User talk:Sijo Ripa/Archive3

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, peer review, and project-wide collaboration.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 23:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NATO and Croatia

I do not agree with you writing about Croatia and NATO. Because I do not want that we start making revert of revert lets agree on our discussion page. You have writen that part of text on article of which I have given link but because of that you do not know all truth. Croatians has after end of war in 1995 always been against NATO because we are angry why you have not helped us. Before Iraq war popular support for NATO has never been greater of 42 %. Now in 2007 popular saying is why will our soldiers go to death for american oil when they have not helped us in our war for freedom and popular support is 29 %. If you read very good article for which you are having link you will see that they have not tell that we have been always against NATO but only that support has droped after Iraq war. This is 1 sort of propaganda very popular on CNN (and similar places) in which they tell only truth but in the end people start to think what they want (in this situation that Croatians has been for NATO until Iraq war). Last point about that is that United Kingdom is must hated country in Croatia from 1991 so any form of military alliance between us and them is ......

Propaganda:

In agreement with NATO Croatia government will start:

Communications and public relation experts tasked with developing the new strategy have decided to call on public figures, celebrities and Croatian music and movie stars to join the effort and promote the advantages of NATO membership. Prominent Croatians will speak publicly about this issue, make promotional videos and TV commercials to demonstrate membership benefits. This strategy is being discussed and is to be finalised at the beginning of next year.

Please tell me if this is propaganda or not. In answering please look this part of text about propaganda which is writen on wikipedia:

The propagandist seeks to change the way people understand an issue or situation for the purpose of changing their actions and expectations in ways that are desirable to the interest group.

All in all I want to say that I will return word propaganda in part of text about Croatia and NATO. For our discussion because I think you support NATO can you tell me benefits of NATO membership for any small state ? Rjecina 2:43, 20 Feb 2007 (UTC)

Croatia

First I must tell you that I will look today for sources of NATO popularity (if it is possible on english) in Croatia but I think that we will have problem. Our problem is history. Between 1948 - 1991 Croatia has been neutral inside Yugoslavia. When all ex communist states has started to go toward NATO we have war and after that (in 1995-2000) Croatia has been under western isolation because of autocratic government !(source for that Britannica 2002). If we have been under isolation then NATO has not been popular because government has spoken against NATO (Logic :you do not want us, we do not want you). If popularity of NATO has gone up between 2000-2001 all has gone away with wars in Afganistan and Iraq (for that other you have source from before). All in all.... Rjecina 16:44, 22 Feb 2007 (UTC)

Look what I have writen on Razgovor sa suradnikom:Rjecina/NATO propaganda. Tell me your thinking ? Rjecina 21:20, 22 Feb 2007 (CET)

I know what you think but I want to find way to write that govermnet of Croatia is starting benefits of NATO campaing with that 7 points to change public opinion (which is propaganda) and then attack this points. It is ease to find NGO which are against entering in NATO, but I will work on article in finding texts why this argument will not pass in people. All in all even wikipedia is full of propaganda because what Goebels has been saying if you say not truth 100 times this will become truth. For me it has been great surprise when I have read in The Economist (january 2007) that for every Israelis killed they have killed 7 Palestinians (this is only rate of killing). Speaking about other things I have been thinking that you maybe know serbian-croatian language because your user name is very similar to 1 carton person of Disney ! Rjecina 22:10, 22 Feb 2007 (CET)

I think that you will not have anything against I have added today. Rjecina 22:30, 24 Feb 2007 (CET)

About popular thinking in Croatia about Ante Gotovina you are having on english wikipedia enough. Simple it is not possible that organization (NATO and EU) which demand "hero" arrest is having great support when 60 % of population think that he is not guilty !! I think that this is clear ? For benefits of Croatia entry to NATO I have writen link in which I will write "benefits" which has been published in Croatia media (you have seen that). This points our out of discussion (they will be writen). Rjecina 23:25, 24 Feb 2007.

More or less I have finished text with 5 different sources about "benefits" for Croatia entry to NATO. In article I do not speak about propaganda and text is not content forking because I will not create new article similar to yours but this will be article about what think Croatia government that are benefits for entry to NATO. In article will be sources which speak that this benefits are only propaganda because they have been speaking different few years ago. I am before and after everything for democracy but I see this very rarely in NATO. Of all new NATO members (in last 10 years) in only 2 e has been referendum. If NATO protect democracy why he is so against it ??

Last point for now. Around 15 years ago my in my city has been muslim suicide terrorist attack on police station. This has happen because we have arrested muslim cleric (on demand from west) which has been passing on Croatia territory (he has not done anything against Croatia). In my city you will very hard find somebody who support entry of Croatia in war on terror. Our very important politican (spiritual father of state) has been saying long ago that when great power fight small must hide under table :))Rjecina 7:10, 25 Feb 2007. (CET)

Only to tell you I give up because even Croatian wikipedia is against that article.Rjecina 4:55, 1 mar 2007. (CET)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 16:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

William Thornton Rickert Fox

Hello. You recently removed an unreferenced tag I placed on William Thornton Rickert Fox. I believe this was unnecessary, because, according to WP:CITE, the article does not properly cite its sources. Please do not remove tags unless you have fixed the problem. Yours truly, Boricuaeddie 01:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a reply for a comment you recently posted on my talk page. According to WP:CITE, you must include a full citation for every source used on the article. Please leave another message on my talk page if you need further assistance. Yours truly, Boricuaeddie 20:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:William Fox' Superpowers.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:William Fox' Superpowers.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NATO-Russia agreement

