User talk:Red Spino

Welcome!

Hi Red Spino! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Vanjagenije (talk) 11:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goražde incident moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Goražde incident. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for support. The page is still in works. I need to link other sources from where I got the information to this wiki page and it will be done. Red Spino (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goražde incident moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Goražde incident. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 23:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Goražde Incident for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Goražde Incident is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goražde Incident until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goražde Incident moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Goražde Incident. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goražde Incident. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Star Mississippi 18:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Red Spino! Your additions to Offensives on Velika Kladuša have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's elegibility.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Operation Steel '93, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prkos. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 19:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hello, I'm C.Fred. I noticed that you recently removed content from Operation Steel '93 without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —C.Fred (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Operation Sword 1. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Operation Steel '93

A tag has been placed on Operation Steel '93 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. C F A 💬 22:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of massacres in the Bosnian War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Raštani.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stari Vitez explosion moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Stari Vitez explosion. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because Blatant POV-edit. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bivolje hill killings moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Bivolje hill killings. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because need better sources and not in WP:NPOV. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tuzla rescue convoy moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Tuzla rescue convoy. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has too many problems of language or grammar. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Joy (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

G’day Red Spino. You seem to be persisting in using dubious and unreliable sources to add incidents and create articles pertaining to crimes during the Bosnian War. Blogs, user-created websites and highly biased local sources without proper editorial oversight are completely unacceptable sources for matters of such sensitivity. Thirty years after these events occurred, there should be academic or mainstream media sources or court documents covering these events. If you persist in creating articles using such sources or adding incidents based on such sources, I will have no other option than to raise your editing behaviour with other admins and ask that you be blocked from editing. So please apply the reliable sources policies in all your future editing. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The massacres for which I am making a page are not fake, for example the explosion in Stari Vitez, the ethnic cleansing of Kupres and the shelling of Doboj were real events, monuments were made for killed civilians, there are many news that mention these events, thanks you for your understanding that I am not harming wikipedia but trying to add more pages Red Spino (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying they are fake, but many of the sources you are using are unacceptable on Wikipedia, because they don't meet the reliable sources policy. I strongly suggest you read that policy before any further editing. Poorly sourced articles do not help Wikipedia, especially on sensitive issues such as massacres. I strongly suggest you concentrate on properly sourcing one page at a time instead of creating a lot of poorly sourced pages. I see that some of your pages have been moved into draft, the rest will follow if they are not properly sourced. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kupres ethnic cleansing moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Kupres ethnic cleansing. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it has too many problems of language or grammar. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 07:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Operation Sword 1

Hello Red Spino,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Operation Sword 1 for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Operation Sword 1 to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

jlwoodwa (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mala Kladuša offensive (October 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Mala Kladuša offensive instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft is either essentially the same as the article with the same name, or a subset of the article with the same name. The draft will be replaced by a redirect from draft space to the article.

Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers.

If the article either is ready for the encyclopedia or appears to be ready for the encyclopedia, the draft will be redirected to the article. However, the article could have been moved into article space instead.

If the article does not appear to be ready for the encyclopedia, the article may be nominated for deletion, and the draft will be kept.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mala Kladuša offensive and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Red Spino! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Goražde incident

Hello, Red Spino. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Goražde incident, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warning re: circumvention of draftification

G'day Red Spino, you have just cut and pasted Battle of Jasenovac into article space to effectively get around the draftification of an article you created, which still exists at Draft:Battle of Jasenovac. This creates work for administrators to merge the history of the article and the draft article. Please do not do that again. By my count you have now created 34 pages on combat engagements and other incidents in the 1990s in the Balkans, most of which are poorly sourced and several may not even be notable incidents because they lack detailed coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, per WP:N. Most a barely mentioned in passing in the CIA history of the wars, Balkan Battlegrounds. Now you are creating work for admins with your cut and pasting of content into article space. All of this you are doing in a sensitive editing area. Please stop, read the basic policies of Wikipedia outlined at WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Also read WP:CUTPASTE and WP:DRAFT. I strongly suggest you create all your articles in draft space and move them to article space only when they are properly cited to reliable sources. Reliable sources do not include blogs, village news websites, and online fora or user-created content. I understand that Wikipedia can feel overwhelming in terms of learning new things, so feel free to ask for help from other editors if you are not sure how to do something. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:Goražde incident

Draft:Goražde incident, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Goražde incident and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Goražde incident during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving notice posted in the wrong place

