This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I found some important info pertaining to the wiki activity of a certain sockpuppet and his/her supporters. It may aid in banning him/her, I will email it if you'd like. ◅ P R O D U C E R ( TALK) 18:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
What can we do about Ceha and his wrong map? We all agreed on no mistakes, yet he includes mistakes and in a very rude way says that is map is fine. Census has settlements with no population - he colors all settlements. He does not include "other groups" and ignores the list of mistakes that I have told him. Please but please do not leave us, as he does not want to cooperate when I am involoved. ( LAz17 ( talk) 21:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)).
A RfM has been submitted at the RfM page here for the article Byzantine Empire. You may add any comments you may have on this page and are welcome, but your presence is not required. Monsieurdl mon talk 23:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Please come back. Please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rjecina/Bosnian_census ( LAz17 ( talk) 17:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)).
It was disappointing, the way one was treated at Imbris' talkpage. But now this: Imbris has been caught, sock-puppeting. GoodDay ( talk) 21:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment.
If you read this Order (article 1) you will see that official flag of Triune Kingdom was red-white-blue flag with CoA. That was official flag of Triune Kingdom.
Flags were made in different size, with different color shades, shields had different shapes, etc. Even the crown has different variants (or CoA without the crown). There is no official "technical construction" of a flag and CoA.
I like this CoA of Dalmatia :) With bears :)
I will try to make more svg's of historical flags and CoA's, so i will appriciate every comment. Chears -- Ex13 ( talk) 12:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I haven't seen any sources for your claims. I answered to you on talk page. Thanks-- Ex13 ( talk) 14:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Sretan ti praznik :) -- Ex13 ( talk) 14:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Ne mislim da si srbijanizirao članke, nego da si stavljao gluposti. Dapače, ponekad mi se čini da čitam neku povijest koju nisam pročitao nigdje. No, zato ima drugi suradnika. U tome je čar wikipedije :)-- Ex13 ( talk) 15:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I have read somewhere discussion about high-quality references like university publications which proved that university publications can be garbage the same as samizdat books. I wrote clearly (if you haven't noticed) that check of other sources is pending, so please stop reverting what is written in valid sources. Thanks in advance! SpeedyGonsales ( talk) 15:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Think you can help me in creating/sorting categories for Yugoslavia? ◅ P R O D U C E R ( TALK) 02:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I've made another change to the sub-heading, it'll be my final one. I've no more 'compromise' ideas. GoodDay ( talk) 15:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
To clarify: I'm not peeved, just pooped. GoodDay ( talk) 20:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the award DIREKTOR. Just one request, could you place it at User:GoodDay/My stuff? That way, it won't get lost in my talkpage archives. GoodDay ( talk) 20:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Much appreciated, good luck with the article. GoodDay ( talk) 20:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know, Bruno's latest is User:Buistr. I'll SPI it in the next week or so. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 23:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Just a courtesy: Hello, DIREKTOR. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — ShadowRanger ( talk| stalk) 19:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe Tito was Croatian Yugoslav according to your logic that Pavelić is Yugoslav Croat :) Actualy, you are funny gay. You make me laugh -- Ex13 ( talk) 20:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Po definiciji koja je navedena u članku Demonym, ispravno bi se trebalo kazati da je austrougarski jugoslavenski argentinski španjolski Hrvat rođen u Bosni. -- Ex13 ( talk) 22:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Why do you refuse to allow these writer works to be cited in the article Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta you do not WP:OWN that article you are not allowed to violate WP:NPOV
of Croatia, but the new monarch prudently never set foot in his kingdom.”
I better get a good reason or I will report you for vandalism, and not adhering to a NPOV If you continue to revert for your pov version. - dwc lr ( talk) 16:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Ovin retajima ić objašnjavat neke stvari je obično gubljenje vremena...Zajebali ste se što niste odavno napisali nekakov odsječak koji prikazuje pa makar i samu raspru o Titinoj ulozi u spomenutim događajima, dakle što vele ovi - što oni povjesničari...ovako ignorantni postranici stjeću dojam da pokušavate nešto "sakriti" čim ste za micanje sadržaja. Dakle prekrojiti, ne ukloniti... :) To je jedini dugoročan način da se zasvagda riješite Luiđija i ovih nacionalističkih izroda koji jedva dočekaju priliku da nešto zablate (jer bi tad oni izgledali kao PoV pusheri, ne vi). -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 09:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed your question, sorry about that. GoodDay ( talk) 16:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
'tis the season to be jolly! Have a Merry Christmas, a high-spirited Hanukkah, a Happy New Year, a killer Kwanzaa, a hearty Hogmanay, a smashing Silvester, or even a spiffy Saturnalia as the case may be! And don't forget to spread the holiday cheer by pasting {{subst:User:Happenstance/Dec}} to the talk pages of all your little friends, and even one or two of your enemies too, in the spirit of the holiday, no? Season's greetings, from — what a crazy random happenstance 07:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC) |
Hola Director! I added the percentages on that map [1], and when I'll have time I'll made another map on kotar level. Everything about it is here (census, borders, maps etc) [2] and if you have any suggestion, feel free to jump in :) See ya. -- Čeha ( razgovor) 10:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
And so what now? ( LAz17 ( talk) 05:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)).
[Moving the following here from LAz' talk page:]
There were no such trials in the vast majority of cases. No documents exist to that effect for the immediate post-war killings, and few even exist for the later killings of interred prisoners. Simo Dubajić was charged with about 13,000 deaths in a ten day period. This is in line with what he himself admitted. Clearly, none of these people were tried. Either these people were prisoners-of-war, in which case war conventions apply, or they were private Yugoslavian citizens who required a trial. In either case no law justifies mass killings.
Also, why the need to bring this up over the Karlovac mass grave? Even Boljkovac admits it was a crime, and denies having anything to do with the Dubovac camp (Pa tko bi lud zakopao leševe na promenadi?! - He would have hid the bodies somewhere much better I guess! (: ). If these people were killed because it was the "law", then why the state secrecy? Why the need to hide the evidence and totally deny the existence of graves for the entire socialist period?
Post-war France executed less than 1000 people, all of whom were tried, with a much larger number being imprisonned or freed. These executions were held publicly and are documented. Slovakia (whose circumstances parallel the NDH in many ways) lacks such mass executions. Meanwhile, Yugoslavia massacred at least tens of thousands in forests, pits, camps without any paper trail. There's simply no evidence of trials, charges of treason, even lists of executed people. This is a necessary aspect of the rule of law. (In fact, Yugoslavia also pandered these people off as victims of Germany to squeeze out more reparation money.)
Also, even in some magical Tito&DIREKTOR World where the law apparently allows for the murders of tens of thousands of people, that does not make it justifiable. Croatia has not tried anyone for treason in the RSK, because it makes no sense. Under your line of reasoning, you could not only excuse Milošević's actions against those traitorous Albanians, but encourage them.
Serbia has announced it is opening its archives related to the secret police in its new search for World War II crimes. As Serbia has the most extensive archives from your old country, it is likely that we are set to find out much more about Partisan crimes in all regions. Anyways, pleasnt Wiki-ing, and have a nice day! =)-- Thewanderer ( talk) 16:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
You like red that much? :P [4] No such user ( talk) 09:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Those templates may be of interest to you. If you havent seen them alredy.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Kosovo/Templates
All best,
Tadija ( talk) 18:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The
November 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 08:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe one comment i wrote on the Tito's talk page may be considered offensive. I apologise if you have been offended by it. See you. -- AndreaFox2 ( talk) 17:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I tried to speak to you, i even apologised. I invited you to assume a different behavior. I told you I was offended by your behavior. And i wasn't alone. But you keep making fun of other users. So i have to go with it. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:DIREKTOR. -- AndreaFox2 ( talk) 00:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
You have been whacked with a wet trout! Hopefully this will make a subtle adjustment to your clue level. Well, that was fun. Congratulations on being my first victim. Have fun recovering from trout burns! Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 01:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
From my alter egos. PS: Don't give up the fight for accuracy, on the Tito article. GoodDay ( talk) 21:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy holidays, and I hope things are going well for you. I'm kind of loafing about today, debating about whether or not to go explore post-holiday sales, and a thought occurred to me. Have you considered formal mediation with AndreaFox2 and the other editors you've been in conflict with on Tito, etc? I sincerely doubt there would be much point with AP1929, since he only shows up to edit tendentiously a few days every couple of months, but I think getting some outside help on Tito and the regulars there might not be a bad idea. At the very least it would put a stop to the constant, "DIREKTOR must be blocked for things that we don't block for" threads at the various admin boards. Think about it, and remember that even if you think it might be fruitless, you might be surprised. Also, if mediation fails you'll have satisfied a step in the dispute resolution chain, making an arbitration case more likely to be accepted and getting some binding measures in place like WP:ARBMAC. Just a suggestion. AniMate 18:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Novi pacijent koji potalijančuje imena i toponime, po svoj prilici inkarnacija nekog starog "poznanika". -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 08:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
DIR you're used to manage this/these pacient(s), User:Cavtatraz is another one Zenanarh ( talk) 09:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The
December 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 02:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Ridernyc ( talk) 12:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Direktor, no you don't have my support this time to delete the House of Bona/Bunic page. The information listed on it is not quite the same as last time and everything is referenced. It would only make sense to delete it if you were to delete all the other "House of" pages. Could you simply explain how you justify changing the Bona entries into Bunic without giving any reference or explanation as to why you did this (and how you get away with it?). Please don't say "it's not the Italian page, so the names should not be "Italian""...May I remind you that the Bona (not Bunic) name has appeared in Dubrovnik's documents since the 10th century (sale of Lokrum island). Can you say the same about the Bunic name? I don't want to get into a discussion with you about this all over again but to be fair don't you think the Slavic and non-Slavic names should be listed next to each other? Wouldn't this be a fair compromise? After all, as I have said numerous times, the Bona family still exists in Dubrovnik and uses the Bona name, not Bunic. The tombstones all say "Bona" (Caboga, Gondola, Ghetaldi, Pozza, etc.). By the way, don't accuse me of not speaking Croatian. "Pacijent" does mean "patient" and ok, it may have other slang meanings... Also, please don't accuse me of being somekind of Italian nationalist, etc. As you know, I only joined Wikipedia to correct an entry on Marino de Bona (since deleted - but I proved my point), then the House of Bona/Republic of Ragusa pages. In my line of business, I use Google all day look to check information. This positive thing about all of these exhanges is that I no longer rely on any Wikipedia information because I realize how biased it can be. I do believe however that you and Stambuk really do have a thing against Italians...maybe a generational issue. Debona.michel ( talk) 08:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Direktor, re Mercy (de) Bona, for example, you're ok with Mercy de Bona...but my great-grandfather (Captain in Senj) - on the old House of Bona page (the one that was deleted) always went by the name BONA yet his name on the page was changed to Bunic each time... Debona.michel ( talk) 11:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Just made this moments ago, Zagreb Commuter Rail, if you could help it would be appreciated. I am not sure if this map is of it though... [7] Also, that EX13 guy wants to edit war again. He changed some stuff in december about the rail issue that I thought was closed. ( LAz17 ( talk) 18:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)).
Sincere apologies for my belated response, LAz. Unfortunately, I am overwhelmed with work. As you can probably see from my contribs, I barely edit, and what little time I can spare is completely taken-up trying to keep a bunch of Croat nationalists from vandalizing one of the few good ex-Yugoslavia articles, the Josip Broz Tito article (and I probably won't be able to do that either, I can edit maybe on average once or twice a week). Apologies, again, and thanks for bringing such issues to my attention. Rest assured I shall investigate as soon as I can get a few days away from the hospital. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 13:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Your editing is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#DIREKTOR_again. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 10:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Constitutional Assembly said on Jan 11, 1945 proclamation of the People's Republic of Albania.
Albania proclaimed socialist country much later in 1976 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvi Hyka ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The
January 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 03:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I have not read the discussion archives but it seems the points addressed in the discussion page are not properly reflected in the article. I am referring to your statements, which are totally appropriate, regarding the burden of proof. Uneducated agnostics have tended to have a "can't know either way" attitude to the definition, which in essence gives equal weight to the statistical probability of the existence or not of gods. This completely disregards what you quite clearly stated, in that one can only disprove what has been previously proven, [or evidenced]. Yet this article goes on and on about how the non-existence is not provable... which is not a tenable position.
In addition, the article does not cover the 4 logical positions of knowledge and belief:
I don't know the history of this page (and can't say I'll have the time in the near future) but I get the feeling that theists with their shifting UN-understanding concept of burden of proof have been coming around and screwing it up underhandedly... I write you cuz you seem involved, maybe you can direct me further...-- Tallard ( talk) 05:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 02:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Believe me, I have no intention to engage in edit warring, but I don't see anything wrong in edits that I made. 1) I can agree with you that "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" is the term used on Wikipedia for the state that was also named "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes", and that this edit of mine wasn't nessecary. 2) I must asure you that Janez Drnovšek wasn't an independent politician when he became President of the Presidency. He was an SKJ member, like every other Yugoslav politician at that time (Yugoslavia still was a one-party state in 1989). You can consult article about Drnovšek to see that yourself. 3) I think that article "Prime Minister of Yugoslavia" should be moved to "List of Prime Ministers of Yugoslavia" because this is already case with "List of heads of state of Yugoslavia", and because that article is mainly a list, not an article with description of office of Prime Minister; That criterium is used in many similar articles on Wikipedia. I'm sure that we can reach an agree abouth this issues. Bye! -- Иван Богданов ( talk) 18:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Direktor, I notice that your user page
User:DIREKTOR causes a massive width overflow in Firefox 3.5 (I haven't tried other browsers), so it can't be viewed with without a bunch of annoying horizontal scrolling. Do you think you can fix this? I'm willing to try to adjust it if you want, but I'd only do that if you say it's ok to. Thanks.
66.127.55.192 (
talk) 20:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. You can have all your opinions as you want but you are trying to rewritte the history in many articles. I have no conection with Četnik movement (I even had Partisans in my family), but caling Draža Mihajlović simply an-Axis colaborationist and "Crimes agains humanity" criminal is just too NPOV. If you want to edit all historically related articles, you shouldn´t be lead by your own feelings, and you should at leat try to be neutral. FkpCascais ( talk) 21:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I would be very happy if you don´t contact me directly no more. We have our discussions in the talk pages, but that is it. FkpCascais ( talk) 02:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I've block you and FkpCascais for edit warring on the page Draža Mihailović. Your both in open violation of the three revert rule, and I find that both of you have issues related to the page content. My advice to both of you is to leave the material alone. By the time this block expires, I'll have protected the article in question to keep both of you off the article until you can agree to edit civilly. TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring on Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Prime Minister of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Military of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro and Template:Politics of Yugoslavia.
Across the five articles, you and Иван Богданов ( talk · contribs) are edit warring, and I won't tolerate it. There are numerous dispute resolution methods, I suggest you use them before you get blocked again. Thanks. Ged UK 14:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
P.S.
I'm sorry if you think that people from the Balkans are uncivilized. It's not true, believe me. We aren't better or worse than other peoples. -- Иван Богданов ( talk) 13:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I found this and was very concerned so I started a thread at WP:ANI about User:Иван Богданов. I may look stupid because my Serbian is not good. Polargeo ( talk) 16:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey, you're seriously overdoing (as usual) the S&M / FRY matter here. There was no such position as "Prime Minister of S&M", and the only one that existed was "Prime Minister of FRY". I don't see why the titles on "Prime Minister of Foo" and "Foo" must correspond. While the S&M was called FRY, it had the prime minister, thus it should be "Prime Minister of FRY". The current lead section is utterly confusing -- why not just follow the official title? No such user ( talk) 11:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the
coordinator academy course and in the
responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 21:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
You are reminded that tendentious editing or outright edit waring is not an acceptable practice. This article, Serbia and Montenegro has been the subject of a slow edit war concerning the relationship of the present day state to past governmental entities. The conflict is marked by frequent redirects and reverts all of which seem to be without clear consensus. Under the final decision of the Arbitration Committee/Macedonia case I am reminding you of the need to reach consensus on the talk page and to not redirect or revert the page again without clear consensus. Failure to do so will result in the imposition of discretionary sanctions. This warning has been logged at ARBMAC Log of blocks and bans. JodyB talk 23:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The
February 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 22:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below; but you should read our
guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks first.
JodyB
talk 15:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Notice to administrators: In a 2008 decision, the Arbitration Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
Director ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Unbelievable. Could this silly block possibly be because of
this edit??! Forgive me if some of my outrage becomes apparent in this unblock request, I'll do my best to be brief. I am actually getting banned for no less than one week because I reverted an edit by
User:Иван Богданов. The same user who was
indeffed a week ago because of his editing (and of course, because he expressed his desire to see another user "SLAUGHTERED LIKE AN OX" among other things
[8]).
Not only was this one edit part of an attempt to repair articles damaged by the indeffed account uwilling to familiarize itself with
WP:CFORK, but was also done some ten days after the conflict had been successfully resolved and the disruptive account blocked. To add to this, my grand total or reverts on the
page amounts to three (and I'm talking all time,
one,
two,
three) with the last one apparently causing this "timely intervention" that managed to prevent an already successfully resolved conflict. On top of all this, maximum effort had previously been exerted to explain this situation to the blocking admin (by an uninvolved third party)
[9]. Was I expected to "achieve consensus" with an indefinitely blocked user before reverting the damage he was blocked for inflicting? I emphasize that the only other person involved in the problem is unable to edit this website.
I've been around for years and (fully understanding
WP:EC) I'm proud to say I have just under 24,000 edits on enWiki
[10]. Believe it or not, when I edit I always do my best to improve the encyclopaedia and repair articles. I know the "success rate" of unblock requests, and if I were wrong here I would apologize immediately, but this is simply not a fair block in any way. Apparently, nobody is safe with these "liberal" interpretations of
ARBMAC decisions on the part of some admins. When I'm able to edit again, I shall do my best to bring this matter to the attention of the community. These sort of actions leave people wondering about the general wisdom of their efforts on this encyclopedia.
Decline reason:
Arbitration enforcement blocks may not be appealed like this; see WP:AEBLOCK. If the ongoing community discussion about your block produces consensus against it after at least a day of discussion, it will be lifted, or you may request that it be lifted with reference to that consensus. Sandstein 21:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
(I would appreaciate it if my post were presented to, or read by, the participants of the relevant discussion at
AN)
The sequence of events on the article in question ( Military of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) is as follows:
Apparently, I did not act quickly enough to establish consensus - the only account supporting the edit (the same guy who posted it) was blocked too soon. My mistake, it seems. I have to say here: if the blocking admin (who I'm sure really is acting in good faith), felt an RfC on the issue was necessary, I do not see what stopped him from posting it himself, instead of blocking people for not doing what he deemed necessary. The discussion was (and I think still remains) clearly dead, i.e. - concluded. (Please note that No such user supports the merge, and even after all this "hubub" the talkpage is still dead with opposing voices.)
Regarding the issue on the whole, well, I was trying to get work done. I think anyone can see that it is very hard to interpret the exchange there as whole-hearted "opposition from the community" (apart from the banned user who, again, I obviously cannot engage in conversation). I discussed the issue, and despite Jody's interpretation, I cannot see how the wording of my posts prevents people from seriously opposing the (frankly very necessary and beneficial) merge. Do I go around asking people to oppose me and discuss so as to avoid getting blocked? How long does one wait? Fellas, if ten days was insufficient then I apologize, I'm a pretty busy guy, but I don't think I'm to blame for not posting an RfC... -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 12:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Good to see that you have not left wikipedia after that overly harsh block. In the end I had to withdraw myself from the debate because I was so annoyed with JodyB's poorly considered stance. Polargeo ( talk) 16:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Voting for the
Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 21:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
As you've been involved with SPI's for this user before, I thought I'd let you know he has a new sock and there is a new case - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historičar.
