User talk:Okkar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome

Hello Okkar! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for signing up. Here are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Best of luck. Have fun! --ElectricEye (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting into Wikipedia Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Resolving ambiguity (example:Welcome) Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

[edit] Military of Myanmar

Thank you for your contributions to this article. It is frowned upon, however, to remove the text or photographs of articles without discussion why you are doing so. I am reverting some of the changes you've made. Chris 20:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Metros232 23:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have reverted even after Metros' warning. Following Wikipedia protocol, I am leaving a warning about WP:3RR on your talk page. This has gone on long enough. At your next unagreed upon deletion of material from Military of Myanmar, I will be reporting you for violation of the three revert rule.

So that this stops, I invite you to post your wishes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Burma/Myanmar, if other members agree, your edits can stay. Chris 23:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added WikiPedia noncompliant and POVchecks for the article since that is the only way to ensure no politically motivated unrelated information are added to the article. I have also posted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Burma/Myanmar for further request. Again I would like to point out that, we as contributors to Wikipedia must be neutral according to WP:NPOV.Okkar 00:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 02:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation for naming of Wikiproject Burma/Myanmar

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:WikiProject Burma/Myanmar, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. --Hintha 06:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:WikiProject Burma/Myanmar. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Chatroom

Is the chatroom you directed me to affiliated to the national government? It has the standard bearings of typical Burmese state-owned media, stating the following:

- **************************************************************** 
- *           Welcome to Myanmar Online IRC Network              * 
- *           -------------------------------------              * 
- *                 http://www.myanmaronline.org                 * 
- *                                                              * 
- * Our Three Main National causes:                              * 
- *  + Non-disintegration of the Union - Our casue               * 
- *  + Non-disintegration of national solidarity  - Our cause    * 
- *  + Perpetuation of national sovereignty - Our casue          * 
- *                                                              * 
- * Our Four political objectives                                * 
- *  + Stability of the State, community peace and tranquillity, * 
- *    prevalence of law and order.                              * 
- *  + National reconsolidation                                  * 
- *  + Emergence of a new enduring State Constitution            * 
- *  + Building of a new modern developed nation in accord with  * 
- *    the new State Constitution                                * 
- *                                                              * 
- * Our People Desires                                           * 
- *  + Oppose those relying on external elements,                * 
- *    acting as stooges, holding negative views.                * 
- *  + Oppose those trying to jeopardize stability of the State  * 
- *    and progress of the nation.                               * 
- *  + Oppose foreign nations interfering in internal affairs    * 
- *    of the State.                                             * 
- *  + Crush all the internal and external distructive elements  * 
- *    as the common enemies.                                    * 

And I can't seem to go in the ygnchat; it merely takes me back to the statements above. --Hintha 01:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is in no way affiliated to the government, however, in order not get blocked, we have to attached the MOTD as instructed. You have to register a nick name before you can join. This network has been around since 2003 and has been used by all internet users in Myanmar as this is their only way out when gtalk, Yahoo and MSN are banned. btw, you are welcome to Myanmar Online (initially it was called Burmese Online and had to rename it due to the blocking).

