User talk:ZionniThePeruser

Welcome!

Hi ZionniThePeruser! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Skynxnex (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bombing of Guernica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deia. 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) 06:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Holidays in Hell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Druse.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Hello, I'm LocomotiveEngine. I noticed that you recently removed content from Uebert Angel without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. 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. Thanks. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed said content in order to fulfill an edit request by one Exposstage, who found that the sourced cited regarding Uebert's appearance on a United States Department of Justice list were unreliable. Sorry for not being more upfront. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the reason for removing the lines about the U.S fake certificate. Do not remove again as that would amount to edit warring. Should you restore those edits again I will proceed to ANI and report the issue there LocomotiveEngine (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since information came from the Zimbo Live News which appears an unreliable source and the Gistmania source is listed as a spam source per Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/gistmania.com. I have tried to find a reliable source but my search results came up with nothing.

The preceding paragraph was copy-pasted directly from the edit request which I was fulfilling by removing such content, detailing Exposstage's own reasoning.

Again, sorry for not being more upfront. If this explanation still is not good enough, or you have any counterarguments, then please just go and say so. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hvalen incident

I am a coordinator for the military history project. Each month coordinators review the bot assessments of new articles. Please review this sentence "Germany sincerely apologized for the incident and was to in any way make up for the damages inflicted on the Swedish Navy." The second part of it is unclear. Did you intend to write that Germany promised or offered to make up for the damages? And if so, did Germany actually provide some sort of compensation? Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On re-reading this, your wording may cover the first question. If you are sure that it does, disregard the question. If you have any information on whether Germany followed through, please provide it in the article. I have left the assessment as the bot made it. Donner60 (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Soun Takeda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NTV.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2004 Tláhuac lynching has been accepted

2004 Tláhuac lynching, 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. 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!

S0091 (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Murder of Ho Hon Sing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beach Road.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of unusual deaths, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ITV.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of unusual deaths, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cambyses.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

I just read your comment on Pythagoras of Samos at Talk:List of unusual deaths/Sourcing issues carefully for the first time, and I wanted to congratulate you: you're probably the first person in history to use the words "clepe" and "listicles" in the same sentence! (One of the few Google matches for both words is a list of Scrabble words containing "cle"; none of the matches use both words in a sentence.) Thank you also for the excellent work you've been doing lately on List of unusual deaths. Gildir (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh... that's neat to know. And my parents said staying inside all day would get me nowhere.

As for all my edits on the list, I'm just doing what I think is best. Truly a shame that such a well-known list has fallen into such disarray. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of genocides committed by the United States

Hello @ZionniThePeruser, you reverted several changes I added in that page. I agree that I did not add references mentioning genocide although there are pages in Wikipedia like the International War Crimes Tribunal that support these additions. Given that I have included external references, please don't revert these changes and instead open a discussion about it in the Talk page. Thanks. AyubuZimbale (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AyubuZimbale, the references you have used for including My Lai, Sơn Thắng and No Gun Ri massacres do not even call them genocide. I sincerely think you just found random references that mention both genocide and either Korea or Vietnam in their title without even bothering to read them. They are all freely available and are completely misrepresented by yourself and essentially falsified in the article. The first reference you added for the first two massacres discusses the accusation of genocide in Vietnam and concludes that it was unsubstantiated especially compared to the Soviets in Afghanistan. This reference is used to include My Lai but the only mention of the massacre is how it paled in comparison to the Hue Massacre by the communists. The other reference you inserted for these doesn't even mention My Lai and neither reference mentions Sơn Thắng. The reference you added for No Gun Ri massacre was taken from that page where it is found under No Gun Ri massacre#Further reading but it is not used in the article and after reading the reference, it also doesn't call this massacre a genocide. The rest of your additions are largely original research and poorly worded, including your explanation of the list and genocide convention. It should also be noted that The Russell Tribunal was political in nature as noted by one of their investigators here, including the charge of genocide: Russell Tribunal#Reasoning for verdicts.92.18.92.13 (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @ZionniThePeruser. "I sincerely think you just found random references". No, this is false, you are wrong in your interpretation, this is your biased point of view because you think that if I include this information it is because I want to introduce my point of view rather than just improve the page. But if you read what I wrote with better eyes the aim was not to support either side but to explain that there is a debate in the academic world about it. The point of adding outside sources is not to prove that a particular massacre is genocide, but that in both the Korean War and the Vietnam War some scholars consider that there is evidence of genocide. So,

(1) The references added are not to support either the assessment of genocide or its denial but to support that there is an open debate in the academy about it, and it is therefore reasonable to include this on a page such as this which is essentially a summary of other pages in Wikipedia.