Do you know if there is any way to get an IP range block/ban for this person? He just doesn't seem to quit with the sockpuppetry. 58.165.69.106 ( talk) 18:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
100px | The Yugoslavia Order of Merit | |
I, Kebeta (although sometimes seeing things differently), award you with Yugoslavia Order of Merit for your dedication to articles related to Yugoslavia. Kebeta ( talk) 20:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC) |
Hello DIREKTOR. I would apreciate your opinion regarding the article: Serbian propaganda in the Yugoslav Wars. Greetings!
Zdravo druže. Cenio bih tvoje mišljenje povodom članka: Serbian propaganda in the Yugoslav Wars. Pozdrav! -- Mladifilozof ( talk) 23:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello DIREKTOR. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of House of Crijević, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's not a portal, and it seems a reasonable redirect. Take to RfD if required. Thank you. Ged UK 19:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello DIREKTOR. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of House of Đurđević, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's not a portal, and it seems a reasonable redirect. Take to RfD if required. Thank you. Ged UK 19:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Replied on my talk page and more substantially at ANI. EyeSerene talk 16:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Well Direktor, at least in this case you don't have a reason to be bitter for the block. In the Mihailović case, I think you entrenched yourself and refused to listen to reasonable (well, and less reasonable too) suggestions that the case of his collaborationism is not as black and white as you insist on portraying. I know that you rewrote the article from a bunch of back-and-forth "hero and resistance fighter" vs. "collaborator and war criminal" nationalist crap ( Talk:Draža_Mihailović/Archive_1#What_a_mess), but remember that you don't WP:OWN it. Your really stubborn insistence of putting the unqualified definition "Axis collaborator" adored with a half dozen ref tags in the lead has hampered the progress of the article so far. Further, if you read the talk page with an appropriate portion of good faith, no one is really denying that the collaboration did exist. However, sources point more to the strategy that Chetniks were opportunists who would use Axis offensives as a background to exterminate their communist, Croat and Muslim enemies, rather than to openly cooperate with the occupiers. Furthermore, the whole organization had a rather loose hierarchy, with local commanders having a lot of autonomy, so it's still questionable how much of that collaboration is to be ascribed to Mihailović himself. I admit I didn't read much about the matter though, and that those are rather rather superficial observations of mine.
However, I invite you to re-read Jean-Jacques Georges's comments at Talk:Draža_Mihailović#Article_needs_to_be_toned_out_a_bit, (which I happen to wholeheartedly agree with) as well as several comments at Talk:Chetniks/Archive 1 (for example, radek's at #Images) with open mind. They were fairly critical at "your" version of the article, and you certainly wouldn't call them biased, would you? No such user ( talk) 11:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Buddy, I said I'd left Wiki due to the appalling nonsenses perpetrated against good editors. But I can't stand by and allow you to be hung like this. You know of course that the IP that taunted you today was your old friend Bruno? They won't let up. If you are alone, you have no chance - Wikipedia is edited and - most importantly - administered by teenagers, for whom the niceties of encyclopedic content are irrelevant. So I'll come back - and refrain from any comments about other editors, even if, like AndreaFox, they are 12 years old, and we'll see what can be done to improve things. Not much, I guess, but we can try. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 22:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Bleiburg massacre. The thread is The_three-revert_rule. Thank you. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 18:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The
March 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 21:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I filed the request for Draza Mihailovic article that needs your acceptance(signing) Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Draza_Mihailovic. BoDu ( talk) 14:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Jean-Jacques Georges and User:FkpCascais already agreed. As far as you are concerned, I have no problem to edit the description of the issue (it must be finished within seven days). Write down your suggestion, and I will think about it. BoDu ( talk) 13:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Unless you sign by 14:05(UTC) tomorrow, the mediation will be rejected. I edited the description of the issue, so you should urgently (today) either sign, or tell me what is wrong with the modified description of the issue. BoDu ( talk) 15:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi DIREKTOR, just come across an edit by a vandal banned for sockpuppeting who seems to know your real name (and really hates you). Brutal Deluxe ( talk) 18:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Re: "The collaboration of Mihailović's Chetniks was "opportunistic" as a whole, but it was certainly not "sporadic".", I don't believe I said it was sporadic. Am I missing something? ---- Nuujinn ( talk) 17:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe that you are a communist, a Titoist! Why? Your one-point view: there is one truth: your truth obviously!
Template:Infobox Region2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FkpCascais ( talk) 04:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I've now blocked User:186.105.96.230 as a sockpuppet of User:Ragusino. -- The Anome ( talk) 19:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Look this edit!-- Crisarco ( talk) 12:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Why are you trolling? How is it an invented term to say "macro-evolutionary biologists" WHEN THAT IS WHAT IS BEING REFERRED TO ON THE MACROEVOLUTION PAGE? Can you get any more absurd? Was "biologists" in references to CREATIONIST BIOLOGISTS? OF COURSE NOT, and yet in keeping with a weasel, you would have it so that people think "biologists" are only those who support MACRO-EVOLUTION. Second, what does it matter even if it were an "invented term", is that a sin? Is that forbidden in Wikipedia? Third, IT'S A PHRASE pointing out to what type of biologists are being referred to, and there is no law in Wikipedia and it is no sin, to clarify. Fourth, I already stated why I was removing, as I said in the notes, certain references which were not relevant. Fifth: what does the fact that the mainstream (and it was also left out the "scientific community" mentioned was the MAINSTREAM one (again with the weasel-wording and bigotry) have to do with CRITICISMS of macro-evolution? NOTHING, it's distracting propaganda used to distract any reader from focusing on the criticisms and to instead focus on THE ALLEGED CONSENSUS, and as administrators in Wikipedia love to point out only when it is convenient: "the truth is not determined by consensus". Can you answer my points? NO you can't Mr. LOLz, all you can do is repeat and divert those who input the truth to the talk page, to delay endlessly any progress, with the pretense of "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" and "truth isn't determined by consensus". The first immature remark you left in your first reversion of my edit shows what kind of mind you have, your level of maturity, and your true concern for facts: none. All you can do is make insults, mere claims based on your feelings, while disregarding any reasons anyone gives you if they don't agree with your feelings. Oriclan ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC).
You are playing with semantics to suit your POV. Yugoslavia was established in 1918, but it was not called as such until 1929. The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes may have been a South Slav state, but it was not Yugoslavia until 1929. You are misrepresenting facts. There was widespread opposition to such a name even being introduced (which is why it took a Serbian royal-military dictatorship to do so). My change is small and I do not doubt that it is the same country. But from the perspective of 1918 or 1921, Yugoslavia "did not exist" because that was simply not the country's name yet.-- Thewanderer ( talk) 23:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Since you have been several times reverting the article Julian March, claiming that "Venezia Giulia" is not an English term (despite the evidences in talk page), I have reported you for edit warring, right here [18]. -- 78.13.165.121 ( talk) 13:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Greetings! Have you got a diff for Ragusino ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that you could point me to, to show that Kruske ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is following the same pattern? I've left a comment on the user's talk page about edit warring in general and invited him to use more robust edit summaries or the talk page. — C.Fred ( talk) 00:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Please apologize for the ignorant accusation and personal attack that I am inserting Serb nationalist POV in the Flags of Yugoslavia article. I am not a Serb, nor a Yugoslav, nor a monarchist! I am a Canadian of British, Irish, and northwestern Italian descent bordering France, who does not like the British monarchy that is the head of state in my country of Canada, nor any monarchy for that matter. If you do not apologize for such an insolent and ignorant accusation, I will report you for personal attack.-- R-41 ( talk) 04:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
This edit which was aimed at Jimbo Wales concerning your contributions. I cannot fathom the reason for posting it on a barely used talk page discussing improvements for his user page, but i thought i would let you know nonetheless. I have a feeling it might be moved to the correct place, so i linked the diff instead of the page. Kind regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 19:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Is this editor likely to be a sock of User:Ragusino? They seem to have very much the same limited interests? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 14:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Uauy ( talk · contribs). Account created just as Crisarco got indef blocked. 124.179.205.147 ( talk) 16:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Mikulic.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk) 00:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Per discussion at my talkpage I have enacted the above action so a consensus regarding the flag(s) of the various states known to English speakers as Yugoslavia, and their appearance in the article, may be formed. I should be grateful if you would interact civilly with the other editors, and refer only to such Wikipedia policies/guidelines as WP:RS, WP:MoS, etc. and not WP:VANDAL, WP:STALK, and the like. The recent editing of the article, where there were numerous reverts with little reference to discussion or policy, has all the appearance of an edit war, and longer (indefinite) protection and sanctioning of those who prefer to revert rather than discuss is an option I will consider if it breaks out again when protection expires. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 20:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I want to thanks about restoring my last contribution and the reliable sorces I add to Micaglia's article. But I want to advice you that you have to STOP referring to me as SOCK of someone I don't know, just in order to push your position. (Do you remember Crisarco and your accuse??). I need you apologize of it or I will consider it a PERSONAL ATTACK, and i will report to an admin. Be more polite, my friends, and begin to accept ather's contribution as useful as yours (remember WP:OWN). Regards, -- Theirrulez ( talk) 21:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Director. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 22:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
To try and avoid much drama and
WP:SOCK or
WP:MEAT accusations, regarding the various Croatia-related articles, would you be willing to consider
WP:MEDCAB? I think that this would go to great lenghts towards improving the atmosphere...
Salvio (
Let's talk 'bout it!) 12:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
" Titoism and Totalitarianism", interesting article I found while editing Yugoslav categories. ◅ PRODUCER ( TALK) 04:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FkpCascais ( talk) 20:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I thank you sir for your effort to patrolling my talk page, but there's no need to do that. I consider myself enough strong to take care of it by myself.
And I prefer above all to leave any comments where users or ip added them, in order to have always the chronology clearly showed.
Wishing you a good work, I offer you my best regards.
Sincerely, --
Theirrulez (
talk) 03:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
[21] FkpCascais ( talk) 05:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The
April 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 19:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Going to get some icecream. But anyways, check this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_dinar#Banknotes , could you make it into a table? I am gonna scan all of these guys and put 'em into wikipedia. I used to collect bills quite a bit - got my hands on all the croatian dinars, so this would be quite a cool thing to have uploaded. ( LAz17 ( talk) 22:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)).
hi my good medicine student, I was thinking today (reading you proudly warning: «Please provide English usage.. etc etc.» for all your patrolled articles...) that if you don't accept the neutral truth of a double romance/slavic name for all the atricles you deny, you should start to provide the English usage of every slavic name, well knowing that for lots of arguments modern English-language literature regularly uses the Italian names. And please stop counting every google entry! Do you agree? Sincerely -- Theirrulez ( talk) 21:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)-
Sir, please, leaving apart your automatic way to post a comment immediately after others comments to deny or dicredit others comments, I want just ask you to advice other users wherever your edits are insert out of cronological develop of the discussion, writing, for example, (out of crono). Thanks -- Theirrulez ( talk) 13:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Sir, could you kindly provide me a reasonable ground for which you and User:Kebeta auomatically cancel reliable sources like:
from the articles about Giacomo Micaglia, without any discussion in the related talk page? Thanks, -- Theirrulez ( talk) 15:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Fun -- Theirrulez ( talk) 15:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
We are ready to begin the mediation here. Sunray ( talk) 16:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I suppose there's no need to inform you about what you already know following, as usual, my contrinutions history, don't you? -- Theirrulez ( talk) 23:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The Washington Times was founded in 1982 by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon, who has said that he is the Messiah and the Second Coming of Christ and is fulfilling Jesus' unfinished mission. One of the best trolls IRL. ◅PRODUCER ( TALK) 13:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Neznam, nekako mi je malo daleko ici do splita... ili igde u evropu. Skupe su karte, a student sam... ( LAz17 ( talk) 17:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)).
I would appreciate that you don't touch and edit my images! I put alot of time into takeing these pictures and puting them together. I'm not up for jokes like that! Thank you! Ballota ( talk) 13:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I admit it seemed a bit funny.. -- Theirrulez ( talk) 13:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Fourth rule: only two guys to a fight.
I've mentioned the importance of sticking to content several times now. Yet I've just removed a number of personal attacks from the mediation page, some by you. It does not matter whether they are provoked or not. You are responsible for your own conduct. Consider this a friendly reminder. Would you be able to stick to content from here on out? Sunray ( talk) 23:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
[28] I honestly thought that all of the articles would be balkan related. Also [29] hahaha. -- ◅PRODUCER ( TALK) 15:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
well, I moved the Chetniks quite simply because to categorize them as only Axis forces is quite a flawed perspective. They were, on an official basis at the beginning of the conflict, the armed forces "in the homeland" of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. That they proved a disaster and stopped being supported by the Allies is another matter which, I think, is quite clearly expressed by the mention "not supported by the Allies after 1944". That the Chetniks' attitude was more than ambiguous does not change the fact that a good deal of their groups were always considered rebellious by the German command and that Mihailovic was always targeted by the Germans. As for the infobox, I didn't change them in the first place (not that I remember of, anyway) but, seeing the change, I found it ridiculous that it had not been done at the bottom of the article. Using the label "Axis/Allies" which had been used before could be an option : but listing them as only Axis is ridiculous. (though make no mistake and please do believe me : after doing a good deal of research on the subject, as you may have guesse from my recent edits, I do find the Chetniks awful).
Considering that only Mihailovic was not a traitor among the Chetniks is misleading : some Chetnik groups collaborated, some never did at all. I plan actually to rewrite as far as I can the Chetniks and Yugoslav front articles using the relatively heavy volumes that I now have on the subject, and I can assure you that the result should be quite damning to both Mihailovic and the Chetniks, although I definitely want to correct the current manicheism. I think this might take a few weeks to do each and every article.
As for the "suppressed antagonism" : no, I don't feel any antagonism towards anyone so far. It's just that, after spending about two hours working on an article, I find it quite annoying, to say the least, to see that my edits have been reverted without any concrete reasons. Believe me, it's rude to do that. Anyway, I am quite willing to discuss any edits, I'd only like this to be done in good faith. I have no interest at all in a conflict with anyone. Actually one of my first motivations has been to contribute "neutrally" in order to calm the conflict between you and FPKcascais. Jean-Jacques Georges ( talk) 16:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand the Dalmatian dog picture your added next to my post could be moved by your sense of humour (I laughed =) when I saw it) but the discussion is serious and that image next to my post ridicules its content. Please understand that personal sense of huomour can't always universally understood, so part of our readership could even be confused by that image. Regards - -- Theirrulez ( talk) 12:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
You are not bad, Direktor, even if IMHO you need to improve your trust of others.
I used Governorhip of Dalmatia and Littoral Banovina, in order to guarantee an easy reading of timeline of Dalmatia history using links in the infobox: linking to Kingdom of Italy and to the State of SCS, as you did, would send the reader to two pages not exactly related with Dalmatia history.
I used Governorship of Dalmatia because, even if the Governorhip became official in 1941, Italian Provinces of Zara, Pola and Fiume were official respectively since 1919, 1923 and 1924, and were widely described in the Governorship article.
State of S,C,S wasn't recognized at all by international community and last just few days, so could be appropriate to add a link inside the text or in the see also section and choose to use the link to Kingdom of Yugoslavia in the infobox.
I chose to use the link to Littoral Banovina for the same reason I chose Governorship of Dalmatia instead of Kingdom of Italy article: Kingdom of Yugoslavia is too generic and can't help reader's navigation trough Dalmatia history timeline. Littoral Banovina was the subdivision of Kingdom of Yugoslavia for the Dalmatian region and even if was officially created ten years later than the birth of the Kingdom, it could fit for a link in the infobox, more than the article about Kingdom of Yugoslavia, too generic for a specific historical timeline of Dalmatia.
I'm sorry to see you are obsessed by my edits, I always try to do my best seeking for historical accuracy. I hope next time you will not accuse me so openly, it's not nice. You are my first interlocutor on Wikipedia you know, but your approach still need to preserve a bit more your consciousness of other's good faith.
Please, let me know what you think about the modifications I did, remembering the only goal was to guarantee a continuous timeline for Dalmatia history trough infobox links. --
Theirrulez (
talk) 03:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Frankly i don't believe Croatian Project can fit for de' Vidovich article, but anyways I just want to ask: why don't you make an effort in revisioning syntax and grammar (you just added the tag), the article is not too long, so it shouldn't be an hard work. then why don't you make a serious research of sources about Vidoovich surname? We can then examine them and decide to improve the article. Let me know. Theirrulez ( talk) 15:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- ◅PRODUCER ( TALK) 22:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I plan on bringing the Tito article to GA status since WP Yugoslavia has no GA articles. At the moment I'm working on sourcing information in the article (per [32]) but also plan on sorting the pictures (Why is JFK in the "Tito-Stalin split" section?) and branching off some of the info in the "Final years and aftermath" section into a "Legacy" section. Any thoughts? -- ◅PRODUCER ( TALK) 12:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Re your comment here, being blocked indefinitely and being retired are not mutually exclusive. That template is typically used for one-off vandal only accounts to schedule the talk page for deletion; this is not the case here and the talk page history should be retained. Note that when someone edits the talk page, they will be presented with the fact that the user is indefinitely blocked anyways, so the template is probably unnecessary. – xeno talk 16:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I have been requested by the user that he wants to keep his talkpage clean you are of cource welcome to report me, better if you do that than just revert me. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I´m sorry to disapoint you, but I really have a particular opinion regarding that complex issue. I think that as quickly as Serbia acknolledges that Kosovo is independent, it will be better for all nations in the region. Surprised? Well, I´m not a nationalist, as you had already acknolledged, but you malevoly tryied to paint, in some other ocasions. That doesn´t mean I suport much of what was donne, in name of the independent Kosovo, but looking to the current reality, that is my position (non-oposition to independence). If you really wanna know, I only think that what was wrong was that Kosovar Albanians spend 2 billion dollars to looby in the USA, when they should gave that money to Serbia (since Kosovo was legally its land), and both the land (lol). But, what happend, happend... See also Necronudist talk page, I gave there an opinion regarding Kosovo football. Also, Serbia without Kosovo could reach economical levels to entry EU much more easily than with Kosovo. I just gave you some reasons without thinking much. I´ll be out for some days... don´t abuse too much! FkpCascais ( talk) 19:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
"and then the wiki gods bestowed Wikipedia:Requests for page protection." - from the wikibible lol -- ◅PRODUCER ( TALK) 15:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
You remember Genesis? Book two, verse three: "And he breatheth into the nostrils of Adam on the first day and it was good." -- ◅PRODUCER ( TALK) 17:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello DIREKTOR, how are you? I'm Pippo Franco.-- 217.201.195.210 ( talk) 18:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes I'm, are you studing at university? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.201.194.164 ( talk) 10:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. FkpCascais ( talk) 03:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Croatisation. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked.
