User talk:Baba Mica

Hello, Baba Mica, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! bobrayner (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to 2014 insurgency in Donbass. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 15:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

RGloucester — ☎ 02:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Mica, I have tried to explain WP policy about RS, I have tried to be helpful in explaining the difference between what is generally regarded as the start date of an event, and other events which led up to that event. You appear to be uninterested in either of these, so be it. I do not wish to continue the discussion on my talk page, because your arguments are WP:OR and WP:other stuff exists.Pincrete (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Mica, you also need to pay attention to WP:BRD. Once you've had an edit reverted, you need to discuss your proposed additions on the article's talk page rather than just making the same or a similar edit again. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Iraqi insurgency (2011–14), Baba Mica!

Wikipedia editor Catmando999 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This article is well sourced and well written Thank you fro your contributions to Wikipedia.

To reply, leave a comment on Catmando999's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Iraqi insurgency (2011–14). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Iraqi insurgency (2011–13). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Iraqi insurgency (2011–13) – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. KylieTastic (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not the way to extend an article. If the Iraqi insurgency (2011–13) needs to be extended then it should be discussed on the talk page and if agreed move the page to Iraqi insurgency (2011–14). This way the page history is kept. KylieTastic (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and thank you for contributing the page Ледене очи to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, the article is not in English. We invite you to translate it into English. It has been listed at Pages Needing Translation, but if it is not translated within two weeks, the article will be listed for deletion. Thank you.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 22:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Cordless Larry. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Somali Civil War, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I certainly can. Just looking for a reference. :) --Baba Mica (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before reinstating the date with a reference, I suggest reading Note 1 and the extensive discussion on the article talk page that resulted in that note. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source that confirms January 26, 1991 for the start of the civil war in Somalia.--Baba Mica (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the point made in that note is that different sources give different start dates. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one of my case. I fought for years I ispamovao pages around the date of the beginning Bosnian War. Baba Mica (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I remind you of this discussion, Baba Mica, before you try edits like this again? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They did not want to admit that the war began with the murder of Serbian civilians in Bascarsija on March 1, 1992. The international community believes that the start of the war on April 6 It is a day of recognition of the independent state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He ignored all previous conflicts. The same dispute over the date of the beginning of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina had on Russian Wikipedia where not only do not recognize the true beginning of the war on March 1. They are even bigger hypocrites, where as in accordance with rules that do not insult the other warring parties. Then they put the date as the beginning of the war in the spring of 1992. :D It's funny and sad at the same time.--Baba Mica (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to wipe humanitarian assistance in Iraq. The infoboxes are reserved for military matters only. EkoGraf (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous user is correct. Offensive is not over until they capture all of the districts. Pro-Kurdish twitter user not reliable sources until major media outlets also report it. EkoGraf (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't understand totally your last message but, the main article is about the battle for the city, not the province. The offensive article is specifically about rebels vs SAA (and SDF). No battle between SAA and Kurds. No reliable sources have yet confirmed the capture of the last half a dozen districts. EkoGraf (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are celebrating yes. But it has not totally ended. The rebels are still holding out in three districts. EkoGraf (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there are currently 2 articles about the battle in Wadi Barada, the Siege of Wadi Barada and the Wadi Barada offensive, both created on 27 December with a mere 3 hour difference. What do you think? Shouldn't they be merged? Editor abcdef (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would gladly do it but its a technical revert (since there already existed a previous article with the same name) and only an administrator can do it. EkoGraf (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of them. The request has to be posted at an appropriate administrator noticeboard. EkoGraf (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its still the same offensive, not a separate one, that was started in the direction of al-Bab as part of the Battle of al-Bab. Also, its still taking place in the Al-Bab Plateau. It would not make sense to make an article for an offensive from a start date that's weeks after the actual offensive started and ignore the previous one month of the offensive. It would be Original Research. EkoGraf (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's the question of notability as per Wikipedia policy on whether it would deserve its own article or not even if it wasn't part of the Battle of al-Bab during the first month. And the offensive is actually still pretty much part of the Battle of al-Bab since the SAA is still making attempts to capture Tadef (1 km from al-Bab). EkoGraf (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page. Not just me but another editor as well voiced concern regarding the reliability and also notability of the article. There are no sources confirming that there has been an organised offensive taking place by ether side near Khanasir, other than short-term assaults perpetrated by ether side. The capture of the eastern bank of the lake is more linked to the currently ongoing SAA offensive further north at the Kweires air-base and Al-Bab, and has already been mentioned in that article. Also, some of the sources you cited not only make no mention of an offensive but are unreliable and not accepted by Wikipedia standards (such as youtube and http://isis.liveuamap.com). EkoGraf (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to create a new article for ISIL's offensive in Daraa province. But don't lump it together with the rebel's offensive in Daraa city. Its a separate military operation. EkoGraf (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for the other battles you mentioned. They may or may not happen, but until they do we cann't create any articles per Wikipedia's policy (WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL). EkoGraf (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real Qaboun offensive. So far it has only been a few clashes around the district and some shelling but no real all-out assault on the district. So unless there is a large-scale operation taking place there is no reason to create an article for it. The offensive in eastern Aleppo by the SAA shouldn't be called Lake Assad offensive since its not the common term nor is it actually taking place near the lake (yet). I'll come up with a title myself and create an article for it tomorrow or the day after when I find the time. As for the ISIL offensive in Daraa, I would suggest the title ISIL Daraa offensive (February 2017) and we rename the other one to Rebel Daraa offensive (February 2017). EkoGraf (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already warned you this is against Wikipedia policy regarding WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. The article you created Al-Quaboun offensive itself says per cited sources that a ground offensive has not started yet and that only artillery firing has so far took place. And also, you again cited liveumap which is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Other media outlets also report that sporadic negotiations are still taking place to try and prevent any offensive. Wikipedia does not predict possible future events that could take place. This article is a prediction that also violates Wikipedia policy regarding Original Research. If no real ground offensive takes place in the next few days the article will have to be redirected. Only artillery shelling does not count. EkoGraf (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is the issue of notability of the event. Wikipedia does not create articles for every possible minor clash or short-term operation that takes place in the conflict. Unless something is notable it does not deserve an article per Wikipedia policy. IF a ground offensive does take place, we will see if it becomes notable enough to warrant keeping the article. EkoGraf (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

