User talk:EllsworthSK/Archive 1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, EllsworthSK, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Gary King (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

PAK-FA images

The image you recenty restored to the PAK-FA article is clearly marked as an un-free image used under fair-use rules. Because another image exists that claims to be a free image, the fair-use image is ineligable for fair use. Nothing needs to be "decided", as the rules on fair use are clear. Whether or not the image claiming to be a free one is actually copyright-free is another question, but as long as it exists as a free image, no fair use images can be used. Also, only one fair use iamge can be used to illustrate the same aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for exaplnation but than I have to wonder on what basis do you suppose that the particular free imagi which you are mentioning is free considering that it was copied from here [[1]] and the license was stolen. One way or another, if the image is not free I have to wonder why administrators have not deleted it, although it is already marked and it is used in other wikipedia articles too. And the last thing - if only one fair image can be used to illustrate same aircraft that how come that every single article about some fighter has more than one free images. Maybe I´m messing free and un-free imagine, or I just do not understand - but to best of my knowledge the pictures which are free to reproduce, like those whose author gave the permission for non-commercial use are considered to be free. --EllsworthSK (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that i said the image "claims" to be free, as I do not know either way. If the image is not free, and you have proof of that, then you need to present it on Wiki Commons. The image can then be reviewed for deletion. If it is deleted, then we can add ONE iamge to the article as fair-use. - BilCat (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

PAK FA edits

Please do not let being a "fan" of this plane get in the way of the facts. The edits you made are uncorrect and unconstructive. Please let us keep that page factual, the PAK FA is fourth gen ++ at most due to its massive radar cross section. Comparing it to the Eurofighter is very fair as it has the same sort of characteristics: a.) Both supercruise b.) Both have comparable RCS c.) Both are 4+ gen fighters d.) Both have same flight performance.

So please stop your vandalism.

1. If you want to write me anything, please sign yourself.

2. It was reported gazillion times that the aircraft is 5th generation fighter, therefore your edition can be considered as vandalism and fanboysim.

3. RCS of PAK FA not known and please do not go with me with that business standart non-sense. All we know is that it should be comparable to F-22 Raptor.

4. Flight performance of final product are not known. Same goes for prototype.

So, please, stop your vandalism. --EllsworthSK (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

1.) Ok 2.) Wrong. Those sources know nothing or are fear mongering russian fanboys paid by Putin to promote russia on the net. 3.) Yes it is known. Its cosiderably larger than 0.5m^2 as revealed by the IAF 4.) Yes it is. Just because you dont know.

Your aggressive behaviour wont be tolerated any more. I have reported this to wikipedia for vandalism 81.153.57.68 (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

2, Good that you know everything than.

3, Give source

4, Give source

Report whatever you want, I couldn´t care less. But do not be surprised if nothing will come from it. --EllsworthSK (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to cut out your vandalism bs? 81.153.58.103 (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you insist than - NO.

PS: My name isn´t Ivan, but Oliver. Please to meet you. --EllsworthSK (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your vandalism. Please dont do it again. Wikipedia is supposed to be a free online open encyclopedia. Not your personal propaganda tool. So please im asking you nicely. No trolling or vandalism. Please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.72.2 (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, boy. You just don´t get it, do you? --EllsworthSK (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for your note on my talk page. Please note that I am always very careful to not break the 3RR rule. Next time spare the messages of these sort for those who are less familiar with it than me. However it is important to note that you followed me to that article without having edited before. This is not accepted under WP rules (see: Wikihounding). --Nmate (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems that you are not aware and alas if you have that feeling I suggest you to bring this to attention of administrators. Now, is that it or have you anything else to say? --EllsworthSK (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:HA again. No, I can't report you right away because it needs to be proven by more and more proofs. However, such offence may draw serious consequences. Do not follow me around.--Nmate (talk) 11:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have anything useful to say, say it because as of now you were unable to do so. Your gibberish talks about some following or harrasement are beyond ridiculous and you know it, if you have some problems with me you know what you have to do (or so do you claim). Until than try not spamming my talk page. Thanks --EllsworthSK (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Slovakization

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Slovakization. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slovakization (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Hungarian names from the infobox

Hi, I see you delete Hungarian names from the infobox at places in Slovakia. Pleae stop doing it as the Hungarian names may be in the infobox at places which have a majority or strong minority Hungarian population. Here are two recent neutal editor opinion /admin decison on a similar issue with respect to Romania. (Mediation Cabal initiated by Iadrian yu and (decision by admin Myroots). I would not like an edit conflict or incident process, so please adhere to consensus. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 21:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, unfortunatelly both your links are missing the piece of information you´re talking about. Nevertheless I suggest you to re-check the infobox of the cities because you´re clearly missing the point which I wanted to make. To the name sections belongs only the official name, there is no another, there are not two official names for one city - that belongs to other name section what is below it. I have no problem if you add Hungarian name to the other name section in the cities which have at least 20 percent of Hungarian population (what bytheway many of edited does not have) but do it at least properly, not like you did with that infobox. --EllsworthSK (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, If you are not against Hungarian names appearing in the infobox, then instead of deletion, modify the style. My personal opinion is that the geobox which is used with Slovakian settlements makes an eyesore with alternative names. If you put the names to native names, it appears in brackets. As other names, its an eyesore. In Western-European articles, the result is as currently shown in Komarno aricles. Rokarudi --Rokarudi 18:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason is simple - I didn´t have to, the place where you added the minority name is the wrong one, all I did was removing it but ok, I´ll do the job and put them to the places wheer they belong just as in case of Komárno. --EllsworthSK (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Civic Conservative Party