Okkar 01:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed your POV check and NPOV tags from the discussion page, because those tags are for articles and not discussions, where you are supposed to voice your opinions. If you would like, you can add those tags to the main page. --Hintha 03:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I added it there because it shows the political orientation of the project coordinators and the discussion thread as whole, and it is important for anyone who is carry out checks to make the assestment based upon these discussion. It is very relevant. Okkar 04:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it extremely insulting that you would claim that I, along with the other respectable members of the Wikiproject, have political agendas. I have repeatedly reverted countless edits by anonymous users/vandals who change the capital from Naypyidaw to Yangon on the Myanmar article, until I was able to appease them by adding a note indicating some governments do not recognise the new capital. In addition, I have repeatedly opposed Myanmar article "moves" to Myanmar, arguing here (dated over one month ago), for instance, against the name change to Burma (check my user contributions to see all of the reverts I have had to do). Recently, there has been a surge of anonymous users adding POV material about Thandar Shwe on Than Shwe's article, but I, acting in good faith, removed them all. You should actually look at my user contributions. If the name of the country article were "Burma/Myanmar", I would clearly understand why you would have such objections, but it isn't. Purely political motivations are not the only reasons why "Burma" is still used. --Hintha 09:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If there was no political agenda, why is it necessary for you to even "appease" the demands of the oppositions? we supposed to contribute the contents that are fair, netural, impartial and verifiable, not accomodating the poltical blackmails in the form of vandalism. Every controversial articles on Wikipedia have problems with vandalism and but adding contents simply to "appease" vandals isnt the way to resolve the issue. Further more, if the name of country article is simple "Myanmar", why would you still insists upon having the project name as "Burma/Myanmar", not only that it doesnt make sense, it is counterproductive in the sense of adding confusion over already complicated matters. The bottom line is .. "is the country name Burma or Myanmar", it's one or the other, not both. Even the scope of Wikiproject contradicts the project name as I have already pointed that out in the other thread. Needless to mention the fact that our country's project is the only project with "two" names in Wiki Country Project. While you are "appeasing" people with political agendas, we as a country paying the price for it. Please try to look things from a wider perspective, this isnt just a simple WikiProject, it is "our country's" wikiproject, have a little pride! Okkar 09:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Than Shwe

Thanks for your edit. You sparked me to make a minor copy-edit to the article, just trying to make it flow better. I don't think I changed your emphasis at all -- seemed fine to me -- but please check! Andrew Dalby 12:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's fine mate, I was rushing through it and i guess i left out some really odd sentences :-) Okkar 14:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Myanmar Wide Web

I moved your discussion to the article itself-that is the place to put it, as more people than just the Project would be interested to know that. Actually, the best way to get the article deleted or improved would be to put it up for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, then someone will verify and you can get the whole of Wikipedia to check it. Chris 16:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I learn something new today :-) Okkar 16:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing honorifics

Please remove honorifics from the following articles (per Manual of Style conventions):

• Aung San Thuriya Saw Bayi
• Aung San Thuriya Hla Aung
• Aung San Thuriya Aye Cho
• Aung San Thuriya Taik Chun

Thank you. --Hintha 04:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re Request for help

Hi, sorry its taken me a couple of days to get back to you.

First of all, don't worry about the suspected sock puppet report. That page has a backlog to almost the point of collapse. I just don't see it getting anywhere and I wouldn't worry.

I see now that the formal mediation has been accepted. Though it tends to take a couple of weeks, hopefully that should solve things. --Robdurbar 10:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Wikipedia the mouth piece of NCGUB? (Military of Myanmar)

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia You have recently removed content from Wikipedia without reason, after having already been warned about such behaviour. Please stop now, as further vandalism may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. You are still welcome to (and encouraged to) carry out constructive edits on Wikipedia articles.

Why was it necessary for you to remove Military of Myanmar from Myanmar category? was it not represent the country's armed forces or was it because you think it would offend those parties that you are associated with? What are you trying to prove? that Wikiproject Burma/Myanmar only paddle articles that are sanctioned and blessed by NCGUB? is that what you are trying to show? I thought you said you found it insulting to have been accused of having political agendas, but it seems your actions betrayed your words entirely. How can you be free of political motivation and agendas, when you deliberately removed Military of Myanmar out of Myanmar category? It just goes to show how you and your friends are exploiting Wikipedia as a mouthpiece of NCGUB to paddle their political stance towards the country. Okkar 17:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't aggressively accuse others of being biased without prior knowledge. If you actually took a look at Category:Myanmar, you would find that there are very few articles that exist in that category, because more specific categories have been created, which in the case of "Military of Myanmar" is the category of that same name. For this same reason, articles like "Economy of Myanmar", "Culture of Myanmar", "History of Myanmar", "Politics of Myanmar", "Communication in Myanmar", "Education in Myanmar", just to name a few, appear only in those specific categories and not the general "Myanmar" category, which is mainly for uncategorised articles and the "Myanmar" article. Next time, before you accuse me of trying to "paddle articles that [have been] sanctioned and blessed by NCGUB", you should see how Wikipedia categories work and check out other country cats (e.g. Category:Singapore, Category:Australia) just to name a few). And don't warn me for vandalism without providing a more reasonable explanation. (This is a response to the following 3 posts: 1, 2, 3) --Hintha 23:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed rank titles