East Aleppo offensive (February 2017) done as I said. EkoGraf (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't become notable or large yet. We should wait a few more days to see how things play out. EkoGraf (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. EkoGraf, I think it is not appropriate title of the article Palmyra offensive (2017). Why do I say? Because it's still early. No offensive began on 12 January at Palmira, but the entire eastern province of Homs. Similarly, you submitted to the Al-Qaboun offensive (February 2017) I opened the paper prematurely. However, there are offensive in this village and who are fighting for the settlements. For Palmira battle has not started yet. Maybe tomorrow, the day after tomorrow ... But has not the Syrian army reached the entrance to the city. I think the title of Eastern Homs offensive (January-February 2017) the most appropriate until they start fighting for the city of Palmyra. Then you should open a new article Palmyra offensive (2017). It is very soon. --Baba Mica (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a new article. Current fighting is a continuation of the offensive that started at T4 on January 13 (Palmyra offensive (2017)). Its now obvious the offensive was launched with the intent of recapturing the whole Palmyra area. LightandDark2000 already properly renamed the article so it fits with the established template of all of the previous Palmyra offensive articles. Also, the previous SAA-led offensive a year ago was also launched not so far from T4 like the current one. Previously all of our Palmyra offensive articles included both the fighting in the city as well as in the desert and mountains outside it (like now). We never make articles for just the fighting inside the city because its usually a battle that lasts only a few hours or a day or two. So, everything is as it should be. We just continue editing Palmyra offensive (2017). EkoGraf (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No sources that the entire eastern Homs province territory is the goal of the offensive. Sources at the moment indicate the only goal of the offensive is to retake areas that they lost in ISIL's December offensive, which is Palmyra and the areas around it. Speculating that Palmyra is just a stopover would be unsourced Original Research. EkoGraf (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you or me think Palmyra is significant or not does not really matter. Per Wikipedia's policy, notability is established based on how notable established sources think it is. And at the moment, all available sources regard Palmyra as notable enough. Plus, like I already said before, this is according to the already previous established naming template we have set with the previous offensives, see: Palmyra offensive (May 2015), Palmyra offensive (July–August 2015), Palmyra offensive (March 2016) and Palmyra offensive (December 2016). As for the Manbij article that you want to create. At the moment there is no need for an article, because the current Rebel/Turkish vs SDF/Kurdish fighting is sufficiently covered in the East Aleppo offensive (February 2017) article. IF and WHEN the rebels and Turkey really do launch a large-scale organised offensive towards Manbij we will see about creating an article, but for now they seem primarily intent on possibly reaching Arima and, like I said, we already are covering that as part of the East Aleppo offensive article. EkoGraf (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The support sections of military infoboxes are reserved only for those who provide logistical/weapon military support to one of the belligerents. Its not reserved for those that provide humanitarian or political support. In regard to your five sources: 1st makes no mention of any kind of support by Serbia to Syria; 2nd and 3rd talk about humanitarian (not military) assistance provided; 4th talks about political (not military) support to Russia (not even Syria); 5th speculates about possible (emphasis on speculates and possible) Serb military assistance to the humanitarian mission (not that it actually was provided), and the source also notes the Serbian Ministry of Defense rejected any involvement by the Serbian military because Serbian laws do not allow it. That Russia provides support to Serbia in regards to Srebrenica and Kosovo has no impact on the Syria conflict, because these are two totally different subjects. Also, none of the sources provided state anything about Serbian weapons support to Syria. EkoGraf (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Mica, have you paid attention to anything EkoGraf has explained to you? You've tried to reintroduce the same misleading content a couple of times since he left this message for you (here and here). Please stop trying to slow edit-war incorrect content back into the infobox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:Offensive of the Iraqi army to Nineveh and Anbar Governorate Governorate Deir ez Zor Estern Hons (Iraqi-Syrian border).png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Offensive of the Iraqi army to Nineveh and Anbar Governorate Governorate Deir ez Zor Estern Hons (Iraqi-Syrian border).png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 02:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. I am instead of edited images Microsoft Picture Manager, but I do not like the picture because of too low resolution. Remove immediately. Do not wait a week. I hope I can arrange better resolution? --Baba Mica (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you need a license, I'll paint a Sony camera. I have a license for it.--Baba Mica (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:Offensive of the IraqiSyrian army to Nineveh and Anbar Governorate Governorate and Estern Homs Deir ez Zor (Iraqi-Syrian border).jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Offensive of the IraqiSyrian army to Nineveh and Anbar Governorate Governorate and Estern Homs Deir ez Zor (Iraqi-Syrian border).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 21:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip administrators, podrudići that postavimn permission. Three days and three nights make this article. My eyes fell out. I will certainly seek advice from other members and personal friends.--Baba Mica (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mosul-Deir Ezzor-Palmyra offensive has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is really no evidence that the two offensives are coordinated at all. The Eastern Homs offensive towards Deir ez-Zor and the Nineveh-Anbar offensive in Iraq are completely different operations. A lot of content in this article are unrelated information, for example the Shayrat strike and the northern Hama offensive.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a lot of notable information in your edit on Battle of Mosul (2016–present). I doubt you did it on purpose, this kind of mistake has been done by me too before. But please be careful that you aren't accidentally removing any data. While editing, you can preview your edit on both desktop and mobile so you can see if you hadn't made any mistakes. Of course you can add or edit what you want but please take care that you aren't accidentally removing any data. Please be careful while you edit. Thank you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The information you removed concerns battle in Mosul as well, including your removing of events that happened inside Mosul. But the battle outside isn't different, it's under the same operation to cut off ISIL's escape and dismantle control in Nineveh. The battle extends to more than Mosul. Besides I suspect it will be over soon. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected your mistakes. And sorry but the battle in the west isn't separated. The offensive is for Nineveh as well to isolate and defeat ISIS in Mosul. You can see this on the article. And they're being carried out under the same operation. Sorry but your assertion isn't making much sense. We will establish a separate article for offensives in west of the country after this one ends as it won't be the same anymore. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand what you are talking about. But if you want to cut the article of Battle of Mosul then you'll have to get a consensus or even more appropriately an RfC as it's a big change and it's unwise to do it by yourself. We can create a seaparate Nineveh offensive later and if they go into Syria. But right now it's all for isloating ISIL Mosul completely and cutting off any escape attempts or attempts at any ISIL counter-attack to recapture Mosul. When it's finished as it likely might soon as a final assault is beginning, please start a new article if you have consensus of course. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should focus on updating this article Southern Syrian Desert offensive (May 2017–present). EkoGraf (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed and the word southern from the Southern Syrian desert offensive was removed, because geographically, the southern part of the Syrian desert is actually in Saudi Arabia. If there is an offensive following the capture of Maskanah and the conclusion of the current Syrian desert offensive, we will see where it takes place and according to its location we will name it. If, for example, its an offensive launched toward Deir ez-Zor, with that city being the clear target, then yeah that would be an appropriate name. EkoGraf (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sources have stated the attack on the Arak gas fields was part of the currently ongoing offensive throughout the Syrian desert, not a part of a push towards Deir ez-Zor. Furthermore, sources have stated that the currently ongoing offensive throughout the Syrian desert has the goal to prepare conditions for an eventual offensive towards Deir ez-Zor in the future. The offensive towards Deir ez-Zor has not started yet. EkoGraf (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

