Talk:Social Democratic Party of Croatia

Fair use rationale for Image:Sdp-logo.gif

Image:Sdp-logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sdp-logo.gif

Image:Sdp-logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Regarding this edit by DIREKTOR - the infobox doesn't really need to state that the party has sections for pensioners, women, students and youth, especially since none of them have a separate article. It also does not need to mention its spokesperson since Ivana Grljak is barely notable even for Croatian standards. Also, while the party stems from the former SKH, it is regarded as being founded in 1990 and is for that reason still in the Category:Political parties established in 1990, and the League of Communists of Croatia article states SKH was founded in 1937 and dissolved in 1990. Timbouctou (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

That is not for you to pass judgement on. The infobox has those parameters, and they were filled out. Please do not edit-war. As for the SKH thing, nobody disputes that this party was founded in 1990 in its current organization, but I see no harm whatsoever in mentioning when the institution was originally founded. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I expected you to play the "infobox has those parameters so they must be filled out" card. No they don't have to be filled out, especially when nothing valuable is added to the article by it. And that is a judgment editors are allowed to make. Also, {{Infobox political party}} does not contain parameters for students', pensioners' and women's wings (only the youth wing param is standardized but SDP's youth wing doesn't have its own article either). The same goes for "Predecessor" parameter which you seem to have invented all by yourself. As for the foundation date - why do we need two? Is there any source stating that SDP was founded in 1937? Timbouctou (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You do not get to remove infobox parameters simply because you yourself judge "they add nothing valuable to the article". This is not a factual dispute. You either achieve consensus for your changes, or you stop edit-warring in the article. That is basic Wikiquette that you still do not seem to acknowledge. Now, I say again, you have a long history of this sort of edit-war instigating and I will be filing a report should you revert once more. And do not think you can WP:GAME THE SYSTEM by misusing WP:3RR.

Tim, you cannot push your personal opinions by edit-warring. Discuss. I refuse to have a conversation while you're trying to do so. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Stop patronizing me. 2. Do you have any scintilla of something even remotely resembling an argument for keeping a bunch of pointless information in the infobox or do you think your random rants will suffice? 3. You accusing someone of a "long history" of edit-warring is truly laughable. Your block log probably looks like Al Capone's rap sheet :-) 4. Please report whatever you feel needs reporting here. Please do it now if you think you have anything other than rants to offer to a interested audience. 5. You reverted my edits first, before even attempting to raise the subject here (notice who started this fucking thread). 6. You offered no argument whatsoever. 7. You offered no argument whatsoever. 8. You offered no argument whatsoever. 9. You offered no argument whatsoever. 10. You offered no argument whatsoever. Timbouctou (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

So what now? You won your edit-war and the issue is settled? I'll ask you again: why should anyone have to justify keeping accurate, related information in articles with you? This is a free encyclopedia, where you should not try to impose our own subjective opinions on others. Around here, Timbaktu, if information is (#1) related and (#2) accurate, everyone is free to add it and you have no right to remove it.
I am not going away :). I will report this and keep reporting it until people get the picture about what you're doing here. Bullying will get you nowhere, not with me, I'll take this all the way. So I suggest reasoning and compromise, and a quick and easy resolution.

Reading through your latest edits I am starting to think this whole thing you started may have a lot to do with the upcoming 2011 parliamentary elections in Croatia. (Uninformed editors, be advised this party is the second-strongest party in Croatia, and is the main opposition in the upcoming elections.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it does not at all, unless it is on your part. This has to do with your edits. Your above statement is fantasy. --Jesuislafete (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"I'll ask you again: why should anyone have to justify keeping accurate, related information in articles with you? This is a free encyclopedia, where you should not try to impose our own subjective opinions on others. Around here, Timbaktu, if information is (#1) related and (#2) accurate, everyone is free to add it and you have no right to remove it."

It seems you missed the part that everything here has to be notable and referenced. Party chairman's shoe size could be described as "related and accurate" and it would still be meaningless on Wikipedia. Oh btw, that "consensus" you keep bringing up that I've supposedly broken - where and when was it achieved? Also, if "everyone is free to add it" than everyone should be able to remove it. Ever heard of WP:BRD?

"I will report this and keep reporting it until people get the picture about what you're doing here. Bullying will get you nowhere, not with me, I'll take this all the way."

I'm not going away either. Your entire editing career consists of WP:OWN and WP:DISRUPT and I sincerely hope that I will have lots of opportunities to describe your bullying ways to a wider audience. You misinterpret Wikipedia guidelines, you've bullied and driven away dozens of good faith editors and you've been doing it for years. I have yet to see a single article you actually improved in all the years you've spent here. Feel free to prove me wrong if you think you can.

"So I suggest reasoning and compromise, and a quick and easy resolution."

Which would be what? Me accepting any piece of unreferenced and marginal information you just happen to think is important?

"Reading through your latest edits I am starting to think this whole thing you started may have a lot to do with the upcoming 2011 parliamentary elections in Croatia."

What I "started" was the removal of irrelevant information. This particular information would be deemed irrelevant in any political party article on Wikipedia. What you argued for and edit-warred over was (among other things) inserting misleading information that the party was founded in 1937, which is contrary to both WP:OR and WP:V. What I proceeded to do following my 72 hour block was what I was trying to do earlier - that is, improve the article (contrary to your drive-by edit-warring). What you are "starting to think" is not my concern. Is there a specific piece of information you object? Timbouctou (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You're the one missing the point (deliberately). For the fifth time: who appointed you Grand Arbiter of Relevancy. I am (quite obviously) not referring to any past consensus, I am referring to your removal of information that is opposed and without consensus. You just keep posting "declarations" here. "Declaring" me and my editing to be this or that, "declaring" this or that information to be irrelevant - simply because you happen to think so :). You've got to admit, it takes a considerable amount of.. shall we say "self-confidence", to act like that.

Since you keep posting your (psychologically revealing) attempts to get to me, I feel I have to point out I could not care less what you think of me and my editing :). A user that keeps comfortably away from the difficult issues, and just makes petty issues difficult [1] (as is beautifully evidenced here), should not be the one to point fingers at those who go around working on solving the real problems of these articles. It also strikes me as interesting that you, of all people, the person who thinks his opinion should overrule that of others by default, should happen to lecture anyone at all on "manners". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You're the one missing the point (deliberately). For the fifth time: who appointed you Grand Arbiter of Relevancy. I am (quite obviously) not referring to any past consensus, I am referring to your removal of information that is opposed and without consensus.

On what grounds is it opposed? "Accurate", "valid" and "related to article" are the answers you offered - none of which have anything to do with Wikipedia's editing policy. Wikipedia doesn't care about "accurate", "valid" and "related to article". You have been around too long not to know that, which only leads me to think this entire farce is one of your usual hissy fits.

You just keep posting "declarations" here. "Declaring" me and my editing to be this or that, "declaring" this or that information to be irrelevant - simply because you happen to think so.

You have written some 7-8 posts about this issue already, and you failed to make a single policy-based argument. Any reasonable person would assume that stuffing infoboxes with people and organisations which are non-notable themselves is not necessary (as well as inventing foundation dates for the subject). Alas, you simply aren't reasonable. Why would I not ignore you then? Is there a policy saying we need to cater to incompetent editors?

A user that keeps comfortably away from the difficult issues, and just makes petty issues difficult (as is beautifully evidenced here), should not be the one to point fingers at those who go around working on solving the real problems of these articles.

