- I usually reply to posted messages here, but if the message is important I'll notify you on on your talkpage as well.
- If I posted a message on your talkpage I will reply there, but feel free to notify me on my talk if you feel it is urgent.
- I'd prefer it if noone removed content here, but naturally I have no objections if it's just grammar.
- Please don't revert my edits on this page.
- Finally: no insults. I can take criticism as much as the next guy, but outright personal attacks will be reverted and reported.
|
Socialist Republic of Croatia
"Titoism and Totalitarianism", interesting article I found while editing Yugoslav categories. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 04:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Polargeo took care of it. [1] ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wazaaaup dudes? Long time no see. (LAz17 (talk) 05:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
- Aww, nobody's home. :( (LAz17 (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
- Come on, open up, I got chocolate! Who can say no to that? (LAz17 (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
- Well LAz old man, I've got problems... its all serious here on the "front lines". :) The usual I guess, people continuously trying to get me banned, you know how it is... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per discussion at my talkpage I have enacted the above action so a consensus regarding the flag(s) of the various states known to English speakers as Yugoslavia, and their appearance in the article, may be formed. I should be grateful if you would interact civilly with the other editors, and refer only to such Wikipedia policies/guidelines as WP:RS, WP:MoS, etc. and not WP:VANDAL, WP:STALK, and the like. The recent editing of the article, where there were numerous reverts with little reference to discussion or policy, has all the appearance of an edit war, and longer (indefinite) protection and sanctioning of those who prefer to revert rather than discuss is an option I will consider if it breaks out again when protection expires. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it is the Flags of Yugoslavia article - so I have changed Yugoslavia back to semi protected and protected the Flags article for 3 days. DIREKTOR, you know the processes when there is a content dispute - and especially nationalist orientated ones. Use them. Getting involved in edit wars gets you blocked as well as the other party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You won
Ok you won: never more contribute by me in dalmatian articles ok? I'm not a sock, so thanks me for house of cerva and stop bother me or accusing me i'm not interested any more in YOUR influenced pages.
I want to thanks about restoring my last contribution and the reliable sorces I add to Micaglia's article. But I want to advice you that you have to STOP referring to me as SOCK of someone I don't know, just in order to push your position. (Do you remember Crisarco and your accuse??). I need you apologize of it or I will consider it a PERSONAL ATTACK, and i will report to an admin. Be more polite, my friends, and begin to accept ather's contribution as useful as yours (remember WP:OWN).
Regards, --Theirrulez (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Director. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 22:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ho notato, Salvio. Thank you :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My pleasure.
- Anyway, if you don't mind my saying so, I do not think that User:Theirrulez is a sock. He is a well known and established user on it.wiki. He has made 1295 edits and his identity was created on 04.11.2006.
- I fear he got caught up in a highly controversial issue, through no fault of his own, some sort of the person in the wrong place at the wrong time... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 22:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I inform you I noticed you on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. As several times tried to advice.--Theirrulez (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To try and avoid much drama and WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT accusations, regarding the various Croatia-related articles, would you be willing to consider WP:MEDCAB? I think that this would go to great lenghts towards improving the atmosphere... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 12:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well yeah, I was probably wrong on the sock stuff, mea culpa, I'm a moron, etc. However, the guy is restoring edits of banned sockpuppeteers, that's what created the suspicion in the first place and started the whole mess, what do I tell him? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why I was suggesting WP:MEDCAB. If we continue like this, we only risk sanctions. All of us. For edit warring — at least, so I fear —. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 12:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, you think anyone there would be interested in this obscure nonsense? As for my previous edits, I know I violated WP:3RR, but I did so under the assumption that the account was a sockpuppet (3RR does not apply to reverting socks). And with the history of those articles, I really think my mistake may be considered an understandable error. I emphasize: every single account that restored sock edits & pushed the edits Theirrulez pushed turned out to be a sockpuppet. There were dozens of socks, so many they are now generally blocked per WP:DUCK. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've already said, I understand your position. You edited in perfect good faith. Your only error is that you started off assuming bad faith. As I've said, again, that's perfectly understandable given the history of socking on those articles.