De jure or de facto, until sources say it has started we can not presume anything. Per Wikipedia's policy we are prohibited from predicting or assuming future events and creating articles based on those kinds of assumptions, read WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL please. EkoGraf (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When an offensive, with the ultimate goal being Deir ez-Zor, is announced, then we can open a new article. We cann't open an article based on speculation. The Iraqi PMF push that started west of Mosul on May 12th was announced to be the second phase of the offensive that started on April 25th which aims to seal the border with Syria. No mention of Deir ez-Zor in their goals. EkoGraf (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this was ongoing for few days already, offensive in Eastern Hama governorate, I am not sure about creating articles from scratch, made just 1 or 2 like that, I'm not sure if it deserves articles of its own, but ive seen much smaller operations having articles of their own. Here is example source of it: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/pictures-saa-launches-massive-operation-isis-east-hama-countryside/ , can find more if needed. Asking for your opinion because I see you have created many articles and probably got more experience than me in this department. GroundlessAir (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I wrote per the sources both in the new article you created and in the previous offensive article. There are no sources regarding June 2nd, for June 3rd it was the rebels who attacked first and the Army retaliated the next day (June 4th) with shelling, which some speculated it could also be preparation for the new SAA offensive, but that it had not started yet. On June 7th, this source [1] clearly says the offensive has started. EkoGraf (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That there were fighting and casualties between June 2nd and 7th doesn't mean that there was an offensive. Anyway, I provided you with the source which clearly says the offensive was launched today. EkoGraf (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, so far, there are no sources confirming any kind of Iraqi military intervention in Syria or any kind of joint Palmira-Mosul offensive. Second, the current fighting at Arak has been sourced to be one of the six active fronts as part of the Syrian Desert offensive (May 2017–present) and it is already covered in that article. So there is no point in creating a separate article for Arak, since the offensive of which it is a part of already exists. If you want to update the clashes taking place at Arak, feel free to updated the already existing article. EkoGraf (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, such as Raqqa campaign (2016–present), which you have recently edited. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