Lol, this really made me laugh out loud. What's the "real problem" you have "solved" in your entire Wikipedia career, ever? More specifically, what problem have you solved here by reverting my edits? Probably 90 percent of your edits are irrelevant contributions to infoboxes, succession boxes, image trimmings and the like (I know, I've been around as long as you have and our editing interests unfortunately overlap) and you my friend have a loooong history of edit-warring over exactly that kind of petty crap.

It also strikes me as interesting that you, of all people, the person who thinks his opinion should overrule that of others by default, should happen to lecture anyone at all on "manners".

Manners have nothing to do with it. WP:DISRUPT and WP:OWN, the very definitions of your entire Wiki career, have everything. In fact, I'm willing to offer a cash prize, payable via Paypal, to any editor capable of proving that you have improved a single article on this project since you joined it in January 2007. The only people who mistakenly believe you are an "excellent contributor" are the admins you keep running to over at ANI none of whom has observed your tantrums or your "editing" firsthand. Timbouctou (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"A user that keeps comfortably away from the difficult issues, and just makes petty issues difficult [2] (as is beautifully evidenced here)"

Hahaha I can't believe you brought that up. That was my attempt at finding a consensus-based solution to a problem that was unresolved following months of heated discussion. It's pretty funny that you bring that up since once a consensus was reached YOU waltzed in, decided to ignore the poll citing WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and posted your own collage of images of people you arbitrarily selected. In fact you got blocked (for the 8th time) for edit-warring over it because you insisted on ignoring consensus and then spent days writing spiteful posts in the article's talk page. Lol, you truly are one of a kind. Timbouctou (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

And since you insist, here's an illustration of how User:Fainites had described your methods of "solving difficult issues" regarding that particular incident:diff

What, "Please Sir - he started it!". Just look at some of what you wrote. "random list Timbouctou is suggesting for some strange reason", "objective arguments and judgement overrule "mob sentiment": ", "This is just nonsense", "that ridiculous "voting" affair from months ago turned out to be a useless farce, and User:Timbouctou wants to make sure all his futile efforts therein were not in vain.". Now - I don't object to calling nonsense "nonsense". But do you see how your remarks are not just saying the proposals are nonsense, but grossly personalising matters against Timbouctou? Many of your posts are like this. You say Tims posts are TLDR, but what about the effect of each talkpage being covered with the sort of intensely personal rants such as these from you? Any sensible person with genuine historical interests is just going to run a mile - and who can blame them. Further more, the discussion which brought this forth was not, for example a POV campaign to call Tito a surrogate Nazi in the pay of Hitler, or an attempt to remove any reference to catholics as anything other than the devils spawn, but a discussion over the pictures of 16 famous Croats for goodness sake! Lighten up.

— Admin User:Fainites in DIREKTOR's talk page on 30 March 2011

Looking at the dispute, I have to say that indeed the Social Democratic Party was founded in 1990 and no earlier, and every source I looked at says so as well. All these "wings" added seems needlessly excessive since they don't even have their own pages. I don't have a very strong opinion on the last issue though.

Timbouctou, I was not happy to see a swear word in one of your posts. Direktor, I really, really hope you realize that everything you say about Timbouctou edit warring and whatnot can be applied right back at YOU? And for the record, I think you are being hypocritical and way more impertinent. You immediately brought up his "long history" of edit warring and these bizarre accusations of political election motivations. --Jesuislafete (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you look at this list of GAs within the Political parties project (there's only 14 articles there, and some of them are not even about parties) to see what is included in the infobox by those GAs? Furthermore all info should be sourced properly, while WP:OR or WP:SYNTH should be removed.

IMO infobox should not hold too many details that are not immediately recognizable as notable, i.e. if a say, pensioners' wing warrants a sentence or two in the body text, then it should be sourced and included, but that still doesn't mean that the wing should go to infobox. The infobox is a summary - just as the lead - and if the wing is not mentioned in the lead, it probably does not belong to the infobox.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I see. So next time I happen to feel some information is not relevant enough to be included here or there, I should edit-war until my edits are in there and insult the guy who happens not to think so? Good to know. I also did not realize that persistent attempts at character assassination (framed quotes by notably biased users included) are the way to go when it comes to arguing your case. My mention of Timbaktu's history of edit-warring was plainly not an attempt to discredit him as a user, but an attempt to get him to stop edit-warring to push his new, opposed edits.

Gentlemen, I did not add those wings to the infobox. I am not married to them. The issue here is that we could not even start discussing them properly due to the belligerent, aggressive, and arrogant behavior on the part of User:Timbouctou. Which he (and you) seem to think is excused if the other guy can be successfully presented as having behaved in such a way sometime in the past. The main issue here is that these are new, opposed, edits, arbitrarily decided upon, that were being pushed into the article by edit-warring without consensus, and it is unbelievable that this user can consistently get away with murder if he simply posts enough personal comments, even blatant personal attacks, about the opposing party.

Not only is he continuously in violation of WP:NPA, posting offensive "comments on contributors" at length and in every post, but this very disruptive "method", which utterly destroys discussion and creates nothing but needless conflict, seems actually to be winning him arguments and excusing him from edit-warring and constant insults. This is not the first time. If you can, please look at these events without the (utterly irrelevant) "context" about myself so eloquently and consistently presented by User:Timbouctou. Is this the way to go? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

1. So next time I happen to feel some information is not relevant enough to be included here or there, I should edit-war until my edits are in there and insult the guy who happens not to think so?

Well, you were blocked nine times already for doing exactly that, weren't you? Your history of WP:OWN and truckloads of insulting rants you spewed all over Wikipedia in the past few years are almost legendary and we all now there are very few (if any) editors operating in these areas willing to touch anything you are a part of with a 10-foot pole. Also, you still haven't produced a single policy-based argument for keeping the info which "you are not married to" in this particular article, even though you had ample opportunities to do so. I'm guessing it is unlikely we will ever get to see one.

2. I also did not realize that persistent attempts at character assassination (framed quotes by notably biased users included) are the way to go when it comes to arguing your case.

Oh I could produce literally dozens of quotes by editors who had the misfortune of running into you, all of whom you would label as biased. For the record, you didn't think of User:Fainites as "biased" at the time of the above quote's writing. You only adopted the tactic of blackening an excellent admin's name only after you realised he will not fall for your manipulations you consistently employed over at ANI since circa 2007.

3. My mention of Timbaktu's history of edit-warring was plainly not an attempt to discredit him as a user, but an attempt to get him to stop edit-warring to push his new, opposed edits.

For the umpteenth time -on what grounds were they opposed and how were they opposed? Do you count sniping in edit summaries as "opposition"?

4. The issue here is that we could not even start discussing them properly due to the belligerent, aggressive, and arrogant behaviour on the part of User:Timbouctou.