Why you have not put in article NATO-Russia agreement about arms control which NATO is refusing to activate (look in Putin speech). Now this this article is POV because it is not writing of this NATO fraud. This must be put in article ! Rjecina 9:02, 28 April 2007

Wrong treaty ! Read this:

An adapted version of the treaty was signed in 1999 to account for the break-up of the Soviet Union. Russia has ratified the document, but NATO member-states say they will not sign it until Russia removes troops from breakaway republics in Georgia (on this meeting there has been agreement Georgia-Russia) and Moldova, as the so-called Istanbul commitments of 1999 stipulate. Today NATO say that they will not sign treaty but then in NATO-Russia agreement it is writen:

"Have expressed their intention to review the above elements (Moldova question), as appropriate, at the Second Conference to Review the Operation of the Treaty, which will take place in May 2001" (Final act of CFE).

Between november of 1999 and may of 2001 not 1 NATO country has sign treaty so NATO is in breach of agreement not Russia. Why will they return soldiers home if NATO is not signing agreement ? Now I am interested my friend in which way you will write this in article so that NATO become good (they are for agreement) and Russia bad (they are against). Rjecina 8:25, 29 April 2007

First of all, I'm only one of the many editors. You may ask me to improve the page, but remember that I do not know everything and that I do not have a special responsability towards that particular page. Secondly, I never claimed that NATO is good and Russia is bad. If you would refer to our earlier discussion, I just made the Croatia text neutral and balanced: it is emphasized that polls show public opposition and that the government shows support. Thirdly, as you asked, I searched a recent source about the NATO-Russia controversy about missile talks and arms control. BBC mentioned the 1990 treaty. If you have other reliable sources about a newer and adapted treaty, please improve that section with those sources. Sijo Ripa 09:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

14 April

I will write a new article about the bombing in Karbala on 14 April. No attacks have to be merged in one article. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, see merger discussion. Sijo Ripa 10:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

30 April

Hi - I saw the addition (again) of the 'New Flemish Alliance' as a member party of the EPP. This is false - only CD&V is a member party from Flanders (even though they had a common election list for the 2004 European elections). Also, you can check the website of the EPP to see that they are not listed.--Europarliament 19:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Belgium FAR

A lot of work has occurred on Belgium but I'm not sure if it's up to FA standard yet. Do you mind taking a look and leaving a last comment at its FAR? Cheers, Marskell 07:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute about Belgium article

Dear Sijo Ripa, you might have a look at the recent dispute about Belgium. Thanks to give your opinion in the discussion. Vb 09:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Can you show me where I can find Taiwan in the Foreign Bilateral Relation of UN?

--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 12:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Foreign policy or bilateral relations don't have to be with states. You can have bilateral relations with organisations, such as the UN or the European Union. Or you can have bilateral relations with de facto states or governments without states (e.g. Palestinian authority). The term "bilateral relation" does not imply that Taiwan is recognized as a state.Sijo Ripa 13:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fatah-Hamas conflict

Hello.

Please do not remove the template. Fatah-Hamas conflict IS part of the middle-east conflict between arab and israeli. Israel, UE, US, Egypt, Hamas and Fatah are involved. It's just like the riots. There isn't perhaps a direct implicaiton of Israell but it's obvious that these micro-conflict results of the arab-israeli conflict. If you do not belive that read newspaper. I promise you that it's true. I discuss of that with some of the editors of this article and they agreed with me ;)

I understand what you want to say but it's exactly the same in Irak war. Conflict between Irakis is part of the conflict even if it doesn't involve the US ;). "Current troubles in south lebanon" do not involves US and Israel, Hamas-Fatah conflict do.

Including Hamas-Fatah conflict in the template with a footnote would be perfect ! ^_^

For me the arab-israelis conflict includes trouble between arabs or israelis whether it also concerns the other side. Considering Gaza had become an islamist territory and that the borders have been closed by israel, with tanks entering in palestinian territory, it seemed me relevant enough to put the conflict on the template (but you'r right with a footnote).

At the opposite the present fights between amry of Lebanon and Fatah Al-Islam "do not" concern Israel or in a far indirect way, which is not enough to add this conflict to the template.

Anyway adding the template {{Israeli-Palestinian conflict}} with a footnote will be the best thing to do :D

Do you want to do it yourself or may I do it ?

Thank you for answering. ;)

--Mrpouetpouet 07:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done ;) Hamas-Fatah conflict --Mrpouetpouet 23:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert war on Masculine psychology

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not on Masculine psychology. Thank you.

The following message has also been posted on Andrew Parodi's talk page.

I'm asking you both to call a truce in this revert war. You are both disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.
You are both failing to assume good faith with these reverts [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and I've warned both of you for this with {{uw-agf2}}.
This behaviour is disruptive and counter productive. No matter how "right" either of you are in this content dispute both of your editing actions in this revert war are wrong. I am willing to work with both of you come to a resolution on this issue but if one or other of you don't want to try this very informal mediation I will just hand it straight to WP:ANI. You can contact me via email or on my talk page--Cailil ^talk 18:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments about this issue on my talk page. If you agreeable I would like to open a sub-page in the Masculine psychology talkpage to mediate this issue properly. I think you are both trying to improve this article and I hope what I'm proposing will help both parties get past the previous disputes and build a better article. If you interested drop me a line.--Cailil ^talk 17:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a sub page in my userspace for informally mediating this issue. If you are happy to go forward with this process please review the page and sign it where it asks for your agreement. The link to the page is here.--Cailil ^talk 19:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]