As I said before, the SAA's offensive west of Raqqa is separate from the SDF's Raqqa campaign. There is no such thing as the 6th phase of the campaign yet, and you're just making it up yourself. The SAA offensive should only be included in the aftermath of the Maskanah Plains offensive and not as a phase here. Editor abcdef (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The Raqqa campaign (2016-present) is about the SDF-led campaign. SAA operations west of Raqqah are separate. EkoGraf (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency with other articles East Hama offensive (2017) should be moved to Eastern Hama offensive (2017). I don't know how exactly to move an article so asking you, since you created it, also recently updated the article with some SAA progress. As I mentioned before this move is needed for consistency, because for example Eastern Homs offensive (2017) refers to eastern part of Homs Governorate, while East Aleppo offensive (January–April 2017) refers to eastern part of Aleppo city, thus having offensive with word "East" can be misleading into making people think there was some fighting in Hama city. Hope you'll find some time for the moving of the article, thank you in advance. GroundlessAir (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, the article you created was a fork article, because the subject was already covered in the article Syrian Desert campaign (May 2017–present). Read WP:REDUNDANTFORK for more information in this regard. Such articles are merged. Second, all editors (except you) so far agreed that the current fighting that is still taking place near Arak, in an attempt to push towards Sukhnah, was part of the overall Syrian Desert campaign. Plus, sources have stated it as such. Third, in the infobox you created it was written Syrian Army enters Al-Sukhnah. Please seek consensus with other editors on the issue through talk at Syrian Desert campaign (May 2017–present) instead of unilaterally forking the article. So to summarize, the current fighting along the Arak-Suknah road already has an article (Syrian Desert campaign) and is covered in there. A separate article is redundant. Thanks! EkoGraf (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS I read your earlier message regarding Sukhnah. That you consider Al-Sukhnah special and that it does not belong to Syrian Desert offensive (May 2017-present) is your personal opinion, which you are entitled to, but we can not edit Wikipedia based on personal opinions per its policy. Sources have stated that fighting on this axis of advance is part of the desert campaign, and we edit per sources. Also, there is the matter of notability. The SAA's general campaign throughout the Syrian desert in this part of the country is notable, and thus per WP policy deserves its own article. A Sukhnah offensive or battle so far is not notable. IF it does become notable then yes a separate article can be made. Read WP:NOTABILITY in this regard. Finally, in the article you created, you cited that on 22 June the SAA reported an offensive towards Sukhnah had started. But the cited source said no such thing. In fact, it said the SAA continue to grab more territories, which means this is a continuation of a previous operation. And (again) the Arak-Sukhnah battlefront was previously cited by sources to be part of the desert campaign, regardless of our personal opinions. EkoGraf (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, a large portion of the text you put was a copy-paste of the cited sources, which is a violation of WP:COPYPASTE, per which we are not allowed to do this. EkoGraf (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the texts are mostly some copies from the media. What are you wondering about? That is the problem, again, read WP:COPYPASTE, we are not allowed to copy texts from the sources, its considered a copy-violation and is prohibited per WP policy. Regarding Maskanah, I originally named it as a Eastern Aleppo offensive, but another editor renamed it to Maskanah Plains Offensive. I did not object to the rename, because sources were generally referring to the offensive taking place in the Maskanah Plains. As for all the others names, we name them per the common name in the sources, read WP:COMMONNAME. At the moment, no sources actually confirm any kind of Al-Sukhnah offensive. We (personally) do not determine if Qaboun and Jobar are more important than Al-Sukhnah. Notability is established based on sources, again, read WP:NOTABILITY. The offensive in Qaboun was highly notable in the mainstream media, and that's why there's an article. As for Jobar, you created it, I personally wouldn't have because it hasn't been really notable in the mainstream media, but it has gotten a little attention so I didn't object to its creation. Also, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:GOODFAITH. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daraa offensive (June 2017), i have a question for you: is this article not the same subject as Daraa offensive (February–June 2017)? Just hard to see logic behind this branching-off.Axxxion 22:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please read User talk:EkoGraf/Archive2018 1#Request for: this is for you as well: please note that it is not tongue-in-cheek, or suchlike: the articles in question are really perfectly unhelpful in the way the are written.Axxxion (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

″Daraa offensive (June 2017) is a military operation launched by the Syrian Arab Army and allies against rebel positions in the SOUTHERN half of Daraa city.″ (my capitalisation); the infobox says: ″Syrian Army captures at least 50% of the Daraa Refugee Camp″. The website of UNRWA states that the ″Dera'a refugee camp is located north of Dera’a City″ ( https://www.unrwa.org/where-we-work/syria/deraa-camp ) It does not quite add up, does it? Perhaps more background info is called for, as i have pointed out; otherwise all this tactical minutiae is plain meaningless.Axxxion (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daraa offensive (February–June 2017) was a rebel-initiated offensive, with the aim of capturing the Manshiyah District of Daraa city. It ended with the rebel capture of 95 percent of the district. Daraa offensive (June 2017) is a currently ongoing Syrian Army-initiated offensive, with the aim of capturing the Palestinian refugee camp. So these are two separate offensives for which we have two separate articles. The UNRWA sentence Dera'a refugee camp is located north of Dera’a City is factually incorrect. Since its establishment 65+ years ago, it has actually become a residential district of Daraa city itself and is located in the east-central part of the town as seen here on the map [2]. The lead sentence of the Daraa offensive (June 2017) article says ...in the SOUTHERN half of Daraa city because Daraa city is currently bisected between a government-controlled north and rebel-controlled south, with the refugee camp district being just within the southern half portion of the city. Also, the Army attacked two other southern rebel-held districts of the city, and not just the Palestinian area. EkoGraf (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article made Central Syria campaign (July 2017–present). EkoGraf (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Super. :)--Baba Mica (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was moved to the article talk page. There other editors can join in. I always keep my talk page 'tidy' by deleting anything which I have dealt with. Pincrete (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If content is disputed, we return to the old version until there is new agreement. Additionally you (twice, accidentally?) added 130,000 bytes of repetition to the article. Make your point on article talk. Pincrete (talk) 12:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Kosovo War has been removed, 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 more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. 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 violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Copied source: http://www.bundesheer.at/pdf_pool/publikationen/01_kse1_02_tck.pdf. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Syrian Desert campaign (August 2017) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is not a "campaign". Rebels regularly conduct raids against SAA forces here, not significant enough to warrant its own article about a "campaign".