In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you. Toddst1 ( talk) 05:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
You said, on the mediation talk page, that JJG isn't the only one who has been putting in effort on the mediation. I agree, and I appreciate your contribution in contributing sources. Your energy has not always been collaborative and I've had to make several comments about personalizing things. Hopefully that is behind us. Now I would like you to consider how you are going to participate from here on out. I've suggested a process for resolving remaining issues. That is my role as mediator. I encourage you to participate positively in this. That means assessing which of the three categories you are in. If you don't agree, that is fine, but the onus will be on you (and any others who choose that option) to work to propose alternatives in the wording and use of sources. Would you be willing to refactor your comment into one of the three categories and, if you disagree with JJG's draft, provide specific alternatives for us to consider? Sunray ( talk) 20:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The
May 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 21:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FkpCascais ( talk) 20:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes the best thing to do is keep quiet for a bit and see what happens. There's no reason to rush anything. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 22:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I have spoken to you several times about sticking to content and not making personal remarks to/about other participants. However, in the last several days, you have repeatedly done this. I want you to stop. If you continue down this path, there may be no other choice but to exclude you from the mediation or block you until you cease. This is the last warning I will give you. The other party is also being warned. Sunray ( talk) 07:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Guys, glad you came by (yes you too, Theirrulez :). I myself suggested on the mediation talkpage that, in addition to discussing content exclusively, only sourced statements founded in sources should be taken into consideration and responded to by involved users. As you say AniMate, I'm coming from a strong position exclusively based on professional sources - which is why I'm baffled that this dispute took six months - and now they're even discussing bothering ARBCOM over this. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 17:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Yes, absolutely. IMO you were making a pejorative assumption about faith (or the lack thereof). You are right that I am taking a stringent interpretation of WP:NPA. I have found that it is best to do so in a mediation so that the parties can focus on content. While many personalized remarks and attacks get overlooked on talk pages in articlespace, in mediation it is important to stay with the spirit of the policy, which, in a nutshell, is: "Comment on the content, not on the contributor." Clear? Sunray ( talk) 23:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Accusing someone of something he/she hasn't done, assuming bad faith ("for the purpose of POV-pushing") and openly accusing him/her of the "Insertion of usourced claims, fake sources, removal of sourced info" is very problematic, considering the fact that this isn't true (and so this is a personal attack). This is even more problematic considering that i never accused you of anything nor i talked harsh towards you; besides you even don't provide demonstrations to support your statements when i asked you to tell me what do you meaned whith "fake sources" (they were sources from a princeton academic, the new york times and an historian) or "removal of sourced info" (i didn't removed anything). When i say you personal attacked me i'm referring to statements like this two: "Extreme undiscussed POV-pushing. Insertion of usourced claims, fake sources, removal of sourced info, and addition of unrelated data for the purpose of POV-pushing" and "In short, the edits inserted by Fox are a slap in the face to Wiki policy. Sources were misrepresented, text supported by them altered, fake sources were added, and laughably biased wording was introduced". You have to stop talking like this to me, because i'm not here to be insulted. You can express your opinions like any other users can do: in a civil way. AndreaFox2 ( talk) 11:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea for everyone to take a deep breath and a pause for the cause. This is starting to sound like usenet instead of wikipedia.... -- Nuujinn ( talk) 23:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the
Croatisation article, please note you are inexplicably fighting for cancelling a paragraph from the above mentioned article since several weeks ago (see the
diff of your first cancellation) when I had never set foot on that article yet. The same paragraph still existed in the article two years ago
[36], and without a proper section title even more time before (more than 3 years ago)
[37]. Despite it was more than reasonable to suppose a discrete consensus about the paragraph, you, on may 18, cancelled the pagraph for the first time, asking for sources supporting it (please note the entire article is barely unsourced) when you could more simply add the tag "{{citation needed}}". I, and other users, punctually improved the section you challenged, adding sources and re-writing some lines, but you continued for days to deny my modifications despite others users espressed in the talk page their consensus to leave the section in the article.
Because it seemed consensus about the paragraph was again recently confirmed by several users, despite your undiscussed cancellation, please kindly stop your edit-war as already openly adviced on the article's talk. Thanks to propose your modifications on the above mentioned talk page and to respect other users contributions. -
Theirrulez (
talk) 04:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I found an article and a book by Marko Attila Hoare that may be of interest to you:
Hoare, Marko Attila (11 June 2005). "Adding Insult to Injury: Washington Decorates a Nazi Collaborator".
Hoare, Marko Attila (2006). Genocide and Resistance in Hitler's Bosnia: The Partisans and the Chetniks, 1941-1943. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0197263801.
Also could you take a look at User:PRODUCER/Tito and give me your opinion on the progress so far when you get the chance? (I got sidetracked lately). -- ◅PRODUCER ( TALK) 18:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 03:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I stopped just short of issuing an WP:ARBMAC sanction restricting you to 1 revert per week on any Balkan-related article after observing your interaction at Croatisation. Toddst1 ( talk) 13:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not "recruiting" anyone, I am merely answering to messages that some users, who are interested by the subject and whom I do not know, have left on my talk page. I am entitled to my personal opinions, and do not consider you qualified to "warn" me against anything. I would also appreciate if you would abstain in the future to leave messages of any kind on my talk page, especially if they are to be of such an agressive nature (are you trying to scare me or what ?). No answer requested . Since I find your behaviour to be untolerable, I will now report it and sincerely hope that you will leave it at that in the future. Jean-Jacques Georges ( talk) 10:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
This is just to let you and others who read this page know that User:Theirrulez is now openly soliciting other editors at itwiki to join his campaigns here. One can only imagine that this is an attempt to create a new "consensus". It's so blatant that one can come to no other conclusion. See here and here. A clear breach of Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Purpose_of_Wikipedia. I await developments. Best, AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 22:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear Direktor,
In the name of all civilized and educated visitors of these pages, I want to congratulate you for your notable efforts to present the TRUTH on Wikipedia, and to fight successfully against the last remains of the pathetic cro-nationalistic propaganda (Zenanarh, Ex13, and maybe 1-2 others). We have followed your battles on many wikipedia fronts, and we are glad that you have achieved an absolute VICTORY over the these last spreaders of hatred and separatism between south Slavic peoples. We wish you, and all other heroes of the truth on wikipedia to continue presenting FACTS on these pages, facts which will forever exterminate these last remains of the evil on it. Have our best Blessings for successfully presenting the truth about our one, same and forever united Serbo-Croatian language, for focusing on the facts about Croato-Serbian unity instead of separation, for defending the truth about the illegal formation of R. Croatia in '90's, which started the war in '90s, and which had the same 'recognition' in the world as SAO's, etc.
Thank you, be Blessed in your future work on wikipedia and may your big VICTORY over the evil LAST FOREVER! Kindest Regards.
173.183.97.171 (
talk) 19:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your modesty and the optimistic feeling about those few guys, whose comments on various topics are usually nationalistic POV's and totally opposite of yours (-the facts). Still, it's good to see some good changes that happened recently on wikipedia (I.Stambuk's case), the fact that wikipedia has almost completely changed for the better in the recent years as far as the topics about South Slavs are concerned, and in all that maybe the greatest credit goes to some brilliantly educated guys like yourself. Regards; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.97.171 ( talk) 16:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
|
|
|
June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 18:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Few small points:
Formal basis for "armistice" agreements between Germans and Chetniks is given in November 21 1943 directive of german CINC for Southeast Europe (Field Marshal Maximilian von Weichs):
Hi there, hope all is well. I have seen your contributions and I have come to like them. I hope you might have seen some of mine in Wikipedia. Still it was the first time we interacted and it was funny. Hope no hard feelings for Venetian Albania: it's an article that must be improved, but WP Italy is extremely important as they have the best sources. Albania as well is closely related to it and the name Albania Veneta is not a coincidence. You might be interested in reading this article, Albanian–Venetian War (1447–1448), which took place in Albanian territories. Again, thanks for being around and for your contributions! See you around.-- Sulmues Let's talk 12:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
You claim not to be an edit warrior but this revert is coming close to just that. The nationality of Tesla is a controversial issue that is interminably debated. Any changes to the status quo of the article should gain consensus on the talk page first before making any edit. SpinningSpark 23:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads' up, in case you're interested; I forgot to protect the redirect when I merged this into SC grammar, and now there's an edit war going on. I tried coming up w s.t. that wouldn't be a content fork, but it was rejected, so I'm back to reverting to the rd. — kwami ( talk) 08:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Pifeedback
Could you give your opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pifeedback.com? ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 12:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
I have noticed that your comment in Template_talk:Country_data_Croatia resulted in the creation of another template for the Independent State of Croatia which holds the corresponding flagicon. However, this is the cause of a problem. Some articles reference the Croatia|1941 flagicon with the intention of displaying the ISC flagicon. As this has been moved, these articles now display the flag of the present-day Republic of Croatia which implies that it, and not the ISC was an Axis ally and combatant. I have corrected this in Operation Barbarossa, but there needs to be a systematic (and hopefully automated) effort to correct all such instances. Silver hr ( talk) 02:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Please make sandbox edits first, or request somebody from WP:WikiProject Flag Template to offer assistance. It is not acceptable to make experimental edits (16 edits in a few hours, most only a couple of minutes apart) to a high-use template (several thousand pages). I realize your edits were made in good faith, but they caused significant numbers of pages to be broken, which is why I reverted them for now and re-protected the template. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 18:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi DIREKTOR, how is it going?
It seems that you moved Foreign relations of Kosovo to Foreign relations of the Republic of Kosovo; I'd suggest you to revert yourself and continue the discussion that you've initiated some time ago or request a move. Cheers. — Kedadi 16:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:PGMayor. Since you had some involvement with the Template:PGMayor redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). EmanWilm ( talk) 01:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yugoslav_Wars#Vote: Is Kosovo War part of Yugoslav Wars?. Hope we can have a constructive dialogue. -- Justice and Arbitration ( talk) 16:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Can I get your opinion on this? [38] Came out of nowhere for me, and I'm still not sure how the whole thing works, so can you tell me if I'm in the wrong here or something? (Have also asked Kwami, feel free to reply on your talkpage, not mine) Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 19:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Direcktor, I created a page for Lepa Radić, if you have time would appreciate any additions, comments you might think worthwhile. For example, I'm not absolutely clear if she was a member of the NOV i POJ, if you have access to a WP:RS it would be useful for the article. regards -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 14:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Because of the constant edit warring there due to over a flag image, you and Ex13 have a 48 hour block. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, would you perhaps be willing to intervene with a neutral 3rd opinion as regards my current dispute with milhist admin (on WW2 discussion page)? It's a long-running battle. My intention is only to improve the article without getting bogged down in editing wars, arbitration, mediation etc. The dispute is under several related section headings on discussion page, starting with "Link to www.truth-hertz.net", then evolving into "WW2 origings of Cold War", then "Flawed overview - para.3", and currently "Editing dispute - expressions of interest invited". The main issues involved are NPOV / Parity of Sources. With regards. Communicat ( talk) 18:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
How's life o'er there on the front lines? I made something, though I imagine that you are not too focused on sports. Croatian Inline Hockey League. Perhaps it will confuse some of your adversaries, you ol' commie munckin!, come 'ere, long time no hug! lulz ( LAz17 ( talk) 01:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)).
You've broken WP:3RR on Yugoslav Partisans: [41], [42], [43], [44]. Please self revert and don't troll for an edit war. Lt.Specht ( talk) 10:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello DIREKTOR and Lt.Specht. Without comment on the content disagreement between both of you, please be aware that some of the material being added by the unregistered editor in the diffs given by Lt.Specht above was copied verbatim from the source. If either of you were considering restoring the edits of the unregistered editor in full, please could you be mindful of the copyright issue. CIreland ( talk) 10:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Socialist Republic of Croatia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lt.Specht ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
|
|
|
July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 21:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually you're over that. I've warned the other editor, I'm warning you as well. Dougweller ( talk) 09:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Unbelievable. I would seriously advise you to cease with your offensive behavior. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 15:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
There have been problems with who is right about the Republic of Serbian Krajina Coat of Arms and Flag. Please visit the semi-official museum of the Republic of Serbian Krajina at http://www.republikasrpskakrajina.com/, and you will see original documents, badges (both metal cap badges and cloth sleeve patches), State-issued bonds and currency, certificates, identity cards, military documents, etc., all of which date back to the war period (1991-1995). Please look at http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/hr-rsk.html, where you will find the State flag (not the civil ensign) of the RSK. The RSK had a State Flag with a crowned two-headed eagle and Serbian National Cross in the middle.
The plain Serbian tricolor is the civil ensign commonly used by the people and sometimes, due to a lack of funds, by the Government and Army. When most of the RSK was taken over by Croatian forces in 1995, the unconquered eastern part of the RSK became the short-lived Republic of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia. This new entity kept the old Coat of Arms of the RSK, but they changed the flag by adding a blue shield behind the crowned, two-headed eagle. There are scanned copies of magazine photos from Eastern Slavonia from that period that can by found on the Military Photos website (I will try to send you a link as soon as I find it in my records). On the aforementioned RSK museum website, you will also be able to find militaria from the Republic of Srpska. Even a superficial examination of these items will show that the Coat of Arms used by the RSK was not the same, although there were similarities, as the Coat of Arms of the Republic of Srpska.
The Coat of Arms that you have listed now is not the Coat of Arms of the RSK. It is the Coat of Arms of the Republic of Srpska. If you go on Google and type "flag of Krajina", you will immediately see a high-resolution photo of the State Flag that Croatian troops found in the office of then RSK President Milan Martic. Sadly, this Flag and the Coat of Arms that go with it were never vectorized, since it was always easier to use the Coat of Arms and Flag of the Republic of Srpska (which, unlike the RSK, did use a plain Serbian tricolor as its State Flag). Recently, people have even begun to use the current Flag and Coat of Arms of Serbia (both of which date back just a few years) as the Flag and Coat of Arms of the RSK, but that is because of laziness. Quite simply, no one ever bothered to do a high-quality vectorization of the State Flag and Coat of Arms, which is why my friend and me decided to do a professional vectorization of both the Flag and Coat of Arms, and to make them available to everyone.
I hope this answers some of your questions. I honestly appreciate your dedication to maintaining the articles about the RSK, so that they are correct. Believe me, this is my desire as well, which is why I put so much effort into making sure the Coat of Arms and Flag were correct.
By the way, as far as the Emblem of the Serbian Army of Krajina is concerned, please take a look at the following link: http://www.qsl.net/4n1fog/v07.htm, and you will see that the Emblem of the Army as I represented it is just a vectorization of the original emblem worn by the RSK Army soldiers and officers on the sleeve patches (the same Emblem was used on all military documents from the RSK, as you will be able to see when you look at the RSK museum website).
All the best, Marko Maljkovic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlovi Gvozda ( talk • contribs) 18:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
I have found two more references for the changes that I made to the Coat of Arms and Flag of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, as well as to the Flag and Coat of Arms of its short-lived successor, the Republic of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia.
The first reference is a scanned copy of a photo-reportage made by Serbian journalists in the RSK during the war. The photos in this photo-reportage show an official RSK military ceremony taking place. The RSK President Milan Martic is clearly visible in one of the photos. The photos also clearly show the official Coat of Arms of the RSK, which is visibly different from the old Coat of Arms of the Republic of Srpska (the Republic of Srpska Coat of Arms was mistakenly used in previous posts about the RSK; the two Coats of Arms are similar in many ways, and it is a common mistake to mix them up).
The vectorized RSK Coat of Arms image that I produced and posted here is the same as the official Coat of Arms used by the RSK during the war. The photos also clearly show that the official State Flag used at official State-sponsored ceremonies of this kind had the RSK Coat of Arms on it, as I have presented in the vectorized flag that I posted here on Wikipedia. This is the link to the first reference: http://img107.imageshack.us/i/244232655aofppqphgd2.jpg/
The second reference is also a scanned copy of a Serbian magazine article. The article is from November 19, 1995. It shows soldiers and officers of the RSK Army at an official, State-sponsored ceremony to celebrate the Day of the Serbian Army of Krajina ("Dan Srpske vojske Krajine"). By the time that this article was published, the Croatian Army and Police had already taken over the territories that used to be held by the RSK. The only remaining part of the old RSK that was still under Serbian control was the Republic of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia.
The Serbian entity in Eastern Slavonia maintained the same Coat of Arms as the old RSK, as can be seen from the magazine article I am referring to here, but the State Flag was changed. A blue shield was added to the Flag (the Coat of Arms would now be superimposed over that blue shield). Since the article describes an official State ceremony, it is safe to say that the symbols used here, including the Flags, were the official symbols, as opposed to popular, but unofficial, symbols by the people and non-State organizations in the RSK. This is the link to the second reference: http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/3795/111111111111co1.jpg
As far as the differences between the old Coat of Arms of the Republic of Srpska and the RSK Coat of Arms are concerned, I have put together a short list of links that show those differences. The differences are not major, but there are definite differences, and it cannot be said that the two Serbian wartime entities used the same Coat of Arms, because that would be a mistaken assumption.
First, this is the list of links to photos of State-issued symbols (in this case, military symbols) used by the Republic of Srpska during the war:
http://www.republikasrpskakrajina.com/RS-met-13.htm http://www.republikasrpskakrajina.com/RS-met-6.htm http://www.republikasrpskakrajina.com/RS-1h.htm
And, this is the list of links to photos of State-issued symbols (in this case, both military and political symbols, including postage stamps and RSK treasury bonds, all of which must, according to law, use only the official rendition of the Coat of Arms):
http://www.republikasrpskakrajina.com/RSK-1.htm http://www.republikasrpskakrajina.com/RSK-met-7.htm http://www.republikasrpskakrajina.com/RAZG-PISMA-OSTALO.htm http://www.republikasrpskakrajina.com/ZUBCANE.htm http://www.republikasrpskakrajina.com/OBVEZNICE.htm
When it comes to the Flag, it is absolutely true that a plain Serbian red-blue-and-white tricolor was commonly used in the RSK during the war, but this plain tricolor was not the official State Flag. The tricolor was commonly used because of a lack of funds (or perhaps bureaucratic laziness or lack of interest; who knows?) to produce the official State Flag, which, as can be seen from the first two references above, definitely had the Coat of Arms in its middle (and even included a blue shield beneath the Coat of Arms in the case of the Serbian entity in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia in 1995).
In the Wikipedia article about the Flag of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, the article shows a plain Serbian tricolor and calls it the "National Flag of the Republic of Serbian Krajina". However, the original name (in Serbian) of that particular flag, as can be seen in the same Wikipedia article, is "Narodna zastava Republike Srpske Krajine", which, in this case, means the "People's Flag of the Republic of Serbian Krajina" (a "people's flag" is the civil ensign used by the citizens of any particular country, while a State Flag is the official banner of that same country; not all nations differentiate between these two types of banners, but the Serbs and some other European nations do).
Serbia changed its State symbols a few years ago. Here is the English-language web-page on the Serbian Government website that shows the new State symbols, including the new State Flag. As you will see from this Serbian Government web-page, there is a clear difference between the official State Flag (that has a Coat of Arms) and the "people's flag" (i.e. civil ensign), which is a plain Serbian tricolor. This is the link to the Serbian Government web-page: http://www.srbija.gov.rs/pages/article.php?id=5412&change_lang=en
The same holds true for the State Flag of the RSK. Unlike the Republic of Srpska, which actually did use a plain Serbian tricolor as its official State Flag (and continues to do so), the RSK never used a plain Serbian tricolor as its official State Flag, except when it had no other option (e.g. due to a lack of resources, etc.).
The work that I have presented here is entirely my own work and that of my friend and colleague, Vladimir Jovanovic. Neither one of us has anything whatsoever to do with the RSK Government-in-Exile that appeared in Belgrade a few years ago, nor do we have anything to do with any nationalist political or other groups in Serbia or anywhere else.
