en User talk:Dchall1 Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dchall1. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome!

Hello, Dchall1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Garion96 (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Maryam Rajavi

Thanks, I hope I got it all. The copyvio was really interwoven in the article. Btw, everyone deserves a boilerplate welcome on his/her talk. So here you go... :) Garion96 (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Jessica Lynch story invented by the US military

Hello, I noticed you reverted the Jessica Lynch story. May I suggest that we find an agreement on this subject. I believe it is important to denote that Lynch accused the US military of lying and using her for their own benefit. She told that on TV. I put the link when I wrote this note. I suggest you follow the wiki guidelines and don't just delete what other people post. Thanks, . --SeiteNichtGefunden 7 May 2007

Atomic bombing of Japan

Hello again, I have noticed that "they" do have a really strict policy about not labeling events or organization as objectively "terrorist": basically, when the US is accused of terrorism, that is "not acceptable". When an organization or government with policies against that US is labelled "terrorist", that seems acceptable. I wonder who "they" is? I am trying to solve these disputes, but it seems some users are simply reverting to previous editions. --SeiteNichtGefunden 7 May 2007

Hello once again. Here are my opinions:

Jessica Lynch: I don't see the need of using the word recently. One problem with this is that after, say, two months this recently does not really apply. It is better to just simply give a date. No? Or do you want to show the reader that what she said, she said some time after all the action happened? Maybe we can just put:

Lynch became famous after her widely publicized recovery by U.S. special operations forces on March 2003. Two years later, after her recovery, Jessica accused the military of lying and inventing stories about her heroic acts for their own benefit

I also do not agree with: "Some media outlets". I suggest: "Major media outlets" because, in fact, allmost all media outlets transmited these news. The word "some" transmites the idea of some media outlets with minor importance and the issues is not really t o be taken seriously.

Japan: Well, of course the atomic bombs on Japan are not considered a terror attack because it was the USA who dropped them and its them who invented (or ate least apply the most) this term. In the September 11, 2001 Attacks it is written in the first line that it is a terrorist attack. It does not say, in the first line, that some governments consider it a terror attack. It is given as a unquestionable axiom. In my opinion, it was in fact a terrorist attack (by whom I ask?), but that does not matter. We must be neutral. I would have to do more research on the Japan issue to have a final idea so, for now, I will not do anything with it.

About the definition of terrorism you are doing research. In my opinion: The super powers do not want a definition of terrorism or else they would be the ones considered the biggest terrorists. I bet there is even a lobby by Israel + USA + UK in the U.N. so that a definion will never be made. The word terrorism is just a 'catch word' to manipulate public opinion. You know that better than I do. A journalist says "Somalian terrorists have been killed': the audience doesn't really question about it. The simple usage of the word terrorism is enough. Its stereotyping. It is just a propaganda technique. Nothing else.

My background is not International Relations. But, I consider myself knowledgeable enough to debate about these issues. Thank you, --SeiteNichtGefunden 7 May 2007

Hello, so have you made a decision? I see the Jessica Lynch website is reverted. Thanks, --SeiteNichtGefunden 9 May 2007

User talk:Ni$hkid64

Haha, thanks for letting me know. =) Nishkid64 (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Bands

I have started adding some references to those articles that I care about. Where would I find teh AfD talk pages to discuss them? I can only find one that is for the album A Life Less Plagued. -Mpete510 19:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. And I understand that you have nothing personal about the bands, you're just trying to keep Wikipedia nice and clean.

usa terrorism stuff

im sorry but what was so point of view about that? its a matter of public record that these things did in fact happen, so whats so disputable about it? why say alleged when the facts clearly say that it did happen, are we trying for a POV of supposed cultural sensitivity maybe?Charred Feathers 05:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks bro

Thank you for your support at Srebrenica genocide discussion page. Bosniak 19:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Active user verification

Hello, Dchall1. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:WPNN, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on WP:WPNN. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Diez2 03:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Kēlen

Hiya. I removed the prod tag you placed on this article because it had been previously prodded, and is not supposed to be again. I opened up an AFD which you can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kēlen. Cheers, CitiCat^♫ 02:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I looked through the history and couldn't find a previous prod. Dchall1 05:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Kosovo_war_header.jpg

Hi Dchall1.

I assumed that the picture was taken in Kosovo because it was in the "Kosovo war" category @ commons. So you are probability right about the picture, it was taken in probability taken in Belgrade, Serbia.

Dybdal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dybdal (talk • contribs) 16:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Image:Nacionalni_automobil_Yugo_1999.jpg

I explanded everthing by replacing incorrect text under the picture in article Kosovo War. Snake BGD_talk 16:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability and edit summaries...