(2) About your statement "It should also be noted that The Russell Tribunal was political in nature as noted by one of their investigators here, including the charge of genocide". This is your particular interpretation of this page where you highlight an specific lecture but this is not closing the topic and I disagree with your interpretation. However the important point here is that I gave the reference to the page where this was discussed, so unless you want to remove also the page about the Russell Tribunal it seems a reasonable addition to this page. Please point me to any protocol of Wikipedia in case I am wrong (as I know that I could be right but also wrong).

(3) If you have access to the full article of Forgotten war, forgotten massacres—the Korean War (1950–1953) as licensed mass killings, I would be interested in read it (sadly I can't full access to it but the Prologue is clear in my opinion). It is true that in the prologue it is not using the word genocide but honestly, it is published in Journal of Genocide Research and it says: "More than 60 cases of mass killing committed by US troops ... has been already reveled..." so it seems to me quite clear because of the text and the title of the journal that there is an ongoing evaluation of the Korean War (1950–1953) as a case of genocide. So your accusations "in their title without even bothering to read them", are false and actually if you take 1 minute to read my page you will see that I warned about this specific point to others editors. You statement "The reference you added for No Gun Ri massacre was taken from " is false as this was my own research. You are making a very discouraging assessment and accusations to other editors with is not nice at all.

(4) I asked you to don't revert the change but open a discussion in the Talk page which is what editors are usually doing so others editors of this page can participate in this discussion. Instead you decided to directly remove my edit. Please if you want to discuss about it please I kindly ask you to do in the Talk space of the page under discussion.

(5) Regarding the Black genocide in the United States the page summarizes the possible cases of genocide by United States and there is a long page about this in Wikipedia. Honestly, I don't see any reason to don't include it here. Anyway there are scholars doing research about it and it seems that "the analysis of the jurisprudence of the ad hoc tribunals allows for the identification of the assaults on blacks in Brazil and the United States as genocide."

In general, the way I have seen this in other pages with other editors is to try to achieve a consensus and not remove and remove others contributions. Obviously text can be rewritten in such way that it is better describing facts and achieve a consensus, but I never proceed as you have proceed with the contributions of other editors. On the other side, I never use this to speak about others contributions "The rest of your additions are largely original research and poorly worded", but rather use a more constructive approach. Different editors have different degrees of experience with Wikipedia. The normal thing is to try to be helpful and constructive. AyubuZimbale (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That IP address is not me. I live in Fort Myers, Florida; that IP is based in Ballingry. Feel free to request a WP:CHECKUSER if you don't believe me. I, however, do agree with said IP's analysis of the sources you provided (at least from the excerpts I have available with me).

I believe "an open debate in the academy about it" is not enough to warrant inclusion within the list, plain and simple. There's a reason said massacres aren't included in other articles regarding genocide, including List of genocides. With a topic as controversial as this, I believe there must be a general consensus among academics (or at the very least, a large minority of academics). These massacres, as far as what you've demonstrated, do not meet such a threshold. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I trust your word, when I saw this text and the same time you deleted my edit it looked like it was you. Thank for pointing me to the link List of genocides I was not aware about it. Well, if you see my contributions to the page it is clear that I am improving it in such way that it is not a plain and simple page anymore. I think instead that 99% of the readers of Wikipedia will not navigate to check the criteria for classification so a clarification is reasonable. Your removal of the Black Genocide is non-sense to me as I explained above. Still I kindly ask you to don't remove contributions when other editor is asking you to open a discussion in the talk space of the page. What the other person wrote about my editing was sad and anyone who reads my edition can see that I always try to respect that there are other points of view, for example on the issue of the Russell Tribunal. Or why Nirosima and Nagasaki can't be included, etc... AyubuZimbale (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, I won't revert any further. I'll start a discussion once the AfD has been closed on the article's talk page and we'll continue from there.

In the meantime, if you insist on keeping black genocide, may I at the very suggest least adding a parenthetical stating that such an allegation is contested, as in previous revisions and the sister article List of genocides committed by the Soviet Union? ZionniThePeruser (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. I have edited my contribution to remove the Vietnam War and the Korean War massacres as genocide but explaining the reasons. I am happy to discuss and if there is a consensus about remove the explanation I will accept it (I find useful the explanation). I have added an external reference about the black genocide. AyubuZimbale (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

get well soon! JuanJose1969 (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also i am currently trying to make a Weapons of the Football War page, maybe when i am done with the Salvadorian side you wanna help add the Honduras side? JuanJose1969 (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the incredibly late reply; was pretty busy today since it was the first day of Advent. I'll send you any sources I'll find about the topic and, if needed, help revise your draft. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright sounds good! ill contact you when am ready to make the page. JuanJose1969 (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]