- That said, I know that reverting socks is not subject to the 3-rr rule, but I think that, instead of keeping on reverting and fighting off socks, it could be useful to give a go at mediation. It's a process designed to help users to get consensus and avoid further warring. It is nothing like arbitration, it does not issue blocks, bans or other sanctions. You can give it a try and, then, if you're not satisfied still be able to go to WP:ANI or even WP:ARBCOM.
- I also think that they would be interested in helping you. You should just choose one article and concentrate on it. Try to get consensus on a less controversial issue should then help you trust each other and learn to work better together, so that your future interactions are not this confrontational (for want of a better term, it's not meant as a personal attack. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 13:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, yeah. Its not easy to be non-confrontational when the sockpuppeteers harass you both on Wiki and elsewhere. Thank you for your advice and understanding, Salvio. The problem now revolves around 3 relatively minor issues. We'll see how things develop, perhaps an amiable atmosphere can be yet achieved without bothering others. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got some apologizing to do. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you sir for your effort to patrolling my talk page, but there's no need to do that. I consider myself enough strong to take care of it by myself.
And I prefer above all to leave any comments where users or ip added them, in order to have always the chronology clearly showed.
Wishing you a good work, I offer you my best regards.
Sincerely, --Theirrulez (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome, good sir. I'll be sure to continue to revert his edits regardless of where he happens to post. Best wishes, --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[2] FkpCascais (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You win the triple crown !!! AniMate 05:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DIREKTOR, I can see you mean well, but maybe instead of reverting these socks and getting in pointless edit wars with them you should file WP:SPI reports as you detect them. After they are blocked all their edits can be removed without all this edit warring, if you can get checkuser to take an interest they may find "sleeper" socks as well, and it will give Fkp less ammunition in his never ending quest to have you blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But I did report the sock - to Less [3], and let me assure it certainly is User:Ragusino, note the attempted WP:OUTING in his edit summary [4]. Writing SPI reports on these Ragusino socks is a pointless waste of energy imho. Yesterday it was "User:Butler.banana", today, "User:Kancetha", etc. etc. - no end to it. Textbook DUCKS. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your position, and I am not doubting that you have correctly identified many socks of this user. I'm just trying to find any way I can to reduce the drama between you and Fkp, and since he has made it abundantly clear that he intends to continue making reports left and right and apparently isn't willing to make his case to ArbCom despite the mounting evidence that admins are unwilling to act on his reports, I thought I'd try nipping at the problem from the other end. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand, but what do I do? Its a sock - no question. Its insulting and OUTING me, no question. (Or at least he thinks he's OUTING me, I wisely did not give my actual full name and its proper spelling ;). Do I just let these (painfully obvious) socks edit enWiki? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You should probably email oversight with the outing, so that diff can be scrubbed. Secondly, as annoying as filing daily SPIs is, that's the least controversial way to deal with these guys. It's obvious that Fkp is going to use anything and everything against you he can, so why give him any ammunition. It'll be tedious stuff, no doubt, but more eyes can only help. AniMate 02:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Going to get some icecream. But anyways, check this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_dinar#Banknotes , could you make it into a table? I am gonna scan all of these guys and put 'em into wikipedia. I used to collect bills quite a bit - got my hands on all the croatian dinars, so this would be quite a cool thing to have uploaded. (LAz17 (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
- np, first thing tomorrow. One request though, don't make that thing at DM personal, leave out whatever you may think I am, etc., it does not help discussion and won't resolve the issue. "Comment on content, not the contributor", as it were. :) Another thing: the discussion over there has evolved a lot. Now its strictly sources. Don't make any claim whatsoever without getting a university-published secondary source from a history professional (i.e. "a scholarly source"), preferably from outside ex-Yu. Anything less is kind of useless since there are already dozens of "university-published secondary source from a history professionals" in play over there.