Oh really? Let's see the chronology of events on Oct 8:

• At 10:40 DIREKTOR reverts my changes citing "Rv some of the infobox changes". He did not make ay attempt to start a discussion about it.
• At 10:53 I spotted his revert so I rolled back his edits.
• At 11:05 I started the thread on this talk page to discuss the changes. In the very first post I explained my rationale I had recently made.
• At 11:40 DIREKTOR reverts my changes and opines in the edit summary (not forgetting to kick things off by throwing in a threat of reporting me) "Rv undiscussed non-consensus removal of valid information. I will file a report if you try pushing this via edit-warring.". He does this before replying to the thread in the talk page.
• At 11:42 DIREKTOR adds a comment to the thread saying simply that "That is not for you to pass judgement on. The infobox has those parameters, and they were filled out. Please do not edit-war.". No argument other than his belief that I somehow do not have the right to make changes is indicated, thus exemplifying his long-lasting WP:OWN problems.
• At 11:42 and 11:45 he expands his comment to say that he "sees no harm" in "mentioning when the SKH institution was originally founded", which proves he didn't even take a look at what he was reverting because my version on infobox already mentioned SKH with its dates of existence in the "predecessor" parameter.
• At 12:06 I revert his changes again.
• At 12:10 I posted a reply to his comment on the talk page, offering explanations and arguments for my edits again and I specificaly ask DIREKTOR "Is there any source stating that SDP was founded in 1937?" (there isn't).
• At 16:00 DIREKTOR replies to the thread. Again, he does not make any kind of argument for his position, simply repeating that I "do not get to remove infobox parameters simply because you yourself judge "they add nothing valuable to the article".". He adds that "you either achieve consensus for your changes, or you stop edit-warring in the article." He takes upon himself to add a demeaning remark by saying that "That is basic Wikiquette that you still did not seem to acknowledge." and introduces what he himself calls "character assassination" and another threat by adding that "Now, I say again, you have a long history of this sort of edit-war instigating and I will be filing a report should you revert once more. And do not think you can WP:GAME THE SYSTEM by misusing WP:3RR." No trace of anything resembling an actual argument was produced.
• At 16:03 DIREKTOR reverts the changes again commenting in the edit summary "Unbelievable. Restored valid, accurate infobox information removed unilaterally without consensus. Stop pushing your changes by revert-warring."
• At 16:05 he adds a remark to his previous comment in the talk page saying that "You cannot push your personal opinions by edit-warring. Discuss. I refuse to have a conversation while you're trying to do so." (Again, pretending to seek discussion but offering no argument to counter anything I had previously said.)
• At 17:10 I post a reply to his previous comment. Annoyed by his patronizing and bullying attitude I present it in the form of a 10-point summary, the last five of which contain the words "You offered no argument whatsoever." I also as him if he has "any scintilla of something remotely resembling an argument for keeping a bunch of pointless information in the infobox or do you think random rants will suffice?", adding that "Please report whatever you feel needs reporting here." and reminded him that he "reverted my edits first, before even attempting to raise the subject here (notice who started this fucking thread)."
• Also at 17:10, right after posting my comment I revert the article again.
• At 18:30 DIREKTOR starts a thread at WP:ANI reporting me for "haughty behaviour and edit-warring". He kicks it off by mentioning his apology to me back in May 2011 (in which BTW he had apologised for his "rudeness and abrupt, demaning manner and added that I do often cite various excuses, but the truth of course is that there is no excuse and I understand that fully. You may rest assured I will no longer behave in that way."). He describes the current situation as me "removing perfectly correct and valid infobox entries without discussion or consensus, proclaiming that he thinks they "don't add anything valuable to the article", and then just continues to revert-war to no end until his version is on top.". He says I happened to "demand that I show a reason to oppose his removal of (undisputedly) valid, accurate, and quite certainly related information from articles, throwing-in a few unprovoked PAs into the pot." and then quotes my 10-point comment, conveniently leaving out the first two points (in which I asked him to stop patronizing me and the other one in which I asked him to offer an argument for his opposition). Of course, he bolds the word fucking in the sentence in which I had said that it was me who started the discussion thread in the first place.
• At 18:37 he posts a notification on my talk page telling me about the report.
• At 18:52 an admin revokes my rollback rights.
• At 18:59 I post my own reply in the thread at ANI. Sure, I was annoyed and it showed - but who wouldn't be at that point? I repeated once again that DIREKTOR had failed to offer any kind of argument for his opposition, in spite the fact he had bee asked for it several times.
• At 19:30 DIREKTOR feels compelled to reply at ANI, again stubbornly repeating that "unfortunately you do not get to unilaterally decide whether something is "non-notable crap" or not.". He says that mentioning party wings in infoboxes is "perfectly normal and notable", somehow "forgetting" that the info was a) unreferenced and b) not really notable evidenced by the lack of articles for respective wings.
• At 19:44 I posted a reply at ANI. Sure, I was becoming increasingly annoyed with his WP:OWN and WP:DISRUPT issues so I retorted that "Define "unilaterally". You keep screaming how other people are doing stuff "unilaterally" but whenever someone asks you for any kind argument-based discussion you just turn to name-calling and distortions."
• At 21:00 User:N5iln comments that this is "clearly a heated content dispute", establishes that we both violated WP:3RR and recommends that we should "get back to our corners". He also recommends dispute resolution. (I wondered what is there to resolve since clearly DIREKTOR's problem is not with edits I've made but with the fact that it was me who made them).
• At 21:58 User:TParis decided to block both of us opining that "there is some serious edit warring on both sides as well as personal attacks from Timbouctou" and adding that he decided to blocked both for 72 hours as "they both have previous blocks for edit warring" (nevermind the fact that DIREKTOR up to that point had eight previous blocks while I only had one - which BTW happened in March 2011 over the already mentioned dispute at Talk:Croats with DIREKTOR. I suppose that is that "history of edit-warring" of mine he instantly brought up).

Since it was me who started the discussion after my first revert, and since I consistently asked for an explanation which amounted to something more than merely stating that "I don't get to decide" about things I fail to see how exactly was User:DIREKTOR prevented from "discussing the issues properly" due to my "belligerent, aggressive, and arrogant behaviour".

4. Which he (and you) seem to think is excused if the other guy can be successfully presented as having behaved in such a way sometime in the past.

By "sometime in the past" you mean eight blocks your previously received and several months-long topic bans you had to endure? Or do you mean things like the endless insulting rants you have a habit of producing like the one you did at Talk:Croats in March 2011, a Talk:Aloysius Stepinac in March 2011, at Talk:Yugoslav Front in April 2011? Or do you mean things like distorting policies like you do for years at Talk:Josip Broz Tito? Or by "past" do you mean the edit-warring over infobox maps at Independent State of Croatia in September this year when you started bullying User:PANNONIAN by replacing his maps in a way which was (to use your own terminology) "unilateral"? ALL of these cases (and plenty plenty plenty more) were about you displaying OWN and DISRUPT tendencies over petty details such as infoboxes, article titles and images. As far as I know you have never improved a single article during your career here and the majority of your contributions consists of trolling around the Balkans-related articles which takes the usual form of you belittling the work of others and than running off to ANI and manipulating ill-informed admins. Whenever faced with arguments you simply walk away and all your blocks and topic bans amounted to you just coming back to do more of the same.

5. The main issue here is that these are new, opposed, edits, arbitrarily decided upon, that were being pushed into the article by edit-warring without consensus, and it is unbelievable that this user can consistently get away with murder if he simply posts enough personal comments, even blatant personal attacks, about the opposing party.

You have been getting away wit far too much for far too long. In my time on Wikipeda (5 years 11 months if you must now) I have seen you chase away editors and you even managed to drive away an enormously patient and reasonable admin (User:Fainites) who was the only non-Balkan editor willing to wade through pages upon pages of your trolling. Yes, my edits were "new" (they all are by definition), they were "opposed" (only by you, for no identifiable reason), they were "arbitrarily decided upon" (using common sense). They were not "pushed into the article by edit-warring" (since you started the warring and refused to participate in a normal discussion about them) and there was "no consensus" simply because you refused to amend them with your Seal of Approval. Sure, you'll lay the victim like you always do - but let me ask you this - if we removed your personal attacks and non-arguments from this page, what would we be left with? Absolutely nothing.