You've written in your reversion summaries that the seats won by the OKS candidates on the Most-Hid list 'belong to Most-Hid', and compared it to SaS, but I'm not aware of any members on the SaS list causing as much coverage or interest as the four OKS members elected for Most-Hid. Yes, electoral alliances wherein two parties are listed together on the ballot paper, or members on a list are differentiated on the ballot paper, are illegal - which is why they didn't do that.

There is debate over whether the four OKS members will form a common caucus with Most-Hid (if that's been resolved, please let me know, and that would clear the issue), and the party has had to make a separate commitment that its members will support the government. For purposes of the election, it, of course, was unequivocally a Most-Hid list (hence this edit), despite having separate manifestos, but after the election, they are separate parties, and their MPs don't belong to any other party. Bastin 17:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, to make it short - what I ment by SaS are the Ordinary people [2][3] which are in exactly same position as 4 members of OKS in Most-Híd. Secondly those members already declared that they will respect the new-born coalition and its decision [4] and as they were on candidate of Most-Híd and not OKS we have to include them with the rest of the MP´s of Most-Híd. --EllsworthSK (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they've committed to join the government, as I said. But, as far as I know, they have not committed to join a common parliamentary group with Most-Hid. That is surely a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of being considered a Most-Hid MP. Bastin 22:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

How come? By letting their names beeing put on candidate of Most-Híd they agreed on entering the same political franction as rest of their colleagues in Most-Híd. Also they were elected as representatives of Most-Híd, not OKS where we could see the support of voters in 2006. --EllsworthSK (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

And here´s something official - according to main page of national council of slovak republic [5] Peter Zajac, Ondrej Dostál, František Šebej and Peter Osuský are listed as MPs of Most-Híd. --EllsworthSK (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Nmate is back on Kosice: [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.201.174 (talk) 06:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Now, that´s a blast from the past. And here was I thinking that he finally let that go... --EllsworthSK (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at John Hunyadi

Could we please have some discussion of the tags, rather than just reverting? Mangoe (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD Anti-Hungarian sentiment

Maybe is this interesting for you [7]--Yopie (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for link, Yopie, I´ll check it out but I don´t know if I´ll join the discussion since I´ve got tired of this wiki Slovakia-Hungary flame wars BS but thanks for sending me this anyway. Regards --EllsworthSK (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Mi-24V Hind.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Mi-24V Hind.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. multichill (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mosthid.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mosthid.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Libya

While I understand your reasoning, we cannot have an infobox saying "Libyan Republic" and "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya". This implies that there are two sovereign states called "Libya" in a state of warfare. Rather, it is a civil war, with the Government of Libya fighting a rebel movement aimed at overthrowing it. All rebel movements inherently claim to represent their country, and a lot of times, even control swathes of territory. But the fact of the matter is, as long as Gaddafi remains in power, controls most of the country, and controls Tripoli, the capital that is claimed by both sides as their capital, his government is still the Government of Libya. Just look at the article itself, and you will see his forces referred to as "government forces", and National Transitional Council forces referred to as "rebels". I am open to leaving it as "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", or "Government of Libya" (although I prefer leaving it as "Libya"), but I would rather "Libyan Republic" be changed to "National Transitional Council".--RM (Be my friend) 15:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, de facto there are. Just as in American civil war American Confederate States fought United States of America, in Libya Gaddafi government fights NTC, ie rebel government. Both those governments are partially recognized, both have standing military which is engaged in battle, both have lawmaking power, both are partially recognized (in case of UN, Libyan ambassador to United Nations defected to rebels in February and claim to represent NTC). The difference between this civil war and, say, Sierra Leone civil war is that RUF was just an paramilitary organization with chain of command. However NTC goes beyond this by establishing formal government and formal ties to all state institutions on rebel held territories. As for capirat - Republic of China claims that its capital is Nanking as well. Also control of country is more or less devided, no one controls most of it (control of unihabited territory in Fezzan holds on strategical meaning, aside of border crossing with Chad, Sudan and Algeria) and consensus among editors was at the beginning of war to refer to Gaddafi forces as "loyalists" and to NTC forces as "rebels" because that is most used mainstreat name. Current situation is that Gaddafi Jamahiriya doesn´t fight some paramiltiary movement but established governmental forces of another entity. In this case both Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Libyan Republic are the same thing. --EllsworthSK (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is standard for anti-government rebels to try and gain international recognition and support, but until they overthrow Gaddafi, they are a rebel movement fighting to overthrow their nation's government. It is not another entity, it is a paramilitary force holding parts of Libyan territory and enjoying broad international support. For example, if a rebel movement started in the U.S. with a bid to overthrow the government, and they held on to some territory, it would not be two entities, it would be a government fighting an armed revolt. But anyway, there is another reason, too. Listing the combatants as "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" and "Libyan Republic" implies that there are two sovereign states in a war, rather than an established government fighting rebels.--RM (Be my friend) 21:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Main page on Libya states that there are two entities which claims to represent whole Libya. You´re brining too much POV to this matter, facts are that as Gaddafi, so TNC government have same amount of legitimacy to govern territories controled by them and they have both the same institutions to do the job, so Gaddafi is not fighting rebel organization, but rebel government. The precedent was applied in American civil war and Chinese civil war articles where PRC was founded in 1949, however NTC established Libyan Republic by first its founding and second by creation of government. Letting article as you left it, ie Government of Libya fighting one organization is misleading, this is not fight between central government and one or more movements, this is fight between two organized, unitarian entities. Once again we´re dealing there with current situation and that changed since February 15th. Article has to reflect it. --EllsworthSK (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Weapons depot

