User talk:Wynnsanity

Disambiguation link notification for October 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 5th Corps (Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Siege of Bihać. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Varvarin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serbian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited First Serbian Uprising, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of AfD template

G'day Wynnsanity. Do not remove AfD templates from articles as you did with this edit. Engage on the AfD page if you oppose deletion. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a mistake, my apologies. Wynnsanity (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, easily fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Borojević source

G'day Wynnsanity. I did a Google search for Borojević and it quickly identified him as a self-published author of aviation books (in the main), and results also indicate he served in the JNA then VRS during the Bosnian War and continued to serve in the VRS afterwards. So, for starters, he's not a historian; secondly, he's self-published; and he's closely affiliated with the VRS given he served in the VRS and the VRS were involved in this engagement. The perception (if not actuality) of a conflict of interest and a likely axe to grind is pretty obvious. I cannot see how his book can be considered reliable, and it certainly can't be used to demonstrate the notability of an article. I will now remove the citations to Borojević from the article. If you believe the book is reliable, feel free to ask for a community opinion at WP:RSN. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the book sources with names, titles, release years and ISBN then you can say so right away, not delete all articles I work very hard on to put together for months, covering topics which aren't well known about, so that history enthusiasts and researchers, like myself can learn about them. But your the way you delete everything without proper explanation and concrete arguments on "how to fix sources" makes it seem like you're not here for the history but rather making this whole thing political. Bosnians are citizens of Bosnia, regardless of their religion or ethnicity, and you can see how it would seem very political of you when you completely adopt opinions of Alija Izetbegović by saying only Muslims under his command were "Bosnians" and other people who have been living there for hundreds of years (documented since the late middle ages 12th century) are some sort of "outsiders or aggressors". I seriously thought we were all here for the history and what actually happened, not to regurgitate some politician's agenda. All the best Wynnsanity (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did say so right away. And as you didn’t provide them, so I had to go looking myself and found that this one was obviously unreliable. I appreciate it can be discouraging when editors question your work, but you have created or contributed to a significant number of poorly sourced articles in a controversial area in a short period of time. I have been editing here for a long time, and that behaviour is a red flag that the editor responsible is themself pushing an agenda. Your responses have not been to fix the problem or apparently read and conform with policy pages I have linked, but to continue using mostly poor quality sources and simultaneously attack me by questioning my motives. You aren’t doing yourself any favours with this behaviour, and it just makes me question what you are doing even more. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

G'day Wynnsanity. I appreciate that you are frustrated, but this sort of response to a delete vote at an AfD is clearly uncivil. Without providing evidence, you are accusing another editor of POV pushing. This is something you have also done with me. Please change your approach to other editors with whom you have disputes and read the policy on dispute resolution. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gow source

G'day Wynnsanity. What is the title of the book cited as "Gow 2003" used in the Operation Chameleon '93 article? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask the same in relation to this edit you made to Operation Prijedor 95. If you're going to use shortened footnote references, you need to also add the full citation in a bibliography section, as explained at WP:CITESHORT. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]