The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages. Should disruption occur on article talk pages, administrators may take enforcement actions against disruptive editors and/or apply page protection on article talk pages. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.
NAFO (group) was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.
NAFO Commandos
Consider adding another subsection for the NAFO Commandos. Feel free to email me if you need more info or context. JFosterjrod58 (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have reliable secondary sources discussing this topic? If so, you can add such a section yourself. See WP:V and WP:RS. –jacobolus(t) 20:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are none, because it's not a thing, it's a club that a few NAFO fellas who didn't understand the point of the group tried to set up and it never took off. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there are reliable sources for it, but NAFO Commandos are more than just a club, it's actively operating on Truth Social to combat misinformation there... Here on a talk page, my word should be good enough to confirm its existence. That said I really don't think there are many reliable sources... I'm not 100% sure I consider Wired "reliable" these days... but here's a link to an article about NAFO Commandos.. https://www.wired.com/story/take-down-trump-truth-social/. (I support NAFO and its operations, and I can neither confirm nor deny that I'm active on Truth Social... so I'm not really suitable to edit this article). 01:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC) ++Lar: t/c 01:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Can you please add the fact that now nafo has a carrier strike group added to our arsenal. Chowdah hill captain of the dwight d eisenhower nuclear aircraft carrier has got a nafo fella and technically is now nafo. Thank you 80.3.242.223 (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has many articles that almost no one looks at. As does any other encyclopedia. For the standard used to decide whether there should be an article here or not, see Wikipedia:Notability. –jacobolus(t) 11:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite obvious that this article is in major dispute among editors, especially considering that it has extended protection and numerous edit wars in its history. The article itself seems to be a bit all over the place, and the organization of it makes it very hard to read. I recommend finding more consensus among editors, and rewording the article to sound more neutral and unbiased. I also recommend either cutting down the size of the article, or organizing it into more sections - because right now, it is sort of a pain to read. I hope this advice can help. For now, I don't believe this article meets the criterion to be a good article. It still looks like a work-in-progress. - DocZach (talk) 6 February 2024 (EST)
This review has been closed, but I want to note for posterity some concerns I have that this review did not engage fully with the GA criteria or review guidance. I would support efforts by the nominator to seek a second opinion or renominate the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review DocZach! I appreciate the suggestions and will try to address them if I can but for the WP:NPOV and other prose issues, it would help if you have more specific suggestions (e.g. what specific sentences/paragraphs should I change? is there a particular topic in the article that is WP:UNDUE? how should the article be reorganized?). I think I agree with Firefangledfeathers' concerns about the depth of this review and will seek a second opinion on whether this article should be renominated as-is or needs more work before a new GAN. In any case, feel free to ping me with any questions/comments/concerns. Cheers, DantheAnimator 21:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HiDantheanimator. I'm a 3O volunteer and I think it's a great place to seek out resolution of content disputes. For something like this, where experience with the GA process is a must, I think you would have better luck posting at WT:GA. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you're right, thanks for that! I'll withdraw the 3O and add a section on WT:GA. Thanks again for all your help with this! :) DantheAnimator 21:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Started a section at WT:GA here. Let me know if there's anything else I should do. DantheAnimator 22:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding (No Relation) to the Tobias Fella citation.
Haha I think it would be funny to put:
NAFO was described as a "Western civil society response to Russian campaigns" by Tobias Fella (NO RELATION), a political scientist training Bundeswehr soldiers in dealing with social media. It is part of a larger "battle for sovereignty of interpretation" on shared online spaces.