I have taken the liberty of removing the military rank titles from the article names of the following:

• Hla Thaung
• Aye Cho
• Taik Chun

As per Manual of Style conventions, Wikipedia articles leave out honorifics and titles from article titles (for example, check out Category:Chinese military personnel, in which no articles contain "Private", "General", etc.) If you are ever unsure of something, just refer to that excellent resource. --Hintha 23:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zarni AfD

Hi there! I've completed the deletion nomination for this article - you can see it here. It's probably a good idea for you to edit the discussion and explain why you think the article should be deleted. Tevildo 21:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I noticed you tagged a lot of images such as Image:Mm-northern-rmc.jpg as {{pd-self}}. What program have you been using to create these? Metros232 21:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Adobe Illustrator.. want to see my artwork in original form to prove that this is my work? Okkar 01:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Myanmar Armed Forces

Maybe the reason some users don't reply to what you say is because they're afraid of being accused of having political leanings, and being aggressively attacked for what they think. I support splitting up the articles as long as summaries are left in the main article. But, I suggest the article be moved back to "Military of Myanmar", to keep it standardized (like other country-military articles, which are named "Military of ...", while redirects link back to those articles. --Hintha 08:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It is neither aggressive nor to be consider as attacks, when you stand up and make a point. If they have done nothing wrong, why would they be afraid of speaking up for what they believed in? I thought democracy promote the freedom of speech?? As for moving the article, I did not move the article but it seems appropiate to have moved, as other countries, such as Britain have it as "British Armed Forces". We should try to be consistent. Okkar 09:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What vandalism is

Please read WP:VANDAL to find out what vandalism really is. Vandalism is not defined as "other users interesting information you disagree with" as seems to be your definition per your reverts of SimonBillenness (talk • contribs). That's not vandalism, that's a content dispute. Please try to engage in conversation on talk pages rather than reverting each other constantly. Metros232 16:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Myanmar. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Kusma (討論) 16:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Military of Myanmar. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Taik Chun image

[edit] Image:TaikChun.jpg listed for deletion

NawlinWiki 13:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tin Tun

I have referenced and sourced all that is in the article-the reference section at the bottom has been there since the article was created, those are the sources-everything in there is verified. Chris 20:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Myanmar

Please see Talk:Myanmar#Removal_of_cited_information_and_ISBN_numbers. --Hintha 01:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] consultation

Okkar hello. I'm contacting you and some other members of wikipedia for a personal reason. I'm an Italian National about to leave for Myanmar. I've already been in the Golden Land managing business for a private italian company some years ago. This time I'd like to make a life experience there, stay longer and find a job. Mission impossible? It would be helpful and interesting to exchange some opinion with you and have a clearer vision of what I will find. PS. If possible answer to my email address ik4fmy@yahoo.it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clape (talk • contribs) 14:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 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 21:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Deleting images from Myanmar_Armed_Forces article

Please see that the images were deleted and are on the article as red links, as such they are of no use anymore. Thanks, feydey 21:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accusatory remarks

Okkar, before you go around accusing yet another Wikipedia user of vandalism, please check to see whether the edits were made in good faith (Wikipedia:Assume good faith). Feydey was only cleaning up the article (rv - no reasons were giving for removing the images - vandalism??), because two of the images ([1], [2]) had been deleted for not having been properly sourced. Hence, they were not there, and as you see, those two images are missing now, because an administrator had deleted them ([3]). Thank you. --Hintha 22:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you? remark police? I made the point for not leaving proper reasoning! If he had left the reasons with his delete, I would not have to make any remarks! please stop sucking up to foriegners! you are only emberassing yourself. Okkar 08:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

When you make undiscussed, repeated edits against the way the project itself is set up, that is vandalism, and saying so is not a personal attack. If you want to change the way the membership list is set up, discuss it first. I will continue to revert your changes until you do. Chris 19:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violations of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA

As a member of the Wikipedia community, you have agreed to follow the guidelines and policies here. The following comment by you is a violation of several of these policies:

Finally, the common sense has prevailed and triumphed over destructive mindset of opposition groups and their minions who are using this project as a political propaganda tool. It is a victory over those who seek out to degrade our country by insisting to use the old colonial name of the country as the name of the project and the axe handles who colluded with foreigners with mob mentality to remove anyone who don’t support or share their politically biased views from this project by any means necessary, even if it means they have to cheat or lied.