6. Not only is he continuously in violation of WP:NPA, posting offensive "comments on contributors" at length and in every post...

What was offensive in my first two posts, posted when I naively thought you were seeking something which falls into the dictionary definition of "discussion"?

7. But this very disruptive "method", which utterly destroys discussion and creates nothing but needless conflict

Really? How can I "destroy" a discussion which I started? And again, who was it who began edit-warring needlessly? Not me.

8. seems actually to be winning him arguments and excusing him from edit-warring and constant insults

The biggest insult here is you manipulating Wikipedia admins and introducing battlefield mentality at any place you turn up. I'd like to see someone proving otherwise. Maybe one of the hundreds of non-existent editing friends you've made over the years could help you out? Ah yes, I remember now, you're just a philantropic individual, a victim of persecution by nationalist crackpots, which Balkan articles are infested with. Save that story for ANI because that's the only place it works.

9. This is not the first time.

Yeah, it's the second time in seven months. But if we counted all the incidents your bullying and intimidation you've done over the years you'd be in high double digits. Do you know I actually received several emails of support from former editors I didn't even know when we both got a 24h block back in March? Yeah, that's the sort of reputation you've built for yourself.

10. If you can, please look at these events without the (utterly irrelevant) "context" about myself

None of the two editors who commented had said anything about your character and "context" and have talked about the content alone (exactly the opposite of you). But yeah, do look at the events at hand, all nicely laid out in a chronological order at #4.

11. You threw a hook up there mentioning something about me being motivated by the upcoming elections in December, hoping that ill-informed admins reviewing this discussion might bite and that it might serve your manipulating purposes if this ever ends up at ANI (again). Your trolling ways have become way too predictable. And you failed to answer my follow up question as to what specifically you object to. Please, either provide something specific that you based your remark on, something that caught your eye while you were "reading through my latest edits" or retract that comment. Timbouctou (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Posts of this size only disrupt discussion. Though I imagine they probably do discourage further discourse, allowing you to win arguments by making them just too much work for other people. Me? I just ignore them. Please discuss with shorter posts like every single other user on this entire project, if you expect a proper response that is. Especially since your replies to comments on your inappropriate behavior are, for some strange reason, accounts of (what you perceive as) misbehavior on the part of other users. Do you see why I find that strange? (For the record, you can write a book about me, but I certainly will not waste my time accounting for myself to you, even though that is something you seem to expect.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"I certainly will not waste my time accounting for myself to you, even though that is something you seem to expect."

So you can just accuse somebody of having political motivations, but when asked to provide a single argument you base the accusation on, your best answer is to define the request as "accounting for myself"? I really couldn't think of a more perfect demonstration of WP:BATTLEFIELD, WP:OWN and WP:DISRUPT. Timbouctou (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not "accuse" you, and if you'll excuse me I think I wont touch that kind of stuff with a 6 foot pole, thank you very much. Nothing more to say on that.

So.. are you done changing the subject to my life story? Care to post a real response to my post up there? I didn't think so. Much easier, and smarter(!), to discuss someone else entirely. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

But please DIREKTOR, you present yourself as some kind of an expert and/or sheriff of all Balkan-related matters don't you? Please, explain what you meant by your comment in which you stated that "reading through your latest edits I am starting to think this whole thing you started may have a lot to do with the upcoming 2011 parliamentary elections in Croatia". Haven't you described yourself as an editor who "goes around working on solving the real problems of these articles" and who doesn't "keep comfortably away from difficult issues"? So tell me, what "real problem" have you solved here? And how surprising it is that all of the sudden you wouldn't "touch that kind of stuff with a 6 foot pole". What kind of stuff? Timbouctou (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like you're the sheriff 'round these parts, Timbaktu, out to get the evil outlaw with the big black cowboy hat. Why, you get to slap people around, have your way by force, and protect articles from the bad guys - what's missin'? Though I'm afraid my definition of "difficult Wikipedia issues" does not extend to your political views, however "difficult" they might be. Though your indisputably and obviously disruptive behavior here is another issue, and quite a relevant one. So please Timbaktu, please, explain what you were doing pushing disputed edits with edit-warring? Reading your posts, one gets the impression you were trying to imitate your perception of my behavior? Are you a secret admirer perchance? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Civility

Hey, I just came here by coincidence because the page keeps showing up somewhere. Can you guys all stop acting like a bunch of kids and get back to working on your article instead of talking about each other and slinging mud? If you added as many words to Social Democratic Party of Croatia as you do about each other, it would be a Featured Article. If I'd noticed what was going on on 8 Oftober, I would have probably been handing out some blocks for 3RR. Get a grip folks ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Its hard not to have a long drawn-out discussion that diverges from the relevant point when your fellow Wikipedian discussing with you is posting long, drawn-out posts that diverge from the relevant point. Though I can't say the "method" isn't effective: he's posted enough posts that the discussion now appears off-topic, and we can avoid discussing his incredibly inappropriate and disruptive behavior on this article and its talkpage. I'm sure he'd be more than happy to terminate such an uncomfortable discourse. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

@Kudpung: The only person actually working on this article is me, as shown by its history (expanded from 11,862 to 20,280 bytes between Oct 12 and 13). Thanks for the encouragement though. Timbouctou (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, removing and adding whatever information you deem "worthy" of inclusion. Against opposition and without consensus. Woe onto whomever may dare step into your path, why, he's liable to see 15 separate attempts at character assassination that could fill a small booklet. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ya'all need to read a chapter out of the User:The prophet wizard of the crayon cake's book. Some serious detachment could be very helpful. Can both of you just address the issue of the removal of the infobox and pretend you are talking to another user? Put me in place of each other's username for example and then explain your rationale behind either the removal or the keep (revert) of the material.--v/r - TP 20:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see why I should be forced to accept whatever a bully such as DIREKTOR fancies. I've left a message at WP:Croatia yesterday and two more editors (both in good standing if I may add, unlike DIREKTOR here) commented above that they see nothing wrong with my edits. I refuse to be forced to be put on the same level of a guy who a) never ever ever provided any kind of policy-based rationale for what he calls "opposition" and b) never ever ever contributed significantly to this article (or any other for that matter). The call at ANI was dead wrong - this is not a "content dispute", this is him abusing me. Timbouctou (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You arrive on an article, edit-war to have you disputed edits stand by gaming the 3RR system, insult me about 20 times in a variety of ways, and I'm a "bully"? You know its amazing how this guy can get away with personal attacks - by posting more personal attacks. You really ought to write a book, spread the skill. Talk about "commenting on the the contributor", this guy wrote a chapter up there about how much he hates me and why, and he gets away with it by being good at character assassination? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I "arrived on an article"??? What, you were holding it as your territory? Read WP:OWN. I "gamed the system"? No I didn't, I reverted too many times and got punished for it. Gaming the system is exactly what you do - you even went about explaining the process in your own block appeal. Besides, I still don't hear a single reason for your "opposition" to my edits. And talk of "the guy hates me" speech - scroll up to an admin's blockquote from seven months ago which includes quotes from you directed at me. It describes pretty much this entire talk page which means your May 2011 apology meant zilch and all the topic bans you received in the meantime achieved nothing. I'm sorry but you are simply incapable of participating in a collaborative project now, just as you were back then. You proved it time and again - and yes - an entire book could be compiled about your abuse around Wikipedia. And the funny thing is - there is not a single editor on this project who actually saw you making meaningful contributions to this project, ever. You are nothing but a wind up artist. Timbouctou (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Guys, please do not continue in the same manner of arguing you have been in after several folks have asked you to discuss the changes and you've both been blocked over this issue. Again, use the several options listed to you. Timbouctou, the policy is WP:BRD. You were bold, Direktor reverted, it's time to discuss. That's the policy. Calling Direktor a "bully" isn't going to fix this issue and may lead to another block for personal attacks. Focus on the content, not the editor. Again, insert my name instead of each other's names and discuss as if you're talking to me. Or seek WP:3O or WP:DRN. At some point, one of you is going to have to concede. Both of you are going to have to accept that it may be you that has to concede and accept that possibility. Or, alternatively, you could come to a middle ground that reasonably addresses each other's concerns. For example, if Timbouctou would say exactly which parts and why those parts are considered not important. And then if Direktor could discuss each point individually why they are important. Perhaps between you two, you can discuss the individual parts of the edits and come to an agreement on which to remove and which to keep? Either way, Timbouctou, your personal attacks will lead to another block. I suggest those stop.--v/r - TP 21:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