I am offended with your accusation of POV pushing, you should not make those kinds of accusations on Wikipedia lightly. I was writting per the New York times article so there was no untruth. Also, I corrected your edit. Your source itself says the weapons were dating back to '72 not '82 (missiles were only up to '82). Also your sources, like the New York times, confirmed that only missiles and missile launcher parts were found and not launchers themselves and, again, there were no guns found only boxes of ammunition. If they only found ammunition for missile launchers and guns, but without launchers and guns to fire them from, how is this a significicant arms capture as they said. An arms capture would imply they captured weapons as well, which they didn't. ;) EkoGraf (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It was a misunderstanding, I was refering to both you and Sopher99 with whom you engaged in edit war. Or at least it seems to me that way. Also I never, ever, wrote anything about found guns and its dubious wether launchers were found [8]. Also there is significancy since Al Qaa military barracks were one of the largest ammo depots in whole Africa and although rebels have not yet encountered lack of ammunition, it is vital part of warfare. I hope that you didnt take my post hardly, I always only try to improve article. If you did however, than I apologize since it was not my intention. --EllsworthSK (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Is Ali Attalah Obeidi also known as Suliman Mahmoud al-Obeidi?

This is in response to the edit you made in the Misrata Frontline article, with the rebel commander KIA'd on Wednesday. I am just trying to understand if you believe that these are the same people. The source you gave showed that Ali Attalhi Obeidi was killed on Wednesday on the frontline, while the infobox in the article for the rebel commanders says the other name. I don't know much about Arabic naming, but Obeidi seems to be a relatively common name in the country. The new foreign minister is also named Obeidi for instance, as is the woman who claimed rape by Gaddafi soldiers back in March. Any idea here? Jetpower45 (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

All I know is that major general from Mitiga air base in Tripoli defected to Misrata. His name however bugs me as well, one video says its Suliman, other that it is Ali Attah. What we can say for sure is that on both videos is the one and same general so I´m going to change the name to Ali Attalah Obeidi. --EllsworthSK (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Brega

I hope you at least now realize you were mistaken.Btw instead of accusing everyone of POV pushing you should consider maybe it's you who's more than a little bias on this subject.Clearly.76.64.45.184 (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

And again, you´re absolutely missed the point. Reverted someone sourced edit based on you POV on source which has nothing to do with WP:RS IS breaching of WP:POLICY, not even mentioning that in sentence it was clearly stated about whose article we´re talking about. I see this is your first edit so I suggest you to read WP:RS before editing any further. --EllsworthSK (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but my edit was just fine, yours will stay reverted as the "source" has now been fully refuted.76.64.45.184 (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

And once again, you missed the point. First of all article always deals with current situation and does not guess the future. Press TV is used on wikipedia widely as WP:RS without any significant objections, besides articles dealing with holocause or Israel where there is strong debate among other on RS Noticeboard. Wikipedia has its instruments as to how differetiate sources, if you´ll read WP:RS you´ll know how. As for reversion of edit, what you and EkoGraf did was reverted of sourced edits based on your POV and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, thankfully in morning another articles showed up which clarified what happened as a breach of defence lines by scouting group which than retreated but till nothing like that showed up reversion of such edit is violation of WP:POLICY. So once again, read the rules before editing any further, it will help you in future. --EllsworthSK (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

As for what I and EkoGRaf did, I think we will just agree to disagree.take care76.64.45.184 (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I just want to say, on my part, that the reason I reverted the edits was because Press TV in the past was found to be highly unreliable on this specific conflict. They made numereous statements highlighting rebel success which was later found to be non-existant. And seems now we have again a similar situation today. Now it's Al Arabiya (also highly pro-rebel) who is also reporting that today...again...the loyalists were withdrawing to Bishr. However...again...no other reliable media, or even the rebels themselves, have reported on the fall of Brega. So until all mainstream media confirm the fall those are just reports and not even reports but rumors. EkoGraf (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's not just this conflict.