I noticed that you've proposed deletion of some articles that were tagged with notability indicators. This is fine, but as WP:PROD notes, you should "Use an informative edit summary clearly indicating that the article has been nominated for deletion." Saying that the article has been "sorted" doesn't make it obvious that it's up for deletion. Also, on a somewhat more minor note, I'd also recommend leaving the notability tags on the articles. That way, if the prod is removed, the issue remains, and there are links to articles that can help explain how notability can be shown on the notability tags. SnowFire 03:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've been following the instructions at the Wikiproject Notability page. If I'm doing it wrong, a fair number of other people probably are too. You might want to mention something on the project's talk page. Thanks! Dchall1 13:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I checked there; it does say to add to your edit summary the "Sorted as part of the Notability wikiproject!" mention, but I can see why that might be confusing. I'll drop a note off there as you suggest. SnowFire 03:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the instructions to favour a "leave the tags on during prod/AfD" interpretation. Original wording was ambiguous and obviously being read in two different ways. Thomjakobsen 13:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

PMI

Methinks this page could use a page protection. Perhaps lasting a couple of years (jk). Perspicacite 20:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Whitewashers

I noticed one of the IPs continued and reported him to AIV [1], which got him blocked. From now on, just report these persistent MKO whitewashers to AIV when they come back. Hopefully this will save us from the constant need to revert. Regards, The Behnam 21:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio?

You removed a large piece of text from Haiti as being copyvio.[2] I remember having looked at that before, and finding then that the text was literally copied from a website (which I can't find now) that stated the texts there were "free", or words to the same effect. Therefore I think this did not constitute a COPYVIO, although it would have been decent to acknowledge the source. The removed text is – in my opinion – of better than average quality, although unfortunately completely devoid of source citations. --Lambiam 10:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I now found the source, which was actually implicitly acknowledged in the original edit by giving it as a reference: http://uspw.org/index.php?title=Haiti. The website states:

"US Policy World (USPW) is a web-based, free content project designed to develop progressive policy papers with broad expert and public participation using Wiki technology."[3] (my emphasis).

Further, on page http://www.uspw.org/index.php?title=U.S._Policy_World:Copyrights, the website states:

"The license USPW uses for content is Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license."

The website further explains that this means you are allowed to reuse the text, but: "For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page." The copier has fulfilled this clause, at least to the letter.

If the other edits by user Klrichar that you reverted are from this free-content website, perhaps you should reconsider the unsigned warning you issued.[4] --Lambiam 10:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns, but there are a couple of issues at play here. The main reason I slapped the warning on his talk page was that he was wholesale copying articles from [5] (see diff for just one example). I spent the better part of an hour going through the 20 or so articles he edited and pulling out copyvio material. That I believe is worthy of the warning by itself

As for the Haiti information, that was one of a few articles where the material he added came from [6]. Regardless of whether or not it's acceptable to double an article's length by copying material from another website, I'll grant that the material may be copyright-free. However, it was horribly POV, and USPW does not qualify as a reliable source (it is in essence a Wiki, which per this page are generally not reliable sources. Hope that explains my reasoning. Dchall1 14:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Samson

There is apparently an RfC in the works, and I wanted to know if you thought that I was off on this page? It seems to me that the same inappropriate information keeps getting added without any good explanation, but maybe you could point out if I'm missing something, and how best to resolve the issues there. Tewfik^Talk 22:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian Genocide request for mediation

Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-23 Bosnian Genocide --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ivan Kricancic case

Please just take a look here [7] - if you know anything about that feel free to tell me. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think I'm any help. Dchall1 (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

September 11th

Dchall1- I noticed that you are very knowledgeable in the area of international politics relating to the Middle East. I am writing a paper on al-Qaeda's motives involving the September 11th attacks for my high school composition class. I was hoping that you could point me in the direction of the resources that you referenced for your additions to the entries regarding al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the September 11th attacks. Any information would be appreciated.

--Ambivalentstudent (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Milosevic edit war

Okay, thank you for finding a third party before you violated any policies. I will take a look at the specific case that you have mentioned and get back to you. I will not be around much this weekend but eill try my best to log on and keep you updated. If you feel that this topic is not getting resolved fast enough feel free to contact another user. Cheers! Tiptoety 19:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have put in my two cents on the articles talk page. The only person that seems to have violated WP:3RR is User:216.162.196.155 and they have been warned, if they contiune to violate it i will take action agianst them. If there continues to be an active edit war the article may (and most likely will) be temporarily protected so that everyone can think about it and discuss the topic on the talk page. Oh, by the way, good job not violating WP:3RR! (I know it can be hard at times). Cheers! Tiptoety 20:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, if you are having an issue with a specific user or a group of users, you can always try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution . . . just a thought! Tiptoety 20:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Hi and thank you for your welcomes. Please explain me is telling a fact ruining Wikipedia neutral point of view? Didn't Kosovo war occur in south part of Serbia, in Serbian province Kosovo (Kosovo is Serbian word too)? Then if I say Berlin is German I 'm ruining neutral point of view. Thank you again, and please answer me, I changed because I don't want people to think about Serbian land as about independent states. If you say for example some war occured in Chechenia, Berlin or wherever you will say that it is in Russia or Germany.