- P.S. Before going in, I suggest you quickly read through the "Axis collaboration" section of the Chetniks article. Every single word is copied almost verbatim from a large number of professional university publications. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your search is one sided. Lets look at the other side, so look around this page, [5] , and you can see a slightly different story, that there was resistance, whereas you paint it as wholehearted loyalty to the nazis. maybe so in 1945, but I have issues that they were like that during most of the war, which is what you seem to have been saying. But, we'll deal with this later... this is a long thing and ja sam suvise lenj da idem u te stvari sada. :( But yeah, the last sentance on page 203 and 204... it shows that the Germans were fighting against the chetniks in 1943. So... I can sift through stuff like that. But it takes so much time... joj lenjost... (LAz17 (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
- Another thing in that book - on page 206 it shows that the chetniks accounted for roughly one third of the resistance actions in 1943. Sure, partizans were the main part, but you give the chetniks no credit, and that is what I have an issue with. (LAz17 (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
- I can't access those pages right now via your link but I'll take your word for it.
- "so look around this page, [6], and you can see a slightly different story, that there was resistance, whereas you paint it as wholehearted loyalty to the nazis"
- There was resistance, but "sporadic and incomparable to the extent of collaboration" (quote). Blowing up a few trains does not really cont for much when tens of thousands of your men are holding territory for the occupation. Saving Allied airmen at one time does not mean much when you also save German airmen, and even hunt down Allied airmen for the Germans at another time.
- "on page 206 it shows that the chetniks accounted for roughly one third of the resistance actions in 1943"
-
- The table on page 206 does not say how many total chetniks and partizans there were, but their actions. (LAz17 (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
- What? Are you seriously comparing Partisan and Chetnik activities in 1943?? Neretva, Sutjeska?? Hundreds of thousands of troops, possibly the largest resistance "actions" in history, certainly during WWII. To be fair, both instances included several tens of thousands of Chetniks - participating in coordinated action with the Axis (which very soon after cost them their support and much of their remaining popularity). As the professor would say: budimo realni dragi kolega... :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kolega, they lost support in 1944, with the Treaty of Vis. (LAz17 (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
- Depends on who's support you mean. 1944 was when even the King told Mihailović to join Tito's forces and backed the Partisans, but he did so only because the Partisans had already received Allied support in 1943, i.e. because of Allied pressure. The Chetniks lost the support of the Allied powers in November 1943, when it was shifted to the Partisans. They lost the support of the King in early 1944, and on June 17 1944, that was formalized. (Of course, the support of the King was rather insignificant: he controlled no resources, and basically did what Churchill told him to do.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The allies supported the Chetniks beyond 1943. They got arms and stuff into 1944. Just because the partiznas got more support did not mean that the chetniks got no support. Nerazumem sto si zapeo oko ovoga? (LAz17 (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dir, please, don't ask me if I know how to check English usage; dont't ask me to provide evidence of English usage of name and words.. because I did it, you know better than me.
- But I don't believe you want really I give evidence of that (I'm ready to do it really), while instead you rarely gave the same evidence you ask in your edits.
- You know how balanced and sources-supported my edits are. If you want I begin to scan pages of The Britannica: maybe they will survive few hours before being cancelled, but could be enough to make you very sorry. And I don't want to make you upset, because we are just became friends.
- So, please be less aggressive, do not intimidate me, stop accusing about races, ethnicity or nationalism. I'dont know this words, but I don't know why they sounds bad. Accept my contribution even if sometimes you not completely agree, but be critic, trying to be my best reviewer. Don't continue to push an edit if you see other users offering you different informations.
- You don't own the truth, nobody can, so please read my sources, don't argue any more on little changes, don't bother repeating me everytime hundreds of wikirules not related to or subject to interpretation just in order to opposite my edit, and first of all respect my work.
- Because it's hard, very hard and a long lasting work. It's hard to be a good editor. It's hard to find sources accessible to anyone. It's more hard to order informations in my head, and try to create knowledge from them. It's most hard to understand how to transfer this knowledge to others fitting everybody expectations.
