User talk:Owunsch

Welcome

Hello, Owunsch, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! –CaroleHenson (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hi, Owunsch.

I've noticed your contributions to the article Russian Apartment Bombings. While there's nothing wrong with them in my view, I could not help but notice that forming an opinion about something not really known is a great way to project one's Unconscious, and for precisely that reason users editing that particular article are likely to embrace some kind of a creative outlet in their real lives. What is creativity, after all, if not manifesting the Sun/the God who broke into pieces of artwork to illuminate the darkness within every human soul. I wholly appreciate your anonymity, but if you happen to have any sort of an online gallery of your works, I would love a chance to take a look, if it's not too much intrusive for you.

Best regards, Document hippo (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Document hippo:,

Thanks for your message. I don't have any online gallery of artwork (I don't make much art these days), but thank you for asking.

Owunsch (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Owunsch.

I would love to hear your explanations why do you believe that the type of the attack included a "Possible" false flag. What do you mean by "possible"? Am I supposed to toss a coin, or which procedure do you suggest to determine the answer to that question?

I adore your editing! I would enjoy to help you further improve the article.

Document hippo (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "possible false flag" phrasing reflects the content of the article as a whole, which explains that some scholars, journalists, and politicians believe that the Russian security services organized the attacks. Other people disagree, which is why "possible" makes sense as a qualification. Owunsch (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, no problems. Do you think one can disagree with a belief? -- Document hippo (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

The question that I am particularly interested in, is the situation regarding the alleged arrests. Each author seems to have a different story.

Here's John Sweeney's March 2000 article account of the events of September 22, 1999, and the night of September 23, 1999:

"The bombers were discovered by the people they meant to kill. <...>

Vasiliev, puzzled, decided to call the police. <...>

The local police arrested two men that night, according to Boris Kagarlitsky, a member of the Russian Institute of Comparative Politics. 'FSB officers were caught red-handed while planting the bomb. They were arrested by the police and they tried to save themselves by showing FSB identity cards.'

Then, when the headquarters of the FSB in Moscow intervened, the two men were quietly let go."

Here's the account by Litvinenko and Felshtinsky (book "Blowing Up Russia", second edition, pp. 58-59) of the events of September 24, 1999 (emphasis mine):

"The real facts were quite different. The terrorists scattered to different safe apartments. No sooner had the leadership of the Ryazan UFSB reported in the line of duty by phone to Patrushev in Moscow, that the arrest of the terrorists was imminent than Patrushev gave the order not to arrest the terrorists and announced that the foiled terrorist attack in Ryazan was only an “exercise.” One can imagine the expression on the face of the Ryazan UFSB officer concerned: most likely Major-General Sergeiev was reporting to Patrushev in person when he was ordered to let the terrorists go.

Immediately after he put down the phone, Patrushev gave his first interview in those days to the NTV television company: “The incident in Ryazan was not a bombing, nor was it a foiled bombing. It was an exercise. It was sugar; there was no explosive substance there. Such exercises do not only take place in Ryazan. But to the honor of the agencies of law enforcement and the public in Ryazan, they responded promptly. I believe that exercises must be made as close as possible to what happens in real life, because otherwise we won’t learn anything and won’t be able to respond to anything anywhere.” A day later, Patrushev added that the “exercise” in Ryazan was prompted by information about terrorist attacks planned to take place in Russia. In Chechnya several groups of terrorists had already been prepared and were “due to be advanced into Russian territory and carry out a series of terrorist attacks... It was this information which led us to conclude that we needed to carry out training exercises, and not like the ones we’d had before, and to make them hard and strict... Our personnel must be prepared; we must identify the shortcomings in the organization of our work and make corrections to its organization.”

The Moscow Komsomolets newspaper managed to joke about it: “On September 24, 1999, the head of the FSB, Nikolai Patrushev, made the sensational announcement that the attempted bombing in Ryazan was nothing of the sort. It was an exercise... The same day, Minister of the Interior Vladimir Rushailo congratulated his men on saving the building in Ryazan from certain destruction.”