TP, can you show me a single article DIREKTOR has significantly expanded during his time here? Also, can you tell me why a consensus of three editors needs to be agreed upon with DIREKTOR? Can you point me to a policy-based argument he had provided for his opposition? Did you even read the talk page at all? Timbouctou (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to join you in discussing the editor. I am happy to discuss the content though. WP:BRD is enough policy for me to warrant discussion about the content.--v/r - TP 21:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You are happy to discuss policy? Fine: I was bold, DIREKTOR reverted, I discussed. DIREKTOR reverted. I discussed. DIREKTOR threatened and simply said that "I don't get to decide about it." Is there a policy describing this? Something called WP:BRDRDTI perhaps? Timbouctou (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

By your timeline, what was Direktor reverting the second and subsequent times. You need to be honest with yourself before we can work this out. You also reverted several times.--v/r - TP 21:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

So if he reverted back to the original and then simply walked away, leaving me to wait in vain for his reply to the discussion I started, all would be well, eh? Timbouctou (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no rush to fix this immediately (except political reasons that don't belong here). Have you read Wikipedia:Silence_and_consensus. If you had left comments and Direktor hadn't replied in several (3 or more) days, then you could've assumed silence means consent (or lack of opposition) to your opinion on the talk page.--v/r - TP 22:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Concerns with the infobox.

Looking back at the main dispute with the infobox, there seems to be two major issues: the foundations of the party, and the minor wings of the party. Here is a list of differences:

a) The founder: One user says Ivica Račan, another user says Đuro Špoljarić and Ivica Račan.

b) The spokesperson is also added by one user, it is removed by another

c) The predecessor to Zoran Milanović is added by one user, removed by another

d) The foundation date: One user says 1990, another 1937 and 1990

e) Wings: One user adds various wings of the party (Youth, womens seniors), while another user removes them.

Now the task is to resolve the five points above. --Jesuislafete (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

a) Špoljarić founded SKH in 1937, not its outgrowth SDP in 1990. No source mentions him as being the founder of SDP.

b) This particular spokesperson is extremely non-notable. In fact the present spokesperson Ivana Grljak was appointed in March 2010 and was even described by the media as "unknown to the general public"[3]

c) I removed the predecessor because it was a forced parameter. I later found out the template indeed uses a "predecessor" parameter but still, if Račan is founder, why mention his name twice in the infobox.

d) No source in existence lists SDP as being founded in 1937. SKH was founded in 1937 and defunct in 1990, which is what the current version says.

e) Wings are non-notable, they clutter the infobox and they are mentioned in the article anyway. Timbouctou (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

My own thoughts of the above points:

a) The founder: this page is a discussion about the Social Democratic Party, therefore any other predecessors or inspirations for the party do not qualify as a foundation of the Social Democratic Party, which did not exist prior to 1990.

b) I think it is rather unnecessary for the spokesperson to be added, but I am not totally opposed to it. Looking at other European party pages, I haven't found one that has this though.

c) Since none of the other party pages I have looked at had this, I would say it shouldn't be here either.

d) Similarly with point a, the SDP did not exist prior to 1937. It was founded in 1990, and I don't think there should be an argument about this.

e) The wings seem to be such a minor part of the political party, but perhaps if pages are made, they could be added. My own personal opinion is that it is excessive, however, other political pages have this section. --Jesuislafete (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding e) - I wouldn't mind having them in the infobox if they had their own articles, but for that they would have to be notable and apart from the general SDP's public statements they are rarely mentioned in the wider media so that is unlikely. Even this article has little to say about them. Timbouctou (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

On point e, it seems that some major European parties such as France's Union for a Popular Movement do not have it, while Socialist Party (France) and Christian Democratic Union (Germany) have a section for Youth wing, and Social Democratic Party of Germany has several wings. So I think it would be up to the discretion of the users.--Jesuislafete (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

France's UMP doesn't have any. Germany's CDU only has the youth wing, pointing to a standalone article. France's Socialist Party has a standalone article for youth wing and also mentions a (non-notable?) students' union. Germany's SPD has three wings linked and one which isn't. We can assume from that that at least some wing needs to be notable in its own right for the infobox to display any. Timbouctou (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That's sort of what I figured as well. If the Youth Wing is notable enough to have a stand-alone article, than it should be mentioned. --Jesuislafete (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"Successor"?

Is the SDP, in fact, the "successor" to the SKH? As far as I know, its the same party, just renamed and reorganized. Should we be using that term? -- Director (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

That is the exact wording used by nine (9) sources listed. Also, I don't see the point of replacing the verb "ruled" with "governed" (What is the difference? In modern times do we say that SDP "governs" Croatia since the last election?) and "1945" with "World War II". Care to explain? Timbouctou (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

In fact, Reuters is the only one that doesn't. As for others, they all describe it as a "succesor", most notably in the The Communist Successor Parties of Central and Eastern Europe, in chapter titled "A Typology of Communist Successor Parties" (Bozoki, Andras & Ishiyama, John T., ed.; 2002) Timbouctou (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, just asking. As regards the other changes, I fixed "ruled" to "governed", that being more encyclopedic, as well as more accurate. The change to "since WWII" was made because the SKH was formed in 1937, and was formally placed in charge of the Federal State of Croatia as early as 1943, or '44 at the latest. The point being: the party governed the Yugoslav republic since before 1945. I thought it would be best to avoid the pointless nitpicking and confusion. -- Director (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

During the World War II. Croatia was formelly being ruled by Ustaše (Ante Pavelić) from 1941 until 1945, not SKH.United Union (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

There were two "Croatias" during WWII. The Independent State of Croatia, and the Federal State of Croatia, the latter being one of the six republics of Democratic Federal Yugoslavia. -- Director (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

How is "governed" more encyclopedic and accurate than "ruled"? I've never seen a news report in English describing a party or coalition in power anywhere as "governing" the country. I may be wrong - but then we even have an article titled Ruling party, which specifically says that the term is used for parties in single-party states (which SKH certainly was). As for Federal State of Croatia - its sovereignity was not recognized by pretty much anyone until the Yugoslavian parliamentary election, 1945 and you know that very well. In any case, saying SKH "governed" the largely occupied country before 1945 is not exactly accurate, is it? Timbouctou (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but Socialist Republic of Croatia was "constituent country" which means that it's part of some other state, it's not formally recognised by others and Yugoslav Federation or SFRJ, as mentomed in the article, has been found in 1945, so SKH couldn't rule over it because it hasn't existed during the World war II. I agree with Timbouctou on this one. United Union (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Partisan territory in September 1944 - even before the arrival of the Red Army in October.