So if you exclude mideast politics in general maybe press tv is reliable. 206.248.174.218 (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sweden

Well if you love Sweden so much why dont you add it to the drop down box? Besides , compared to the UK , France and USA its contribution is very minimal. Goldblooded (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I dont really know why some users have to stuck their nose into something that works. Are states in the dropbox in NATO which has unified command? Yes, they are. Are there other states which are participating? Yes, there are. Are those states listed below NATO which covers all NATO members states as miliatry alliance? Yes, they are. So what is your problem? Jordan is not participating in air strikes as well, Albania is participating only by one frigate, Romania and Turkey are also participating only by naval blocade, yet those are fine to stay but for some unexplained reason Sweden should not. Great. --EllsworthSK (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

British airman

He has been declared by the news media and by the both British military to had died in support of operations in Libya. I would wish you to please leave out your personal oppinions and stop removing sourced information. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

He is not casulties of war, he didnt die as a result of this conflit, nor had he died in conflict area. Would you classify serviceman which died in Rammstein AB as he was lifting cargo to plane which was suposed to be send to Afghanistan as an ISAF or Afghan war casultie? He didnt die in conflict zone, nor as a result of this conflict therefore he should be not classified as such. What sources says is that he died in support of operation, not in operation. Moving him to such infobox is highly misleading. --EllsworthSK (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Your personal oppinion of the situation doesn't count. The official line of the British government does. And the official line is he was part of the operation and he died. Not all deaths in a war are combat-related and not all participants of a war are in the combat zone itself. 10,000 US soldiers were killed in non-combat situations not related to combat in the Vietnam war (hundreds of them in Thailand or Japan, way out of Vietnam) and they are listed on the Black Wall. Around a hundred US soldiers died in Kuwait in support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and they have been deemed to be casualties of those wars by both the media and the US government. Your reasoning to remove sourced information is not understandable. Also, just so you know, just a few months ago, a British airman who died at an air-base in Malta was declared to be a casualty of the Afghan war by the British government because he was supporting air-lifting operations to Afghanistan. ;) In any case, he has been declared by the British MoD to be a participant of Operation Ellamy, end of story. EkoGraf (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You raised a good points therefore I changed my mind. I think it should be noted somewhere that he died in Italy and not in Libya though but I agree with having him there. --EllsworthSK (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He didnt die of enemy action though , And even millitary sources evidently showed that he died of an accident not a crash or a enemy action etc. The briton who died in malta died of his wounds when he was air lifted there.Goldblooded (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, it wasn't Malta, it was Cyprus. Here is the source [9]. He died, after returning from Afghanistan, during a boating accident of Cyprus while conducting decompression activities. :) EkoGraf (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I was about to say actually there isnt a British base in malta, exactly he died from returning from afghan. Besides this guy in the libyan campaign didnt die because of enemy action and it wasnt a material loss either such as a jet Goldblooded (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

But personally it shouldnt realy be there since like i said it wasnt a material loss such as a jet and it wasnt in Libya or because of enemy action. Perhaps it could be mentioned else where in the article but not in the "casaulties" box since that implies war casulties. Goldblooded (talk)

Son of Zintam military commander killed

Read the article more carefully [10] quoting it for you One person died in the fighting, Jwaili said -- his 16-year-old cousin, Youssef Jwaili, son of the Zintan military commander. Several others were injured, Jwaili said. EkoGraf (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I see now.--EllsworthSK (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Younis

Official statement [11][12] he was killed by the rebel secret police, the February 17 Brigade. So would you please stop having so much faith into what the rebels say? It has been proven by now time and again that in this war they are as much liers as the loyalists are. I don't trust what eather the rebels say or the loyalists say, but I have much less faith in the rebels because they actualy lie more often than the loyalists. The loyalists only always say Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda, and Nescafe XD, and don't say 5 different stories on the same subject in one day. In this case, it was the loyalists who said the truth from the start. They said from the start he was killed by the rebels themselves because of suspicion he was a double agent. And I don't exclude the possibility he was still a loyalist. I mean, come on, 41 years with Gaddafi and he switches sides just five days after the war starts? I don't trust eather of them (loyalist or rebel) until I hear independent confirmation from Reuters or some such.EkoGraf (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