This work is merely our contribution to historical memory. We were motivated by the fact that various sources were mistakenly using the old Coat of Arms of the Republic of Srpska, or even the brand-new Coat of Arms and Flag of Serbia, and presenting them as the Coat of Arms and Flag of the RSK, which is factually incorrect. Since no professional vectorization had ever been made of the RSK State Flag and Coat of Arms, we combed through all of the reference material we could find to make as true and correct a vectorized version of the RSK Coat of Arms and Flag as possible.
I notice from the history of this and other Wikipedia articles about the RSK and the 1991-1995 war in Croatia that you have invested a great deal of time and energy to making sure that the articles presented here are as correct and objective as possible, and, believe me, I truly appreciate that, and I hope that you will continue to do so in the future, since there is always a danger that these articles will be misused or vandalized. I hope that this small contribution I have made will also enrich the historical accuracy of some of the articles referring to the RSK. Thank you once again.
Best regards, Marko Maljkovic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlovi Gvozda ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear DIREKTOR In the past two weeks in almost all West Balkan written media there ware articles about the genious croatian linguist Snjezana Kordic. Promoting her new book "The nationalism and language", using linguistic facts she speaks openly about the same language that Croats, Serbs, Bosnians and Montenegrians use, one more time victoriously confirming the truth about this language. She also speaks about the nationalism between some croatian linguists as a scientific nonsense and as an absolutelly defeated strategy in today's world. Her interview was given to a few bosnian, croatian and serbian newspapers. Knowing your great reputation on wikipedia, as a fact and truth presenter known for his objectivity, maybe you can be the first, who can write an article about this brilliant linguist? You can simply google her name and find a lot of useful information. Anyhow, she is the only type of linguist that EU accepts, and she definitelly deserves a place on wikipedia, which, sooner or later will be there. Thanks and Best Regards. 207.216.132.111 ( talk) 18:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I see you are edit warring on
Aloysius Stepinac. Stop please.
Toddst1 (
talk) 15:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Dalmatia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Green Giant ( talk) 00:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Is this wikipedia worthy? - [49] lolzers. :) ( LAz17 ( talk) 16:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)).
Hi DIREKTOR! I have made some suggestions on Talk:Yugoslav Partisans - Infobox War Faction. Can you implement some of them into the article? Kebeta ( talk) 14:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Pa to si ti imao negde - na stranici ustasa il negde. Secam se dobro da sam te cak pitao odkle to, i ti si mi reko source. Pri kraju rata su neke ustase presle na stranu partizana, znas da je to tako. Moj profesor ovde u americi cak zna ustasu koji je bio americki spijun protiv komunista. To je sta je u pitanju. ( LAz17 ( talk) 23:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).
|
|
A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound |
Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants |
|
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 23:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC) |
Check out Sunray's talk page, he blessed these edits.... -- Nuujinn ( talk) 14:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Davies talk 21:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Petar Stambolic1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 12:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Are You interested in translating this article to English? -- Bojan Talk 14:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, DIREKTOR! Did I made a mistake here? Kebeta ( talk) 08:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Lazar Kolishevski.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk) 05:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Before calling editors "nationalists" and threating them [54]. You should take a look at Wikipedia:Five pillars. Especially Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Consensus. Good reading. UltimaRatio ( talk) 19:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello DIREKTOR,
I creatded
fr:Museum van Hedendaagse Kunst Antwerpen with its title in dutch, not in french; also, frWP has a lot of articles with english titles, even abbreviated, cf
fr:MASS MoCA.
Can you explain "Nationalist POV is likely to blame"? Who are the nationalists
there? Am I among this nationalists?
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Alvar☮ 06:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Mikulic.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk) 05:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Petar Stambolic table crop1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk) 05:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Stojan Novakovic table crop.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk) 05:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
In [56] you added
Did you mean "characterised by others as"? Rojomoke ( talk) 08:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Milka Planinc table crop.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk 02:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a parallel discussion about 'Croats infobox picture' at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia and Talk:Croats. Your comments and suggestions will be appreciated. Regards, Kebeta ( talk) 19:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
|
The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals |
|
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 21:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks for uploading File:Vitomirmisimovic.PNG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vanjagenije 19:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
You were correct about Chetniks and their collaboration with Nazis. Yad Vashem clearly states that Serbian Chetniks collaborated with Nazis http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%205916.pdf . "The Chetnicks turned on the partisans. They even collaborated with their former enemies, the Germans and Italians, against the partisans. When the Chetnicks began cooperating with the occupying forces, any Jews among their ranks left. There were even instances where the Chetnicks killed Jews or surrendered them to the Germans." Yahalom Kashny ( talk) 21:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I see you put this medal on Wikipedia commons. By signing themselves you have violated the provision of Wikipedia and I as author reserve the right to sign or take proceedings to the medal with your signature as by removing it form Wikipedia. Medal will stay but authors name will be changed. In future actions will be reported against you. Snake bgd 11:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
For the record, Dubrovnik is the most beautiful city in the World :) . Ok. Now back to Draza Mihailovic and his Chetniks (two articels). We need to improve the article by adding information that General Draza Mihailovic's Chetniks committed a massacre of innocent Serbian women, children and the elderly in a Serbian village of Vranici, near Belgrade. To verify this information, you can read a book from Dragoljub Pantic - survivor of the massacre (there are also photos of his slaughtered relatives) http://www.znaci.net/00001/22.htm . There are hundreds of Chetnik documents of Draza Mihailovic's crimes against Bosnian Muslims and the Chetnik collaboration with Nazis. The documents were preserved in the Archives of the Military Institute in Belgrade. Dr. Branko Latas organized some of these documents in his book, which you can download here (by chapters) http://www.znaci.net/00001/114.htm (or for individual documents, you can look bottom of theis page http://www.znaci.net/ ). Yahalom Kashny ( talk) 04:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I have replied to [57] Regards -- Jebacz ( talk) 00:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I modified the pictures for the History section of the Arc de Triomphe article. Please read my justification before taking any action. This is an attempt of improvement. Badzil ( talk) 12:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Why are you so narrow-minded. Can you leave your totalitarian idols behind and live in a modern world? Defending communists and their ideology leads you nowhere. Why don't you live in DPR of Korea if communism is so great. I would like to see how you defend communist from North Korea, but, well, you couldn't do it, because the Net is a subject of censorship in your dear communist states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.64.202 ( talk) 21:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Direktor,
could you please stop using that contemptuous tone when mentioning other contributors? I think that we both follow the same goal, improving Wikipedia but your tone makes you appear arrogant and therefore usually transforms discussions about content to confrontations between contributors. I don't want to go down that way. I assure you that my modification on the article Arc de Triomphe was meant as an improvement and not as a try to remove the image Commons:File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-126-0347-09A, Paris, Deutsche Truppen am Arc de Triomphe.jpg. I do agree with you that this image is important in the history of France and Germany. I think it should be shown at least on Battle of France and probably History of France. However I am not sure that it is a relevant image for Arc de Triomphe compared to other images on Commons.
Also please stop judging people on their nationality. My nationality has nothing to do in that. I went to highschool in Germany ( [58]) and studied extensively the history of the Third Reich in german, so don't accuse me blindly of NPOV. Badzil ( talk) 13:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Badzil ( talk) 01:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A link to discussions can be found here. Mathsci ( talk) 21:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. There is a discussion on Talk:Bosnian War on how to revamp the introduction of the Bosnian War article, so it could be made shorter, more coherent and concise. It would be useful to have some more opinions on this from people who have knowledge on the subject and region. So if you have the time, you can chime in. Regards -- Nirvana77 ( talk) 11:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 22:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Thought I'd give you a heads up on this image (and its discussion) that shows the genocide committed during WW2 in Yugoslavia in a POV manner. I'd deal with it myself but I'm bit preoccupied at the moment. -- ◅PRODUCER ( TALK) 22:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
He spent five years in prison. A good part of his life he spent in prison. This period of his life was marked behind bars. This image must therefore be found in the article. In his apartment in Zagreb, police found a hand grenades. That's why I wrote in the description of images is due to the prison for the criminal activities.-- Свифт ( talk) 18:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
OK as you say!-- Свифт ( talk) 22:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Howdy. I see the article has been relatively stable, these last few months. GoodDay ( talk) 03:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DIREKTOR for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thought that you would find this entertaining: [60]. -- ◅PRODUCER ( TALK) 23:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, dear friend, enough of this. Please do not try to tell the world that Tito was a Croat. This is not true. He was a Yugoslav, who refused to identify himself with any of the geographical groups. By going down this road, you ally yourself with all of the Balkan mentalities, the haters, with the prejudiced, jaundiced and racist. If you profess to understand anything at all about Tito, you would understand that he would despise you for what you are trying to do. To call him a Croat is opposed to everything Tito stood for. But hey, if you're following Tuđman's path from pan-Yugoslavianism to out-and-out Croatian nationalism, you will enjoy yourself in the company of AP1929 and similar. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 21:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Would you care to comment on life without mediation? Your presence and comments would be appreciated.... -- Nuujinn ( talk) 00:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Lunalet is currently at WP:ANI. It is possible that you may be able to shed some light on who this user really is. It is also possible that this editor is socking in breach of an editing restriction/ban/enforcement action. If you are able to add anything to the discussion please do so. Mjroots ( talk) 12:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 22:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi there.. I got back to you about the flag. Discussion continues there. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 15:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
"Another antisemitic incident happened when an HČSP member in another debate stated: Whoever doesn't listen to Thompson's music in Croatia is a Jew who hates Croats[9]. These two incidents outraged the minuscule Croatian Jewish community." - This wasn't stated by a HČSP member, but by this idiot: http://www.astigospe.com/2007/11/22/andrija-ruek-idovi/ He is from HP-HPP, npt from HČSP. HeadlessMaster ( talk) 20:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know that if there's an outing issue, you need to e-mail oversight; bringing it to ANI will just make it much more public. I've removed the thread for that reason; feel free to revert, but I'd recommend not bringing the outing to the attention of the many watchers of ANI, at least until it's been oversighted. If you wish to create a new thread dealing with the personal attack issues rather than the outing, feel free to do so as well. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I just fired an Email off for you, oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org. I didn't see the outing explicitly but I assume that portion was enough to have you worried. The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 00:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you a Commie or a Nazi? I can never keep this straight. :) ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi DIREKTOR, happy new year to you and best withes for 2011.
I nominated this guy for AFD as I couldn't find anything about him, however this could be just a local thing as there aree a few pics of albums on google pic search http://www.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&source=imghp&biw=1280&bih=815&q=Dragan_Antic&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= as it is your area-ish but perhaps not your field, do you know if he really was a popular singer there and are there any cites you can find, perhaps in another language? Off2riorob ( talk) 18:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WPYU. Since you had some involvement with the WPYU redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji ( talk) 15:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Yugoslav Front - 3rr, accusations of incivility, removal of other user's comments. Thank you. Dpmuk ( talk) 19:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:ExamsDIRshort has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 00:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I have undone Fkp's edit putting the Chetniks in the Allied column, pending agreement on the talkpage, as this seemed to me to be a continuation of the edit war. However - it is also partly my fault as I did not express myself clearly. I have now made it clear I will protect the page if there is any resumption of edit warring. I have also added a proposal for how the infobox should be constructed though I hasten to add that the content is a matter for discussion on the talkpage, not for me! Fainites barley scribs 13:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I had few sources that also claim Chetniks colaboration with Italians in Dalmatia and Lika, those Chetniks were under command of Momčilo Đujić. More corectly his Dalmatian division, or something like that, but I can't find them. When I do, be sure I'll add them to article dealing with Yugoslav Front.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 17:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
FYI, the idea of renaming/returning the article to Yugoslavia in World War II has been presented as a third option at the the move discussion for Yugoslav Front.-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 14:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
"The tautological statement is correct, but irrelevant. Discussing the prospect that the universe has come into being at some point in some way (but keeping in mind that it was not necessarily so!) we find that "in fact, 'nothing' did come from 'nothing'. The universe is in actuality an engagingly reorganized form of 'nothing', while a-causal events are capable of seeing it come into being without intervention". This is a very interesting perspective you are advocating. Have you seen this documentary? [62] -- Justice and Arbitration ( talk) 11:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FkpCascais ( talk) 15:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear DIREKTOR, I just wanted to drop you a kind note and let you know that you forgot to inform an involved editor in the thread that you opened on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Don't worry! It's been taken care of. Just wanted to gently remind you to make sure to do so when and if you open a new ANI thread in the future. Thanks! Basket of Puppies 03:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Dobro, ajde mi sad objasni zašto si vratio moju promenu naslova kod tog članka. O kakvim izvorima govoriš? Niko ne spori da je Nedićev režim ili vlada postojao, ali svaka vlada mora imati teritoriju kojom upravlja, dakle postojala je teritorija pod nazivom Srbija kojom je taj režim upravljao. Ili možda tvrdiš da nije? Što se izvora tiče, evo ti nekoliko:
Što se tiče drugih teritorija u okupiranoj Evropi, evo ti članci o njima:
Dakle o svim teritorijama postoje članci, samo o Srbiji ne. U čemu je problem sa tvojim gledištem o Srbiji?
Na srpskoj Vikipediji postoje članci i o Srbiji kao teritoriji i o Nedićevoj vladi:
Dakle, pošto veći deo članka koji sada nosi naslov "Nedić regime" govori upravo o Srbiji kao teritoriji (a pored toga koristi i "Infobox Former Country" i nalazi se u kategorijama "Short-lived states of World War II", "Former countries in the Balkans", "States and territories established in 1941", itd), logično je u naslovu ovog članka koristiti naziv Srbija, a ti ako hoćeš napiši poseban članak o Nedićevoj vladi. Ili hoćeš da ja napišem poseban članak o Srbiji, ali da onda pola članka čiji naslov tako ljubomorno čuvaš "prekrojim" i da iz njega izbacim sve što nema veze sa samom vladom? PANONIAN 20:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
User :94.246.150.68 may have created User:Vidboy and User:Vidboy10 as a disposable sock to sacrifice to prove his 'Innocence'. Same disruptive tastes, on-off edit war and trolling, I’m hunting another trouble maker on Egypt's protests. See Chetniks, Talk:Chetniks, Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jash and Talk: 2011 Egyptian protests. Wipsenade ( talk) 05:17, 5-- Wipsenade ( talk) 16:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC) February 2011 (UTC)
He’s even exploded off at XLinkBot now-
(cur | prev) 17:18, 13 January 2011 94.246.150.68 (talk) (36,661 bytes) (please **** off mr bot, I'm, not even ADDING them) (undo).
See for proof [ [64]] Wipsenade ( talk) 10:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Block him for me or tell the admin's, I don't know how to do it.09:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
He may be related to the all ready banned User:Magic elephant. Wipsenade ( talk) 12:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I've found the admin's page and will let them know!16:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I told them.-- Wipsenade ( talk) 20:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, my friend. Can you please explain me your reasoning for Nedić regime, as article have former countries infobox in it, and related categories. Please, talk page is waaay TLDR, what do you think, i dont understand quite. :) All best. -- WhiteWriter speaks 12:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, you've been mentioned on WP:ANI. Regards HeadlessMaster ( talk) 20:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear Direktor, thank you for your absolute objectivity in presentation the facts about former Yugoslavia and congratulations again to your total victory over the croatian nationalists on wikipedia. Just wanted to remind you about this very important and relevant link, attached under my text, which PROVES the facts about who started the civil war in formar Yugoslavia, particullarly in Croatia. That's an interview that the former croatian defense minister Josip Boljkovac gave to 'Slobodna Dalmacija' and a few other magazines in 2009. In this interview he tells the truth about the war in Croatia, saying that croatian para-military formations first attacked JNA and Serbs, and clearly denies the opposite as a lie which the failed croatian nationalistic propaganda has tried to present to the world. Now, when all the pieces of the truth about the war in Yugoslavia are slowly falling into right places, it's probably time to make the facts even more aggressive and more present on wikipedia, thus eliminating the last remainings of the nationalistic lie-spreaders. Maybe you can check the article about Josip Boljkovac and correct some of the things there, as it seems to contain many irrelevant things, missing the important facts. Zivio! 207.216.132.111 ( talk) 17:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC) http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/53359/josip-boljkovac-hrvatska-je-prva-napala-srbe
I opened this discussion about you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#How_can_I_deal_with_difficul_user.3F So, you might want to say your defense there. PANONIAN 19:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I left a message here. Can you please check? -- Napoletanamente ( talk) 02:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 15:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Tito in VladimirBakaric.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vanjagenije ( talk) 20:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Brioni summit.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vanjagenije ( talk) 09:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:JNA Military police vojna parada 1975.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vanjagenije ( talk) 09:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:NoviAvion1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vanjagenije ( talk) 09:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Vladimir Bakaric facingleft.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vanjagenije ( talk) 09:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Mi-8 YPA.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vanjagenije ( talk) 09:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Could you please take a better picture of the Heraldry of Dalmatian Nobles...Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.249.1.216 ( talk) 12:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Check out WP:NORN and WP:FTN an individual is ranting incoherently about your so called " WP:OWN issues." sarcasm Thought you might be interested. The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 22:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:FPRY Merit Order.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vanjagenije ( talk) 11:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi DIREKTOR! You should undo or rewrite your edits regarding Aloysius Stepinac. I am not refering to the correctness of your edits, but to the style. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects, not as detail explanation as you have recently added. Shortly, most of your edits should go into the body of the article. Regards, Kebeta ( talk) 09:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Director. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FkpCascais ( talk) 19:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Mr.direktor, can you please, for the record, provide any evidence for your continuos insinuation of me being a Chetnik sympatizer. I beleave you do it purpously with a discrediting purpouse and you do it towards other users and administrators by other means and channals as well. Please provide what makes you link me to Chetnik movement so you frequently in a insulting tone label my edits as "Chetnik nonsence". I will consider the report I done today ( [65]) on this as a warning that you accepted, having in mind that you have been already warned on this in the past as well. Knowing the ammount of effort that you spent in recent years nazifiying the movement (and knowing the connotation given to the expression in your country Croatia, stand and prejudice that you acknolledge and defend) I will obviously consider deeply insulting any further behavior of such kind towards me and I will take strong action against it. Now please be kind and at least provide me an excuse for such behavior. FkpCascais ( talk) 22:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Lets discuss on your talkpage since we started the thread there, I'm getting a headache.. :) -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 00:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)
Thanks for uploading File:Tito Life Magazine.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 ( talk) 05:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Molim te, ako imas bolji kvalitet one slike grbova iz Raguse, da mi ih posaljes na email mhusovic@gmail.com. Vrlo bi bijo zahvalan vama.
Sve najbolje. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.235.73.131 ( talk) 14:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Wher did you get idea that image has copy right issues? It won't be erased. And you added Comrade Tito with no discussion, even though we had discussion and agreed - no criminals and dead communists at the infobox.-- Wustenfuchs ( talk) 12:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
No, ther are no copyright issues, and you tag them, like I care. Your adding of Tito is NPOV.-- Wustenfuchs ( talk) 13:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you teach me the alphabet to? I know what NPOV is. And don't ask stupid things. Smart thing would be to return messages to my talk page. But, we alredy open discussion at Croat talk page, so no need to do that.