I know it is marked as a contentious topic, but I think that the Extended-Confirmed protection level may not adequately allow updates to reflect the situation on this type of post due to it's nature. Maybe semi-protection would be better? Tytech039 (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember, the protection was upped because there were a bunch of editors trying to dox and defame the pseudonymous NAFO founder and vandalize the page, including editors who had made accounts. The protection could probably be dropped now though, and we could see how it goes. –jacobolus(t) 03:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before talking about lowering protection, there should be some discussion of proposed changes. This page has various discussions but nothing related to encyclopedic content that I can see in the last few months. Johnuniq (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that the implosion of Twitter and its conversion from broadly used public platform to racist dumpster fire full of porn bots with no support staff has had a significant impact on all groups previously organized there. The war in Ukraine has also been relatively stable, without so much dramatic daily news as during the first year. It's not too surprising that grassroots online pro-Ukranian groups are less active and less discussed by reliable sources compared to 1–2 years ago. –jacobolus(t) 07:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this notable enough to be on Wikipedia if the online groups have dropped down? I haven’t heard about NAFO until the Wikipedia page showed up when I misspelled ‘NATO’. Tytech039 (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, topics of Wikipedia articles don't become non-notable when they fall out of the news. Plenty of subjects only get "15 minutes of fame", but can still have articles here if they were discussed in "reliable sources". –jacobolus(t) 19:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LIFT99/Help99
I think it would be valuable to include information about LIFT99, a startup community and citizens of Ukraine & Estonia, and their involvement with NAFO. They organize the "Donation Run for Freedom Convoys," that already has raised over €6.65 million for Ukraine under the NAFO flag and delivering NAFO trucks with NAFO camouflage paint to the Ukrainian Army. Contributors to this fundraiser received patches in the style of NAFO. Given their growing influence and significant contributions, mentioning LIFT99 would enhance the understanding of NAFO's broader social impact and collaborative efforts. Jdh009 (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the article for Ukrainian support fundraiser organizations, generally; this is an article specific to NAFO. Unless we can cite reliable sources explaining how this group is part of, or related to NAFO, it doesn't belong here simply because they've imitated NAFO's patches and fundraising style. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kristo Enn Vaga, an Estonian MP and member of the Riigikogu's state defence commission and the Ukraine-Estonia parliamentary group raising money for those NAFO trucks?
Neither your first nor second link make any reference to Lift99/Help99 anywhere. Not usable. Your third is a blog that does not satisfy the requirements of WP:RS and explicitly mentions that it cannot vet or verify the claims. So, no.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both those two articles mentioned NAFO, here a 3rd:
Both those two articles mentioned NAFO (offhandedly), but do not mention the organization you're trying to link to NAFO. Neither does your Postimees.ee link nor your Babel.ua link; further your twitter source is considered generally unreliable by consensus. Cumulative arguments don't work either -- claims need to be *directly* attributed to a verifiable, reliable source, without resorting to synthesis or combining of sources to reach a conclusion not directly stated. It's clear that you need to review and make yourself familiar with Wikipedia's content policies before making further suggestions. Literally none of the links you've provided thus far are useable as a source for what you're claiming. This is, unfortunately, the inherent problem with covering a decentralized organization with no formalized membership or leadership criteria -- very little of it can actually be verified or sourced in accordance with our standards. For instance, you'd need a source that cites the "69th Sniffing Brigade" as being officially a part of NAFO -- I can tell you right now that it's extremely unlikely such a source will exist, because NAFO has no formal membership, which means the statement is not verifiable. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Volunteers from the “69th Sniffing Brigade” are members of the NAFO internet community, which has become a true internet phenomenon in modern history. Part of the organization is based in Estonia, the other – in Ukraine, on the basis of the Kyiv startup Hub “99.”
Since its inception, volunteers have raised a total of €5.3 million. Cars are searched and bought all over Europe, after which they are given a technical inspection and painted in camouflage."
And what constitutes membership in the "69th Sniffing Brigade"? How does one "prove" it? How does one prove NAFO membership in general? That's the verifiability problem. With regard to the sources: the BalticTimes source doesn't connect Help99 to NAFO (it does not mention NAFO at all, actually). The postimees link is a reprint of the same thing, with the same issue. Only the EJL source mentions both, but it is essentially a press release by an advocacy group with none of the traditional indicia of reliability. So at best, what we've got is one random politician doing a fundraising event with another organization that according to a single questionable promotional source, has some kind of ambiguous "cooperation" with NAFO (but no details or explanation on what that cooperation is, who constitutes "NAFO", or any other information that would allow a reader to assess the credibility of the claim). Wikipedia is not a promotional platform; it still wouldn't belong here. Either NAFO's involvement with this promotion was significant enough to generate sufficient coverage from reliable sources to merit inclusion, or it wasn't, and we shouldn't be giving it undue weight. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems out of scope and off topic here. It might be more relevant to mention at Kristo Enn Vaga. –jacobolus(t) 01:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
· 
· 