One more thing, by the way you are talking, then it is forbiden for me to say Al Qaeda is terrorist group? KLA destroyed churches (more than 300), killed children and teenagers, did many massacres, ruined Serbian cemeteries (in large numbers even today they are getting ruined), etc. So it's normal that I say it is terrorist. Plus many countries officialy see it as terrorist group.

KLA leaders in their books (maybe you read them) openly describe how they slaughtered and did atrocities to Serbs. Isn't that terrorism?

And money they used to buy weapons, do you think it's from fair work? KLA was biggest drug dealer for a long time in parts of Europe, Balkan, USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.253.16 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 December 2007

Milosevic

Hi, Dchall1.

I just checked anon's contribution and I found this edit: [8] which is clear example of vandalism as he removed important information about Milosevic indictment:

He was indicted in May 1999, during the Kosovo War, by the UN's International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia for crimes against humanity in Kosovo. Charges of violating the laws or customs of war, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions in Croatia and Bosnia and genocide in Bosnia were added a year and a half later.

He said he would move it to another section, but he just put this: "...where he stood accused of crimes against humanity, violating the laws or customs of war, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and genocide." without mentioning Bosnian genocide and war crimes in Kosovo and Croatia which is very important.

There is also very valuable site about ICTY trials: SENSE which contains trial reports.

For example there is a report about Milosevic role in "final soultion" related to Albanians in Kosovo:

MILOSEVIC’S “FINAL SOLUTION”:

The witness repeated the evidence he had given at the Milosevic trial: after the agreement was signed the Yugoslav president told them, over a drink, that the Kosovo problem would be solved in spring using the same model as in Drenica after World War Two. This time Naumann claimed that Milosevic had used the term “the final solution” which carried a special weight for the witness, who is German. Since the guests didn’t know what the Drenica model was, Milosevic explained to them that the Albanians would be “collected in one place and shot to death”. The NATO delegation was “aghast”, Naumann said. Milutinovic and Sainovic “were silent while Milosevic was talking” as they were on other occasions, he added.

You can search this site for verification as this is relaible per WP:RS. I hope this will help you.

Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

my 2 cents

If this edit war continues on this page, I would recommend taking it up at WP:AN/I to get the general input of users and admins who will handle the issue quickly. Tiptoety (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Warning!

Hello, I come from Serbia my name is Dusan, and I 'm warning you to stop vandalizing Wikipedia. First of all tell me why you are doing it? This is a warning if you continue vandalizing I will ask administrators to ban you. --Србија до Токија (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Information

Hi Dchall1. I would like to inform you that user Osli73 although he was blocked so many times, continues to vandalise articles. Now he is redirecting Serbian propaganda to Role of Serb media in the 1991-1999 wars in the former Yugoslavia (which he wrote), instead of redirecting it to Serb propaganda (the article I wrote based on ICTY verdicts), because he nominated Serb propaganda article for deletion. I think this user should be stop finally. It doesn't make any sense anymore. Propaganda isn't the same term as media role, so his vandalism is really obvious. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Terrorist" in the lede on Al-Qaeda

Actually, the latest poll I can find was against referring to them editorally as terrorists. A similar discussion was against it on Archive 2 as well. Will ^(talk) 15:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Try merging them together, or at least try merging Albanians in Central Serbia and Albanians in Serbia together. I don't know about Albanians in Kosovo, though, given the current political situation (something that I don't want to and won't get into. —Kurykh 04:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Then, IMO, there are no definitive solutions until the Kosovo issue is itself resolved. Sorry if I'm not of much help. And I have heard of User:Србија до Токија's history. Incidentally, what does "Serbia to Tokyo" or whatever that phrase is, mean? —Kurykh 04:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, but anyways, given the background and political situation, I don't think you can really merge any of the three articles without escaping the gaze of Србија до Токија, among other...interested parties. —Kurykh 05:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment Osli73

Hi Dchall1. I want to inform you that I am going to start request for comment, if Osli73 continues with the same behaviour. I have now plenty of material, but I would also like you to take a part. I am going to present this case very systematically, for example to list his block log, his reverts, other disruptive edits like this:

Block log:
12:23, 5 December 2007, Stifle blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: Bosnian Mujahideen)
07:45, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month.
07:37, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months.
02:26, 23 March 2007 Thatcher131 blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violating revert limit on Srebrenica massacre see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo)
01:48, 1 March 2007 Jayjg blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violation of arbcom revert parole on Srebrenica massacre again)
09:48, 18 December 2006 Srikeit blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Sockpuppeteering and directly violating his arbcom probation and revert parole)
00:49, 5 September 2006 Blnguyen blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 96 hours ‎ (did about 10 reverts on Srebrenica massacre in about 2 hours)

So if you have something to add feel free to do that. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

dont delete my article

dchall 1-please do not delete my page i am working hard on it - it took me long to do- I am keep adding info to it. My page is about one of the Middle Schools in the Garden Grove School Districer. MAny people would like to view it. I will be fixing this week. I have to go to bed know (9:00PM) but i will work more on my article tommorow and the rest of the week to fix it and make it more like a encyclpedia

To Dchall

Your edits are very clearly biased and serves certain interests, especially the brutal regime ruling Iran.