Regards.-- Wustenfuchs ( talk) 20:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Sry, I'll take care of it. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 19:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 21:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I found some important info pertaining to the wiki activity of a certain sockpuppet and his/her supporters. It may aid in banning him/her, I will email it if you'd like. ◅ P R O D U C E R ( TALK) 18:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
What can we do about Ceha and his wrong map? We all agreed on no mistakes, yet he includes mistakes and in a very rude way says that is map is fine. Census has settlements with no population - he colors all settlements. He does not include "other groups" and ignores the list of mistakes that I have told him. Please but please do not leave us, as he does not want to cooperate when I am involoved. ( LAz17 ( talk) 21:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)).
A RfM has been submitted at the RfM page here for the article Byzantine Empire. You may add any comments you may have on this page and are welcome, but your presence is not required. Monsieurdl mon talk 23:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Please come back. Please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rjecina/Bosnian_census ( LAz17 ( talk) 17:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)).
It was disappointing, the way one was treated at Imbris' talkpage. But now this: Imbris has been caught, sock-puppeting. GoodDay ( talk) 21:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment.
If you read this Order (article 1) you will see that official flag of Triune Kingdom was red-white-blue flag with CoA. That was official flag of Triune Kingdom.
Flags were made in different size, with different color shades, shields had different shapes, etc. Even the crown has different variants (or CoA without the crown). There is no official "technical construction" of a flag and CoA.
I like this CoA of Dalmatia :) With bears :)
I will try to make more svg's of historical flags and CoA's, so i will appriciate every comment. Chears -- Ex13 ( talk) 12:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I haven't seen any sources for your claims. I answered to you on talk page. Thanks-- Ex13 ( talk) 14:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Sretan ti praznik :) -- Ex13 ( talk) 14:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Ne mislim da si srbijanizirao članke, nego da si stavljao gluposti. Dapače, ponekad mi se čini da čitam neku povijest koju nisam pročitao nigdje. No, zato ima drugi suradnika. U tome je čar wikipedije :)-- Ex13 ( talk) 15:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I have read somewhere discussion about high-quality references like university publications which proved that university publications can be garbage the same as samizdat books. I wrote clearly (if you haven't noticed) that check of other sources is pending, so please stop reverting what is written in valid sources. Thanks in advance! SpeedyGonsales ( talk) 15:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Think you can help me in creating/sorting categories for Yugoslavia? ◅ P R O D U C E R ( TALK) 02:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I've made another change to the sub-heading, it'll be my final one. I've no more 'compromise' ideas. GoodDay ( talk) 15:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
To clarify: I'm not peeved, just pooped. GoodDay ( talk) 20:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the award DIREKTOR. Just one request, could you place it at User:GoodDay/My stuff? That way, it won't get lost in my talkpage archives. GoodDay ( talk) 20:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Much appreciated, good luck with the article. GoodDay ( talk) 20:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know, Bruno's latest is User:Buistr. I'll SPI it in the next week or so. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 23:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Just a courtesy: Hello, DIREKTOR. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — ShadowRanger ( talk| stalk) 19:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe Tito was Croatian Yugoslav according to your logic that Pavelić is Yugoslav Croat :) Actualy, you are funny gay. You make me laugh -- Ex13 ( talk) 20:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Po definiciji koja je navedena u članku Demonym, ispravno bi se trebalo kazati da je austrougarski jugoslavenski argentinski španjolski Hrvat rođen u Bosni. -- Ex13 ( talk) 22:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Why do you refuse to allow these writer works to be cited in the article Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta you do not WP:OWN that article you are not allowed to violate WP:NPOV
of Croatia, but the new monarch prudently never set foot in his kingdom.”
I better get a good reason or I will report you for vandalism, and not adhering to a NPOV If you continue to revert for your pov version. - dwc lr ( talk) 16:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Ovin retajima ić objašnjavat neke stvari je obično gubljenje vremena...Zajebali ste se što niste odavno napisali nekakov odsječak koji prikazuje pa makar i samu raspru o Titinoj ulozi u spomenutim događajima, dakle što vele ovi - što oni povjesničari...ovako ignorantni postranici stjeću dojam da pokušavate nešto "sakriti" čim ste za micanje sadržaja. Dakle prekrojiti, ne ukloniti... :) To je jedini dugoročan način da se zasvagda riješite Luiđija i ovih nacionalističkih izroda koji jedva dočekaju priliku da nešto zablate (jer bi tad oni izgledali kao PoV pusheri, ne vi). -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 09:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed your question, sorry about that. GoodDay ( talk) 16:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
'tis the season to be jolly! Have a Merry Christmas, a high-spirited Hanukkah, a Happy New Year, a killer Kwanzaa, a hearty Hogmanay, a smashing Silvester, or even a spiffy Saturnalia as the case may be! And don't forget to spread the holiday cheer by pasting {{subst:User:Happenstance/Dec}} to the talk pages of all your little friends, and even one or two of your enemies too, in the spirit of the holiday, no? Season's greetings, from — what a crazy random happenstance 07:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC) |
Hola Director! I added the percentages on that map [1], and when I'll have time I'll made another map on kotar level. Everything about it is here (census, borders, maps etc) [2] and if you have any suggestion, feel free to jump in :) See ya. -- Čeha ( razgovor) 10:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
And so what now? ( LAz17 ( talk) 05:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)).
[Moving the following here from LAz' talk page:]
There were no such trials in the vast majority of cases. No documents exist to that effect for the immediate post-war killings, and few even exist for the later killings of interred prisoners. Simo Dubajić was charged with about 13,000 deaths in a ten day period. This is in line with what he himself admitted. Clearly, none of these people were tried. Either these people were prisoners-of-war, in which case war conventions apply, or they were private Yugoslavian citizens who required a trial. In either case no law justifies mass killings.
Also, why the need to bring this up over the Karlovac mass grave? Even Boljkovac admits it was a crime, and denies having anything to do with the Dubovac camp (Pa tko bi lud zakopao leševe na promenadi?! - He would have hid the bodies somewhere much better I guess! (: ). If these people were killed because it was the "law", then why the state secrecy? Why the need to hide the evidence and totally deny the existence of graves for the entire socialist period?
Post-war France executed less than 1000 people, all of whom were tried, with a much larger number being imprisonned or freed. These executions were held publicly and are documented. Slovakia (whose circumstances parallel the NDH in many ways) lacks such mass executions. Meanwhile, Yugoslavia massacred at least tens of thousands in forests, pits, camps without any paper trail. There's simply no evidence of trials, charges of treason, even lists of executed people. This is a necessary aspect of the rule of law. (In fact, Yugoslavia also pandered these people off as victims of Germany to squeeze out more reparation money.)
Also, even in some magical Tito&DIREKTOR World where the law apparently allows for the murders of tens of thousands of people, that does not make it justifiable. Croatia has not tried anyone for treason in the RSK, because it makes no sense. Under your line of reasoning, you could not only excuse Milošević's actions against those traitorous Albanians, but encourage them.
Serbia has announced it is opening its archives related to the secret police in its new search for World War II crimes. As Serbia has the most extensive archives from your old country, it is likely that we are set to find out much more about Partisan crimes in all regions. Anyways, pleasnt Wiki-ing, and have a nice day! =)-- Thewanderer ( talk) 16:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
You like red that much? :P [4] No such user ( talk) 09:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Those templates may be of interest to you. If you havent seen them alredy.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Kosovo/Templates
All best,
Tadija ( talk) 18:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The
November 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 08:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe one comment i wrote on the Tito's talk page may be considered offensive. I apologise if you have been offended by it. See you. -- AndreaFox2 ( talk) 17:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I tried to speak to you, i even apologised. I invited you to assume a different behavior. I told you I was offended by your behavior. And i wasn't alone. But you keep making fun of other users. So i have to go with it. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:DIREKTOR. -- AndreaFox2 ( talk) 00:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
You have been whacked with a wet trout! Hopefully this will make a subtle adjustment to your clue level. Well, that was fun. Congratulations on being my first victim. Have fun recovering from trout burns! Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 01:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
From my alter egos. PS: Don't give up the fight for accuracy, on the Tito article. GoodDay ( talk) 21:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy holidays, and I hope things are going well for you. I'm kind of loafing about today, debating about whether or not to go explore post-holiday sales, and a thought occurred to me. Have you considered formal mediation with AndreaFox2 and the other editors you've been in conflict with on Tito, etc? I sincerely doubt there would be much point with AP1929, since he only shows up to edit tendentiously a few days every couple of months, but I think getting some outside help on Tito and the regulars there might not be a bad idea. At the very least it would put a stop to the constant, "DIREKTOR must be blocked for things that we don't block for" threads at the various admin boards. Think about it, and remember that even if you think it might be fruitless, you might be surprised. Also, if mediation fails you'll have satisfied a step in the dispute resolution chain, making an arbitration case more likely to be accepted and getting some binding measures in place like WP:ARBMAC. Just a suggestion. AniMate 18:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Novi pacijent koji potalijančuje imena i toponime, po svoj prilici inkarnacija nekog starog "poznanika". -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 08:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
DIR you're used to manage this/these pacient(s), User:Cavtatraz is another one Zenanarh ( talk) 09:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The
December 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 02:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Ridernyc ( talk) 12:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Direktor, no you don't have my support this time to delete the House of Bona/Bunic page. The information listed on it is not quite the same as last time and everything is referenced. It would only make sense to delete it if you were to delete all the other "House of" pages. Could you simply explain how you justify changing the Bona entries into Bunic without giving any reference or explanation as to why you did this (and how you get away with it?). Please don't say "it's not the Italian page, so the names should not be "Italian""...May I remind you that the Bona (not Bunic) name has appeared in Dubrovnik's documents since the 10th century (sale of Lokrum island). Can you say the same about the Bunic name? I don't want to get into a discussion with you about this all over again but to be fair don't you think the Slavic and non-Slavic names should be listed next to each other? Wouldn't this be a fair compromise? After all, as I have said numerous times, the Bona family still exists in Dubrovnik and uses the Bona name, not Bunic. The tombstones all say "Bona" (Caboga, Gondola, Ghetaldi, Pozza, etc.). By the way, don't accuse me of not speaking Croatian. "Pacijent" does mean "patient" and ok, it may have other slang meanings... Also, please don't accuse me of being somekind of Italian nationalist, etc. As you know, I only joined Wikipedia to correct an entry on Marino de Bona (since deleted - but I proved my point), then the House of Bona/Republic of Ragusa pages. In my line of business, I use Google all day look to check information. This positive thing about all of these exhanges is that I no longer rely on any Wikipedia information because I realize how biased it can be. I do believe however that you and Stambuk really do have a thing against Italians...maybe a generational issue. Debona.michel ( talk) 08:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Direktor, re Mercy (de) Bona, for example, you're ok with Mercy de Bona...but my great-grandfather (Captain in Senj) - on the old House of Bona page (the one that was deleted) always went by the name BONA yet his name on the page was changed to Bunic each time... Debona.michel ( talk) 11:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Just made this moments ago, Zagreb Commuter Rail, if you could help it would be appreciated. I am not sure if this map is of it though... [7] Also, that EX13 guy wants to edit war again. He changed some stuff in december about the rail issue that I thought was closed. ( LAz17 ( talk) 18:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)).
Sincere apologies for my belated response, LAz. Unfortunately, I am overwhelmed with work. As you can probably see from my contribs, I barely edit, and what little time I can spare is completely taken-up trying to keep a bunch of Croat nationalists from vandalizing one of the few good ex-Yugoslavia articles, the Josip Broz Tito article (and I probably won't be able to do that either, I can edit maybe on average once or twice a week). Apologies, again, and thanks for bringing such issues to my attention. Rest assured I shall investigate as soon as I can get a few days away from the hospital. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 13:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Your editing is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#DIREKTOR_again. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 10:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Constitutional Assembly said on Jan 11, 1945 proclamation of the People's Republic of Albania.
Albania proclaimed socialist country much later in 1976 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvi Hyka ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The
January 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 03:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I have not read the discussion archives but it seems the points addressed in the discussion page are not properly reflected in the article. I am referring to your statements, which are totally appropriate, regarding the burden of proof. Uneducated agnostics have tended to have a "can't know either way" attitude to the definition, which in essence gives equal weight to the statistical probability of the existence or not of gods. This completely disregards what you quite clearly stated, in that one can only disprove what has been previously proven, [or evidenced]. Yet this article goes on and on about how the non-existence is not provable... which is not a tenable position.
In addition, the article does not cover the 4 logical positions of knowledge and belief:
I don't know the history of this page (and can't say I'll have the time in the near future) but I get the feeling that theists with their shifting UN-understanding concept of burden of proof have been coming around and screwing it up underhandedly... I write you cuz you seem involved, maybe you can direct me further...-- Tallard ( talk) 05:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 02:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Believe me, I have no intention to engage in edit warring, but I don't see anything wrong in edits that I made. 1) I can agree with you that "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" is the term used on Wikipedia for the state that was also named "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes", and that this edit of mine wasn't nessecary. 2) I must asure you that Janez Drnovšek wasn't an independent politician when he became President of the Presidency. He was an SKJ member, like every other Yugoslav politician at that time (Yugoslavia still was a one-party state in 1989). You can consult article about Drnovšek to see that yourself. 3) I think that article "Prime Minister of Yugoslavia" should be moved to "List of Prime Ministers of Yugoslavia" because this is already case with "List of heads of state of Yugoslavia", and because that article is mainly a list, not an article with description of office of Prime Minister; That criterium is used in many similar articles on Wikipedia. I'm sure that we can reach an agree abouth this issues. Bye! -- Иван Богданов ( talk) 18:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Direktor, I notice that your user page
User:DIREKTOR causes a massive width overflow in Firefox 3.5 (I haven't tried other browsers), so it can't be viewed with without a bunch of annoying horizontal scrolling. Do you think you can fix this? I'm willing to try to adjust it if you want, but I'd only do that if you say it's ok to. Thanks.
66.127.55.192 (
talk) 20:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. You can have all your opinions as you want but you are trying to rewritte the history in many articles. I have no conection with Četnik movement (I even had Partisans in my family), but caling Draža Mihajlović simply an-Axis colaborationist and "Crimes agains humanity" criminal is just too NPOV. If you want to edit all historically related articles, you shouldn´t be lead by your own feelings, and you should at leat try to be neutral. FkpCascais ( talk) 21:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I would be very happy if you don´t contact me directly no more. We have our discussions in the talk pages, but that is it. FkpCascais ( talk) 02:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I've block you and FkpCascais for edit warring on the page Draža Mihailović. Your both in open violation of the three revert rule, and I find that both of you have issues related to the page content. My advice to both of you is to leave the material alone. By the time this block expires, I'll have protected the article in question to keep both of you off the article until you can agree to edit civilly. TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring on Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Prime Minister of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Military of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro and Template:Politics of Yugoslavia.
Across the five articles, you and Иван Богданов ( talk · contribs) are edit warring, and I won't tolerate it. There are numerous dispute resolution methods, I suggest you use them before you get blocked again. Thanks. Ged UK 14:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
P.S.
I'm sorry if you think that people from the Balkans are uncivilized. It's not true, believe me. We aren't better or worse than other peoples. -- Иван Богданов ( talk) 13:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I found this and was very concerned so I started a thread at WP:ANI about User:Иван Богданов. I may look stupid because my Serbian is not good. Polargeo ( talk) 16:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey, you're seriously overdoing (as usual) the S&M / FRY matter here. There was no such position as "Prime Minister of S&M", and the only one that existed was "Prime Minister of FRY". I don't see why the titles on "Prime Minister of Foo" and "Foo" must correspond. While the S&M was called FRY, it had the prime minister, thus it should be "Prime Minister of FRY". The current lead section is utterly confusing -- why not just follow the official title? No such user ( talk) 11:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the
coordinator academy course and in the
responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 21:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
You are reminded that tendentious editing or outright edit waring is not an acceptable practice. This article, Serbia and Montenegro has been the subject of a slow edit war concerning the relationship of the present day state to past governmental entities. The conflict is marked by frequent redirects and reverts all of which seem to be without clear consensus. Under the final decision of the Arbitration Committee/Macedonia case I am reminding you of the need to reach consensus on the talk page and to not redirect or revert the page again without clear consensus. Failure to do so will result in the imposition of discretionary sanctions. This warning has been logged at ARBMAC Log of blocks and bans. JodyB talk 23:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The
February 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 22:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below; but you should read our
guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks first.
JodyB
talk 15:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Notice to administrators: In a 2008 decision, the Arbitration Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
Director ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Unbelievable. Could this silly block possibly be because of
this edit??! Forgive me if some of my outrage becomes apparent in this unblock request, I'll do my best to be brief. I am actually getting banned for no less than one week because I reverted an edit by
User:Иван Богданов. The same user who was
indeffed a week ago because of his editing (and of course, because he expressed his desire to see another user "SLAUGHTERED LIKE AN OX" among other things
[8]).
Not only was this one edit part of an attempt to repair articles damaged by the indeffed account uwilling to familiarize itself with
WP:CFORK, but was also done some ten days after the conflict had been successfully resolved and the disruptive account blocked. To add to this, my grand total or reverts on the
page amounts to three (and I'm talking all time,
one,
two,
three) with the last one apparently causing this "timely intervention" that managed to prevent an already successfully resolved conflict. On top of all this, maximum effort had previously been exerted to explain this situation to the blocking admin (by an uninvolved third party)
[9]. Was I expected to "achieve consensus" with an indefinitely blocked user before reverting the damage he was blocked for inflicting? I emphasize that the only other person involved in the problem is unable to edit this website.
I've been around for years and (fully understanding
WP:EC) I'm proud to say I have just under 24,000 edits on enWiki
[10]. Believe it or not, when I edit I always do my best to improve the encyclopaedia and repair articles. I know the "success rate" of unblock requests, and if I were wrong here I would apologize immediately, but this is simply not a fair block in any way. Apparently, nobody is safe with these "liberal" interpretations of
ARBMAC decisions on the part of some admins. When I'm able to edit again, I shall do my best to bring this matter to the attention of the community. These sort of actions leave people wondering about the general wisdom of their efforts on this encyclopedia.
Decline reason:
Arbitration enforcement blocks may not be appealed like this; see WP:AEBLOCK. If the ongoing community discussion about your block produces consensus against it after at least a day of discussion, it will be lifted, or you may request that it be lifted with reference to that consensus. Sandstein 21:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
(I would appreaciate it if my post were presented to, or read by, the participants of the relevant discussion at
AN)
The sequence of events on the article in question ( Military of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) is as follows:
Apparently, I did not act quickly enough to establish consensus - the only account supporting the edit (the same guy who posted it) was blocked too soon. My mistake, it seems. I have to say here: if the blocking admin (who I'm sure really is acting in good faith), felt an RfC on the issue was necessary, I do not see what stopped him from posting it himself, instead of blocking people for not doing what he deemed necessary. The discussion was (and I think still remains) clearly dead, i.e. - concluded. (Please note that No such user supports the merge, and even after all this "hubub" the talkpage is still dead with opposing voices.)
Regarding the issue on the whole, well, I was trying to get work done. I think anyone can see that it is very hard to interpret the exchange there as whole-hearted "opposition from the community" (apart from the banned user who, again, I obviously cannot engage in conversation). I discussed the issue, and despite Jody's interpretation, I cannot see how the wording of my posts prevents people from seriously opposing the (frankly very necessary and beneficial) merge. Do I go around asking people to oppose me and discuss so as to avoid getting blocked? How long does one wait? Fellas, if ten days was insufficient then I apologize, I'm a pretty busy guy, but I don't think I'm to blame for not posting an RfC... -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 12:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Good to see that you have not left wikipedia after that overly harsh block. In the end I had to withdraw myself from the debate because I was so annoyed with JodyB's poorly considered stance. Polargeo ( talk) 16:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Voting for the
Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 21:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
As you've been involved with SPI's for this user before, I thought I'd let you know he has a new sock and there is a new case - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historičar.