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Battle of Jasenovac a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Battle of Jasenovac. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Defense of Topusko in 1991 (October 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Tavantius were:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Defense of Topusko in 1991 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tavantius (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Draft:Defense of Topusko in 1991, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Using a different and now blocked account, Black dog25, you introduced material into the subject draft article cited to online sources which are not only not reliable, but do not support the material you added. I have just deleted both paras and the citations. Improper citation of material is disruptive to Wikipedia and undermines its credibility. On controversial topics like the Balkan conflicts of the 90s this behaviour is highly disruptive to Wikipedia. You have been warned for poor sourcing in article and draft space in this topic area several times, so repetition of this behaviour will result in a block, as WP:CIR to edit Wikipedia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts

Hello. You'll notice that when I blocked Black dog25 (talk · contribs · block log) that I linked to a policy, WP:ILLEGIT. Most people would have gotten the hint. I see you're now using Fifilover05 (talk · contribs · block log). I'll probably also block that account in due course, but I also wanted to make clear the policy and get your response. People sometimes use second accounts for a number of reasons, but what we do not like to see, and what's explicitly prohibited by the policy, is someone using more than one account in the same topic area, especially the same article, and especially in a controversial topic like the one you're editing in. And it appears for no obvious reason. One solution discussed in the policy is to declare a connection between the accounts on each user page, but I think your usage of multiple accounts goes beyond that. So I'm asking you to please stop this practice. I'm going to assume you understand and agree to this request unless you explain otherwise here. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Operation Čapljina. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Operation Čapljina has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Capture of Duga Resa (1991)

Hello Red Spino,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Capture of Duga Resa (1991) for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Capture of Duga Resa (1991) to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

C F A 💬 01:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started working on this page but didn't finish it so I put it in draft to give me more time to improve it and fix some mistakes. The page will be ready probably tomorrow when I find good references Red Spino (talk) 08:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Battle of Vrdi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Vrdi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Vrdi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Red Spino. After I nominated this article for deletion, having removed all the unreliable blogs, local town news portals without proper editorial oversight, and fanboi websites, you cited the main para about the battle to Balkan Battlegrounds. I just checked that paragraph against Balkan Battlegrounds, and it failed verification, ie the material in the article is not supported by the citations to the source. You have received several warnings about using WP:COPYVIO material, like cutting and pasting from websites, linking blatant copyvios on YouTube, and using unreliable sources for the large number of Yugoslav Wars article you have created. This type of behaviour is unacceptable on en Wikipedia, wastes other editors time and creates articles that are unreliable and useless to the reader. You need to stop this immediately, and going forward from now use only reliable sources that support the material cited, as outlined in WP:RS. Also, do not cite material to sources that do not support it. That is deceptive behaviour, and unacceptable on en Wikipedia. Many of these articles give the appearance of being fanboi propaganda for the HVO, and describing HVO soldiers as "heroes", and "glorious victories" etc is just puffery and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Naming of ordinary private soldiers who are not notable (in Wikipedia terms) in their own right breaches WP:NOTMEMORIAL. If you will not follow the policies of en Wikipedia, you shouldn't be editing, and I will ask the community for a global ban. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from one or more pages into Operation Krivaja '95. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. John B123 (talk) 07:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eastern Slavonia Front, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antunovac.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Operation Chameleon '93 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Operation Chameleon '93 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Chameleon '93 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Attack on Prekaz, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Durraz0 (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Red Spino! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Bosnian War several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Bosnian War, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in why you don't want to accept the ICTY's casualty figures. An example is in the war in Croatia, the use of three sources for the number of Serbs killed, with different dates and determined numbers of victims. The source that I used for the Bosnian war. It is research conducted in 2010 for the Office of the Prosecutors at the Hague Tribunal, headed by Ewa Tabeau. This figure also played a large role in the judgments of the VRS, HVO and ARBiH generals who committed crimes. The same is the case with Russians and Ukrainians with different sources, but unlike them, this is not a Pro Croat, Serb or Bosnian source, but an assessment by the Hague Tribunal. Note that I have not deleted the RDC figures source for the death toll. Thank you. Red Spino (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not necessarily objecting to the addition of the figures to the infobox but rather to the fact that you're trying to make that addition after having been reverted by another editor. See WP:BRD. The comment you make here is the sort of argument you should make on the article's talk page if you want to argue for the addition of this material. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian war casualties