- Well, I choose to be an editor, at least a decent editor. Someone spend his time to hunt puppets like in a funfair, or to pursue and denounce others' mistakes: it's not for me.
- Take a step back, read my edit, don't argue any more, scared by edits that seem not matching with your positions, leave me a bit of space, and you will not regret. Articles about your beloved (and mine) Dalmatia, now suffering and underdeveloped, will benefit, you'll see.
- You told you are a doctor, medicine student learned latin usually, so you should know the meaning of the section title. Nothing is impossible if you want.
- Have a good night Doc. --Theirrulez (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hi my good medicine student, I was thinking today (reading you proudly warning: «Please provide English usage.. etc etc.» for all your patrolled articles...) that if you don't accept the neutral truth of a double romance/slavic name for all the atricles you deny, you should start to provide the English usage of every slavic name, well knowing that for lots of arguments modern English-language literature regularly uses the Italian names. And please stop counting every google entry!
Do you agree?
Sincerely --Theirrulez (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)-[reply]
- Šališ se? To je iz 2004... nema šanse. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on guys. I can put this sentence after sentence into google translate and follow it but you should both use English on English wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I told him... :) and anyway its nothing, just a brief exchange about subways in Belgrade and Zagreb, i.e. lack of the aforementioned. :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you want to sniff out our personal conversations that are not directly related to wiki?
- Dunno how I missed the date... jee, I feel quite dumb now. I looked at that skyscrapercity forum and saw that as a new post and was like wow... but I guess one should look before they leap ,eh, skoci pa reci hop as we say... (LAz17 (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
- there is no such thing as a personal conversation on wiki. Anyway when it is another language how do I know you are not calling me an asshole :) Polargeo (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To je dobro pitanje. But likewise, how do you know that I am not praising you? :) (LAz17 (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
- izvini sto nisam bio na tvojoj strani za ono hrvatsko/italijansko... pogresio sam. Brat srbin mi zabio noz u ledja. Ko sto je cuveni archibald rajs kazo - srbi cuvajte se sebe. (LAz17 (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Sir, please, leaving apart your automatic way to post a comment immediately after others comments to deny or dicredit others comments, I want just ask you to advice other users wherever your edits are insert out of cronological develop of the discussion, writing, for example, (out of crono).
Thanks --Theirrulez (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I appreciate that... just don't. Thank you. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Theirrulez, it is not customary on Wikipedia -- on the contrary -- to leave such notes in the comments. It is not expected that the discussion goes top-down in chronological order; it is only customary to use indenting to indicate who you're replying to. The signature has timestamp, and the order of postings can be inferred from that. I don't feel that it particularly matters, especially when you just read the old discussions.No such user (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree, sir. What's not customary often is higly appreciable. Moreover guidelines clearly xplained something about it in WP:INDENT, or here, and about WP:INDCRIT.--Theirrulez (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was replying only to your request that he "advice[s] other users wherever your edits are insert out of cronological develop of the discussion, writing, for example, (out of crono).": the discussion are written "out of crono" most of the time on WP, and it's not customary to "fix" that by other users. The guidelines you refer to are not applicable to the issue. If you refer to Direktor's, erm, combative style of discussion, I don't have a particular comment... except that there is a point in that... though Direktor probably knows my opinion. No such user (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, could you kindly provide me a reasonable ground for which you and User:Kebeta auomatically cancel reliable sources like:
from the articles about Giacomo Micaglia, without any discussion in the related talk page? Thanks, --Theirrulez (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which article is "Giacomo Micaglia", exactly? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fun --Theirrulez (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am merely emphasizing that you are using a foreign language name for the person, instead of the English one in the title. That's the whole point in fact. The sources are fine, the additions are fine as far as I can see - just quit replacing "Mikalja" in the Jakov Mikalja article, and please give-up on the useless link you've dubbed a "source". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are ready to begin the mediation here. Sunray (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, instead of just reverting each other, you could discuss the disagreement you're having over which spelling should house this article? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
![[7]](http://www.neuron.at/images/JutList_6-10-04.jpg){kind=link}