So is it my fault that Jalil says something and next day Tarhouni says the opposite? You claimed that he said that he was killed by unknown group, I said that Jalil said that he was gunned down by pro-G cells what can be verified on Al Jazeera translation of his speech. I never even presented it as a fact so Im really bugged about the point of this discussion. As for the speculations - there are reports fro various sources - one says that he was killed by LIFG members as an act of vengence for his involvemnt in LIFG crackdown as minister, other that he was Gaddafis agent. And truth to be told I can hardly believe that he was an agent, if he was he could´ve switched sides during 2nd battle of Benghazi. Problem with this Feruary 17 Martyrs brigade is that it is just fancy name of vigilantees which do what they like, arrest people who they suspect are connected to Gaddafi and even run their own detention centers without beeing under strong supervision of NTC. They are basicly a mob with guns and a stamp which runs up and down on rebel held eastern territories because they are allowed to, whole existence of this "Brigade" is a major screw up on rebel side and now they payed the price. --EllsworthSK (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I never said it's you fault. o.O And Jalil never said he was gunned down by pro-G, he clearly said he was gunned down by unknown gunmen, it was specificly pointed out on BBC news and CNN he stoped short of blaming the loyalists. I was just trying to advise you to not put so much faith into what the rebels claim. And you are right, that brigade is a mob, and in essence the whole rebel army is one big mob with guns. They all do have officers, but they hardly ever listen to their officers, hence the reason they are going nowhere in this war. And if he was a double agent, logic dictates he wouldn't even switch sides during the 2nd battle of Benghazi, the faith of double agents is always pre-determined, he would have stayed until the end at his position. And if you so much doubt he was an agent than let me ask you this. Why did his son scream We want Moammar to come back! We want the green flag back! at his funeral?[13] ;) EkoGraf (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact he did, see [14] and he repeated it again today [15] despite that Tarhouni said it were members of February 17 Martyrs Brigade and media sources which said that those were islamists from LIFG. Rebel army is disorganized but they have chain of command, they have their RoE and fall under civil command of NTC defence minister. Feb 17 Martyrs brigade didnt fall under ministry of interior, they were merely "communicating" with them, in fact they were put under its command just now after this screw up. They were just group of vigilantees with no responsibilities and all power and since NTC officials didnt want to have problems with them they left them alone. And his son just lost father, he was clearly destroyed by his loss. His cousin and representatives of al-Obeidi tribe declared on the same funeral their support for NTC and Thunderbirds unit stayed on frontline. And Younis was member of Gaddafi inner circle for decades, yes, but than again. Jalil was one of the closest persons to Saif al-Islam which made him minister of justice and stood by him even after Jalil publicly critizied Gaddafi and ministry of interior because of Abu Slim massacre. If anyone would dare to do this decade or two ago he would be executed immidiately. Instead Jalil remained on his position and that was solely because of Saif al-Islam. --EllsworthSK (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Brega

If this is a new battle for the town, which I would wait for at least one more day to confirm, than we start a new article because this may be a new offensive/battle to take the town. New offensive, new battle, new article. Again, the previous rebel offensive on the town was stopped by the loyalists in its tracks, you cant simply deny it. And your statement that rebel officials never claimed victory is not true. A spokesman for the Benghazi council claimed they controlled most of Brega at one point and the French foreign minister himself also claimed the rebels had full control of the town. I have already talked to Lothar, the Reuters reporters statement can be interpreted more along the lines of a battle for those last 20 kilometers of road to Brega than for the town itself. And, for the sake of compromise, I have proposed that we make the Fourth battle of Brega part of the Brega-Ajdabiya road campaign, but still keep a separate article for the battle. And if there is a fifth battle, which this right now may be the beginning of, than we also say that the Fifth battle is also part of the Brega-Ajdabiya campaign. EkoGraf (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think Lothar and I have come to some sort of agreement. We declare the fourth battle part of the Brega-Ajdabiya campaign with that campaign still continuing after the fourth battle. But we still need to keep a separate article for the fourth battle because it could not be in any way compared what happened during the 3 months prior. EkoGraf (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thats good compromise, I agree with it although you are aware about my opinion of merging both articles into one (which was however rejected by all editors). --EllsworthSK (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Libya

Out of curiosity, would you be interested in joining WikiProject Libya? You've become a regular at this point in chronicling the civil war, alongside editors like EkoGraf, Yalens, and myself. It's mostly a symbolic thing, but I think it'd be good if you signed on. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for invitation. --EllsworthSK (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Aziziya.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Aziziya.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Aziziya.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Aziziya.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Aziziya.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Aziziya.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Civil war - Revolution

It would be good to also cast your oppose vote in the section Rename proposals on the discussion page of the main article on the war. Since two votings on the same issue are going on. EkoGraf (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for heads-up, its done. --EllsworthSK (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Sirte (2011)