(Sub-section moved here from Pincrete's talkpage in case Red Spino didn't see the reply there) Pincrete (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in why you don't want to accept the ICTY's casualty figures. An example is in the war in Croatia, the use of three sources for the number of Serbs killed, with different dates and determined numbers of victims. The source that I used for the Bosnian war. It is research conducted in 2010 for the Office of the Prosecutors at the Hague Tribunal, headed by Ewa Tabeau. This figure also played a large role in the judgments of the VRS, HVO and ARBiH generals who committed crimes. The same is the case with Russians and Ukrainians with different sources, but unlike them, this is not a Pro Croat, Serb or Bosnian source, but an assessment by the Hague Tribunal. Note that I have not deleted the RDC figures source for the death toll. Thank you. Red Spino (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Spino, we customarily put a range when there are disputed figures, and I recognise that there are many conflicts where 'final scores' are not possible. In the case of ICTY/RDC, the RDC are later, employ similar but more vigorously employed methodology to eliminate wartime 'overcount' (the accidental duplicate reporting of deaths by relatives/neighbours etc). The RdC project literally names each dead person and gives basic biog info about almost all of them (place and DoB, place and DoD, circumstances of death etc). Tabeau is one of the people who officially examined and endorsed the RDC account. There are acknowledged, but relatively minor, flaws in the methodology of the RDC, but it is now pretty much accepted as the 'gold standard'. I think this is an instance where the ICTY figures are an earlier attempt at an accurate figure, which countered the wilder over/undercounts of the various factions, but which are simply earlier attempts, rather than alternative figures. One of the (book) sources we use literally makes the point that given the circumstances, ICTY should officially update its estimates. AFAIK, it never did. I don't see the point of putting two figures in the infobox when the chief statistician of the earlier figures, Tabeau, has endorsed the later figures.Pincrete (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Goražde Incident

Hello, Red Spino. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Goražde Incident".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Battle for Grbavica (Lašva Valley) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle for Grbavica (Lašva Valley) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle for Grbavica (Lašva Valley) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woof690

Hello again. You'll recall my previous comment here about multiple accounts. You'll also recall the links to the sockpuppetry policy as well as general standards of Internet decorum. I'm sad to say that checkuser evidence tells me that Woof690 (talk · contribs · block log) is another account created by you, this time to reinstate your edits, ask people if they're stupid, and refer to yourself in the third person. Obviously I've blocked your sock. I've also blocked this account for one week. Your options include: acceptance, denial, and appeal. For the latter two options, see WP:APB and WP:GAB. I hereby inform you that my patience has a limit. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Offensive in Podrinje (1993) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Offensive in Podrinje (1993) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Offensive in Podrinje (1993) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move an article whilst it is being considered for deletion. That is contrary to policy, and may be seen as an attempt to circumvent deletion consideration. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Operation Čapljina for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Operation Čapljina is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Čapljina until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing behaviour

G'day Red Spino. Just to be clear, so it is documented in a central place rather than in many article talk pages, several of which have already been deleted, in my view your editing thus far on articles regarding the 90s wars in Yugoslavia has a clear pattern of adding material using unreliable sources (or no source at all), citing material to a source that clearly does not support the material, and creating articles with extremely marginal notability that appear to have had their narrow scope chosen to allow for the promotion of victory by a particular faction when the wider context indicates a more nuanced outcome. If you create marginally or non-notable articles, expect their notability to be challenged. If you add material of any sort, expect it to be examined, verified and reverted or deleted unless it is cited to a reliable source that actually supports the material. These events are contentious and happened thirty years ago, so not cited to some local news portal or town council website, or a partisan book by a VRS officer or a Republika Srpska tabloid, or the equivalents on the Croatian and Bosnian Muslim sides, but a proper high quality source like a book published by a reputable publishing house and written by a respectable academic or similar who is independent of the subject and has no axe to grind, or a respected news website that is above the fray like Balkan Insight or a UN sponsored website that documents war crimes etc (ratnizlocin.detektor.ba, for example, is fine). There are so many poorly sourced articles that have been created by you and other editors (some of whom have been blocked for socking) with similar approaches to editing in the last year or so that it will take me some time to go through them all and clean them up or nominate them for deletion. Your editing behaviour is disruptive and a time-sink for other editors, which means it is counter-productive for Wikipedia, so I suggest if you want to continue to edit Wikipedia you read and absorb the fundamental Wikipedia policies of verifiability and neutral point of view. Edit-warring about flagcruft in infoboxes is also disruptive. Most of these "flags" you insist on inserting alongside every unit, commander and casualty number in every infobox have no encyclopaedic purpose, not even on my big screen can I discern what they are, and I am very familiar with them. What use they are to anyone else reading Wikipedia is an absolute mystery to me. I only have so much patience, and continuation of this editing behaviour will result in a report to ANI so the wider community can have a say on it. All the best. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Operation Berbir for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Operation Berbir is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Berbir until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Attack on Doboj and Gradačac (1994) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Attack on Doboj and Gradačac (1994) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attack on Doboj and Gradačac (1994) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crni vrh massacre moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Crni vrh massacre. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raštani massacre moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Raštani massacre. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]