User talk:Zmaj~enwiki/Archive 3

Why?[edit]

What's the problem? You were doing wonderfull work in keeping the vandals in check... Oh well. Here's to hoping you'll come back soon. --Dr.Gonzo 22:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One's hatred...[edit]

...towards a whole nation's history is also considered an act of Xenophobia and a showing of Anti-ethnic hatred, I must admit. If you simply think that writing about Serbian history and literature is plain bad, I've got loads of other literatures to write: Croatian (check out my contributions to articles Marin Držić and Marko Marulić), Bosnian, Greek, German... etc. They are all in interest to me; however, if you think it is wrong for an administrator to write on an Encyclopedia about one of those, you should've pointed it out before; that way it would be more descent.

Thinking that something is POV, just because of it's existence, is POV. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hate any nation's history. What part of "unwarranted and irrelevant medieval Serb-related info" and "whole irrelevant paragraphs" is unclear to you? --Zmaj 16:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious sentences that start with phrases "If you simply think..." are against the guideline of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. --Zmaj 16:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sorry for that one. I'm just saying that your statements are that you just don't like a nation's history. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am not prepared to take personal attacks from anyone. You called me a liar in the RfA page. I demand an apology. --Asterion ^{talk to me} 14:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks[edit]

It is important to keep a cool head, despite any comments against you. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and action can be taken against the other parties if necessary. Your involvement in attacking back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors, and lead to general bad feeling. Please try and be civil. Thanks! Also, let me remind you that Wikipedia:Assume good faith is an official policy. Mostssa 17:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologized to Mostssa on Talk:Tourism in Croatia. --Zmaj 09:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some people believe you are being uncivil, so I'd like to remind you to be civil and not to create personal attacks or take part in edit wars. Whatever your personal background is, you MUST learn to treat people with respect. I am still waiting for a public apology or else. --Asterion ^{talk to me} 11:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're threatening me. How can I apologize when I said the truth? You DID make a false statement. I checked Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It explicitly says: Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks.

As for my being uncivil, you're right. I was uncivil to Mostssa (not "some people"). A moment of weakness. --Zmaj 11:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know well, this is not what you said: "...and this coming from someone who has already made a false statement" is an Ad Hominem. Therefore, a personal attack. As for Mostssa, whatever he is like, he is still covered by the same wiki-rights as everybody else is. --Asterion ^{talk to me} 11:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it is an Ad Hominem. I apologized on HRE's candidacy page. --Zmaj 11:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate this. Have a nice day. --Asterion ^{talk to me} 12:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Frano Supilo.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Frano Supilo.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Frano Supilo.jpg[edit]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Frano Supilo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then 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. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images 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. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added the tag. --Zmaj 06:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images[edit]

Now that I've transferred my current photos to the Commons, Zmaj, do you think you could request any duplicates on the HR Wiki to be deleted? Looks like you uploaded them, so they should be easy to delete. I've spotted these so far:

I've also edited the HR Wiki's Osijek page to use the Commons versions of the files, so these should be OK to delete. Cordless Larry 08:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted them. --Zmaj 15:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starčvić talk page[edit]

I've made a few modifications. If you agree, OK, if not-alter them or delete. Mir Harven 08:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Dominik Mandic.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Dominik Mandic.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insult to other users[edit]

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars.

Maayaa 11:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't being uncivil. If you're referring to my text on Image_talk:Lipadom.jpg, then you should know that exposing other people's malicious lies about one's homeland is everything but uncivility. Yes, you wrote a lie, and I suggest you think twice before slandering entire nations. --Zmaj 14:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

calling other people "malicious liars" is incivil, especially since you are the one who is caught lying (saying that other image is 70 years old, while it is a colour photo obviously of recent age). Also, while my comment might be in opinionated language, it accurately describes what picture represents. Fair use applies, according to wiki rules. Maayaa 13:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: calling other people "malicious liars" is incivil, especially since you are the one who is caught lying (saying that other image is 70 years old, while it is a colour photo obviously of recent age). This is an ad hominem attack. I suggest you get informed about the ways you are abusing language. --Zmaj 21:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You DID post a wrong notice. It is certainly not ad hominem attack, certainlo no more than what you did by calling me a liar for merely stating the fact that children dressed in black uniforms of Jure Francetic are indoctrinated by Ustasha ideology. You speak of hypocrisy and double standards? Maayaa 04:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note on the image page[edit]

You said in edit summary that "my note" goes to the talk page. However, the note in question is a fair use rationale. It has a proper place ON the image page. Since your concerns seem to be in the things said about croatia, I suggest you NPOV the language if you want, but do not change the essential point - that image is illustrating indoctrination of CHILDREN. This is important since for fair use according to wiki rules image can always be kept if it fails under US law fairuse clause (which it does, but so do many images that are nevertheless removed from wikipedia), AND there is no suitable equivalent. The last provision is, I assume, to ensure that fair use clause is used SPARINGLY, saving wikipedia unnecessary potential worries - it is to avoid systematic use of copyrighted pictures. Also, be aware of several things: there are many ways for this image to stay, and there are people determined to fight for it. Since I believe that your main issue with this picture is not copyright, but the point it is illustrating (which is clear from the argument you started on ifd page, and which you lost), and so ask yourself a question - are you willing to push this issue that you are going to lose (as you are fighting it in bad-faith) rising the stakes and passions of people who abundantly showed on the ifd page that they believe this is a legitimate illustration. Copyright problems are a technicality here, and tehnical matters are solvable, if there is will. So, please do think twice before you continue with your attempts to censor this image - fighting truth is never a good idea! Maayaa 13:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocritical nonsense. Maayaa, contact me only when you have something sensible to say. --Zmaj 20:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocritical? Wasnt it you who posted the wrong tag on some pictures, claiming that they were more than 70 years old while they were colour pictures of a person who obviously was not pictured more than 70 years ago. And here you push the "copyvio" issues. Thats hypocrisy! As for the other things said, you did not take them seriously. But its your mistake! Maayaa 04:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, read ad hominem and tu quoque. It is very instructive. --Zmaj 09:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aloysius Stepinac - image[edit]

