Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, GenghisTheHun, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

In regards to the article RateItAll, you need to establish notability for the site for it to be included in Wikipedia. If you simply want to test, here is a good place to test. Kesac 23:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RateItAll

Greetings!

Kesac is right that you have to establish notability. References, such as the PC mag article, help to do that, as does the note that it had close to a million hits in January (do we have a source for that?) Everything in Wikipedia which is potentially controversial, i.e. not simple common sense, is supposed to be sourced (you can find lots of unsourced articles, but most of them either date from the time before we started getting tough about our sourcing guidelines). See reliable sources and verifiability for some advice on how to proceed.

The article is pretty good for a start--I'd suggest comparing it to the other articles on similar "review" websites for ideas on what to do with it next (Epinions comes to mind) -- and maybe other website articles in general. You can look to see what kinds of "reliable sources" are used in those articles.

Check out some of the links in Kesac's welcome message as well, but it seems you have gotten the hang of editing already. Note that you can sign your name to posts using four tildes at the end of your post (~~~~). Wiki syntax is a little more complex than what you use on RateItAll but it's pretty easy overall. Once again, welcome to Wikipedia and have fun! Antandrus (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from GenghisTheHun

Thanks for the advice and I shall work to improve the article as time permits over the next few days. It appears from some of the other articles that press releases of numbers data is sufficient to establish the truth of the matter asserted.

````GenghisTheHun

Reverted your edits in the Spanish Civil War article

Hey, I have reverted the edit in which you created a new section in the article Spanish Civil War called "Anti Religious Atrocities in Republican Spain". Well, I tell you why:

The social revolution in Republican Spain at the beginning of the Civil War began everywhere with a great tide of assassination, destruction and spoilage. Hugh Thomas, The Spanish Civil War (1961), p. 171. Militia gangs often named after sports teams or Left Wing political figures directed their fury against the Catholic Church. Hugh Thomas, ibid. Throughout Republican Spain churches and religious houses were indiscriminately burned or looted. Hugh Thomas, pp 171-172.

In this paragraph you explain the facts, well, these facts are already explained in the article:

Atrocities were committed on both sides during the war. Some, including the use of terror tactics against civilians, foreshadowed World War II, as did some of the military tactics. Atrocities in the Republican side were committed by groups of radical leftists against the Church or by the Stalinist NKVD (which also carried out murders of pro-Republican people, see Andreu Nin) against political enemies, on the Nationalist side these atrocities were ordered by the fascist authorities themselves in order to eradicate any trace of leftism in Spain. This included the aerial bombing of cities, the execution of school teachers (the efforts of the Republic to promote the laicism and to displace the Church from the education system were seen from the Nationalist side as an attack on the Church) or anyone who was accused of blasphemy or not going to Church on Sunday and the massive killings of civilians in the liberated cities.^[1]

[...]

Republican sympathizers proclaimed it as a struggle between "tyranny and democracy", or "fascism and liberty", and many non-Spanish young, committed reformers and revolutionaries joined the International Brigades, believing the Spanish Republic was the front line of the war against fascism. Franco's supporters, however, portrayed it as a battle between the "red hordes" of communism and anarchism on the one hand and "Christian civilization" on the other. They also stated that they were protecting the Establishment and bringing security and direction to what they felt was an ungoverned and lawless society.^{[citation needed]}

And examples of these facts are shown through some references and quotes, at the bottom of the article, that explain some specific cases, and link to other webpages with information about this subject.

So I think that's enough. But what you did, after your introduction, is mentioning lots of random examples:

The attacks on the religious institutions were a conscious assault on the manners and morals of middle class and upper class Spain. The attackers' aim was destruction rather than loot. Few buildings were spared. The cathedral in Barcelona and some churches in central Madrid were saved; otherwise the destruction was general and thorough. Hugh Thomas, p. 172. A serious loss came from the burning of the library in the Cuenca Cathedral with its ten thousand books including the famous Catecismo de Indias. Hugh Thomas, ibid. Churches were firmly closed in Republican Spain although many were put to other uses. Hugh Thomas, ibid. 150 churches were totally destroyed and 4,850 damaged of which 1,850 were more than half destroyed. Hugh Thomas, p. 606.

The attack on the property of the Church was accompanied by a ferocious assault on the lives of church members. Hugh Thomas, ibid. Executions in Republican Spain killed 12 bishops, 283 nuns, 5,255 priests, 2,492 monks and 249 novices. Hugh Thomas, p. 173. Many of the executions were accompanies by a partly frivolous and partly sadistic cruelty. Hugh Thomas, p. 173.

The parish priest of Navalmoral was put through a sacriligous parody of Christ's crucefixion. At the end of his suffering the militiamen debated whether actually to crucify him or just shoot him. They finished with a shooting. His last request was to be allowed to face this tormenters so he could bless them. Hugh Thomas, ibid.

The Bishop of Jaen and his sister were murdered in front of two thousand celebrating spectators by a special executioner, a woman nick-named La Pecosa, the freckled one. Hugh Thomas, p. 174. The Bishop of Almeria was murdered while working on a history of Toledo. His card index file of 1,200 was destroyed. Hugh Thomas, ibid. In Madrid a nun was killed because she refused a proposition of marriage from a militiman who helped storm her convent. Hugh Thomas, p. 173. In En Pardo, near Madrid, a group of militiamen became drunk on communion wine while trying the parish priest. One militman used the chalice as a washing bowl as he shaved himself. Hugh Thomas, ibid.

Although rare, some nuns were raped by militiamen before they were shot. Hugh Thomas, ibid. The priest of Cienpozuelos was thrown into a corral with fighting bulls where he was gored into unconsciousness. Afterwards one of his ears was cut off to imitate the feat of a matador after a successful bullfight. Hugh Thomas, ibid.

In Cuidad Real, the priest was castrated and his sexual organs stuffed in his mouth. Hugh Thomas, ibid. Also in Cuidad Real, a crucefix was shoved down the throat of a mother of two priests. Hugh Thomas, ibid.

Well, these are lots of random examples. We could take a thousand more cases of murdered people in the Republican side, and a hundred thousands more cases in the nationalist side. But these examples are random; I mean, if you mention this, to be fair, you should also mention lots of other examples, and also mention things that happened in the Nationalist side. But you just take few crude examples that happened in the Republican side, and create a section called "Anti Religious Atrocities in Republican Spain". So it distorts the reality. The section you made, more than to try to clarify the atrocities comitted by the radicals in the Republican side, looks like a bombardment of crude anecdotes which aim is to demonize the Republican government, making it look the guilty of these crimes.

I think these specific cases should go in the article through references, or in a sepparate article like the article "Víctimas de la Guerra Civil Española" (Victims of the Spanish Civil War) in the Spanish Wikipedia [1]. At least, if you still want to introduce such section in the Spanish Civil War article, comment it in the talk page before doing it.

Thanks.

Onofre Bouvila 17:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine, but to remove is pure bias.

Hisory is history, and the anti-religious was an integral part of the Republican agenda. I have revised and restored the artilce.