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Editor abcdef (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The one source there was stated the rebels announced an offensive, but no real offensive materialized after that. Instead, the SAA itself resumed its own military operations in the region (albeit on a small scale). Creating an article before a real offensive emerges is contrary to WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. If and when a rebel (or any other) offensive is put into motion we will create an article. And even then, we will first consider whether the offensive is notable enough to warrant its own article, per WP:NOTABILITY. EkoGraf (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, syria liveuamap is not considered a reliable source because its largely based on twitter posts and twitter is forbidden as a source by Wikipedia's policy. Second, the few advances that were reported by syria liveumap, beside not being verifiable (required by WP policy) were non-notable (WP policy requires notability). Third, the Iraqi militia positions that were allegedly attacked by US artillery during an IS assault were subsequently found to be on the Iraqi side of the border, not the Syrian side, in the Akashat area of Iraq. If you wish to expand on the current happenings regarding the SAA-FSA front near the Iraqi border in the desert, feel free to expand this section Syrian Desert campaign (May–July 2017)#Aftermath. EkoGraf (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up and saw that you were the one who created latest articles regarding various offensives etc. So I believe this one totally deserves article of its own due to it being widely reported with intense clashes and dozens of casualties on both sides. Example sources you could use:

Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlindNight (talk • contribs) 17:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about this. There is no indication yet that the offensive will last. There are reports that it has already been repelled. A summary of the offensive should be placed in the aftermath section of the 2017 Hama offensive. Editor abcdef (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the offensive in Hama was discarded. In my opinion, East Syria is a priority, but North Hame will consider if the fierce offensive Tahrir Al-sham continues today. If I open an article and the offensive stagnates, it will easily be removed.--Baba Mica (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Through talk page discussions a consensus has been made the Central Syria campaign (2017) ended with the SAA recapture of al-Qaryatayn. Plans are currently being made between me and some other editors to create a Eastern Syria campaign (2017) article that would include Battle of Deir ez-Zor (September 2017–present), 2017 Euphrates Crossing offensive, Deir ez-Zor offensive (September 2017–present), 2017 Mayadin offensive. Regards! EkoGraf (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the time when you proposed it, the operations had still not evolved into a full campaign. Only now is it evident that its a campaign. The Euphrates Crossing offensive is regarded as a sub-article (sub-operation) of the current Battle of Deir ez-Zor city article. Currently, there is no fighting/operations against ISIS in the desert between Suknah and the Euphrates. There is fighting at the T2 station in the southeast of Syria with the aim of reaching the Bukamal border crossing (which is the goal of this Eastern Syria campaign). As for the pocket you are referring to, you are most likely talking about the alleged pocket shown on syria.liveumap.com. That pocket has already been confirmed as cleared 10 days ago and all of the other maps on Syria (except liveumap) are now showing that part of Syria as SAA-held. Per WP policy, multiple sources trump one source in verifiability. At the moment, consensus exists via talk page discussions that the Central Syria campaign ended with the recapture of al-Qaryatayn. You would need to seek a new consensus for changing the date. PS I'll let you know when the campaign article gets created. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Baba Mica. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Baba Mica. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Deir ez-Zor escalation period and ISIS collapse in the Syrian civil war has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was deleted long ago. Baba Mica (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone made a better and more relevant template.Baba Mica (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Post-Deir ez-Zor period in the Syrian Civil War has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not do this well. And it needs to be deleted. It was even before the 9th of October 2017.Baba Mica (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Unrest in SR Bosnia and Herzegovina has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree on this, and I want a wide discussion. This template should be completed and added to the Bosnian War and added as a pre-template. I know that the Muslim and Turkish lobby in the US justifies Aliа Izetbegovich, but the fact is that the Clinton administration is pointing out that April 6 is the first day of the war and that I can not do it. I insist on the discussion and that if the chief administrator does not allow me to put into the main template the true start of the war in Bosnia, which is March 1, then at least I insist that it be retained and added this template as a pre-form within the main template like before - patterns of the Syrian Civil War. I think that Wikipedia is rejecting my pre-form for political reasons or by refusing patrol administrations year after year who are in favor of the current political nomenclature in the United States related to the State Department, as well as the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and want to cover up the period between March 1 and April 6 at all costs. I want a discussion and find some Modus Vivendi. With this pre-form, I wanted to be maximally NEUTRAL to everyone, but some admins do not give it and want to keep their distorted and frozen version of the beginning of this war PERMANENTLY PLASED. I am from the Balkans and while I'm alive I will not accept the BOSNIAN WAR template as it is today until some changes are corrected, and here I have presented them here.Baba Mica (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Not accepting' something on Wikipedia is hardly a reason to resort to becoming very agitated. It's only on online 'hobby' project - it's not formal history. However, the Reliable Sources it incorporates/interprets must be - historians/scholars determine when wars end and begin, regardless of whether one's personal opinion agrees with them. You should relax more and not get your eyebrows knitted together.50.111.1.254 (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in two edit wars regarding the date which the Kosovo war started; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Pincrete (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Protests over responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Lord Belbury (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you. Baba Mica (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Franco-Turkish proxy conflict 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/Franco-Turkish proxy conflict 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.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Franco-Turkish proxy conflict requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franco-Turkish proxy conflict. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Spiderone 10:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Recently you edited the Protests against Joe Biden. During your edit, you removed a merge proposal and redirected an thing called the “Anti-trump movement” which isn’t even close to the article’s information.

To start off with, the removal of the merge proposal is actually not allowed on Wikipedia unless a consensus us reached. The discussion is here.

The part about the redirect I am taking it as a unintentional mistake, so I won’t warn on it, but I would have caution when doing redirects. Always communicate on the talk pages.