→Your edits are very clearly biased and serves certain interests, especially the brutal regime ruling Iran. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlborzTaha (talk • contribs) 06:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

Answer from Alborz Taha

Dchall1, You wrote that you have no favoritism towards either the PMOI or the Iranian state. But I really wonder why your edits exactly accord with the same allegations made by the Iranian regime. Let’s say you added “Increasing numbers of MKO members are starting to return to Iran and are claiming asylum” which is neither true nor “based on reliable sources”! You even use the term”MKO” for the PMOI which is merely used by that regime and its affiliated media. I would be very happy to know where you are receiving such information. I suggest you to be impartial and let the Wikipedia be clean of Iranian regime’s misinformation. AlborzTaha,

STOP MISINFORMATION

I advise you to read what you refer to at least ONCE!. The article " Group on U.S. terror list lobbies hard" never says anywhere that “Increasing numbers of MKO members are starting to return to Iran and are claiming asylum”. By the way the article is dated May 31, 2005 which obviously can not support any existing claim today. This is a blatant misinformation which violates the Wikipedia 'neutral point of view' standards and pillars. I will follow this and submit a complain against such misinformation to Wikipedia management. .AlborzTaha.

Do not delete facts.

To: DChall1

I noticed that you omitted the NCRI platform that I had added to the NCRI page. Do you have any reason to justify it. Because this is the publicly announced platform of the NCRI since 25 years ago and it is no POV. 193.219.246.250

I understand that this is a publicly announced platform, but you copied it from the NCRI website, which is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. If you would like to reword and summarize the information (briefly), feel free to do so. Otherwise, material copied from outside websites will be promptly deleted. Dchall1 15:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

can't you just quote it? Jaguar Verde (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Why so hysteric against PMOI?

Could you justify your hostility against the PMOI? This is not your first time. You have a background of misinformation in this regard too. Everybody in the world knows that PMOI revealed Iranian regime's clandestine nuclear project which was definitely based on the information PMOI had received from its forces inside Iran. Yet, you insist on deleting the activities of this organization inside Iran!! There could be only one justification for denouncing an opposition organization: deeply supporting the religious fascist mullahs in Iran, whatever the reason might be!! You may continue distorting the realities about the just resistance of Iran. But nothing and nobody can prevent the fate of a collapsing regime. Well, still claiming of no favoritism toward mullahs??!!AlborzTaha 18:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you disagree with my edits. However, your changes violate wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view. If you still feel you that my edits are unfair, please feel free to complain about me to an administrator or to WP:AIV. Dchall1 19:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong

I quoted the sources, there are not my personal point of views. Did you read the sources? Adrianzax (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

== Reply == ok. sorry if it sounded subjective... my only purpuse is to unveil the truth, and the truth is that dom and rom are the same people. anyway I won't modify the dom page anymore. I will write this in Romani people page and write in a more neutral manner. Salutes ! Adrianzax (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You're mistaken, I'm not the one who's reverting. Wikipedia's main motto is to sustain a neutral policy, I posted 3 reliable sources from 3 very popular websites. Wikipedia isn't a personal toy that can be used only be 3 subjective persons. Adrianzax (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR, or...?

Hi, Dchall1! I am one of the part-time editors of the Romani people page. I replied to one of Adrianzax's posts on the discussion page of that article.

You warned him that he may be reported for 3RR. I am not sure whether or not that is the correct designation. If he also engages, or has engaged, in vandalism, then it seems we cannot report him for 3RR. Is that correct?

Anyway, I just thought I'd ask, in case this would avoid complications. --Kuaichik (talk) 03:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean to say they were mutually exclusive, either. It's just that on the page for reporting 3RR, they say something about how you shouldn't use that page to report 3RR if the user is otherwise problematic, or something. --Kuaichik (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I dunno...anyhow, thank you and good night! (I should probably be going to bed, too...:-P) --Kuaichik (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I count four reverts for you on this article. I have therefore blocked you along with Adrianzax for 24 hours. Please pursue [WP:DR|dispute resolution]] in the future rather than repeatedly reverting. If you wish to contest the block, you may add {{unblock|reason}} to your talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)