````GenghisTheHun

GenghisTheHun, I reverted too, and explained in more detail on Talk:Spanish Civil War. In short, there is no bias here. Rather, the article is too long, and you're adding in a large section which, if every topic of similar importance was equivalently handled, would expand the article to about 5 times what it currently is. Nobody is denying the anti-clericalism of many Republicans; it's already in the article. Articles have to be readable, and cannot simply be the repository of every fact that someone discovers.

You should consider writing a separate article or fleshing out some of the other related articles, such as Anti-clericalism, Spanish Revolution, or start a new article as the other editor suggested.

Also -- if someone is giving you an explanation of why the material doesn't work, you need to assume good faith about their explanations and behavior, and not engage in personal attacks such as insinuating bias.

At any rate -- Wikipedia is pretty clear that major edits should be talked about on the talk page if possible, and if it's clear that there is a dispute, it definitely needs to be discussed in the talk page, and not subject of putting it back in. (I'm linking to policies & procedures for you to read.) --lquilter 05:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preview Button

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. --Crossmr 15:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rateitall

While he might be a subject matter expert (67 mentions in google's archive doesn't convince me of that) there is no provision made in WP:V or WP:RS. Even if he is a subject matter expert what he writes still needs to be published by a reliable source before it can be used as a citation. Exceptions are only made in the case of well known professional journalists and researchers, he doesn't appear to be either of those, and that is only made with the caveat that if what they're saying in a self-published form is really important a reliable source should pick it up.--Crossmr 00:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:BattleofTeruelmap.png

Thanks for uploading Image:BattleofTeruelmap.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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. 07:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity

I took the image from Wiki, and there is no problem. The problem is that I didn't find the drop down window to be all that clear. I still don't know how to note it correctly.

GenghisTheHun 20:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun[reply]

Regarding edits made to RateItAll

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, GenghisTheHun! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule alexa\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 01:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Teruel image

The image I was concerned with in the Battle of Teruel article wasn't any you uploaded, but Image:Terualsiege.jpg, if that's what you thought. However, I noticed that the image you uploaded, Image:BattleofTeruelmap.png, has been replaced with the same image hosted at Commons, Image:Batalla de Teruel.png, so I tagged it accordingly. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the new image ok

Is the new image ok? That was the image that had uploaded but the robot removed. I received a suggestion from an editor to take the image from another Wikipedia article as that meant that the image had already been approved. I took this image from either the Polish Language or Spanish Language, I forget now, article on the Battle of Teruel.