You deleted my recent addition to the Battle of Sirte on the grounds that "Giving as source G propaganda chanell in Syria which said today that Gaddafi forces sunked NATO warship is truly an excellent idea." I do agree that Ar Rai is not among the most reliable sources of information for this conflict, but here one must inspect the context and the contents of my edit. I added these sources to counterbalance a vague claim from an unknown source that didn't have any evidence at all. Ar Rai media might be a propaganda voice of the Gaddafi regime, but at least it has provided us visual material from inside the city. It is completely irrelevant how staged the events in the newsreels are, as the main information they provide for us is that the city has been in the loyalists hands for the past months which contradicts the claims from Al Jazeera blog. I made all the efforts to signal that the source of the information was biased ("pro-Gaddafi") and that one should not take anything it provides as granted ("seemed to contradict"). Therefore I cannot see any logical reason why my edit should be removed but the original rumor should stay in the article. Certainly when the article gets rewritten afterwards, both of these news snippets will get removed as more information is revealed and more consistent chapters will be formed, but currently as the events are still in progress I think that both edits should be kept in the article. Of course I am not as seasoned editor as you, and I might have missed something here or it is possible that I have been braking some Wikipedia rule that I'm not aware of. Anyways, it would be nice if you could explain me in more detail why my edit had to be removed. Susurri (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ar Rai is no reliable source, period. It is propaganda chanell, its like sourcing edits with mathaba or feb17.info - both which were deleted and had to be either repaced by WP:RS or be gone forever. So, if you want to source your edit use Reliable Source, not Al Rai. Like it or not, Al Jazeera, Reuters and other world medias are such, Gaddafi propaganda chanell or al Manara (NTC propaganda chanell) are not such. That is all. As for that AJE Blog, it never said anything like that. --EllsworthSK (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I never claimed that Ar Rai was reliable. Because twitter posts and raw footage from mobile phones have been previously (and are still) used to source claims for the Timeline article and for updating the maps, I presumed that the footage itself is valid enough evidence for the Battle of Sire article as well. But, I trust you word, and try to update my policy from now on. Susurri (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like a whiner, I just can't let this one go. I just noticed that you sourced some claims regarding Ghat in the Fezzan_campaign article with video clips from pro-NTC youtube accounts. I don't see how this is consistent with the WP:RS policy that you advocated just a while ago when we were talking about the Sirte article. While I do agree that the videos provide solid enough evidence to draw the conclusion that the locations mentioned have been taken by the NTC, what I do not understand is why the same didn't apply to my additions. Care to explain again? Susurri (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Simply because unlike in Sirte I do not have any alternative informations. While there are hundreds of articles, journalists on the ground, analysis, comments etc. about battle of Sirte we have next to nothing about Ghat beside NTC claim that all land border and all border crossing were secured. Constistent with RS? No. But do I or any other (as I called for nearly a month on talk pages as for main page image so on main page as well) user have anything but this? Not as well. Also what I am dealing with is status of city and also it isnt NTC propaganda chanell as that video shows nothing more than an images from city without any text, without any commentary and only with some Libyan song or something. It isnt officialy run chanell of anybody, financed by anybody or backed by either of the regime and not part of information war as is case of Ar Rai vs. Al Manara and mind you, this is not a precedent. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

And you´re probably going to argue about WP:OR, what would be understandable, however before you do Id like something, anything regarding Ghat district which wouldn´t be classified as such. I don´t have anything like that and nor had IPs with which I had argued about and declined to colour Ghat as beeing controlled by NTC until someone will provide a solid evidence. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

True, but I feel that the same logic can be applied to Sirte also. Yes, we have hundreds of articles from hundreds of journalists on the field, but not a single independent source from inside the city itself. The claims by the NTC spokesperson were related to the events that had transpired inside the city (before the battle of Sirte), and as in the case of Ghat, it had been a long time since any reliable information was available. The spokesperson said that Sirte had been "under siege by pro-Gaddafi forces for several months", during this time all the information came either from the NTC or Gaddafi government or loyalist propaganda clips. In this context I thought (and still do) that even the propaganda clips could provide us some minimal information content i.e. it is doubtful that the majority of the city had been held by the rebels for several months. Susurri (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Not true, we do have independent sources in the city, although on the or behind the frontline. As for your edit I never argued about Sirte beeing under siege by pro-G forces was bullcrap and if it was up to me I wouldn´t even add that part there but it was just info, not something considered to be reliable and hence in article this part was always presented as and only declaration of one side of the conflict, not as fact. Also my links were removed from Fezzan article. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated.

Apparently we are involved in an amorous relationship with Moussa Ibrahim? Lol. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Damn, shit just got serious. We angered the order of the internet. --EllsworthSK (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sirte

Please, read sources more carefuly, since you didn't see it I will quote it for you. NTC scouts had earlier probed loyalist defences, advancing as far as two kilometres (just over a mile) west from the central police headquarters before pulling back. It goes on to describe the scouting force captured the school during their advance from where they bombarded the loyalists who returned fire with heavy weapons. And it says...The fighters were later heading back to NTC base for the night. It doesn't say anything about R&R. Also, the source doesn't say anything about them leaving anybody at all at the school to hold it after they went back to the station, source was preaty clear they all went back to their starting positions. Over and over again its been said by the fighters themselves that during the night they retreat from positions they capture during the day. EkoGraf (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera [16] confirmed the frontline hadn't moved for the past 24 hours. EkoGraf (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It's over! (?)

Mazel tov! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

They captured his fortress, hat and even him. So yes EllsworthSK (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Political map