Hopefully this helps. (Your edits have been undone also). Elijahandskip (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I achieved my goal. This is to draw attention to the template for this article, which other editors have done better than me. Greeting. ;) — Baba Mica (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Protest and strikes of the CGT union 2021, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain machine translations of the various cited articles, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Protest and strikes of the CGT union 2021 and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Protest and strikes of the CGT union 2021, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Protest and strikes of the CGT union 2021. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Protest and strikes of the CGT union 2021 with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Protest and strikes of the CGT union 2021 saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! ... discospinster _talk 03:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Protest and strikes of the CGT union 2021

added links pointing to FSU, CGT, MNL, UNEF and UNL

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you for your attention. I would like you to help me a little. It would mean a lot to me. — Baba Mica (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Ritchie92. Your recent edit(s) to the page Protests over COVID-19 policies in Italy appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. 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. Thank you. Ritchie92 (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Miroslav Lazanski. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Pachu Kannan (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not vandalism. The media house "Sputnik - Serbia", for which he worked, announced that Miroslav Lazanski passed away on August 3 at 11 p.m. I set the link and link as a reference. Baba Mica (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But the source you have given is not a reliable source. If you can find another source about your claim please add it. Pachu Kannan (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to COVID-19 protests in Australia. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Sorry. I accidentally forgot to post references and sources. The protests started on September 5 last year. Sorry one more time. Baba Mica (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion of colleagues. However, the protests started much earlier, and not in September 2020. :) Baba Mica (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Yellow vests protests 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 more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. 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. — Diannaa (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Sino-Soviet conflict (1929) 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 more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. 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. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 21:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Baba Mica! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Lord Belbury (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Baba Mica (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Mica, I agree, they are not the same battle. However, there are currently no sources stating that there is an ongoing battle for Sievierodonetsk and all sources point to the city being fully under Ukrainian control. This has been confirmed by the Ukrainians, ISW and LPR themselves. Alternatively, an ongoing battle for Rubizhne is confirmed and virtually all of the information in the article is about the ongoing fight for Rubizhne, not Sievierodonetsk. If and when a battle erupts for control of Sievierodonetsk, we will create an article, that I agree. And I also support you in creating an article for the Battle of Popasna. EkoGraf (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems an assault on Sievierodonetsk itself, reported to be virtually surrounded, has only now been confirmed with the source you added [3]. Thanks for that. However, the information about the kindergarten capture is currently unsourced, please add one, thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look for sources now. Baba Mica (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the real fights for the city only started yesterday, May 6, although it seemed to me that it started the day before yesterday, May 5. Here are Ukrainian sources:

https://interfax.com.ua/news/general/830135.html

An article you recently created, Battle of Bakhmut (2022), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Curbon7 (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok — Baba Mica (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Baba Mica. I've undone your revert at the Yellow best protests article. You've revert errors back into the article, please don't do that. If there are changes you want to revert you'll need to unpick them piecemeal. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will definitely annul them and I want them to be put to a vote and a discussion in the main square. I want to sue the user for VANDALISM because he has no arguments, and I have a handful of arguments. — Baba Mica (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Mica, in the most cordial way, I don't care. I'm entirely uninvolved with whatever content issues you have with the article. If you having disagreements over an article the best place to start is the talk page, not blanket reverting all edits. If can't come to an agreement on the articles talk page, maybe try starting an RFC or looking into the other ways to settle arguents that Wikipedia offers. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will return the changes, but without undoing. I will put the sources and references in the template, and I started the discussion three weeks ago. However, user 2a02: c7e: 1b48: 2b00: 384e: 369e: 26ae: b555 does not cut even 5%, but he annulled my change from June 2 without explanation on June 8, so that there are no particularly important changes from June 8 to yesterday. How could you not remember when he vandalized the template several times, even though I started the discussion? I expect you to join the discussion and you can't just be interested as soon as you give me criticism. After the discussion, I ask for a reminder for user 2a02: c7e: 1b48: 2b00: 384e: 369e: 26ae: b555.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yellow_vests_protests#The_yellow_vest_protests_are_still_going_on

— Baba Mica (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the IP has been up to, nor what the discussion is about. I've only been trying to fix errors that have been introduced into the page. I don't remember anything as I'm not interested in the article beyond correcting those technical errors. I will say be careful with the word vandalism, it has a very particular meaning on Wikipedia (see WP:VANDALISM, and WP:NOTVANDALISM). If the IP has been replacing text with the word "poop" that vandalism, if you vehemently disagree with what they say then that's not vandalism. I'm not saying their right, just it that might not meet the strict definition of vandalism that WP uses. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Compare my change on June 2 and the change of the mentioned user on June 8. All other mini changes of other users were on the change of the mentioned user. He did not join the discussion at all, and he returned the previous insignificant changes. He did not present any arguments. This is pure VANDALISM. — Baba Mica (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will not compare them and for the last time I'm not interested. I was just giving a friend warning that calling something vandalism that isn't covered by WP:VANDALISM can get you in trouble. If you have tried discussion on the talk page, but the IP will not join the discussion then look into the other ways that Wikipedia allows for resolving such disagreements. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've seen you've created several articles for battles of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I appreciate your efforts as few people are still interested in creating content related to the war, so you're a valuable addition to the project right now. Maybe you could use some ideas for new articles. I was thinking of making pages for the battles at Dovhenke and Huliaipole (although this discussion would be relevant to read first [4]), maybe you could be interested in that. Engagements in Toshkivka (see [5]) could also get a page but I am not sure if there's enough info for that. Super Ψ Dro 20:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely interested because you are absolutely right. Especially for the battle of Hulaipole and Dovhenka. The fighting over these small places became extremely long frontal battles. It seems to me that the battle for the small town of Ugledar, located north of Volnovakha, has been going on for a very long time.