Many thanks,

GenghisTheHun 17:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun[reply]

The image from Commons is fine, yes. --Fritz S. (Talk) 17:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teruel

I'm making a few copyedits to your superb article on the Battle of Teruel. Let me know if anything I change bothers you. Cheers, Albrecht 15:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. The edits are good.

GenghisTheHun 21:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun[reply]

By the way, if any image on en.Wikipedia is a duplicate of one on commons, you don't have to nominate it at WP:PUI. Simply add {{subst:ncd}}. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hesitate to revert my careless casualties mistake, although we should attempt a precise breakdown if we can (this seems practical at least for the Nationalists). However, I don't think the presence of foreign elements in the Spanish Popular/Nationalist armies was significant enough to warrant a separate Infobox listing (this is usually reserved for instances where foreign nationals make up the majority of the army in question, i.e. Guadalajara or Krasny Bor). Battle Infoboxes were conceived as an expedient summary containing only the main combatant states. As Onofre Bouvila stated in a rare moment of clarity:

“

But anyway, there were hundreds of other small powers that helped the Republic, and you can't mention them all. Because if you mention CNT-FAI, UGT, POUM, etc, you will also have to mention the tens of pro-republican Ca ta lan parties, the pro-republican Basque parties, etc. And this would be eternal. So it's pointless to mention all these smaller forces. The article should focus on The Spanish Republic as the major force that fought on the Republican Side. Yes: there were lots of smaller forces and political parties that fought there, but the Spanish Republic was the bigger one, which grouped all the rest: all the guilds, local and regional corps of volunteers, the international brigades, etc, were inside the Republican Army.

”

Anyway, the involvement and activities of these semi-independent military forces can of course be set out in the text of the article in as much detail as you find necessary. Albrecht 22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cberlet's comments

As to Cberlet, I am going to use his rules. If he has a comment to make he should post the comment on his discussion page or on the article page and post an alert on this page. I shall delete all his comments as he does mine.

GenghisTheHun 18:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun[reply]

Alert: I delete content discussions from my talk page because I have a note at the top of my page asking that content discussions take place in front of other editors on the appropriate entry page. I do not engage in content discussions on my talk page. I solicit notices that a content discussion is happening on a particular entry talk page, or other procedural notices and comments. --Cberlet 13:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Religious Persecution in the Spanish Civil War

An editor has nominated Religious Persecution in the Spanish Civil War, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious Persecution in the Spanish Civil War and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 20:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Civil War?

I saw you made lots of changes but I didn't see you got a consensus to do that in the talk page. You posted lots of subjects in it, but no one replied you. All in all, I don't understand much what have you done, but I have seen that you removed stuff like the Carlist Wars without asking anything to anyone, just raising rhetorical questions in your edit summary like "Really, do we need this?". Well, what about asking it in the talk page, asking if we need that, and then, if you get a consensus, removing it? I don't see the point of removing something, and while removing it, asking "Really, do we need this?". I restored some of the stuff you removed. BTW about the Carlist Wars, "really, we need it". The Spanish Civil War cannot be understood without the friction existing in the country since the first liberal reforms of the 19th century. Onofre Bouvila 01:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't really understand what are you doing in the Spanish Civil War article.

There was a section called Pacifism in Spain, which talked about the Pacifism in Spain during the previous years to the War. It was in its right place: a small section inside the Spanish Civil War article. If you wish to extend this topic, you can create a main page that talks further about it, and then, you go into the section "Pacifism in Spain" (in the Spanish Civil War article), and write: { {main|Pacifism in Spain during the previous years to the Spanish Civil War} }, for example. So anyone who reads the Spanish Civil War article, can read this section, and if this person wants to know more about this issue, he can go to the main article that talks about it. But what you have done, is to completely remove any reference to the Pacifism in Spain in the Spanish Civil War article, and the contribution about this topic that somebody had done in that article, you placed it in a separate article. But:

The article you created is wrong, because since it is not inside the Spanish Civil War article, it cannot be named "Pacifism in Spain": this name was the proper name inside the Spanish Civil War article, because when one readed that, one could understand that this section talked about the pacifist movement that surrounded the years of the conflict. And the article you made, talks about this! Not about the pacifism in Spain in a general meaning. So it's pointless to place it apart, and if you do, you must especify that the article talks about a very concret moment in the History of Spain: not about all the pacifism that there has been in Spain.
You seem to want to classify everything, and you create new sections to "put in order" the article, and stuff. But I haven't seen new content. All what I have seen, are the other people's contributions being touched and manipulated, pictures removed without reason, new sections, etc, but really, I don't see the point. Have all this been discussed in the talk page before doing all these changes? I don't think so. All I have seen in the talk page, is lots of topics created by you, that haven't obtained any response. I don't see the point. With this case of the Pacifism in Spain, you have erased any reference to the Pacifism in Spain from the Spanish Civil War article, so the article you created (with a copy pasted contribution of someone else) is not connected or linked with its mother article (the Spanish Civil War article). Now we don't have any reference to the Pacifism in Spain in the Spanish Civil War article, and apart from it, we have a separate article that seems to talk about the Pacifism in Spain, but that in fact does not talk about this: it talks about the pacifism in spain during the previous years to the Spanish Civil War. And both articles are not connected, so one can't go from one article to the other. A 5 line long section does not need to be placed in a separate article just to increase your counter of "created articles". If you want to increase that, create a main article for that section, and link the small section to this new, bigger, article. But don't just cut and paste things.