But in Ryazan, of course, no one was laughing. Obviously, even though Patrushev had forbidden it, the Ryazan UFSB went ahead and arrested the terrorists, considerably roughing them up in the process. Who was arrested where, how many there were of them, and what else the Ryazan UFSB officers found in those flats we shall probably never know. When they were arrested, the terrorists presented their “cover documents” and were detained, until the arrival from Moscow of an officer of the central administration with documents which permitted him to take the FSB operatives, who had been tracked down so rapidly, back to Moscow with him. "

Here's the account of David Satter, (the book "Darkness at Dawn", 2003 edition, p. 28):

"By the evening of September 23 the police dragnet was producing results. The white Lada was found abandoned in a parking lot. A short time later a call to Moscow was made from a telephone bureau for intercity calls, and the operator who connected the call stayed on the line long enough to catch a fragment of conversation. The caller said there was no way to get out of town undetected. The voice on the other end replied, ‘‘Split up and each of you make your own way out.’’

The operator reported the call to the police, who traced the number. To their astonishment, it belonged to the FSB.

A short time later the Ryazan police, with the help of tips from local people, arrested two of the terrorists. The detainees produced identification showing that they worked for the FSB. On orders from Moscow, they were soon released. Some type of explanation from the central FSB, however, was now inevitable.

On Friday, September 24, FSB director Nikolai Patrushev came out of a Kremlin meeting and told a reporter that the evacuation of the building in Ryazan had been part of a training alert and the bomb was a dummy planted by his agency. He said that the sacks found by the bomb squad contained nothing but sugar. The reading of hexogen by the gas analyzer had been an error. There had been similar exercises in other cities, but only in Ryazan had the people reacted promptly. He complimented the residents on their vigilance."

Here's the account of Cathetine Belton, (the book "Putin's people", no arrests mentioned):

"The Ryazan FSB and police mounted a huge operation to track down the apparent terrorists, cordoning off the entire city. A day later, on September 24, Russian Interior Minister Vladimir Rushailo reported to law-enforcement chiefs in Moscow that another apartment bombing had been averted. But just half an hour later Nikolai Patrushev, the hard-bitten, salty-tongued FSB chief who’d worked closely with Putin in the Leningrad KGB, told a TV reporter that the sacks had contained no more than sugar, and that the whole episode had been no more than an exercise, a test of public vigilance. [23] Patrushev was as ruthless as he was relentless in manoeuvres behind the scenes, [24] and his new explanations not only contradicted Rushailo, but seemed to surprise the Ryazan FSB, which had apparently been on the verge of capturing the men who’d planted the sacks. [25]"

Some accounts by other researchers don't mention the arrests while reviewing the Ryazan incident, which seems to be odd, because if true it's the single most important detail about the Ryazan incident. In particular, Andrew Meier’s "Chechnya: To the Heart of a Conflict" (2004) and Elena Pokalova’s "Chechnya’s Terrorist Network: The Evolution of Terrorism in Russia’s North Caucasus" (2015).

Andrew Meiers's book:

"Questions lingered. There was the choice of targets—working-class districts—and the timing—just when things seemed quiet—and the fact that the Chechens had never set off a bomb in Moscow during the first war. Most disconcerting of all was a strange episode in Ryazan, a city 130 miles southeast of Moscow. On the night of September 22, 1999, just six days after the Volgodonsk bombing, residents of a twelve-story apartment house at 14/16 Novosyelov Street called the police. A bus driver had seen two men carrying something into the basement and feared it was a bomb. The police discovered three sacks bound by wires and a detonator set to go off before dawn. They evacuated the building and called the bomb squad. The next day Putin declared that “vigilance” had thwarted a “terrorist threat.” On September 24, 1999, however, in the glare of the television lights, the new head of the FSB, Nikolai Patrushev, a man Putin had brought from Petersburg, apologized. The security service, he said, had put the sacks there itself. It was only “a training exercise,” Patrushev said awkwardly. The sacks, he insisted, were filled with sugar."

Pokalova's book (pp. 96-97):

"Chechen leaders often advanced statements blaming the Russian security services for terrorist attacks. In this respect, it would be unwise to rely solely on the explanations coming from individuals involved in illegal activities against the Russian state. However, in the case of the apartment buildings, it was not only Basayev and Khattab who cast doubt on the official version of the events. Controversy arose over the Ryazan incident that led many to believe the FSB was behind the apartment bombings. After the explosion in Volgodonsk, on September 22, 1999, in Ryazan in the Moscow area, residents of an apartment complex spotted a suspicious car; its license plate was covered up with a piece of paper. Several people were unloading white bags from the car into the basement of the apartment complex. The alarmed residents called the local police, who claimed the incident was an attempted terrorist attack.