If you are not willing to follow Wikipedia's rules, please stop editing. If you want to continue to edit, you must stop attacking other editors and focus on improving the content of articles. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 19:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please cite exactly which part of my comments broke these policies instead of wholesale asscusation of the violation, point by point - if you dont mind. I followed Wikipedia's rules and stated the obivious, I have not made personal attack to any particular person by name - WP:NPA is out of the question here, as for WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, neither applies to my comments since it was not an uncivilised comments although it may have been a rather brute assestment of the reality. so if you truly believed that I have broken these policies, please educate me where and how precisely. Okkar 22:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks are defined by Wikipedia as attacks on a person's character. In your comments above, you label people as "minions" and make assumptions about their motives. In other discussions, you have personally attacked Hintha by saying she is "sucking up to foreigners." If you confine yourself to criticism of contributions to Wikipedia, rather than contributors to Wikipedia, you would make a large step towards meeting the Wikipedia standards of civility. SimonBillenness 14:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This may be your view simply, doesnt necessarily mean it is the truth. "Sucking up to foreigners" doesnt mean it is a personal attack - only people who are insecure about themselves would consider that. I have made more contribution than most people, especially my contributions are factual and correct. Okkar 14:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to take your response as agreement that you are, like other editors, required to follow Wikipedia rules. And I agree that specifics are important here.

Assume good faith

Let's start with WP:AGF, which states There will be people on Wikipedia with whom you disagree. Even if they're wrong, that doesn't mean they're trying to wreck the project. There will be some people with whom you find it hard to work. That doesn't mean they're trying to wreck the project either.

Contrast that with your words:

• destructive mindset of opposition groups
• using this project as a political propaganda tool
• those who seek out to degrade our country
• colluded with foreigners
• politically biased views
• by any means necessary, even if it means they have to cheat or lied.

All of those involve assumptions by you about the intentions of others; all of those assumptions are negative, and therefore lacking in good faith.

Civility

You said, regarding your comment, it may have been a rather brute assestment of the reality. But the nutshell portion of WP:CIVIL includes the following: be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. It's clear that your remarks have offended other people; I'm assuming that was unintentional on your part, since intentionally offending people, is, of course, totally inappropriate.

In addition, the policy says incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. The "personally targeted" means "targeted at other editors", as opposed to a discussion of content. I would hope it is clear from the comments of other editors that there indeed is greater conflict and stress here than would be the case if you had simply said something like "I'm glad the arbitration is over, I'm happy with the results; I hope we can all work together to make a better encyclopedia."

No personal attacks

WP:NPA says This page in a nutshell: Comment on content, not on the contributor. I see very little, if anything, in the comment at the top of the section, which you made, that comments on content; rather, you are discussing contributors. (Negative) comments about the behavior of other contributors, except when that the behavior is believed to have not followed Wikipedia policy or guidelines, does not help improve articles; and it does not encourage others to work cooperatively (or even to remain as contributors at all).

I also want to discuss your comment that I have not made personal attack to any particular person by name. This seems to say that you believe that personal attacks against a group of editors, not specified by name, is acceptable. Is that what you're saying? I want to be clear here that you're saying that your words were attacks, but that you believe that WP:NPA doesn't apply because you didn't mention anyone by name. (I don't agree with that position, but rather than explain why, I'd like you to confirm that is your position, and then we can discuss it further.) -- John Broughton (☎☎) 16:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Okkar

This case has been closed; while it is clear that the accounts in question, if not sockpuppets, were meatpuppets of you. Canvassing for others to come to Wikipedia to support your disagreements is absolutely not allowed. Since they have not edited since their brief contributions to the discussion, however, I am choosing not to place any blocks for now. Be aware, however, that if you continue in this manner, blocks will certainly be appropriate. -- Natalya 13:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Reversions

Please refrain from simply reverting others' edits, particularly when the result is the reincorporation of poor grammar and incorrect spelling.