By about the second half of 1944, and then more and more so as the War went on, most of Croatian territory (by any definition) was controlled by the Partisans, and thus formally by the Federal State of Croatia. Unless we were to exclusively follow the de jure Axis view, it would be inaccurate to state without qualification that "the Ustase ruled Croatia" in 1945.

Whether the Federal "Croatia" was constituent or no, it was still no less "Croatia". As for international recognition, nothing anywhere was recognized at the time of the "Yugoslavian parliamentary election, 1945", whereas, again, in 1945, there wasn't much left of the Axis (which were the only countries to have recognized the NDH). The King and the government-in-exile did not dispute the federal organization of the country since they were brought in line with official Allied (pro-Partisan) policy, again in 1944. This is the kind of nitpicking we should avoid by simply using "since WWII".

Both "rule" and "govern" are of course essentially fine, but I like "govern" more. I guess because the country was actually "ruled" by the SKJ, and the SKH was the one "governing" SR Croatia. "Govern" emphasizes the official sense more [4]. -- Director (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree but whatever. And btw since when is Yugoslavia referred to as "Yugoslav Federation"? It was called "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia", not "Yugoslav Federation of Socialist Republics". Timbouctou (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It was a "federation" by its constitution, though I should have kept "federation" in lowercase. I'm fine with "Federal Yugoslavia" if that's more to your liking. Its usually a good idea to avoid the full formal name or unexplained abbreviations, especially as the name did not stay the same for the duration. -- Director (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I think "Yugoslavia" is fine, since it was hardly ever not federal "since World War II". Timbouctou (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Director. He is right. When ustaše proclaimed the NDH, so have the partisans (or the anti fascists) proclaimed their state, because they needed a legal continuity. That is because modern day Croatia has nothing to do with the puppet state NDH. Tuvix (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed it was never "not federal" since WWII. But I think "federation"/"federal" still serves a purpose in pointing out to the reader that the state the SKH governed was part of a federation. -- Director (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, so "to avoid nitpicking", we have arrived to postings of a map of Yugoslavia circa 1944. And in a record time of 55 minutes since the thread started. How constructive. Timbouctou (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I can see there's no way to sneak any nitpicking past your nitpicking, Tim.

I of course meant "nitpicking" in the article - not the talkpage. This is the SDP article: there's no point in going into details such as dates, de jure and de facto(!), of the complex goings on in wartime Yugoslavia and its internal political landscape. The question of "when exactly" the SKH came to rule "Croatia" is a complex one, but one easily avoided (in the article lead!) by the phrase "since WWII". It certainly wasn't 1945, though. We can naturally go into as much detail as you like here on the talkpage, Timbouctou. -- Director (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh I'm not stuck in 1943 as some seem to be. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk)

Hmm.. I wonder whether he meant to imply I'm a communist or a fascist? Or both!? Or just a history buff? Interesting. Either way I'm almost disappointed: this is one notch below standard Wiki "implied ideology-based insult" banter, and fully two notches below standard Tim fare. I almost feel like telling you to "fuck off" just to fill the empty air.. -- Director (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh I'm sure you'll find somebody to edit-war with and/or complain about at WP:ANI in no time. After all, that is all you do around here. Btw the SDP infobox is missing the spokesperson entry. How can you sleep at night? Timbouctou (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You can go and choke in your own hate Timbuktu, together with the illiterate president of your party. Because of people like you our county is 40 years behind Denmark, Germany, UK, and so on. Spreading hate on SDP, fantastic, you really hold your party line. but why don't you go and edit the article about your party, HDZ. What about former president of the party how is now in jail, and what about the current president of your party who was the minister of interior and the head of the intelligence service, who claims that he didn't know about corruption and theft? Job well done! Please stop spreading hate. Sadly that is all your party is doing today. Tuvix (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Stuck in 2000 much, old boy? Welcome, take a seat next to the 1943 guy. I'm sure we're in for a wonderful exchange of witticisms and pleasantries. Btw, isn't it bizarre how SDP themselves avoid any talk about their own history on their own website whereas English Wikipedia seems to be a magnet for experts on it? I guess it's one of life's little mysteries... Timbouctou (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't you mean "2010"? I guess one would pretty much have to "live in the now" to be an honest-to-goodness HDZ supporter [5]. As little long-term memory functionality as possible would presumably be preferable.. Alternatively, one could just get all his information from the Croatian Wiki. -- Director (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Nah. I meant 2000 as Tuvix's misplaced zealotry was much more mainstream back then as privatisation robbery was fresh and everybody was optimistic about the future, thinking we might still catch up with Europe. In 2010 nobody had any illusions left and the year only brought events everyone with a double digit IQ expected it would bring. Now I'm sure your inept attempts at guessing who I vote for might interest someone. Just not me. So Director - the article is still missing a spokesperson entry. How can you sleep at night? Timbouctou (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'm just not as passionate as you are about my choice between a) the mafia and b) incompetent socialists. -- Director (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Which may help explain why you and much of the nation still live in the 1940s, producing your own history as you go along. Forever looking backwards, eh? And what's up with the spokesperson? You were once an expert on SDP spokespersons, branches, logos and flags. Do you think 9 pictures of SDP members is enough to illustrate the article? Timbouctou (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The idea that we are "caught up in the WWII era" is tired and fundamentally stupid. Did you ever stop to think about it for a second? It would be valid if there were no longer ultraconservative fascists or socialists or right/left wing divisions - but there are! One's position in modern-day, actual politics can be accurately gauged by one's opinion on the Ustase and the Partisans. And that's not because all people are stupid except for you, its because modern-day political parties operate on the same ideological spectrum. Pretending that modern-day politics are somehow unrelated to politics from 60 or even 70 years ago - is unrealistic: in that respect, we still live in the same basic period.

The silly "oh stop living in the 1940s" line is basically a relic from late '90s HDZ propaganda (Tudjman's "conciliatory" period) - the full form of which would be "stop living in the 1040s - and support the HDZ!". Its meant to be coupled with the "Ustase and Partisans are the same"/"they're all the same" notion, which is at best simplistic, and at worst right-wing revisionist. -- Director (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the one to tell you what to think, so please - live through the 1940s as much as you like. And feel free to rationalise the ideological struggle in your head any way you see fit. My problem is not with anyone's beliefs or parties or elections or WW2 because I generally couldn't give a fuck less about all that. My problem is the zealotry which translates into ineptly written semi-literate articles which not even a retarded schoolchild (educated abroad) would ever take seriously as they reek of vague or awkward wordings, undue weights, coat racks, etc. My problem is the Croatians' omnipresent inability to articulate what and why they believe whatever they happen to believe, in a manner which would make their view more accessible to outsiders. For example, the idiocy of stuffing 9 pictures of party members in a 4-paragraph article on the party, which some guy with an internet connection thinks will make the article and its topic look "better". Insisting on keeping a little green icon unexplained in the article infobox, as if it was an article about a company. What possibly does one think that will achieve? Is it going to change history? Change reality? Change other people's beliefs? Change one's own beliefs? What exactly? Did someone miss seeing a green triangle when they were reading an article about a party in Nepal? Did they think to themselves it could do with a few more pictures of Nepali politicians? How utterly utterly pointless. All it does is that it makes Croatians (since nobody else is likely to be interested in Croatia-related topics) look like complete imbeciles who have never seen what an encyclopedic article should look like. And, sadly, that impression is quite correct 99% of the time. Timbouctou (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