— Baba Mica (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard much about Vuhledar (I guess that's what you mean by Ugledar) but I do remember seeing many Russian salients in that area of the Donetsk Oblast, like four salients in a small area. After some quick Google searches I saw engagements there are quite similar to Huliaipole, mostly shelling and artillery strikes but also with some physical battles. I think battles in that Orikhiv-Huliaipole-Velyka Novosilka-Vuhledar line could get their own article which is being discussed right now in one of the links I attached above. So the best candidate for getting a page would be Dovhenke in my opinion. According to this (Spanish-language) article [6], the fighting there was so bloody because Dovhenke has a road leading to Sloviansk. Super Ψ Dro 09:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree. I think it would be simpler because everything is in one front line. My idea is to put two proposals to the vote:

1. Battle of Dovhenka - your suggestion

2. Battle of Huliaipole - my suggestion Baba Mica (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's no need for a vote as both are notable. Still per this discussion [7] it would be quite problematic to make a page for the engagements at Huliaipole and name them a battle and some also argue they can be merged with engagements in nearby towns like Orikhiv. So the most uncontroversial option would be to participate in the discussion about Huliaipole and have a page for Dovhenke. Super Ψ Dro 18:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then let there be the Battle of Dovhenke. — Baba Mica (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, there are two redlinks on the campaignbox for the invasion of Ukraine, Shevchenkove and Kupiansk. Could you make an article for Kupiansk? I don't think Shevchenkove is notable enough for it's own article, as sourcing is hard and the details of the battle itself is unclear. Jebiguess (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I want as much tonight or tomorrow. A new article is needed Second Battle of Lyman. — Baba Mica (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One about the second battle of Lyman is needed for sure, but I think you should hold off on that one until there is a decisive result and much more sources come out. The situation is really foggy there. Jebiguess (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I have to bring back the Battle of Orikhiv which is a classic multi-month positional battle and now enters a new active phase. The strategic place of Orihiv is a springboard for both Russian and Ukrainian forces that have been entrenched there since March. For the Russian forces, it is a springboard towards the city of Zaporozhye, and for the Ukrainian forces, it is a springboard for penetration to the south towards the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant and the city of Energodar by land to the west and towards Melitopol and Berdyansk to the south. Russian forces repelled the Ukrainian counter-offensive on Kherson because they were entrenched there and the position of Crimea, which is nearby, makes it easier for the Russians to transport a lot of weapons. But the Ukrainian Southern counter-offensive has its western side towards Kherson (with modest results) which has exhausted its forces due to the obvious Russian good defense in that part, and has its eastern side towards Energodar, Melitopol and Berdyansk (which since the day before yesterday, September 13, the Ukrainian side is trying to push harder, looking for a hole in the Russian defense). Extremely heavy fighting is taking place there, regardless of the terrible losses, the Ukrainian side does not give up the goal of first unblocking Orikhiv after more than six months, and then to break through to the mentioned occupied cities and the Black Sea. — Baba Mica (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, while Orikhiv is a months-long battle, there is little to no reliable sources consistently reporting on it. On, Kharkiv, Sievierodonetsk, even Lyman there was news based entirely on the fight for the town itself. The only thing I could find for Orikhiv was a VICE doc from March, after that is just skirmishes. Not to mention, Wikipedia guidelines indicate there must be an active battle for the town. Orikhiv had a small one on March 8, where Ukrainians held out and since then fighting has mostly been in the southern countryside. Much of that information could be placed in the Southern Ukraine campaign or the Timeline pages for the war. Jebiguess (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction, Wikipedia guidelines state that there must be a battle IN the town for it to count; therefore Orikhiv wouldn't be a six-month-long battle. Jebiguess (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there's still four redlinks in the campaignbox of the invasion (Makariv, Hlukhiv, Lviv and Romny). They have been there for months and it doesn't look like someone will be creating them soon, so if you want some more ideas you could create those. Super Ψ Dro 08:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was on my mind last night. By the way, has the battle for Soledar begun or is it not yet in full force? — Baba Mica (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should only consider that a battle has started when there's fighting on the actual location. Movements towards the city shouldn't count if that first condition hasn't been met yet. From what I see your article included no evidence that fighting had started on Soledar proper, only towards it. Shelling on the city doesn't count either if it's the only thing that's happened, since many many localities in Ukraine have been bombed. At times it's the only physical attack that a certain location has suffered so far because of the war, such as Ivano-Frankivsk. Lviv has also only been bombed but I think it deserves an article for having been bombed numerous times with casualties as a result and for being a relevant city for the war (many Western weapons have passed through here from Poland to the rest of Ukraine) and in general (it's a big, developed and one of the most populated cities of Ukraine).

