (suggesting a non native speaker). This link is something that should be looked into.
 * I believe you are San culottes, and obviously you don't like me... I don't mind. -- Wüstenfuchs  22:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on his way of talking to other editors (insulting all the time) it seems you are right that it most likely is San culottes. In that case I will just stop talking to him. EkoGraf (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This "San culottes" was actually female if you check the edit history. But hey don't let facts get in the way of hating Users you disagree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.201 (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't care what he was, and I'm not interested in his edit history... perhaps you shouldn't be interested in mine as well, as I feel harassed by you. -- Wüstenfuchs  14:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the facts once presented... so Wüstenfuchs! Stop hating Muslims then people won't have to correct your hate crime edits. Pretty simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.14 (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

what the heck is the problem here,yes there is a statement in the battle Abdo45 (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That's it IP. -- Wüstenfuchs  15:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello
There is a new armed force in syria. As you are a quality registered user from a long time, could you add it on the main syria civil war page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Army_of_Syria — Preceding unsigned comment added by SopherJihad (talk • contribs) 16:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This article seems to be erased. -- Wüstenfuchs  19:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Allahu Akbar, it was just ChronicalUsual trying to impersonate me. Sopher99 (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw it's not you... -- Wüstenfuchs  22:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Project Syria
I see that you are a syria project member/

A new armed force has been created in Syria. Could you create a page on it if you have time or add it in the syria civil war page. The reliable source is the following http://www.4wfca.com/syria-assad-forms-a-new-paramilitary-force-to-assist-the-army/

Thanks in advance. Jolkis Mina (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gebbordi (talk • contribs)


 * No matter if you are a puppet, I'll respond. This could be under Syrian Armed Forces article. I'll check more details about this unit. Can't promise anything, but I need to see its notability. -- Wüstenfuchs  13:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Situation in Darayya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rif_Dimashq_offensive_(November_2012–present)#Situation_in_Darayya your thoughts are welcomed Abdo45 (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

DRN thread
A thread on the issues at Talk:Syrian civil war has been posted on the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. -- Director  ( talk )  17:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't give up, Fuchs :) -- Director  ( talk )  10:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jozo Radoš, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seonica (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Paraga or Paradžik
In your Article about Paradžik, Section 1990s, you wrote "Paraga", which might be incorrect. Should that be Paradžik? --Wikimate (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 18:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Why Egypt?
Why you created the page about the 2013 protests in Egypt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.74 (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Cut-paste from Encyclopedia Britannica?
Hi Wustenfuchs, I needed to ask you about the origins of this edit. Is this cut-and-pasted from Encyclopedia Britannica? Checking EB on Web Archive, it looks like their version was up first.

You should review our policies on WP:COPYVIO; taking unattributed text from other sources in a serious violation of policy. Thanks, -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Active?
Wüstenfuchs,

I was wondering if you are still acting on Wikipedia and if so are you still interested in being part of WikiProject Espionage? Adamdaley (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Mehmed Alajbegović. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Disambiguation link notification for September 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Antonio Cassese, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Recklessness. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)