The local security experts who investigated the incident uncovered traces of the explosive hexogen in the apartment complex basement, as well as a timing mechanism among the white bags. On September 23, based on the evidence they found, the local police announced that a terrorist attack had been averted in Ryazan. However, a day later, on September 24, the federal security services came out with an explanation that negated the local version. FSB head Nikolai Patrushev announced, “The incident in Ryazan was not an explosion, nor was an explosion prevented there. It was a training exercise. It was sugar there.” According to Patrushev, the bags were full of sugar, not explosives, and the registered traces of explosives were blamed on faulty equipment. No further information was disclosed at the time, the case of an attempted terrorist attack started by the local security services was classified, and follow-up investigations were denied."

Owunsch, I am just an old fool with an impaired intellect. I am not even trying to bring this topic to a discussion, because there's one brilliant counter-argument which settles the question: "show me a book which says that the arrest did not happen".

It's just distressing that each time I try to discuss these topics, I am called the enemy who is trying to disrupt the unity or something. Why do you think people are so bitter?

Document hippo (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yay

Great work on creating new art pages. Nice recent choices. Came by to mention that although you've added pages to navboxes those navboxes should be added to the artworks page. I caught some recent ones but you may have past pages. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will make sure to add the navboxes in the future. I am running a Wikipedia assignment with my students this semester, and I am hoping some of them will develop these articles. Owunsch (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on teaching new Wikipedians. People should be doing that in old folks residences (imagine the talent, range of experience, and free time in a place like The Villages). Other additions I've added to your recent work are categories (years of paintings, topics, etc.). Good luck with the students, maybe some of them will stick with the project. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thought crossing my mind --- there it goes! Have you made or considered making a youtube or other site Wikipedia teaching video? Wonder how many exist. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't considered making a teaching video, but it's definitely something I'll think about, especially after I get a bit more experience! Owunsch (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Good meeting you. Nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zinc white (January 4)

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

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

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

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

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Zinc oxide. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft does not contain enough information to warrant splitting it out as a separate article. If this draft is expanded to two or three paragraphs, it will be ready for acceptance.

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

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

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Owunsch! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zinc white has been accepted

Zinc white, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article!

Hi, I've nominated the zinc white article for DYK: Template:Did you know nominations/Zinc white. Just letting you know. 😉 BorgQueen (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Zinc white

On 5 February 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Zinc white, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that zinc white was found in several versions of The Scream? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zinc white. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Zinc white), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pius Xii and the Holocaust

Hi Owunsch In this article, you have restored “As Secretary of State, he had been a critic of Nazism and helped draft the 1937 Mit brennender Sorge anti-Nazi encyclical, but he ordered all copies destroyed upon the death of Pius XI, before the text was distributed.“

I am at a loss for your meaning as I do not see how this is possible. Mit brennender Sorge was famously and with great difficulty distributed throughout Germany on Easter Sunday 1937 and Pius XI died in February 1939. This may be referring to the encyclical Humani Generis Unitas which was in draft form when Pius XI died. Pius XII did not release this encyclical but used some of it in Summi Pontificatus. The draft text of HGU was not released until the mid 90s. The reasons for Pius XIIs suppression of it are possibly related to a section that can be interpreted as anti-Semitic. Porturology (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification @Porturology. I was too hasty in reversing your edit. I just went back to the source I cited and see that I must have misread a somewhat ambiguous sentence. I just restored your version. Thanks again. Owunsch (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks owunsch Porturology (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Lead white

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Titanium white

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Owunsch,

Your two drafts were due to be deleted today but I postponed deletion for another 6 months. I hope you can finish them off and submit them to Articles for Creation for review or move them into the main space of the project. They seemed very interesting to me and I had not thought of white pigments very much in the past. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz,

Thanks for your thoughtful message and extension on the drafts. Both of those articles have actually already been moved to the mainspace, so they can be safely deleted. Owunsch (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Owunsch. Thank you for your work on Windows (Delaunay series). North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Design Thinking

I responded to your comments on my Talk page. Designergene (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]