Do you know if there is any way to get an IP range block/ban for this person? He just doesn't seem to quit with the sockpuppetry. 58.165.69.106 ( talk) 18:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
100px | The Yugoslavia Order of Merit | |
I, Kebeta (although sometimes seeing things differently), award you with Yugoslavia Order of Merit for your dedication to articles related to Yugoslavia. Kebeta ( talk) 20:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC) |
Hello DIREKTOR. I would apreciate your opinion regarding the article: Serbian propaganda in the Yugoslav Wars. Greetings!
Zdravo druže. Cenio bih tvoje mišljenje povodom članka: Serbian propaganda in the Yugoslav Wars. Pozdrav! -- Mladifilozof ( talk) 23:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello DIREKTOR. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of House of Crijević, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's not a portal, and it seems a reasonable redirect. Take to RfD if required. Thank you. Ged UK 19:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello DIREKTOR. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of House of Đurđević, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's not a portal, and it seems a reasonable redirect. Take to RfD if required. Thank you. Ged UK 19:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Replied on my talk page and more substantially at ANI. EyeSerene talk 16:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Well Direktor, at least in this case you don't have a reason to be bitter for the block. In the Mihailović case, I think you entrenched yourself and refused to listen to reasonable (well, and less reasonable too) suggestions that the case of his collaborationism is not as black and white as you insist on portraying. I know that you rewrote the article from a bunch of back-and-forth "hero and resistance fighter" vs. "collaborator and war criminal" nationalist crap ( Talk:Draža_Mihailović/Archive_1#What_a_mess), but remember that you don't WP:OWN it. Your really stubborn insistence of putting the unqualified definition "Axis collaborator" adored with a half dozen ref tags in the lead has hampered the progress of the article so far. Further, if you read the talk page with an appropriate portion of good faith, no one is really denying that the collaboration did exist. However, sources point more to the strategy that Chetniks were opportunists who would use Axis offensives as a background to exterminate their communist, Croat and Muslim enemies, rather than to openly cooperate with the occupiers. Furthermore, the whole organization had a rather loose hierarchy, with local commanders having a lot of autonomy, so it's still questionable how much of that collaboration is to be ascribed to Mihailović himself. I admit I didn't read much about the matter though, and that those are rather rather superficial observations of mine.
However, I invite you to re-read Jean-Jacques Georges's comments at Talk:Draža_Mihailović#Article_needs_to_be_toned_out_a_bit, (which I happen to wholeheartedly agree with) as well as several comments at Talk:Chetniks/Archive 1 (for example, radek's at #Images) with open mind. They were fairly critical at "your" version of the article, and you certainly wouldn't call them biased, would you? No such user ( talk) 11:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Buddy, I said I'd left Wiki due to the appalling nonsenses perpetrated against good editors. But I can't stand by and allow you to be hung like this. You know of course that the IP that taunted you today was your old friend Bruno? They won't let up. If you are alone, you have no chance - Wikipedia is edited and - most importantly - administered by teenagers, for whom the niceties of encyclopedic content are irrelevant. So I'll come back - and refrain from any comments about other editors, even if, like AndreaFox, they are 12 years old, and we'll see what can be done to improve things. Not much, I guess, but we can try. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 22:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Bleiburg massacre. The thread is The_three-revert_rule. Thank you. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 18:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The
March 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 21:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I filed the request for Draza Mihailovic article that needs your acceptance(signing) Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Draza_Mihailovic. BoDu ( talk) 14:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Jean-Jacques Georges and User:FkpCascais already agreed. As far as you are concerned, I have no problem to edit the description of the issue (it must be finished within seven days). Write down your suggestion, and I will think about it. BoDu ( talk) 13:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Unless you sign by 14:05(UTC) tomorrow, the mediation will be rejected. I edited the description of the issue, so you should urgently (today) either sign, or tell me what is wrong with the modified description of the issue. BoDu ( talk) 15:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi DIREKTOR, just come across an edit by a vandal banned for sockpuppeting who seems to know your real name (and really hates you). Brutal Deluxe ( talk) 18:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Re: "The collaboration of Mihailović's Chetniks was "opportunistic" as a whole, but it was certainly not "sporadic".", I don't believe I said it was sporadic. Am I missing something? ---- Nuujinn ( talk) 17:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe that you are a communist, a Titoist! Why? Your one-point view: there is one truth: your truth obviously!
Template:Infobox Region2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FkpCascais ( talk) 04:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I've now blocked User:186.105.96.230 as a sockpuppet of User:Ragusino. -- The Anome ( talk) 19:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Look this edit!-- Crisarco ( talk) 12:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Why are you trolling? How is it an invented term to say "macro-evolutionary biologists" WHEN THAT IS WHAT IS BEING REFERRED TO ON THE MACROEVOLUTION PAGE? Can you get any more absurd? Was "biologists" in references to CREATIONIST BIOLOGISTS? OF COURSE NOT, and yet in keeping with a weasel, you would have it so that people think "biologists" are only those who support MACRO-EVOLUTION. Second, what does it matter even if it were an "invented term", is that a sin? Is that forbidden in Wikipedia? Third, IT'S A PHRASE pointing out to what type of biologists are being referred to, and there is no law in Wikipedia and it is no sin, to clarify. Fourth, I already stated why I was removing, as I said in the notes, certain references which were not relevant. Fifth: what does the fact that the mainstream (and it was also left out the "scientific community" mentioned was the MAINSTREAM one (again with the weasel-wording and bigotry) have to do with CRITICISMS of macro-evolution? NOTHING, it's distracting propaganda used to distract any reader from focusing on the criticisms and to instead focus on THE ALLEGED CONSENSUS, and as administrators in Wikipedia love to point out only when it is convenient: "the truth is not determined by consensus". Can you answer my points? NO you can't Mr. LOLz, all you can do is repeat and divert those who input the truth to the talk page, to delay endlessly any progress, with the pretense of "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" and "truth isn't determined by consensus". The first immature remark you left in your first reversion of my edit shows what kind of mind you have, your level of maturity, and your true concern for facts: none. All you can do is make insults, mere claims based on your feelings, while disregarding any reasons anyone gives you if they don't agree with your feelings. Oriclan ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC).
You are playing with semantics to suit your POV. Yugoslavia was established in 1918, but it was not called as such until 1929. The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes may have been a South Slav state, but it was not Yugoslavia until 1929. You are misrepresenting facts. There was widespread opposition to such a name even being introduced (which is why it took a Serbian royal-military dictatorship to do so). My change is small and I do not doubt that it is the same country. But from the perspective of 1918 or 1921, Yugoslavia "did not exist" because that was simply not the country's name yet.-- Thewanderer ( talk) 23:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Since you have been several times reverting the article Julian March, claiming that "Venezia Giulia" is not an English term (despite the evidences in talk page), I have reported you for edit warring, right here [18]. -- 78.13.165.121 ( talk) 13:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Greetings! Have you got a diff for Ragusino ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that you could point me to, to show that Kruske ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is following the same pattern? I've left a comment on the user's talk page about edit warring in general and invited him to use more robust edit summaries or the talk page. — C.Fred ( talk) 00:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Please apologize for the ignorant accusation and personal attack that I am inserting Serb nationalist POV in the Flags of Yugoslavia article. I am not a Serb, nor a Yugoslav, nor a monarchist! I am a Canadian of British, Irish, and northwestern Italian descent bordering France, who does not like the British monarchy that is the head of state in my country of Canada, nor any monarchy for that matter. If you do not apologize for such an insolent and ignorant accusation, I will report you for personal attack.-- R-41 ( talk) 04:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
This edit which was aimed at Jimbo Wales concerning your contributions. I cannot fathom the reason for posting it on a barely used talk page discussing improvements for his user page, but i thought i would let you know nonetheless. I have a feeling it might be moved to the correct place, so i linked the diff instead of the page. Kind regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 19:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Is this editor likely to be a sock of User:Ragusino? They seem to have very much the same limited interests? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 14:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Uauy ( talk · contribs). Account created just as Crisarco got indef blocked. 124.179.205.147 ( talk) 16:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Mikulic.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk) 00:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Per discussion at my talkpage I have enacted the above action so a consensus regarding the flag(s) of the various states known to English speakers as Yugoslavia, and their appearance in the article, may be formed. I should be grateful if you would interact civilly with the other editors, and refer only to such Wikipedia policies/guidelines as WP:RS, WP:MoS, etc. and not WP:VANDAL, WP:STALK, and the like. The recent editing of the article, where there were numerous reverts with little reference to discussion or policy, has all the appearance of an edit war, and longer (indefinite) protection and sanctioning of those who prefer to revert rather than discuss is an option I will consider if it breaks out again when protection expires. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 20:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I want to thanks about restoring my last contribution and the reliable sorces I add to Micaglia's article. But I want to advice you that you have to STOP referring to me as SOCK of someone I don't know, just in order to push your position. (Do you remember Crisarco and your accuse??). I need you apologize of it or I will consider it a PERSONAL ATTACK, and i will report to an admin. Be more polite, my friends, and begin to accept ather's contribution as useful as yours (remember WP:OWN). Regards, -- Theirrulez ( talk) 21:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Director. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 22:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
To try and avoid much drama and
WP:SOCK or
WP:MEAT accusations, regarding the various Croatia-related articles, would you be willing to consider
WP:MEDCAB? I think that this would go to great lenghts towards improving the atmosphere...
Salvio (
Let's talk 'bout it!) 12:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
" Titoism and Totalitarianism", interesting article I found while editing Yugoslav categories. ◅ PRODUCER ( TALK) 04:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FkpCascais ( talk) 20:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I thank you sir for your effort to patrolling my talk page, but there's no need to do that. I consider myself enough strong to take care of it by myself.
And I prefer above all to leave any comments where users or ip added them, in order to have always the chronology clearly showed.
Wishing you a good work, I offer you my best regards.
Sincerely, --
Theirrulez (
talk) 03:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
[21] FkpCascais ( talk) 05:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The
April 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 19:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Going to get some icecream. But anyways, check this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_dinar#Banknotes , could you make it into a table? I am gonna scan all of these guys and put 'em into wikipedia. I used to collect bills quite a bit - got my hands on all the croatian dinars, so this would be quite a cool thing to have uploaded. ( LAz17 ( talk) 22:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)).
hi my good medicine student, I was thinking today (reading you proudly warning: «Please provide English usage.. etc etc.» for all your patrolled articles...) that if you don't accept the neutral truth of a double romance/slavic name for all the atricles you deny, you should start to provide the English usage of every slavic name, well knowing that for lots of arguments modern English-language literature regularly uses the Italian names. And please stop counting every google entry! Do you agree? Sincerely -- Theirrulez ( talk) 21:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)-
Sir, please, leaving apart your automatic way to post a comment immediately after others comments to deny or dicredit others comments, I want just ask you to advice other users wherever your edits are insert out of cronological develop of the discussion, writing, for example, (out of crono). Thanks -- Theirrulez ( talk) 13:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Sir, could you kindly provide me a reasonable ground for which you and User:Kebeta auomatically cancel reliable sources like:
from the articles about Giacomo Micaglia, without any discussion in the related talk page? Thanks, -- Theirrulez ( talk) 15:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Fun -- Theirrulez ( talk) 15:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
We are ready to begin the mediation here. Sunray ( talk) 16:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I suppose there's no need to inform you about what you already know following, as usual, my contrinutions history, don't you? -- Theirrulez ( talk) 23:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The Washington Times was founded in 1982 by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon, who has said that he is the Messiah and the Second Coming of Christ and is fulfilling Jesus' unfinished mission. One of the best trolls IRL. ◅PRODUCER ( TALK) 13:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Neznam, nekako mi je malo daleko ici do splita... ili igde u evropu. Skupe su karte, a student sam... ( LAz17 ( talk) 17:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)).
I would appreciate that you don't touch and edit my images! I put alot of time into takeing these pictures and puting them together. I'm not up for jokes like that! Thank you! Ballota ( talk) 13:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I admit it seemed a bit funny.. -- Theirrulez ( talk) 13:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Fourth rule: only two guys to a fight.
I've mentioned the importance of sticking to content several times now. Yet I've just removed a number of personal attacks from the mediation page, some by you. It does not matter whether they are provoked or not. You are responsible for your own conduct. Consider this a friendly reminder. Would you be able to stick to content from here on out? Sunray ( talk) 23:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
[28] I honestly thought that all of the articles would be balkan related. Also [29] hahaha. -- ◅PRODUCER ( TALK) 15:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
well, I moved the Chetniks quite simply because to categorize them as only Axis forces is quite a flawed perspective. They were, on an official basis at the beginning of the conflict, the armed forces "in the homeland" of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. That they proved a disaster and stopped being supported by the Allies is another matter which, I think, is quite clearly expressed by the mention "not supported by the Allies after 1944". That the Chetniks' attitude was more than ambiguous does not change the fact that a good deal of their groups were always considered rebellious by the German command and that Mihailovic was always targeted by the Germans. As for the infobox, I didn't change them in the first place (not that I remember of, anyway) but, seeing the change, I found it ridiculous that it had not been done at the bottom of the article. Using the label "Axis/Allies" which had been used before could be an option : but listing them as only Axis is ridiculous. (though make no mistake and please do believe me : after doing a good deal of research on the subject, as you may have guesse from my recent edits, I do find the Chetniks awful).
Considering that only Mihailovic was not a traitor among the Chetniks is misleading : some Chetnik groups collaborated, some never did at all. I plan actually to rewrite as far as I can the Chetniks and Yugoslav front articles using the relatively heavy volumes that I now have on the subject, and I can assure you that the result should be quite damning to both Mihailovic and the Chetniks, although I definitely want to correct the current manicheism. I think this might take a few weeks to do each and every article.
As for the "suppressed antagonism" : no, I don't feel any antagonism towards anyone so far. It's just that, after spending about two hours working on an article, I find it quite annoying, to say the least, to see that my edits have been reverted without any concrete reasons. Believe me, it's rude to do that. Anyway, I am quite willing to discuss any edits, I'd only like this to be done in good faith. I have no interest at all in a conflict with anyone. Actually one of my first motivations has been to contribute "neutrally" in order to calm the conflict between you and FPKcascais. Jean-Jacques Georges ( talk) 16:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand the Dalmatian dog picture your added next to my post could be moved by your sense of humour (I laughed =) when I saw it) but the discussion is serious and that image next to my post ridicules its content. Please understand that personal sense of huomour can't always universally understood, so part of our readership could even be confused by that image. Regards - -- Theirrulez ( talk) 12:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
You are not bad, Direktor, even if IMHO you need to improve your trust of others.
I used Governorhip of Dalmatia and Littoral Banovina, in order to guarantee an easy reading of timeline of Dalmatia history using links in the infobox: linking to Kingdom of Italy and to the State of SCS, as you did, would send the reader to two pages not exactly related with Dalmatia history.
I used Governorship of Dalmatia because, even if the Governorhip became official in 1941, Italian Provinces of Zara, Pola and Fiume were official respectively since 1919, 1923 and 1924, and were widely described in the Governorship article.
State of S,C,S wasn't recognized at all by international community and last just few days, so could be appropriate to add a link inside the text or in the see also section and choose to use the link to Kingdom of Yugoslavia in the infobox.
I chose to use the link to Littoral Banovina for the same reason I chose Governorship of Dalmatia instead of Kingdom of Italy article: Kingdom of Yugoslavia is too generic and can't help reader's navigation trough Dalmatia history timeline. Littoral Banovina was the subdivision of Kingdom of Yugoslavia for the Dalmatian region and even if was officially created ten years later than the birth of the Kingdom, it could fit for a link in the infobox, more than the article about Kingdom of Yugoslavia, too generic for a specific historical timeline of Dalmatia.
I'm sorry to see you are obsessed by my edits, I always try to do my best seeking for historical accuracy. I hope next time you will not accuse me so openly, it's not nice. You are my first interlocutor on Wikipedia you know, but your approach still need to preserve a bit more your consciousness of other's good faith.
Please, let me know what you think about the modifications I did, remembering the only goal was to guarantee a continuous timeline for Dalmatia history trough infobox links. --
Theirrulez (
talk) 03:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Frankly i don't believe Croatian Project can fit for de' Vidovich article, but anyways I just want to ask: why don't you make an effort in revisioning syntax and grammar (you just added the tag), the article is not too long, so it shouldn't be an hard work. then why don't you make a serious research of sources about Vidoovich surname? We can then examine them and decide to improve the article. Let me know. Theirrulez ( talk) 15:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- ◅PRODUCER ( TALK) 22:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I plan on bringing the Tito article to GA status since WP Yugoslavia has no GA articles. At the moment I'm working on sourcing information in the article (per [32]) but also plan on sorting the pictures (Why is JFK in the "Tito-Stalin split" section?) and branching off some of the info in the "Final years and aftermath" section into a "Legacy" section. Any thoughts? -- ◅PRODUCER ( TALK) 12:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Re your comment here, being blocked indefinitely and being retired are not mutually exclusive. That template is typically used for one-off vandal only accounts to schedule the talk page for deletion; this is not the case here and the talk page history should be retained. Note that when someone edits the talk page, they will be presented with the fact that the user is indefinitely blocked anyways, so the template is probably unnecessary. – xeno talk 16:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I have been requested by the user that he wants to keep his talkpage clean you are of cource welcome to report me, better if you do that than just revert me. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I´m sorry to disapoint you, but I really have a particular opinion regarding that complex issue. I think that as quickly as Serbia acknolledges that Kosovo is independent, it will be better for all nations in the region. Surprised? Well, I´m not a nationalist, as you had already acknolledged, but you malevoly tryied to paint, in some other ocasions. That doesn´t mean I suport much of what was donne, in name of the independent Kosovo, but looking to the current reality, that is my position (non-oposition to independence). If you really wanna know, I only think that what was wrong was that Kosovar Albanians spend 2 billion dollars to looby in the USA, when they should gave that money to Serbia (since Kosovo was legally its land), and both the land (lol). But, what happend, happend... See also Necronudist talk page, I gave there an opinion regarding Kosovo football. Also, Serbia without Kosovo could reach economical levels to entry EU much more easily than with Kosovo. I just gave you some reasons without thinking much. I´ll be out for some days... don´t abuse too much! FkpCascais ( talk) 19:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
"and then the wiki gods bestowed Wikipedia:Requests for page protection." - from the wikibible lol -- ◅PRODUCER ( TALK) 15:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
You remember Genesis? Book two, verse three: "And he breatheth into the nostrils of Adam on the first day and it was good." -- ◅PRODUCER ( TALK) 17:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello DIREKTOR, how are you? I'm Pippo Franco.-- 217.201.195.210 ( talk) 18:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes I'm, are you studing at university? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.201.194.164 ( talk) 10:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. FkpCascais ( talk) 03:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Croatisation. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked.