Here are some of the guidelines around reversions.

Do's

Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.

Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.

If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.

If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

Dont's

Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.

Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith.

Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.

There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ

Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it. SimonBillenness 23:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 16:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Deletion of General San Yu picture`

You deleted the above picture but left no details apart from "incompatible license". Can you please explain exactly which part of the license is incompatible? Okkar 13:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:General San Yu.jpg
• Okkar (talk • contribs)

Hello Okkar. The image did not have source or license information. In order to use the photo, Wikipedia needs to know where the image came from, and if its copyright holder allows its use. See Wikipedia:Uploading images for more. Where did you get the image? That would be a good start. Feel free to ask me further questions. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Fang, The photo came from the archive of "Defence Services Historical Records" archives and these archives are maintained by Defense Service Museum in Yangon, Myanmar. The copy right holder of the image is Defense Service Museum and I can furnish you with authorisation letter of the commanding officer from Defense Service Museum allowing me to use the image for wikipedia. Please provide me with your postal address and I would be happy to send you the original authorisation letter for your persual. By the way... It would have been nice if you'd ask the questions before you delete the image though... Okkar 17:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia cannot accept images that can only be used on Wikipedia, or "for non-commercial use only". (See WP:CSD - Images - criteria #3.) About asking questions--we get literally hundreds of image uploads every day, and it would be impractical to personally ask about every one of them. I know it's not a perfect system, but the admins here try to keep up the best we can. Thanks, Fang Aili ^talk 19:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re. Flag of Myanmar (2006 proposal)

The fact that the proposed flag has not been adopted does not mean that is it unworthy of mention. See Flag of Iraq and Flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina for examples of flags that were not adopted but still included in the articles. Kelvinc 00:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, If we have to include every single proposed and unadopted flags, we would have over 200 flags. Please let me know if you think we should start including all the proposed flags since 1948 independance? There have been over 200 flags which were never adopted. Okkar 09:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that we can have it there as long as it's under proposal and it can be deleted if the formal constitutional process rejects it. This is not merely some guy in a basement posting an idea on the Internet. This is the formal opinion of the committee of the current constitutional convention that has been tasked to look into this matter, a convention organized by the current government, so it stands a good chance of being accepted. I'd rank this proposal higher in official attention than the Australian flag debate (which never reached the point of a proposal to be considered by the government) and closer to the Great Flag Debate. Kelvinc 09:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am not in anyway disputing the fact, I just dont want to start a feeding frenzy to those politically motivated editors, who are itching to include flags of NLD and 1001 other flags of opposition groups. If we started including unofficial flags, granted that it has been proposed but not yet formally adopted, then we would open the flood gate to these vandals are who are rubbing their paws to include their party's flags. I hope you understand my point. Okkar 10:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Okkar, I would caution you yet again against attacking other editors by labeling them as "politically motivated." Please keep discussion and debate confined to the contribution, not the contributor.

In any case, I believe that you have your facts wrong. After you removed the NLD flag in the Myanmar article, I simply replaced it since the NLD was noted in the article. It was you who then started adding flags of other groups despite their lack of relevance to the article. I don't know of any other editor, other than you, who has recently tried to include other party's flags.SimonBillenness 17:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I included all the flags that are relevant to the article, seeing as NLD flags was included, i see no reasons why we should discriminate against other opposition groups. For example, Burmese Communists Party flag has as much relevance in Myanmar history as NLD flag. After all, we cant have one rule for NLD, and one rule for the rest just to suit your political "leanings". If you wish to include NLD flag in Myanmar article simply to fufil your organisation's committment for lobbying on behalf of NLD, you have to expect that people would begin to question your motives. That said, it is no longer the case of focusing on "contribution" alone, because the said "contribution" was made with motives other than simple "contribution" to Wikipedia.