Hi. I just noticed this map update proposal. The file was last updated in May 2011 and it was outdated then too, so good effort. Persuant to the query raised there, every autonomous region in Somalia is unionist. The defunct Maakhir notwithstanding (it was officially incorporated into Puntland in 2009 [17]), they all consider themselves federal states as per the country's new draft constitution. The new constitution allows for the formation of such autonomous entities under a federal government, and is expected to come into effect later on this year. Only the separatist authorities in Somaliland seek outright independence, though the territory is internationally recognized as an autonomous region of Somalia. As far as the regional divisions are concerned, a reliable guide to use for the political map is this other map. It's based on another Somali Political Control Map 2011 that was published by U.S. Senator Mark Kirk. You'll have to adjust the relative proportions controlled by each administrative entity vs. Al-Shabaab according to the latest reports on the progress of the military campaign (which can be found here and here). For instance, the TFG and its Ethiopian allies recently captured the strategic town of Beledweyne in the central Hiran region from the insurgents, so this will have to be reflected in the map. Let me know if you need any help. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your post. I understand that Puntland and other regions consider themself federal subjects, however my question was more related wether there is some treaty which was signed by both regions and TFG about its incorporation under TFG and their representation in TFP, in other words wether they are de jure and de facto part of Republic of Somalia and thus can be shown on map as such. Also I know about recent AMISON/TFG offensive in Hiran region but I was more interested about the status of central Somalia (north of Mogadishu) which are shown on map as under control of al-Shabaab, especially Gaguduud region. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

All the regions cited in Senator Mark Kirk's map regard themselves as part of Somalia and are internationally recognized as as such, including by the TFG. Only the separatist government in Somaliland doesn't, but it too is internationally recognized as a part of Somalia. Please refer to worldstatesmen for an overview of the political situation in Somalia as far as the autonomous regional divisions are concerned. You can also find sourced timelines on the progress of the military campaign here and here, including the TFG's capture of Mogadishu and Beledweyne. Those should help with keeping the map up-to-date. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

AM666999 just posted links on the file talk page to these two BBC articles [18] [19] containing a map which appears to answer your question about control along the Somalia-Kenya border. Normally I'm skeptical about simple maps published by major media outlets, because some of them are overly simplified, but that does not seem to be the case with this map. My impression is that it has been put together carefully and with attention to detail, as can be seen from various fairly small details which match our other sources. Evzob (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks about that map. Sorry that I still havent finished the map but this week Im really busy and little time I have I spend on work. Hopefully next week I shall deliver map I promised. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ellsworth. Are you still working on that map update? No pressure, I was just curious because I saw that another user had posted their own update, though I've been out of touch for awhile and I'm not able to determine just yet how accurate it is. I think I'll start working on an SVG version soon too, now that I'm back from vacation. But if you have an updated PNG in the works, that could still be useful for reference once I get the vector version done. Evzob (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Got your reply on my talk page. No worries - personal life is a good priority. :-) If I can get around to converting the map to SVG soon (by tracing it manually), then making further edits should be relatively smooth sailing from there anyway, for whomever of us ends up doing the updating. Evzob (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Syria

Hello to you Ellsworth. I've edited the revert you made on me which placed the term "dictatorship" back on the Syrian uprising page. I had originally written "authoritarian" but now it says "totalitarian". There is a reason for this: by referring to a system as being one of these, we can source it easily and there can be no denial by the subject. Dictatorship is a completely different matter, it is something merely claimed by the rebels and repeated by sources sympathising with those rebels whilst the president does not model himself as "Dictator". He will argue that the country is democratic and that he was twice elected to his position. It may be dubious but this is the case for many countries past and present. Hailing from Slovakia, you'll know many of the younger people consider Vladimir Mečiar a dictator yet we cannot go amending the articles to claim these individuals are that. We state their given titles and comment on it according to source and the reader will draw his own conclusions. I hope this is all right with you. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Im sorry but dictatorship as easily definied. Rulling circle of Syria absolutely falls into that definition without any problem at all, same goes for any other dictatorship where power is in control of inner circle and its most prominent member which mostly acts as head of the state. In this case Bashar al-Assad. Dictatorship doesnt mean that power is concentrated in solely one man but also to small group (fe North Korea is perfect example of dictatorship but even during Kim Jong-Ils era power wasnt solely in his hands but also in hands of upper KWP members and especially army generals) As for Mečiar - he was a thief, murderer and authocratic son of a bitch but he was elected in free and fair elections where opposition participated - something Bashar al-Assad never did. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I know it is easily defined, the problem is whether it is accepted by all sides. Is this a title that one bestows upon himself or is it a label imposed by the opponents? This is how Wikipedia's neutrality policy works. Besides, I believe that the very best term to describe the Syrian system is despotism. Be that as it may, if I were to insert that term it would equally be WP:OR. You mentioned the North Koreans but neither on their pages nor anywhere else is any derivative of dictator used. Concerning Mečiar, the "participating" opposition never considered his appointment free and fair. I may also state that when we refer to something as totalitarian, it states precisely that. It's just totalitarian best describes the ruling system which gives rebel groups reason to wage war unlike dictatorship which is a direct attack on the leadership itself. Surely there is no problem with totalitarian system? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I have hard time figuring out what do you mean by that "accepted by all sides". Dictatorship will never go out and publicly state that it is dictatorship of small group of people which without any legitimate mandate from population are running country. What matters are how reliable sources are calling it and also figuring out the common name used by them. As for totalitarian system vs. despotism vs. dictatorship there is a shallow line which differs them which is sometimes hard to locate and is source for many disputes, like for example the one we are having now. For example take dictatorship article and see second definition of dictatorship. That one perfectly fits for Syria - country where head of state inherited power because of birthright and country is controled by small group of people - inner Baath party circle made up from both civilians and army generals. As for NK word dictatorship is used in their constitution. And lastly - I remember Mečiar era and I remember that his right to rule was challenged by opposition because he was using criminal and unconstitutional methods (abduction of Kováč jr by secret servise to Austria, assassination of key witness to that abduction Remiáš, night of the long knives, Gaulieder) but neither Christian Democrats (KDH), Slovak democratic left (SDĽ), Democratic Party (DS) or Hungarian parties (before they merged to SMK) ever challenged his popular support and freedom of elections (after all, every election was supervised by observers from OECD). And dictatorship and totalitarian system do not rule each other out, Syria beeing a totalitarian system (something I agree with) can be at a same time dictatorship. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just logged back after nearly a whole day so I wasn't ignoring you. Your last message was true top to bottom - read it back to yourself and you'll see exactly how something can be accepted from all sides. NK - as you say and I have no reason to disbelieve - mentions it in its constitution and for my own background, former Yugoslavia, a royal dictatorship was declared in 1929. Outside of this, there are states which don't admit to dictatorship but are on record as admitting not being democratic, Saudi Arabia the most famous example. This promptly leads me to the final remark of my previous post which now may seem clearer: the totalitarian system describes the undeniable condition of governance, dictatorship is a slap in the face to the leadership itself, who we have established, don't consider themselves such. Concerning sources, this has been a stumbling block many times over the years on WP. It is questionable to what extent a source can be reliable. It is one thing to reach a consensus and name BBC News and the Guardian (England) as reliable and a state-owned medium from another country as unreliable but it runs deeper than that. So-called reliable sources can often be selective and omissive and there is nothing that prevents a state-owned source telling the truth if indeed the truth has given it a propaganda boost. For most things, I follow four outlets: Al-Jazeera English, Russia Today, Euronews and on radio, BBC World Service/BBC Radio 4. Collectively you get the picture on things albeit 90% and somewhat distorted. I'll scan through what CNN/Fox News are saying but take little notice and besides, there is nothing new by this point. Journals such as the New York Times may be used here but they might sometimes be interviewing controversial figures purely to push a point and then an editor may use extracts from the interview providing the source (we've had this with Noel Malcolm down the years - from an over-subscribed Guardian piece). What I mean is, any medium which criticises either an administration in one country or a rebel organisation in another whilst hailing the respective opposition is unequivocally dubious because they might just as well be the mouthpiece for their preferred faction and we already know that other things are being said about them, even if only from the government suppressing them or from the rebels who are possibly branded as terrorists. There are always two sides to a story. In other words, some reliable sources who never question or doubt one individual whilst covertly saluting his opponent might just as well create a Party Political Broadcast for their protagonist.