In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you. Toddst1 ( talk) 05:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
You said, on the mediation talk page, that JJG isn't the only one who has been putting in effort on the mediation. I agree, and I appreciate your contribution in contributing sources. Your energy has not always been collaborative and I've had to make several comments about personalizing things. Hopefully that is behind us. Now I would like you to consider how you are going to participate from here on out. I've suggested a process for resolving remaining issues. That is my role as mediator. I encourage you to participate positively in this. That means assessing which of the three categories you are in. If you don't agree, that is fine, but the onus will be on you (and any others who choose that option) to work to propose alternatives in the wording and use of sources. Would you be willing to refactor your comment into one of the three categories and, if you disagree with JJG's draft, provide specific alternatives for us to consider? Sunray ( talk) 20:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The
May 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 21:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FkpCascais ( talk) 20:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes the best thing to do is keep quiet for a bit and see what happens. There's no reason to rush anything. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 22:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I have spoken to you several times about sticking to content and not making personal remarks to/about other participants. However, in the last several days, you have repeatedly done this. I want you to stop. If you continue down this path, there may be no other choice but to exclude you from the mediation or block you until you cease. This is the last warning I will give you. The other party is also being warned. Sunray ( talk) 07:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Guys, glad you came by (yes you too, Theirrulez :). I myself suggested on the mediation talkpage that, in addition to discussing content exclusively, only sourced statements founded in sources should be taken into consideration and responded to by involved users. As you say AniMate, I'm coming from a strong position exclusively based on professional sources - which is why I'm baffled that this dispute took six months - and now they're even discussing bothering ARBCOM over this. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 17:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Yes, absolutely. IMO you were making a pejorative assumption about faith (or the lack thereof). You are right that I am taking a stringent interpretation of WP:NPA. I have found that it is best to do so in a mediation so that the parties can focus on content. While many personalized remarks and attacks get overlooked on talk pages in articlespace, in mediation it is important to stay with the spirit of the policy, which, in a nutshell, is: "Comment on the content, not on the contributor." Clear? Sunray ( talk) 23:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Accusing someone of something he/she hasn't done, assuming bad faith ("for the purpose of POV-pushing") and openly accusing him/her of the "Insertion of usourced claims, fake sources, removal of sourced info" is very problematic, considering the fact that this isn't true (and so this is a personal attack). This is even more problematic considering that i never accused you of anything nor i talked harsh towards you; besides you even don't provide demonstrations to support your statements when i asked you to tell me what do you meaned whith "fake sources" (they were sources from a princeton academic, the new york times and an historian) or "removal of sourced info" (i didn't removed anything). When i say you personal attacked me i'm referring to statements like this two: "Extreme undiscussed POV-pushing. Insertion of usourced claims, fake sources, removal of sourced info, and addition of unrelated data for the purpose of POV-pushing" and "In short, the edits inserted by Fox are a slap in the face to Wiki policy. Sources were misrepresented, text supported by them altered, fake sources were added, and laughably biased wording was introduced". You have to stop talking like this to me, because i'm not here to be insulted. You can express your opinions like any other users can do: in a civil way. AndreaFox2 ( talk) 11:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea for everyone to take a deep breath and a pause for the cause. This is starting to sound like usenet instead of wikipedia.... -- Nuujinn ( talk) 23:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the
Croatisation article, please note you are inexplicably fighting for cancelling a paragraph from the above mentioned article since several weeks ago (see the
diff of your first cancellation) when I had never set foot on that article yet. The same paragraph still existed in the article two years ago
[36], and without a proper section title even more time before (more than 3 years ago)
[37]. Despite it was more than reasonable to suppose a discrete consensus about the paragraph, you, on may 18, cancelled the pagraph for the first time, asking for sources supporting it (please note the entire article is barely unsourced) when you could more simply add the tag "{{citation needed}}". I, and other users, punctually improved the section you challenged, adding sources and re-writing some lines, but you continued for days to deny my modifications despite others users espressed in the talk page their consensus to leave the section in the article.
Because it seemed consensus about the paragraph was again recently confirmed by several users, despite your undiscussed cancellation, please kindly stop your edit-war as already openly adviced on the article's talk. Thanks to propose your modifications on the above mentioned talk page and to respect other users contributions. -
Theirrulez (
talk) 04:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I found an article and a book by Marko Attila Hoare that may be of interest to you:
Hoare, Marko Attila (11 June 2005). "Adding Insult to Injury: Washington Decorates a Nazi Collaborator".
Hoare, Marko Attila (2006). Genocide and Resistance in Hitler's Bosnia: The Partisans and the Chetniks, 1941-1943. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0197263801.
Also could you take a look at User:PRODUCER/Tito and give me your opinion on the progress so far when you get the chance? (I got sidetracked lately). -- ◅PRODUCER ( TALK) 18:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 03:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I stopped just short of issuing an WP:ARBMAC sanction restricting you to 1 revert per week on any Balkan-related article after observing your interaction at Croatisation. Toddst1 ( talk) 13:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not "recruiting" anyone, I am merely answering to messages that some users, who are interested by the subject and whom I do not know, have left on my talk page. I am entitled to my personal opinions, and do not consider you qualified to "warn" me against anything. I would also appreciate if you would abstain in the future to leave messages of any kind on my talk page, especially if they are to be of such an agressive nature (are you trying to scare me or what ?). No answer requested . Since I find your behaviour to be untolerable, I will now report it and sincerely hope that you will leave it at that in the future. Jean-Jacques Georges ( talk) 10:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
This is just to let you and others who read this page know that User:Theirrulez is now openly soliciting other editors at itwiki to join his campaigns here. One can only imagine that this is an attempt to create a new "consensus". It's so blatant that one can come to no other conclusion. See here and here. A clear breach of Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Purpose_of_Wikipedia. I await developments. Best, AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 22:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear Direktor,
In the name of all civilized and educated visitors of these pages, I want to congratulate you for your notable efforts to present the TRUTH on Wikipedia, and to fight successfully against the last remains of the pathetic cro-nationalistic propaganda (Zenanarh, Ex13, and maybe 1-2 others). We have followed your battles on many wikipedia fronts, and we are glad that you have achieved an absolute VICTORY over the these last spreaders of hatred and separatism between south Slavic peoples. We wish you, and all other heroes of the truth on wikipedia to continue presenting FACTS on these pages, facts which will forever exterminate these last remains of the evil on it. Have our best Blessings for successfully presenting the truth about our one, same and forever united Serbo-Croatian language, for focusing on the facts about Croato-Serbian unity instead of separation, for defending the truth about the illegal formation of R. Croatia in '90's, which started the war in '90s, and which had the same 'recognition' in the world as SAO's, etc.
Thank you, be Blessed in your future work on wikipedia and may your big VICTORY over the evil LAST FOREVER! Kindest Regards.
173.183.97.171 (
talk) 19:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your modesty and the optimistic feeling about those few guys, whose comments on various topics are usually nationalistic POV's and totally opposite of yours (-the facts). Still, it's good to see some good changes that happened recently on wikipedia (I.Stambuk's case), the fact that wikipedia has almost completely changed for the better in the recent years as far as the topics about South Slavs are concerned, and in all that maybe the greatest credit goes to some brilliantly educated guys like yourself. Regards; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.97.171 ( talk) 16:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
|
|
|
June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 18:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Few small points:
Formal basis for "armistice" agreements between Germans and Chetniks is given in November 21 1943 directive of german CINC for Southeast Europe (Field Marshal Maximilian von Weichs):
Hi there, hope all is well. I have seen your contributions and I have come to like them. I hope you might have seen some of mine in Wikipedia. Still it was the first time we interacted and it was funny. Hope no hard feelings for Venetian Albania: it's an article that must be improved, but WP Italy is extremely important as they have the best sources. Albania as well is closely related to it and the name Albania Veneta is not a coincidence. You might be interested in reading this article, Albanian–Venetian War (1447–1448), which took place in Albanian territories. Again, thanks for being around and for your contributions! See you around.-- Sulmues Let's talk 12:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
You claim not to be an edit warrior but this revert is coming close to just that. The nationality of Tesla is a controversial issue that is interminably debated. Any changes to the status quo of the article should gain consensus on the talk page first before making any edit. SpinningSpark 23:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads' up, in case you're interested; I forgot to protect the redirect when I merged this into SC grammar, and now there's an edit war going on. I tried coming up w s.t. that wouldn't be a content fork, but it was rejected, so I'm back to reverting to the rd. — kwami ( talk) 08:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Pifeedback
Could you give your opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pifeedback.com? ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 12:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
I have noticed that your comment in Template_talk:Country_data_Croatia resulted in the creation of another template for the Independent State of Croatia which holds the corresponding flagicon. However, this is the cause of a problem. Some articles reference the Croatia|1941 flagicon with the intention of displaying the ISC flagicon. As this has been moved, these articles now display the flag of the present-day Republic of Croatia which implies that it, and not the ISC was an Axis ally and combatant. I have corrected this in Operation Barbarossa, but there needs to be a systematic (and hopefully automated) effort to correct all such instances. Silver hr ( talk) 02:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Please make sandbox edits first, or request somebody from WP:WikiProject Flag Template to offer assistance. It is not acceptable to make experimental edits (16 edits in a few hours, most only a couple of minutes apart) to a high-use template (several thousand pages). I realize your edits were made in good faith, but they caused significant numbers of pages to be broken, which is why I reverted them for now and re-protected the template. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 18:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi DIREKTOR, how is it going?
It seems that you moved Foreign relations of Kosovo to Foreign relations of the Republic of Kosovo; I'd suggest you to revert yourself and continue the discussion that you've initiated some time ago or request a move. Cheers. — Kedadi 16:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:PGMayor. Since you had some involvement with the Template:PGMayor redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). EmanWilm ( talk) 01:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yugoslav_Wars#Vote: Is Kosovo War part of Yugoslav Wars?. Hope we can have a constructive dialogue. -- Justice and Arbitration ( talk) 16:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Can I get your opinion on this? [38] Came out of nowhere for me, and I'm still not sure how the whole thing works, so can you tell me if I'm in the wrong here or something? (Have also asked Kwami, feel free to reply on your talkpage, not mine) Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 19:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Direcktor, I created a page for Lepa Radić, if you have time would appreciate any additions, comments you might think worthwhile. For example, I'm not absolutely clear if she was a member of the NOV i POJ, if you have access to a WP:RS it would be useful for the article. regards -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 14:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Because of the constant edit warring there due to over a flag image, you and Ex13 have a 48 hour block. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, would you perhaps be willing to intervene with a neutral 3rd opinion as regards my current dispute with milhist admin (on WW2 discussion page)? It's a long-running battle. My intention is only to improve the article without getting bogged down in editing wars, arbitration, mediation etc. The dispute is under several related section headings on discussion page, starting with "Link to www.truth-hertz.net", then evolving into "WW2 origings of Cold War", then "Flawed overview - para.3", and currently "Editing dispute - expressions of interest invited". The main issues involved are NPOV / Parity of Sources. With regards. Communicat ( talk) 18:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
How's life o'er there on the front lines? I made something, though I imagine that you are not too focused on sports. Croatian Inline Hockey League. Perhaps it will confuse some of your adversaries, you ol' commie munckin!, come 'ere, long time no hug! lulz ( LAz17 ( talk) 01:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)).
You've broken WP:3RR on Yugoslav Partisans: [41], [42], [43], [44]. Please self revert and don't troll for an edit war. Lt.Specht ( talk) 10:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello DIREKTOR and Lt.Specht. Without comment on the content disagreement between both of you, please be aware that some of the material being added by the unregistered editor in the diffs given by Lt.Specht above was copied verbatim from the source. If either of you were considering restoring the edits of the unregistered editor in full, please could you be mindful of the copyright issue. CIreland ( talk) 10:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Socialist Republic of Croatia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lt.Specht ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
|
|
|
July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 21:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually you're over that. I've warned the other editor, I'm warning you as well. Dougweller ( talk) 09:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Unbelievable. I would seriously advise you to cease with your offensive behavior. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 15:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
There have been problems with who is right about the Republic of Serbian Krajina Coat of Arms and Flag. Please visit the semi-official museum of the Republic of Serbian Krajina at http://www.republikasrpskakrajina.com/, and you will see original documents, badges (both metal cap badges and cloth sleeve patches), State-issued bonds and currency, certificates, identity cards, military documents, etc., all of which date back to the war period (1991-1995). Please look at http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/hr-rsk.html, where you will find the State flag (not the civil ensign) of the RSK. The RSK had a State Flag with a crowned two-headed eagle and Serbian National Cross in the middle.
The plain Serbian tricolor is the civil ensign commonly used by the people and sometimes, due to a lack of funds, by the Government and Army. When most of the RSK was taken over by Croatian forces in 1995, the unconquered eastern part of the RSK became the short-lived Republic of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia. This new entity kept the old Coat of Arms of the RSK, but they changed the flag by adding a blue shield behind the crowned, two-headed eagle. There are scanned copies of magazine photos from Eastern Slavonia from that period that can by found on the Military Photos website (I will try to send you a link as soon as I find it in my records). On the aforementioned RSK museum website, you will also be able to find militaria from the Republic of Srpska. Even a superficial examination of these items will show that the Coat of Arms used by the RSK was not the same, although there were similarities, as the Coat of Arms of the Republic of Srpska.
The Coat of Arms that you have listed now is not the Coat of Arms of the RSK. It is the Coat of Arms of the Republic of Srpska. If you go on Google and type "flag of Krajina", you will immediately see a high-resolution photo of the State Flag that Croatian troops found in the office of then RSK President Milan Martic. Sadly, this Flag and the Coat of Arms that go with it were never vectorized, since it was always easier to use the Coat of Arms and Flag of the Republic of Srpska (which, unlike the RSK, did use a plain Serbian tricolor as its State Flag). Recently, people have even begun to use the current Flag and Coat of Arms of Serbia (both of which date back just a few years) as the Flag and Coat of Arms of the RSK, but that is because of laziness. Quite simply, no one ever bothered to do a high-quality vectorization of the State Flag and Coat of Arms, which is why my friend and me decided to do a professional vectorization of both the Flag and Coat of Arms, and to make them available to everyone.
I hope this answers some of your questions. I honestly appreciate your dedication to maintaining the articles about the RSK, so that they are correct. Believe me, this is my desire as well, which is why I put so much effort into making sure the Coat of Arms and Flag were correct.
By the way, as far as the Emblem of the Serbian Army of Krajina is concerned, please take a look at the following link: http://www.qsl.net/4n1fog/v07.htm, and you will see that the Emblem of the Army as I represented it is just a vectorization of the original emblem worn by the RSK Army soldiers and officers on the sleeve patches (the same Emblem was used on all military documents from the RSK, as you will be able to see when you look at the RSK museum website).
All the best, Marko Maljkovic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlovi Gvozda ( talk • contribs) 18:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
I have found two more references for the changes that I made to the Coat of Arms and Flag of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, as well as to the Flag and Coat of Arms of its short-lived successor, the Republic of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia.
The first reference is a scanned copy of a photo-reportage made by Serbian journalists in the RSK during the war. The photos in this photo-reportage show an official RSK military ceremony taking place. The RSK President Milan Martic is clearly visible in one of the photos. The photos also clearly show the official Coat of Arms of the RSK, which is visibly different from the old Coat of Arms of the Republic of Srpska (the Republic of Srpska Coat of Arms was mistakenly used in previous posts about the RSK; the two Coats of Arms are similar in many ways, and it is a common mistake to mix them up).
The vectorized RSK Coat of Arms image that I produced and posted here is the same as the official Coat of Arms used by the RSK during the war. The photos also clearly show that the official State Flag used at official State-sponsored ceremonies of this kind had the RSK Coat of Arms on it, as I have presented in the vectorized flag that I posted here on Wikipedia. This is the link to the first reference: http://img107.imageshack.us/i/244232655aofppqphgd2.jpg/
The second reference is also a scanned copy of a Serbian magazine article. The article is from November 19, 1995. It shows soldiers and officers of the RSK Army at an official, State-sponsored ceremony to celebrate the Day of the Serbian Army of Krajina ("Dan Srpske vojske Krajine"). By the time that this article was published, the Croatian Army and Police had already taken over the territories that used to be held by the RSK. The only remaining part of the old RSK that was still under Serbian control was the Republic of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia.
The Serbian entity in Eastern Slavonia maintained the same Coat of Arms as the old RSK, as can be seen from the magazine article I am referring to here, but the State Flag was changed. A blue shield was added to the Flag (the Coat of Arms would now be superimposed over that blue shield). Since the article describes an official State ceremony, it is safe to say that the symbols used here, including the Flags, were the official symbols, as opposed to popular, but unofficial, symbols by the people and non-State organizations in the RSK. This is the link to the second reference: http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/3795/111111111111co1.jpg
As far as the differences between the old Coat of Arms of the Republic of Srpska and the RSK Coat of Arms are concerned, I have put together a short list of links that show those differences. The differences are not major, but there are definite differences, and it cannot be said that the two Serbian wartime entities used the same Coat of Arms, because that would be a mistaken assumption.
First, this is the list of links to photos of State-issued symbols (in this case, military symbols) used by the Republic of Srpska during the war:
http://www.republikasrpskakrajina.com/RS-met-13.htm http://www.republikasrpskakrajina.com/RS-met-6.htm http://www.republikasrpskakrajina.com/RS-1h.htm
And, this is the list of links to photos of State-issued symbols (in this case, both military and political symbols, including postage stamps and RSK treasury bonds, all of which must, according to law, use only the official rendition of the Coat of Arms):
http://www.republikasrpskakrajina.com/RSK-1.htm http://www.republikasrpskakrajina.com/RSK-met-7.htm http://www.republikasrpskakrajina.com/RAZG-PISMA-OSTALO.htm http://www.republikasrpskakrajina.com/ZUBCANE.htm http://www.republikasrpskakrajina.com/OBVEZNICE.htm
When it comes to the Flag, it is absolutely true that a plain Serbian red-blue-and-white tricolor was commonly used in the RSK during the war, but this plain tricolor was not the official State Flag. The tricolor was commonly used because of a lack of funds (or perhaps bureaucratic laziness or lack of interest; who knows?) to produce the official State Flag, which, as can be seen from the first two references above, definitely had the Coat of Arms in its middle (and even included a blue shield beneath the Coat of Arms in the case of the Serbian entity in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia in 1995).
In the Wikipedia article about the Flag of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, the article shows a plain Serbian tricolor and calls it the "National Flag of the Republic of Serbian Krajina". However, the original name (in Serbian) of that particular flag, as can be seen in the same Wikipedia article, is "Narodna zastava Republike Srpske Krajine", which, in this case, means the "People's Flag of the Republic of Serbian Krajina" (a "people's flag" is the civil ensign used by the citizens of any particular country, while a State Flag is the official banner of that same country; not all nations differentiate between these two types of banners, but the Serbs and some other European nations do).
Serbia changed its State symbols a few years ago. Here is the English-language web-page on the Serbian Government website that shows the new State symbols, including the new State Flag. As you will see from this Serbian Government web-page, there is a clear difference between the official State Flag (that has a Coat of Arms) and the "people's flag" (i.e. civil ensign), which is a plain Serbian tricolor. This is the link to the Serbian Government web-page: http://www.srbija.gov.rs/pages/article.php?id=5412&change_lang=en
The same holds true for the State Flag of the RSK. Unlike the Republic of Srpska, which actually did use a plain Serbian tricolor as its official State Flag (and continues to do so), the RSK never used a plain Serbian tricolor as its official State Flag, except when it had no other option (e.g. due to a lack of resources, etc.).
The work that I have presented here is entirely my own work and that of my friend and colleague, Vladimir Jovanovic. Neither one of us has anything whatsoever to do with the RSK Government-in-Exile that appeared in Belgrade a few years ago, nor do we have anything to do with any nationalist political or other groups in Serbia or anywhere else.