It is not attacking to "suggest" that some of the edits made by particular editors are politically motivated. For example, you are the director of "US Campaign for Burma", how does one ensure that your contributions are not biased towards opposition groups, particularly NLD and NCGUB, both of which are heavily lobbied by "US Campaign for Burma" and you just happens to be the Director of this group. I kept the discussions and debates strictly confined to the contribution, however the contribution in question just happens to be "policatlly motiviated", therefore it is not attacking nor accusing anyone in particular for questioning their political motivation. Secondly, it is hard for anyone to assume "good faith" when they come acorss articles that are writing in such a way to support lobbying of particular political party or opposition groups, one cant help but wondering if Wikipedia is being used as a lobbying platform? Your affliation and the position you hold in these lobby groups does raise questions about your motives. Surely you must realise that what you are doing is entirely contradictory to what Wikipedia stands for, not to mention breaching a number of it's core policies. Okkar 21:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Okkar, your claims that the flag proposal would serve as a Trojan Horse to include other flags is not borne out by the facts: the Flag of Myanmar article has been around for three years and the only edit that I think you would possibly consider as "politically motivated" is the addition of a line stating the use of the old five-star flag by the NCGUB. And that's not even adding a new flag, but stating a contemporary use of a flag that was indeed the de facto flag of the country for decades. If there are as many politically biased editors as you claim, flags for the NLD and other opposition groups would've appeared on that article ages ago, and that simply isn't the case.

Based on the history of the article, I just don't see how adding the flag proposal would create some sort of edit war. I'm restoring the proposed flag. If you feel otherwise, you can delete it and I'll take it up with the WikiProject for consensus, or better yet leave it and take it up with the WikiProject. Kelvinc 22:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, in order to save the edit war, i think it would be best to take this up with WikiProject and ask for mediation. Please let me know if you are agreement and I shall request for the mediation. As for the politically biased editors, perhaps you should take a good look around in WikiProject Myanmar/Burma, you will no doubt realise how biased it gets. I suggest you start with Myanmar article to see how these politically motivated editors are using Wikipedia for lobbying purpose. If not, why else do you think the Director of "US Campaign for Burma" lobby group is extremely vocal about having NLD flag in Myanmar article? I hope you understand where I am coming from, as a native myanmar, I am sick and tired of seeing people exploiting "facts" about our country to serve political purposes through Wikipedia. Okkar 22:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's just cool our heels for a while and let this one go for now. This article really hasn't been an ideological battleground, the way that other Myanmar-related articles may have become. Take a look at the history for the flag of the Republic of China article: now that is controversial. We're nowhere near that situation. If we start seeing edits to include proposed flags by bodies other than the SPDC-recognized or NCGUB-recognized institutions, then we'd be having a problem on our hands. However, right now in the article there are only the two de facto flags used in Myanmar since 1948, and a recent proposed flag that stands a good chance of adoption. That's pretty NPOV.

And if something does come up, let's just chat in the WikiProject first: we don't have to get all official and mediate everything. Kelvinc 02:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Okkar, I have made it abundantly clear on several occasions that it is perfectly reasonable to include the flag/emblem of a political party cited in an article.

Once again, you attack me by suggesting bias on my part. Please quit the constant and tiresome innuendo and provide edits of mine that exhibit bias. I'd be surprised if you find any. You are attacking people personally if you provide no evidence of biased editing.

I keep my politics separate from my Wikipedia editing. I would suggest that you do the same. Your comments above do, I believe, constitute a personal attack on me and so I will report them. Your abuse of Wikipedia standards needs to stop. SimonBillenness 04:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The edit of your that exhibit bias is your insistance to include NLD flag in Myanmar article, where no other country have included flags of political party, it is plain to see what you were trying to achieve even though you use various pretext to cover the facts. Please do not threaten me with reporting to Wikipedia authority. If you feel the need, please do so and I shall be ready to defend myself with "facts" and i would be more than happy to expose how you have been using Wikipedia as a lobbying platform. Please remember Wikipedia is not owned by "US Campaign for Burma" Okkar 08:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 19:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)