All that what you said, says more about you than about "others". Your obsession with this article is of biblical proportions. Are Germans also doing an article about a company( CDU , SPD )?? Tuvix (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

So you yourself are obsessed with this article enough to insist on having a little green triangle in infobox, but you are also unwilling to put in a simple explanation what the triangle stands for? You would rather go to talk page and fight over it ad nauseam? How bloody hard can explaining a symbol can be? Or do you think anyone reading the article will intuitively know what it stands for? Yeah, it means "up". "Up" from what? When? Where's the reference? Did you just pull those numbers from the air? If not, prove it. Not to me. To readers! Timbouctou (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What?? The rest of the world isn't particularly less obsessed with WWII, Timbouctou. Ever heard of Godwin's law, for just one example? The Germans are quite the exception in this regard, for very obvious reasons. -- Director (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm not and I don't feel as if I am at a loss to be honest. I guess people inhabit decades they feel most comfortable with. That's the reason why war veterans, although traumatized, still think of the time they spent in war as the best time of their lives. Because war is the only thing that makes painting everything in life as black and white not only acceptable but also desired. 90 percent of reality does not work that way, especially for those who want to think of the future. Timbouctou (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

We are now essentially in the post-WWII era, Timbouctou. Our world is fundamentally defined by that conflict. Note: it really doesn't matter at all whether you do or do not actually apply your ideological position to define a stance on historical events - as your ideological position is still on the same spectrum as existed during WWII. To haughtily proclaim "I'm not stuck in the past!" whenever someone mentions historical subjects, does not impact on the fact that your political position (if mainstream and realistic) will inevitably have more in common with either the Ustase or the Partisans - those two being essentially the extreme iterations of prevailing modern-day ideologies (catholic conservatism and socialism).

What you're expressing is basically a cause and consequence switch. People talk about WWII because the political divisions are essentially the same and matter in a modern-day context - its not that discussing WWII somehow causes these divisions.

And I'm not stuck in any decade. My interest in history is diverse and wide-ranging, from the Roman era through to the wars of the '90s, and is not by any means limited to local history (its just that I can contribute there more, given its state). You've gotten the wrong impression in that regard...

The little triangle is perfectly fine, its used all over Wiki in political party infoboxes. -- Director (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Political divisions you talk about are just a fiction kept alive artificially. The Berlin Wall fell you know, in case you missed it. Nowadays everything is swallowed by mainstream and all political life is defined by the economy and entrenched party interests. You are very naive if you think otherwise. You live in an era when ideologies wanted to win hearts and minds. Today nobody gives a fuck about your heart and/or mind, they just want your vote and/or money. Obama, Cameron, Hollande are all good examples. Milanović is in fact also a perfect example of this as he had ended up in SDP purely by accident. He could just as easily have been president of HDZ or whichever other party today. But whatever. Fact remains that this particular article was expanded in October 2011 from this to this and doubled in KB size by none other than me. It barely grew in almost three years since then. I wanted to expand it further but then you arrived with your insistence on having party spokesperson listed in the infobox (ironically, three years later, you have no clue who the spokesperson is and even the party website does not list it). But whatever. Sure, User:Tuvixer can have his fucking triangle, and User:United Union can have his fucking pictures, and you can have your awkward wordings designed to somehow ignore the fact that a country that no longer exists was a single-party state (a fact only you seem to think is slanderous and controversial). And of course, there's this little gem of nonsense (bizarrely, leaders of 1971 movement didn't even join SDP in 1990 but somehow somewhere someone thinks they will make the party look more "patriotic" by talking about it in the lede). But hey, you guys are obviously not here to build an encyclopedia, are you? Timbouctou (talk) 08:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That country exists today. It is called the Republic of Croatia. No longer the Socialist Republic of Croatia. And for your knowledge I also think it is stupid to have so many pictures of party leadership. Maybe because they are in power it is ok for someone, but it is to much for my taste. How old are you Timbouctou. That is a rhetorical question. Today our country is divided because reactionary forces do not want any changes towards tolerance, peace, democracy and human freedoms and equality. It is the natural "one step forward, two steps backwards". Sadly the right wing opposition is obsessed with communism, homosexuals, Cyrillic script, abortion, and so on. Instead on focusing on bad economic policies of the current government. We all know why is that, because the right wing opposition does not have any idea how to get is out of the economic crises. They only know, what are they best at, stealing money from the pockets of citizens. We are stuck now with a government of bad ideas, and incompetence. And are presented with the opposition who has only bad ideas and is run by mafia. Great independent state do we really have. HDZ from its inception lives only on the political spectrum by creating fake and imaginary divisions in our society. There are only maybe 20% who support the ustaše regime and still think well about Nazism. But that 20% is louder that the rest 80%. And HDZ thrives on that hate and intolerance. HDZ has been sentenced by a Croatian court as a criminal organization, and there is still 20% of the population who is ready to vote for them. Apsurdistan. That is because that 20% does not care about economy or people lives, their only goal is to revision the history, and to change the truth. But history is not like a computer game, you can not restart and start from the beginning. --Tuvixer (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Kept alive artificially? Nonsense. The ideological divisions between right and left are founded on a very real difference of opinion, which can perhaps be summed up with "how much is a man entitled to simply by being a man?" Everything? Little? Nothing? Mind you, however(!), it is true that these ideologies are so watered down today they don't translate to much actual impact on a society when adherents of one or the other "take power" (because, as you rightly point out, everything is today subordinate to financial interest) - but that does not mean the ideologies are not fundamentally different. If you are suggesting that parties should be formed according to truly relevant differences - then I'm afraid there would be no political parties, as there are no truly relevant differences between parties in modern-day politics. In terms of actual economic and societal impact - they're basically the same thing (its just which cliques can get more wealth, as you say). And you might say, "great, no political parties!" - but to hold such a political view is fanciful.

What you missed are my "(if mainstream and realistic)" brackets. Realistically, you must choose either the purported adherents of one ideology or the other - or abstain from political activity on any level. And since the only difference between them is based on ideology (which they will admittedly not apply in any serious way) - you might as well base your choice on that ethereal difference. There's not much else, realistically.. Rendering discussion on ideology (and hence WWII etc.) a relevant political discussion.