This work is merely our contribution to historical memory. We were motivated by the fact that various sources were mistakenly using the old Coat of Arms of the Republic of Srpska, or even the brand-new Coat of Arms and Flag of Serbia, and presenting them as the Coat of Arms and Flag of the RSK, which is factually incorrect. Since no professional vectorization had ever been made of the RSK State Flag and Coat of Arms, we combed through all of the reference material we could find to make as true and correct a vectorized version of the RSK Coat of Arms and Flag as possible.
I notice from the history of this and other Wikipedia articles about the RSK and the 1991-1995 war in Croatia that you have invested a great deal of time and energy to making sure that the articles presented here are as correct and objective as possible, and, believe me, I truly appreciate that, and I hope that you will continue to do so in the future, since there is always a danger that these articles will be misused or vandalized. I hope that this small contribution I have made will also enrich the historical accuracy of some of the articles referring to the RSK. Thank you once again.
Best regards, Marko Maljkovic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlovi Gvozda ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear DIREKTOR In the past two weeks in almost all West Balkan written media there ware articles about the genious croatian linguist Snjezana Kordic. Promoting her new book "The nationalism and language", using linguistic facts she speaks openly about the same language that Croats, Serbs, Bosnians and Montenegrians use, one more time victoriously confirming the truth about this language. She also speaks about the nationalism between some croatian linguists as a scientific nonsense and as an absolutelly defeated strategy in today's world. Her interview was given to a few bosnian, croatian and serbian newspapers. Knowing your great reputation on wikipedia, as a fact and truth presenter known for his objectivity, maybe you can be the first, who can write an article about this brilliant linguist? You can simply google her name and find a lot of useful information. Anyhow, she is the only type of linguist that EU accepts, and she definitelly deserves a place on wikipedia, which, sooner or later will be there. Thanks and Best Regards. 207.216.132.111 ( talk) 18:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I see you are edit warring on
Aloysius Stepinac. Stop please.
Toddst1 (
talk) 15:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Dalmatia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Green Giant ( talk) 00:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Is this wikipedia worthy? - [49] lolzers. :) ( LAz17 ( talk) 16:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)).
Hi DIREKTOR! I have made some suggestions on Talk:Yugoslav Partisans - Infobox War Faction. Can you implement some of them into the article? Kebeta ( talk) 14:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Pa to si ti imao negde - na stranici ustasa il negde. Secam se dobro da sam te cak pitao odkle to, i ti si mi reko source. Pri kraju rata su neke ustase presle na stranu partizana, znas da je to tako. Moj profesor ovde u americi cak zna ustasu koji je bio americki spijun protiv komunista. To je sta je u pitanju. ( LAz17 ( talk) 23:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).
|
|
A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound |
Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants |
|
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 23:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC) |
Check out Sunray's talk page, he blessed these edits.... -- Nuujinn ( talk) 14:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Davies talk 21:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Petar Stambolic1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 12:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Are You interested in translating this article to English? -- Bojan Talk 14:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, DIREKTOR! Did I made a mistake here? Kebeta ( talk) 08:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Lazar Kolishevski.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk) 05:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Before calling editors "nationalists" and threating them [54]. You should take a look at Wikipedia:Five pillars. Especially Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Consensus. Good reading. UltimaRatio ( talk) 19:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello DIREKTOR,
I creatded
fr:Museum van Hedendaagse Kunst Antwerpen with its title in dutch, not in french; also, frWP has a lot of articles with english titles, even abbreviated, cf
fr:MASS MoCA.
Can you explain "Nationalist POV is likely to blame"? Who are the nationalists
there? Am I among this nationalists?
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Alvar☮ 06:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Mikulic.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk) 05:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Petar Stambolic table crop1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk) 05:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Stojan Novakovic table crop.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk) 05:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
In [56] you added
Did you mean "characterised by others as"? Rojomoke ( talk) 08:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Milka Planinc table crop.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk 02:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a parallel discussion about 'Croats infobox picture' at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia and Talk:Croats. Your comments and suggestions will be appreciated. Regards, Kebeta ( talk) 19:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
|
The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals |
|
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 21:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks for uploading File:Vitomirmisimovic.PNG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vanjagenije 19:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
You were correct about Chetniks and their collaboration with Nazis. Yad Vashem clearly states that Serbian Chetniks collaborated with Nazis http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%205916.pdf . "The Chetnicks turned on the partisans. They even collaborated with their former enemies, the Germans and Italians, against the partisans. When the Chetnicks began cooperating with the occupying forces, any Jews among their ranks left. There were even instances where the Chetnicks killed Jews or surrendered them to the Germans." Yahalom Kashny ( talk) 21:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I see you put this medal on Wikipedia commons. By signing themselves you have violated the provision of Wikipedia and I as author reserve the right to sign or take proceedings to the medal with your signature as by removing it form Wikipedia. Medal will stay but authors name will be changed. In future actions will be reported against you. Snake bgd 11:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
For the record, Dubrovnik is the most beautiful city in the World :) . Ok. Now back to Draza Mihailovic and his Chetniks (two articels). We need to improve the article by adding information that General Draza Mihailovic's Chetniks committed a massacre of innocent Serbian women, children and the elderly in a Serbian village of Vranici, near Belgrade. To verify this information, you can read a book from Dragoljub Pantic - survivor of the massacre (there are also photos of his slaughtered relatives) http://www.znaci.net/00001/22.htm . There are hundreds of Chetnik documents of Draza Mihailovic's crimes against Bosnian Muslims and the Chetnik collaboration with Nazis. The documents were preserved in the Archives of the Military Institute in Belgrade. Dr. Branko Latas organized some of these documents in his book, which you can download here (by chapters) http://www.znaci.net/00001/114.htm (or for individual documents, you can look bottom of theis page http://www.znaci.net/ ). Yahalom Kashny ( talk) 04:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I have replied to [57] Regards -- Jebacz ( talk) 00:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I modified the pictures for the History section of the Arc de Triomphe article. Please read my justification before taking any action. This is an attempt of improvement. Badzil ( talk) 12:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Why are you so narrow-minded. Can you leave your totalitarian idols behind and live in a modern world? Defending communists and their ideology leads you nowhere. Why don't you live in DPR of Korea if communism is so great. I would like to see how you defend communist from North Korea, but, well, you couldn't do it, because the Net is a subject of censorship in your dear communist states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.64.202 ( talk) 21:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Direktor,
could you please stop using that contemptuous tone when mentioning other contributors? I think that we both follow the same goal, improving Wikipedia but your tone makes you appear arrogant and therefore usually transforms discussions about content to confrontations between contributors. I don't want to go down that way. I assure you that my modification on the article Arc de Triomphe was meant as an improvement and not as a try to remove the image Commons:File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-126-0347-09A, Paris, Deutsche Truppen am Arc de Triomphe.jpg. I do agree with you that this image is important in the history of France and Germany. I think it should be shown at least on Battle of France and probably History of France. However I am not sure that it is a relevant image for Arc de Triomphe compared to other images on Commons.
Also please stop judging people on their nationality. My nationality has nothing to do in that. I went to highschool in Germany ( [58]) and studied extensively the history of the Third Reich in german, so don't accuse me blindly of NPOV. Badzil ( talk) 13:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Badzil ( talk) 01:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A link to discussions can be found here. Mathsci ( talk) 21:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. There is a discussion on Talk:Bosnian War on how to revamp the introduction of the Bosnian War article, so it could be made shorter, more coherent and concise. It would be useful to have some more opinions on this from people who have knowledge on the subject and region. So if you have the time, you can chime in. Regards -- Nirvana77 ( talk) 11:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 22:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Thought I'd give you a heads up on this image (and its discussion) that shows the genocide committed during WW2 in Yugoslavia in a POV manner. I'd deal with it myself but I'm bit preoccupied at the moment. -- ◅PRODUCER ( TALK) 22:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
He spent five years in prison. A good part of his life he spent in prison. This period of his life was marked behind bars. This image must therefore be found in the article. In his apartment in Zagreb, police found a hand grenades. That's why I wrote in the description of images is due to the prison for the criminal activities.-- Свифт ( talk) 18:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
OK as you say!-- Свифт ( talk) 22:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Howdy. I see the article has been relatively stable, these last few months. GoodDay ( talk) 03:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DIREKTOR for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thought that you would find this entertaining: [60]. -- ◅PRODUCER ( TALK) 23:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, dear friend, enough of this. Please do not try to tell the world that Tito was a Croat. This is not true. He was a Yugoslav, who refused to identify himself with any of the geographical groups. By going down this road, you ally yourself with all of the Balkan mentalities, the haters, with the prejudiced, jaundiced and racist. If you profess to understand anything at all about Tito, you would understand that he would despise you for what you are trying to do. To call him a Croat is opposed to everything Tito stood for. But hey, if you're following Tuđman's path from pan-Yugoslavianism to out-and-out Croatian nationalism, you will enjoy yourself in the company of AP1929 and similar. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 21:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Would you care to comment on life without mediation? Your presence and comments would be appreciated.... -- Nuujinn ( talk) 00:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Lunalet is currently at WP:ANI. It is possible that you may be able to shed some light on who this user really is. It is also possible that this editor is socking in breach of an editing restriction/ban/enforcement action. If you are able to add anything to the discussion please do so. Mjroots ( talk) 12:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 22:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi there.. I got back to you about the flag. Discussion continues there. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 15:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
"Another antisemitic incident happened when an HČSP member in another debate stated: Whoever doesn't listen to Thompson's music in Croatia is a Jew who hates Croats[9]. These two incidents outraged the minuscule Croatian Jewish community." - This wasn't stated by a HČSP member, but by this idiot: http://www.astigospe.com/2007/11/22/andrija-ruek-idovi/ He is from HP-HPP, npt from HČSP. HeadlessMaster ( talk) 20:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know that if there's an outing issue, you need to e-mail oversight; bringing it to ANI will just make it much more public. I've removed the thread for that reason; feel free to revert, but I'd recommend not bringing the outing to the attention of the many watchers of ANI, at least until it's been oversighted. If you wish to create a new thread dealing with the personal attack issues rather than the outing, feel free to do so as well. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I just fired an Email off for you, oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org. I didn't see the outing explicitly but I assume that portion was enough to have you worried. The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 00:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you a Commie or a Nazi? I can never keep this straight. :) ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi DIREKTOR, happy new year to you and best withes for 2011.
I nominated this guy for AFD as I couldn't find anything about him, however this could be just a local thing as there aree a few pics of albums on google pic search http://www.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&source=imghp&biw=1280&bih=815&q=Dragan_Antic&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= as it is your area-ish but perhaps not your field, do you know if he really was a popular singer there and are there any cites you can find, perhaps in another language? Off2riorob ( talk) 18:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WPYU. Since you had some involvement with the WPYU redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji ( talk) 15:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Yugoslav Front - 3rr, accusations of incivility, removal of other user's comments. Thank you. Dpmuk ( talk) 19:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:ExamsDIRshort has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 00:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I have undone Fkp's edit putting the Chetniks in the Allied column, pending agreement on the talkpage, as this seemed to me to be a continuation of the edit war. However - it is also partly my fault as I did not express myself clearly. I have now made it clear I will protect the page if there is any resumption of edit warring. I have also added a proposal for how the infobox should be constructed though I hasten to add that the content is a matter for discussion on the talkpage, not for me! Fainites barley scribs 13:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I had few sources that also claim Chetniks colaboration with Italians in Dalmatia and Lika, those Chetniks were under command of Momčilo Đujić. More corectly his Dalmatian division, or something like that, but I can't find them. When I do, be sure I'll add them to article dealing with Yugoslav Front.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 17:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
FYI, the idea of renaming/returning the article to Yugoslavia in World War II has been presented as a third option at the the move discussion for Yugoslav Front.-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 14:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
"The tautological statement is correct, but irrelevant. Discussing the prospect that the universe has come into being at some point in some way (but keeping in mind that it was not necessarily so!) we find that "in fact, 'nothing' did come from 'nothing'. The universe is in actuality an engagingly reorganized form of 'nothing', while a-causal events are capable of seeing it come into being without intervention". This is a very interesting perspective you are advocating. Have you seen this documentary? [62] -- Justice and Arbitration ( talk) 11:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FkpCascais ( talk) 15:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear DIREKTOR, I just wanted to drop you a kind note and let you know that you forgot to inform an involved editor in the thread that you opened on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Don't worry! It's been taken care of. Just wanted to gently remind you to make sure to do so when and if you open a new ANI thread in the future. Thanks! Basket of Puppies 03:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Dobro, ajde mi sad objasni zašto si vratio moju promenu naslova kod tog članka. O kakvim izvorima govoriš? Niko ne spori da je Nedićev režim ili vlada postojao, ali svaka vlada mora imati teritoriju kojom upravlja, dakle postojala je teritorija pod nazivom Srbija kojom je taj režim upravljao. Ili možda tvrdiš da nije? Što se izvora tiče, evo ti nekoliko:
Što se tiče drugih teritorija u okupiranoj Evropi, evo ti članci o njima:
Dakle o svim teritorijama postoje članci, samo o Srbiji ne. U čemu je problem sa tvojim gledištem o Srbiji?
Na srpskoj Vikipediji postoje članci i o Srbiji kao teritoriji i o Nedićevoj vladi:
Dakle, pošto veći deo članka koji sada nosi naslov "Nedić regime" govori upravo o Srbiji kao teritoriji (a pored toga koristi i "Infobox Former Country" i nalazi se u kategorijama "Short-lived states of World War II", "Former countries in the Balkans", "States and territories established in 1941", itd), logično je u naslovu ovog članka koristiti naziv Srbija, a ti ako hoćeš napiši poseban članak o Nedićevoj vladi. Ili hoćeš da ja napišem poseban članak o Srbiji, ali da onda pola članka čiji naslov tako ljubomorno čuvaš "prekrojim" i da iz njega izbacim sve što nema veze sa samom vladom? PANONIAN 20:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
User :94.246.150.68 may have created User:Vidboy and User:Vidboy10 as a disposable sock to sacrifice to prove his 'Innocence'. Same disruptive tastes, on-off edit war and trolling, I’m hunting another trouble maker on Egypt's protests. See Chetniks, Talk:Chetniks, Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jash and Talk: 2011 Egyptian protests. Wipsenade ( talk) 05:17, 5-- Wipsenade ( talk) 16:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC) February 2011 (UTC)
He’s even exploded off at XLinkBot now-
(cur | prev) 17:18, 13 January 2011 94.246.150.68 (talk) (36,661 bytes) (please **** off mr bot, I'm, not even ADDING them) (undo).
See for proof [ [64]] Wipsenade ( talk) 10:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Block him for me or tell the admin's, I don't know how to do it.09:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
He may be related to the all ready banned User:Magic elephant. Wipsenade ( talk) 12:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I've found the admin's page and will let them know!16:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I told them.-- Wipsenade ( talk) 20:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, my friend. Can you please explain me your reasoning for Nedić regime, as article have former countries infobox in it, and related categories. Please, talk page is waaay TLDR, what do you think, i dont understand quite. :) All best. -- WhiteWriter speaks 12:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, you've been mentioned on WP:ANI. Regards HeadlessMaster ( talk) 20:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear Direktor, thank you for your absolute objectivity in presentation the facts about former Yugoslavia and congratulations again to your total victory over the croatian nationalists on wikipedia. Just wanted to remind you about this very important and relevant link, attached under my text, which PROVES the facts about who started the civil war in formar Yugoslavia, particullarly in Croatia. That's an interview that the former croatian defense minister Josip Boljkovac gave to 'Slobodna Dalmacija' and a few other magazines in 2009. In this interview he tells the truth about the war in Croatia, saying that croatian para-military formations first attacked JNA and Serbs, and clearly denies the opposite as a lie which the failed croatian nationalistic propaganda has tried to present to the world. Now, when all the pieces of the truth about the war in Yugoslavia are slowly falling into right places, it's probably time to make the facts even more aggressive and more present on wikipedia, thus eliminating the last remainings of the nationalistic lie-spreaders. Maybe you can check the article about Josip Boljkovac and correct some of the things there, as it seems to contain many irrelevant things, missing the important facts. Zivio! 207.216.132.111 ( talk) 17:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC) http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/53359/josip-boljkovac-hrvatska-je-prva-napala-srbe
I opened this discussion about you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#How_can_I_deal_with_difficul_user.3F So, you might want to say your defense there. PANONIAN 19:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I left a message here. Can you please check? -- Napoletanamente ( talk) 02:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 15:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Tito in VladimirBakaric.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vanjagenije ( talk) 20:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Brioni summit.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vanjagenije ( talk) 09:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:JNA Military police vojna parada 1975.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vanjagenije ( talk) 09:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:NoviAvion1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vanjagenije ( talk) 09:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Vladimir Bakaric facingleft.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vanjagenije ( talk) 09:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Mi-8 YPA.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vanjagenije ( talk) 09:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Could you please take a better picture of the Heraldry of Dalmatian Nobles...Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.249.1.216 ( talk) 12:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Check out WP:NORN and WP:FTN an individual is ranting incoherently about your so called " WP:OWN issues." sarcasm Thought you might be interested. The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 22:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:FPRY Merit Order.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vanjagenije ( talk) 11:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi DIREKTOR! You should undo or rewrite your edits regarding Aloysius Stepinac. I am not refering to the correctness of your edits, but to the style. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects, not as detail explanation as you have recently added. Shortly, most of your edits should go into the body of the article. Regards, Kebeta ( talk) 09:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Director. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FkpCascais ( talk) 19:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Mr.direktor, can you please, for the record, provide any evidence for your continuos insinuation of me being a Chetnik sympatizer. I beleave you do it purpously with a discrediting purpouse and you do it towards other users and administrators by other means and channals as well. Please provide what makes you link me to Chetnik movement so you frequently in a insulting tone label my edits as "Chetnik nonsence". I will consider the report I done today ( [65]) on this as a warning that you accepted, having in mind that you have been already warned on this in the past as well. Knowing the ammount of effort that you spent in recent years nazifiying the movement (and knowing the connotation given to the expression in your country Croatia, stand and prejudice that you acknolledge and defend) I will obviously consider deeply insulting any further behavior of such kind towards me and I will take strong action against it. Now please be kind and at least provide me an excuse for such behavior. FkpCascais ( talk) 22:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Lets discuss on your talkpage since we started the thread there, I'm getting a headache.. :) -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 00:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)
Thanks for uploading File:Tito Life Magazine.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 ( talk) 05:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Molim te, ako imas bolji kvalitet one slike grbova iz Raguse, da mi ih posaljes na email mhusovic@gmail.com. Vrlo bi bijo zahvalan vama.
Sve najbolje. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.235.73.131 ( talk) 14:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Wher did you get idea that image has copy right issues? It won't be erased. And you added Comrade Tito with no discussion, even though we had discussion and agreed - no criminals and dead communists at the infobox.-- Wustenfuchs ( talk) 12:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
No, ther are no copyright issues, and you tag them, like I care. Your adding of Tito is NPOV.-- Wustenfuchs ( talk) 13:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you teach me the alphabet to? I know what NPOV is. And don't ask stupid things. Smart thing would be to return messages to my talk page. But, we alredy open discussion at Croat talk page, so no need to do that.
Regards.-- Wustenfuchs ( talk) 20:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Sry, I'll take care of it. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 19:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 21:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)