Back to the issue at hand. I was thinking it might just be a good idea to remove the "causes" section completely, but it will need greater consensus. The "goals" section which states the introduction of a liberal democracy more or less presupposes dictatorship and the remaining goals largely confirm the causes. For example, unemployment will not be a concern for a well-paid middle-class Syrian whose brother has close links to someone from the Ba'ath Party! But an overall creation of jobs will clarify that there is an overwhelming percentage unhappy with their working arrangements (ie. no work/work but with low pay). Would you support this move?

Finally, about Mečiar. I did make a mistake. I follow politics worldwide and even confuse things at times. I was remembering around 2004 when the possibility of him returning to power in then upcoming voting caused an outrage among both public and opposition but as you know, it didn't happen - so sorry I raised a false alarm there. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Libyan National Army

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Libyan National Army, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-8246.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Libyan National Army

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Libyan National Army requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 16:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Libyan National Army for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Libyan National Army 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/Libyan National Army until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Libyan Ground Forces for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Libyan Ground Forces 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/Libyan Ground Forces until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Army

Hi, in my personal view, it is a bit hasty to declare any new names or putative organisations at this juncture; see the RfC at the main article. As to this organisation, I have no real opinion on it. To be dead honest, I've kind of lost track of everything has been going on over there in the typical post-revolution can't-get-shit-together phase (mostly due to RL distractions). I don't intend on commenting on the nomination, though. I have interacted with that Krohn character enough elsewhere in the past few days and have no desire to come into contact with him again in the near future if I can help it. Sorry.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If you wanted to create something new, the proper title would be Libyan military history. You would however need to find sources and start from antiquity. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please, explain what has it to do with anything. Just because we have Military history of Spain article it doesn´t mean we shouldn´t have military of Spain article. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Libyan Navy and former naval ensign

Please do not remove the naval ensign used during Ghadaffi's era from Libyan Navy again without proper explanation for it's exclusion. Per multiple other naval articles ([20], [21], [22]), former ensigns are included. There is no reason for it to be excluded simply because it is no longer in use. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict

I'm afraid another user happened to remove my previous changes in this edit. I therefore had to revert both your edits and those of that editor who happened to add to you corrupted version. I hope you'll be able to redo your edits without too much trouble. __meco (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Nah, as a matter of fact you reverted my edits few seconds before I attempted the same thing. Part which I added was already mentioned in the article and I noticed it just after I added it there second time. So actually, thanks ;) EllsworthSK (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)