In conclusion, I would advise against creating articles in anticipation of a battle for a city you might think is going to start soon. You made a page for a battle in Bakhmut on 27 May and it's 21 July and it hasn't started yet. If you wish, you can ask me about whether a location could get a battle article whenever you want to make a new page. Now that Dovhenke, Huliaipole and Bohorodychne have their own battle articles I can't really think of other potential pages, but I will let you know if I think of another if you're okay with that. Super Ψ Dro 20:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had the idea in mind of articles for Snihurivka and Vysokopillya, but I think we should wait until new information comes out before we create the pages due to most sources regarding those areas being very vague. Jebiguess (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Especially when it comes to the Battle of Visokopilya. I don't think you should have deleted the battle of Vuhledar because the fighting has intensified since July 13. as for the battle of Visokopylya, it is seen that the Ukrainian forces are attacking the city from three sides (north, west and east) with an effort to surround the Russian forces and from the south side putting them in a pincer in a similar way as the Russian forces destroyed the Ukrainian forces at Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk. The Ukrainians started an offensive south towards Kherson on the evening of July 11, targeting the place of Novaya Kahovka, killing about 60 people, probably to intimidate the Russians and the Russian-speaking population there, or because of better armaments from the west, which the Ukrainian army has a better chance of hitting Russian weapons depots (which are obviously larger in compared to Ukrainian warehouses) or the Russians and the population of the South of Ukraine relaxed too much and too soon, forgetting that more modern and longer-range weapons are arriving from the West via Poland and Romania. — Baba Mica (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be a page for Snihurivka, as there's not an actual fighting in the town. I am not sure if Visokopilya is notable as it's a small village but maybe it could have its article. We should wait until it is over to have the maximum amount of available information possible. Super Ψ Dro 07:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree, the only reason I mentioned Vysokopillya is because there were reports that the town was surrounded, which is notable in the context of the war. However, the only super credible sources right now all stem from a tweet by Oleksiy Arestovych so I'd rather wait until more information is confirmed by both sides. Snihurivka has been a hotpot of action since early June, although no reliable sources have reported on it near enough to deserve it's own article. Best bet right now is to edit any major news into the summer offensive page or the Southern offensive page. Jebiguess (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly someone drafted the pages for Makariv and Lviv due to WP:NOTNEWS and a lack of reliable sources regarding the battles there. We could always try again though. Jebiguess (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for Lviv and Makariv, it seems to me that these are articles about intense bombings like those in Odesa and Zhytomyr. — Baba Mica (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I kept Makariv as a draft because most sources didn't say what they were citing, so it needed to be rewritten. Lviv was drafted for copyright issues if I remember correctly. The draft shouldn't be used. Super Ψ Dro 07:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I don't have time today or tomorrow to do the article Bombardment of Lviv, then I will probably do it from the day after tomorrow. — Baba Mica (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've seen Pisky mentioned often lately. There might be enough sources for a new article. Someone already made one in the Spanish Wikipedia [8], which sucks and will be deleted most likely. Super Ψ Dro 22:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Northeastern Ukraine offensive 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 more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. 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. This is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need to be so rude and arrogant to threaten me in the last sentence. Do what you want. I do not care. I will not deal with this article anymore because of your approach. Good by. — Baba Mica (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Telling you what the policy is for Wikipedia for copyright is not "threatening" you. You have a tendency to become offended easily and "storming out." Please get a grip on your emotions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.8.86 (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Vuhledar 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 Vuhledar 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.

Cinderella157 (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Serbian protests (2020–2022). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Serbian protests (2020–present). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Serbian protests (2020–present). If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Vacant0 (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and I agree with you. Only I think that the article Serbian protests (2020–present) is outdated because there are no more protests against the government after the end of the Environmental protests that ended in February 2022. There are only differences between my point of view and yours, and I don't know how to redirect articles. I need someone to explain to me how to change the title of an article. If only admins or moderators can do it (I posted a template a few weeks ago suggesting to change the title of an article that no one paid attention to), I had no other choice. I apologize for breaking the rules. If there is some way to change the title, please explain to me how to change the title of an article that is outdated or its meaning has acquired a different dimension. — Baba Mica (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that you probably wanted to move the page. Here is how you can move a page. Although what I'm trying to say is that post-July protests fall under the WP:NOTNEWS criteria since in comparison with other protests that were held, they were much smaller, they did not have an impact, and received small amount of media coverage. For example, July 2020 and 2021-2022 environmental protests are notable since large amount of people had took part in the protests, they received worldwide attention and had an impact on future events in Serbia. If you would want, you can expand the section in this page for COVID-19 protests. Freelancer and clerical protests would not meet notability criteria. Vacant0 (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the protests after July 18, 2020 were not noticed by the world public, but they were noticed in Serbia and were not very few. The topic was the same. The abolition of Anti-Lockdown measures, protests due to corruption, organized crime and bad economic situation similar to the protests in Bulgaria which had sometimes more and sometimes less world attention. Only there did the protests result in a fall, and here in a conditional victory of government policy. Pressure on Aleksandar Vučić continued from the liberal left and especially from the extreme right until the environmental protests, when the liberal left returned to the game, but even the extreme right was not on the sidelines when it came to environmental problems until February 15, 2022. Disbanded priests also play a big role in the extreme right, just as much as the SPC. Protests from the extreme right did bring some results in the extraordinary parliamentary elections in Serbia on April 3 when three right-wing parties entered the Serbian parliament to the astonishment of both the authorities and the liberal opposition. For these reasons, I believe that the protests of the extreme right also contributed to some result, just as much as the protests of the liberal left. I hope you are not angry with me because even though the Serbian Progressive Party rule has survived, after the 2022 general elections, the ruling party no longer has an absolute majority in the Serbian parliament after eight years. The results of all the protests (which I posted in the article) contributed to the fact that the regime of Aleksandar Vučić was seriously shaken and forced to calculate with other parties in order to remain in power despite a convincing victory in the presidential elections, because those protests reduced the voting body of the ruling Serbian Progressive Party which belongs to the center-right party and is part of the European People's Party. — Baba Mica (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Serbian protests (2020–2022), even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. To move Serbian protests (2020–present) to a different title, use WP:RM. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC) Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok — Baba Mica (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Battle of Hlukiv, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I made some grammatical mistake because an extreme antagonism has developed between Russians and Ukrainians in the names of certain places (cities and villages), so it causes me a big problem with Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedians who send me criticism. Can you help me with those grammatical difficulties by making corrections and additional corrections in the articles I'm making? I would be very grateful. The battles around these cities are important for the future world order, but also for MILITARY HISTORY in general. — Baba Mica (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are only important if secondary sources say they are--what's in the daily news roundup is less important. But I warned you because you reinserted a set of images that add nothing to the article, so please do not restore them. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be returning them for sure. I inserted them from the Ukrainian Wikipedia, although they don't have any description there either. I don't know what the criteria are there. It seems to me that the Ukrainian Wikipedia operates according to some wild rules. — Baba Mica (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]