User talk:Justice and Arbitration

Welcome

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide of Germans in Eastern Europe

You're right: I didn't notice. I checked the talk page, saw no responses and decided to add it without looking too far down the list. I've reversed my edit now. Your version had a broader range of estimates, so it's the more useful. Thanks for your help on that! Epa101 (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a small adjustment to your section just now. Rummel called the events "genocide" as well as "democide": you can see that the entire figure for the period is in both columns on this table. Hope that's all right. Epa101 (talk) 11:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars and disasters by death toll: Mexican Revolution

As per your logic, I think the Iran–Iraq War should be removed from the list as well, as the estimate casualties vaties between and 400,000 and 2,000,000. On the other hand, I do believe the 500,000 estimate for the Mexican revolution is too low, and the most widely accepted estimate is of at least 1 Million.

In a related topic, I think the Battle of Tuyuti (Triple Aliance War) and the Battle of Celaya (Mexican Revolution) should be added to the list of bloodiest battles, as each of them had more than 10,000 casualties and have been the bloodiest battles ever fought in South America and North America respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.214 (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the Iran-Iraq War, but I was not the one who put it on the list there. The lowest estimate for the Mexican Revolution is also bellow 1 million ("conservatively estimated at half a million", Peter Calvert, Mexico, 1973) [1], so I think one needs to at least place all other conflicts that had more deaths first.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty War

If argentina's Dirty War classifies as a genocide, I think the period of the Colombian history known as "La Violencia" (1948-1962) would also classify, as both were cases of governments trying to get rid of its political opponents. Death estimates for La Violencia violence range between 200,000 and 300,000. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm#Violencia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.198 (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point there. La Violencia even has a larger death toll. However, what historians define it as genocide? I have trouble finding any. In case of Dirty War, we at least have indictments and binding verdicts defining it as genocide, though it remains a disputed matter.[2]. But even that gives it more credibility for defining it as genocide than a conflict that does not have anything defning it as such. We have Victoria Sanford, but she refers to a different La Violencia, in Guatemala.[3]. We must be careful about such things - we can not just label a conflict a genocide just like that. It has to be labeled by experts, historians, lawyers, not by us. --Justice and Arbitration (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source referring to Colombia as a genocidal society and drawing paralelisms with Turkey and Uganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.194 (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another source: Encyclopedia of Genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.167 (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good image

I like your 'triple image' in CWOI. It looks very good in the article. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is big, but it shows much and attracts the reader to the article. Good job. Kebeta (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knin camp

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Knin camp, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.icty.org/x/cases/gotovina/trans/en/080714IT.htm.

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

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. However, I noticed that your username (Justice and Arbitration) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because the username is misleading as it can be seen as implying a position of authority in the Wikipedia:Arbitration process. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. Sandstein 18:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in reply to your reply on my talk page, I'm afraid that while you are right that usernames do not need to mean what they say, our policy is that usernames that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia are prohibited. Accordingly, I have initiated a discussion about your name at WP:RFCN. Sandstein 19:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your username is being discussed

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#Justice and Arbitration. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 16:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like most everyone forgot all about this. I have closed the discussion, there appears to be a consensus that your username is not a violation and you may continue to use it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jan-Mar 2011

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your help with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Mar 2011, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste `{{WPMILHIST Review alerts}}` to your user space

In the news credit

On 3 June 2011, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Halicephalobus mephisto, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Vukovar featured article nomination

Thank you for your recent interest in Battle of Vukovar. I have nominated the article for featured status with the aim of getting it to that position by 18 November, the 20th anniversary of the battle. You are very welcome to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Vukovar/archive1. Prioryman (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I've renominated Battle of Vukovar for featured article status. You're very welcome to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Vukovar/archive2‎. Prioryman (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your help in getting Battle of Vukovar to featured status. There's one more thing to be done - ensuring that it appears on the Main Page on 18 November. Could you please take a look at my post at Talk:Battle of Vukovar#Next steps: a call for assistance and advise whether you might be able to help? Prioryman (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

old username

I was just wondering, did you use to edit as User:The Spanish Inquisitor? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, never really payed much attention to him until today, and now that you have mentioned it, I am curious to learn more about that guy since you tend to find his style similar to mine. By the way, if I really was his alter-ego, I am sure I would have been banned as a sock-puppet months ago.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

This notification is meant to inform you that an WP:ANI discussion related to you is taking place. -- Director (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend...

As it has been pointed out in the ANI discussion, comments like these [4], [5], [6], [7] are not acceptable. Feel free to attack the logic in someone's reasoning, but it is not acceptable to attack them by calling them a troll. It is not only incivil, it is unproductive and unwanted. I strongly suggest you be more careful with how you parse your words and focus on the merits of the discussion and the strength of your reasoning. Continuing to make personally insulting comments about another user can be grounds for administrative action. If you need a second opinion on content, go to WP:DRN or get a third opinion. I'm hoping you will just take more care in your wording in the future, and that we don't have to revisit this. Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sick of your bickering

You are not a good contributor to Wikipedia. You revert any edit that includes sources, you don't even put them yourself yet you tell me to so that makes you a complete hypocrite, you are not fair, I clearly put, in bold text, Support from: and it's a true story. United States supported the Operation Storm, Germany not only supplied Croatia, but they also supplied Slovenia and the KLA in the Kosovo War, which was a war that was NOT a part of the Yugoslav Wars because the KLA wanted to rip Kosovo off, which was a province, not a Socialist Republic in the Yugoslav Federation. I as a Serb know this. And neither is the Presevo Valley conflict or the war in Macedonia because it's Governments cracking down on terrorists who want to rip a piece of land off, not a whole republic.

So therefore, I will try to find a way to block you if you keep bickering and undoing edits in the most sinister ways. If any edit has a source, then it should rightfully so to put it in the template. Or just close down the whole page. 142.197.18.67 (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and my sources are mainly videos, documentaries, Rat Koji Se Mogao Izbeci (English narrated, Serb subtitles), and the Weight of Chains. 142.197.18.67 (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, leave your emotions aside, this is suppose to be a neutral, objective and reasonable web encyclopedia. Croatia was smuggling weapons during the war, that is already in the article. But it is simply silly to list states who sold weapons to that country as belligerents in the infobox. According to that logic, we would have to include some thirty countries just because they sold weapons. Can you name any army corps or unit from the US or Germany that actually went to Croatia and fought there? No, because there was none. Scroll down in the article to year 1994: the text explains that Croatia hired Military Professional Resources Inc. to train its officers. But to train and to participate in war are two different things.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, there was a dispute on whether Kosovo should be considered part of the Yugoslav Wars or not.[8]. The conclusion was that is can. Namely, some scholars do not consider it as part of Yugoslav Wars, but others do, therefore it can be listed there.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming down

Hi! I noticed you recently trimmed down Croatian War of Independence article by about 10%. I don't mind the move, quite the opposite, but I thought to drop a note and check if you moved those bits now left out to detailed articles (such as Operation Otkos 10) if there is anything worth salvaging and yet missing in those articles. All articles branching out from the Croatian War of Independence (except of course the Battle of Vukovar) would probably benefit from such material. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's quite alright. I didn't actually check what did go, but your choice seems sound. I thought to write that note, just in case.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

Hi. When you recently edited Role of the media in the Yugoslav wars, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pale and Vatican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE for DIREKTOR

I filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request concerning DIREKTOR and mentioned you on a related issue, so please feel free to to refute or support my case there. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]