I tend to ramble, but I hope I got my point across. Yes it doesn't really matter today whether the SDP or the HDZ are in power - but precisely because of that, ideological discussions matter. Because ideology is really the only thing that differentiates them, and those pitiful and minuscule applications of one ideology or the other are the only thing we can really "vote" on. The rest stays the same. Therefore, who do you prefer? Ustase or Partisans? If its the Ustase, vote for a pitiful and minuscule change in their general direction. If the Partisans - the other, etc.. There is no real other choice, nor will there be, nor can there be until the next seismic shift in our world order (if any). It is naive to think the opposite. -- Director (talk) 09:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• My job required me to attend a rally against Cyrillic inscriptions in Vukovar organized by 1991-95 war veterans some time ago. It was a truly remarkable experience. It consisted of a large stage with series of speakers yelling anti-government slogans, reciting crappy patriotic poetry and folklore dances, interspersed with publicly played sound recordings of Siniša Glavašević reporting from 1991 war-torn Vukovar. The level of energy put into a large-scale event whose only purpose was to make everybody in attendance live, and re-live, and re-live again the year 1991 was astonishing. They actually devised an entire choreography around their obsession with the past. Those people couldn't give a fuck about the future, they couldn't give a fuck about what the world in which their children will live will look like next week, or next year, or next decade. All they aggressively care about is being frozen in time - including a guy who walked across the stage dressed in an an army fatigue uniform and a beret, rambling about patriotism and the war that ended almost 20 years ago and shouting out threats aimed at everybody who disagrees. The guy was completely unaware and didn't care what the world would say if foreign reporters simply filmed him and translated his crap and sent it around the world. I guess everybody would think this was a backwards country, to say the least. You remind me of that guy, the only difference being that your preferred year of choice is circa 1943. I do happen to know which side you prefer (since you never stop reminding everyone willing to listen), but I myself couldn't care less for either of them. Why?
• Because the present is merely about people in suits who try bluffing their way into power, and then bluffing their way into as many terms the law can allow, so they can secure administration jobs for other people in suits who are otherwise unemployable in real economy. That is really true, and I've seen it up close many times. But they can't say that outright. So the purpose of rambling on and on about 1943, 1971, 1991, 2000, or any other year is merely to give a veneer of ideological discussion for people to waste time on and sure enough, vote for them, or at least buy the latest copy of Večernji or Jutarnji. It's a lot like like managers of Hajduk who disagreed whether Hajduk should play like Barcelona or more like Real Madrid, at the time when the club caouldn't afford to pay its own water bills. It's like fighting over which music station are we going to listen as the entire ship we are on is sinking.
• And not only is it mind numbingly pointless, but people caught up in that game aggressively rationalize their obsession and search for every nook and cranny they can possibly think of to relate it to the struggle that's going on in their heads. So a guy from Vukovar is simply unable to have an opinion on me unless I tell him whether I am a Serb or not, you can't have an opinion on me unless I tell you my opinion on WW2, and Tuvix is unable to form an opinion on me unless I thrash HDZ a bit or put up a userbox with a crossed out swastika on my user page, next to a userbox which says which band I like or what version of Windows I use. And meanwhile, in the real world, nothing ever really happens. Nothing relevant happened in this country about 14 years now, and it's been just a slow downward slope since then. The real world political landscape is reduced to country president and government ministers attending a grand opening of an IKEA store, simply because that's the only thing that actually happened during their term that they can be photographed next to. And the worst thing is, they are perfectly happy to keep doing nothing about anything, because they expect people to vote against HDZ in the next election, just like they did in the last. Everything else is just talking points for trolls, whether online, or in newspapers or on TV. Because even minuscule movements towards one ideological end of spectrum or the other don't work. Anything "lefty" SDP does gets ridiculed and backfires, anything "righty" HDZ says also gets ridiculed and backfires. And they are both fighting to control a country which will go bankrupt circa late 2016 and which nobody abroad cares about no matter what we do with it. Welcome to the real world. And btw WP:NOTFORUM :-)
• P.S. @Tuvix - the country I referred to was Yugoslavia. You know, the "Yugoslav federation" that a single party "governed", "since World War II". SR Croatia was not exactly a "country". And the reactionary forces you talk about? They are laughably irrelevant. If they weren', HDZ would not rely on EU parliament candidates from HSP-AS and HSS, or a presidential candidate who came out of nowhere, or enter coalitions with a series of irrelevant parties. Even HDZ is struggling to make this all about ideology, gays and partisans. And if you are referring to Markić and her referendums - who cares. The first one succeeded in putting a vague dictionary definition of marriage in the constitution, which can easily be circumvented. The next one is about election rules which will almost certainly either backfire or never get passed in sabor. Who gives a shit. Timbouctou (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Power

The word "power" used in this two contexts is inappropriate. "Return to power" is used when talking about engineering, and not about politics. It should be "Return to government" what is used in this context, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_%28UK%29#Return_to_government.2C_1974.E2.80.9379 Also in the elections political parties don't won "the power", they can won the elections, not the power. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No idea where you got that one. "Return to power" is a commonly used term for parties who win elections after a period spent in opposition. Just Google the phrase. Timbouctou (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You Google the phrase, and present the evidence. I have done that. You are maybe translating literally from Croatian. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I rarely translate literally from Croatian. That is what you do. Here's a few examples:

• The National party is poised to return to power in New Zealand with 50% of the vote counted (The Guardian)
• Sweden's Social Democrats were poised to return to power after a left-leaning bloc defeated the center-right government in a parliamentary election (Associated Press)
• Social democratic coalition poised to return to power on platform of government spending (Reuters)
• Nawaz Sharif’s Return to Power Brings Pakistan’s Challenges in Focus (Time.com)
• Ontario election 2014: Liberals return to power with majority (CBC)
• The Czech Communist party could return to power as part of a left-wing government. (The Daily Telegraph)

Happy now? Timbouctou (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

And what about "won power on elections"? --Tuvixer (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Two things:

1. How else do you think "winning power" usually happens if not in elections? All of the quotes above refer to reports about results of various elections around the world. I doubt any readers were misled to believe they were in fact reporting about armed revolutions.

2. it's in the election, not on. Timbouctou (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You can't find it, right? It is not used in this context. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a brain? Also, do you have eyes? Read the title second from top. Timbouctou (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Funny, when you can not provide evidence then you insult others. Is that maybe against the rules? Ok, I will wait until tommorow, and if none objects, or provides some sources, I will change that part. I am talking about "won power in elections". --Tuvixer (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, Google has that too - Banned Islamist party wins power in Tunisia's first free elections since uprising, or The FMLN turned into a political party and it won power at the last election in 2009. Timbouctou (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"Return to power" is the actual phrase, "return to government" is less common. -- Director (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

And what about "won power in elections"? --Tuvixer (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think "won the elections" ought to do. -- Director (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Tozwu

Again you are making disruptive edits to the article, obviously you do NOT HAVE A CONSENSUS, but still you have engaged in a edit war. If you do not stop I will have to report you, I am sorry. When you present all the information, and by that I mean, the number of mayors(gradonačelnici i načelnici), the number of city council members(članovi gradskih i općinskih vijeća), also all the county prefects(župani) and all memebers of county assemblies(članovi županijskih skupština), then you can source them and maybe then, if the sources are correct put them in the article, otherwise it is just you pushing your own agenda and nothing else, it is not sourced and not relevant. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Social Democratic Party of Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090228125733/http://zoranmilanovic.sdp.hr:80/govori/ljubo-jurcic-sdpov-kandidat-za-predsjednika-vlade-rh to http://zoranmilanovic.sdp.hr/govori/ljubo-jurcic-sdpov-kandidat-za-predsjednika-vlade-rh/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Social Democratic Party of Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140126073243/http://www.pes.eu:80/en/news/sdp-croatia-become-full-members-party-european-socialists to http://www.pes.eu/en/news/sdp-croatia-become-full-members-party-european-socialists

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Social Democratic Party of Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151018221036/http://hidran.hidra.hr/hidrarad/stranke/programi/028354.pdf to http://hidran.hidra.hr/hidrarad/stranke/programi/028354.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140907191524/http://www.jutarnji.hr/sdp-izabrao-josipovica--jurcic-dalje-ide-sam-/302753/ to http://www.jutarnji.hr/sdp-izabrao-josipovica--jurcic-dalje-ide-sam-/302753/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Davor Bernardić.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Ideology - Pro-Europeanism

I never said that Pro-Europeanism is not an ideology. And I also think that other ideologies of the SDP should be included in the infobox --Tuvixer (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

See WP:ONUS. Which references say it's an ideology? Policy or position =/= ideology. FDW777 (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I made an oversight that you were the first editor, so I apologize. --Tuvixer (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)