Could you find in Wiki Commons an ordinary portrait of Cardinal Stepinac and include into the article. It is strange that the only illustrations is a not very clear group photo and a photo not showing the Cardinal at all. Regards, Jasra 13:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A photo is definitely needed, but as far as I know, the Commons do not have it. A photograph of the cardinal can be uploaded under fair use, using the template:Fair use in, but as the template says, it should include the source of the work, all available copyright information, and a detailed fair use rationale. I think some books on Stepinac should have that information for their images, so I will look them up. --Zmaj 17:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverting[edit]

You keep reverting the article Neo-Nazism without explanation. I am ready for discussion and have provided my arguments on the talk page, but you have not replied anything sensible. I do not intend to engage in an edit war. Therefore, I will give you a day or two to explain your position. After that, I will assume you are acting in bad faith and invite administrators to sort this out. --Zmaj 14:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said - you did not explain anything. To make you partially happy - I removed just two refereces. No need for re-wording the last paragraph--64.18.16.251 19:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your readiness to talk, but we have still not started a serious discussion. You misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not to make me or Ante happy, but to make good articles. So let us continue the discussion on the talk page of Neo-Nazism. I explained that manifestations of ethnic hatred are not Neo-Nazism. You seem to think differently. Please provide your arguments there. --Zmaj 13:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did not explain anything - you've claimed it! The Neo-Nazims and entic hatred are intertwined in today's Croatia. Obviously, not in China or India. - Just read the references.--64.18.16.251 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, they are intertwined. But that is not the point. Please read my post on the page Talk:Neo-Nazism again. --Zmaj 20:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

You have been blocked for editing Wikipedia for next 24 hours for edit warring on Serbs of Croatia. As you can see here, as a result of last edit war there, I promised to block undiscussed reverts. Here you can find link to your undiscussed revert. After your block expires, you might wan't to join discussion here. --Dijxtra 15:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. Consistency demands that I be blocked too. But just for the record, this is what I did in the article: one contribution, one comment on the talk page, and one undiscussed revert. I am not an edit warrior. Just so nobody gets the wrong idea. --Zmaj 18:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

::: If you have time, pls review my rewrite of the Neo-nazism in Croatia article for NPOV. Thank you croatian_quoll 10:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC for Purger[edit]

Don't you think that it's a time to make WP:RFC on user:Purger's behaviour?

Let other, uninvolved, people judge him?

What do you think?

Jesi dobio moj email?

--Ante Perkovic

Nah... He seems absolutely obsessed with three or four articles, but has done nothing justifying an administrator's action. I would appreciate it if he used more reason and less feelings in discussions, but I hope he will learn. As for his most recent revert on Neo-Nazism in Croatia, it is possible he missed my explanations. --Zmaj 13:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is a mayor P.I.t.A. and should be delt properly. Imagine how many good articles we could write if we wouldn't have to wage edit-wars that we will win eventually. What a waste of time for us and for him. --Ante Perkovic 13:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever, if you don't want to do anything about it, neither will I. But, sooner or later, someone will have to stop him and his meat-puppets.

Some people believe that I should do some action regarding user:Purger's breaking od WP:SOCK/WP:3RR, see this. Should we try to explain to user:Purger that what he does is wrong (if you like talking to walls) or report him? I think the latter is the right way. Unfortunatelly, I won't have time next few days, so if you have time and see this as a good idea... if not, nevermind. --Ante Perkovic 20:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE: 64.18.16.251 and a number of other users have been identified as sock puppets of Purger. See here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Purger. --Zmaj 09:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please, see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Croatians&curid=455874&diff=59154837&oldid=59092117

We all know that tis is Purger! I think that this should be reported too. --Ante Perkovic 10:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:)[edit]

See this :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Users_who_exhaust_the_community.27s_patience

--Ante Perkovic 23:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starcevic[edit]

Hi Zmaj,

I will have a go at the changes after the match (you better do well as I put money on it :o)). My only (BIG) concern is that I am very unfamiliar with the subject (I told MirHaven about this before). So I will simply be using my common sense and previous wikiexperience on this. As a result, I cannot guarantee the results will please anyone at all. In all cases, I will try my best. Regards, --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 18:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on the Starcevic amends this weekend. Sorry for delay, I have been busier at work for the last couple of days. --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 10:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I haven't forgotten my promise. I've been in and out this weekend but practically no time to do any serious work on this. I'll try to get around this as soon as I can. Regards, --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 07:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really sorry, Zmaj. It has been a long time but I have not forgotten about this. Nonetheless, I have realised that the article is already unprotected. Shall I still have a look at it? Please let me know. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 18:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

another Purger's sockpuppet?[edit]

Hi,

Easy :). I believe that Medule is nor Purger. One think that can makes Purger so easily recognised is his incapaccity to stop his hate-speach. Medule is just another anti-croatian contributor who can't keep his political preferences away from keyboard.

BTW, someone was stupid enought to do this and than this from the same IP address.

Unbelievable...

--Ante Perkovic 18:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

I am going on a trip. I will be back on June 24. --Zmaj 11:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]