I don't think you haven't put in order much stuff. I think you've just re-classified all the sections, and re-structurated all the stuff, to try to make it more clear, but in fact many sections of the Spanish Civil War article have been removed, or mutilated, and other senseless, non-connected, additional articles like this one, that are totally placed out of context, have been created.

Well, that's it. I have re-added the section "Pacifism in Spain" in the Spanish Civil War article. If you want to write further about this topic, you can create a separate article, and then go to the Spanish Civil War article, and add a label like this: { {main|Pacifism in Spain during the previous years to the Spanish Civil War} }, or something so. But please, stop cutting and pasting the other people's work. Onofre Bouvila 13:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pennywiseclown.JPG

Hello GenghisTheHun, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Pennywiseclown.JPG) was found at the following location: User:GenghisTheHun. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Policemen and flowers.jpg

Hello GenghisTheHun, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Policemen and flowers.jpg) was found at the following location: User:GenghisTheHun. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 05:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:User categories for discussion on -isms

Hi. A user category that you are in has been proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. You are welcome to comment. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic F.C. task force

Hello, you have a userbox which suggests you are a fan of Celtic F.C. I am hoping to start up a task force for Celtic at WikiProject Football.
If you are interested please reply here. Thanks. Adam4267 (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject C-SPAN?

Greetings fellow Wikipedia editor -

I am leaving you this note because I have reason to believe that you are interested in C-SPAN. (I may have made this assumption based on your C-SPAN user box, or perhaps for some other reason.) If this is not an interest of yours, please feel free to read no further and delete this message.

If you are in fact someone who is interested in C-SPAN, then let me put forward an idea that I have been kicking around for a while. What if we started a C-SPAN WikiProject?

The parameters of this (potential) project are up for discussion, but it could include some or all of the following (as well as things that may occur to you that have not occurred to me):

Creation, maintenance, and improvement of articles and lists directly related to C-SPAN and its programming.
Use of C-SPAN programming in citations for various topics
Inclusion of unique and targeted C-SPAN video links for various articles. (Doing this with respect for established guidelines at Wikipedia:External links.) (Example: If you are interested in the submarine USS Wyoming (SSBN-742), then having easy access to the eight hours of programming taped while a C-SPAN crew were guests on that submarine could also be of interest to you.)
Inclusion of (and possible further creation of) templated links such as {{C-SPAN|laurabush}}, that will easily take article readers to a link of all C-SPAN Video Library links for the person about whom the article is about.
What else?

I don't know exactly how far we may want to go, nor in what directions, but I do believe (as I have long noted on my user page) that C-SPAN and Wikipedia are both...

...fantastic vehicles for the free exchange of ideas and information in a non-sound-bite manner, and they both invite the participation of any parties (expert or amateur) who are interested in taking the time to absorb and/or contribute to the ideas and information offered. C-SPAN and Wikipedia go together like peanut butter and jelly, and I want to help give other Wiki users easy access to the great work that C-SPAN has done on a variety of topics.

Now, I should mention that I have never started a WikiProject before, and I do not know the best way to go about it. (Perhaps one of you do?) Let me offer one of my sandbox pages, User:KConWiki/sandbox/Wikiproject C-SPAN?, as a gathering area for comments until such time as we gather enough steam to start our own WikiProject page.

Thanks for reading this far, and I hope that you will give some consideration as to whether this is something we ought to attempt. Please feel free to pass this message on to others you know whom might be interested, and please let me know your thoughts and comments.

KConWiki (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 08:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

^ Good examples of this kind of tactics in the Nationalist side can be found on the Bombing of Guernika or the Killing of Badajoz [2], [3]. Other stories of people who were murdered by the fascists because of their beliefs: [4][5] (Sources in Spanish).

[1] Good examples of this kind of tactics in the Nationalist side can be found on the Bombing of Guernika or the Killing of Badajoz [2], [3]. Other stories of people who were murdered by the fascists because of their beliefs: [4][5] (Sources in Spanish).

[1]