:I'm not a polite guy, I know. When someone starts something I'm not going to post any outright personal attacks, certainly, but I am not exactly going to be ''courteous'' with the guy. His previous vote is no way to go. And it failed, anyway. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">[[User:DIREKTOR|<font color="DimGray">DIREKTOR</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<font color="Gray">TALK</font>]])</sup></font> 16:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
:I'm not a polite guy, I know. When someone starts something I'm not going to post any outright personal attacks, certainly, but I am not exactly going to be ''courteous'' with the guy. His previous vote is no way to go. And it failed, anyway. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">[[User:DIREKTOR|<font color="DimGray">DIREKTOR</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<font color="Gray">TALK</font>]])</sup></font> 16:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
::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 intensly 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. [[User:Fainites|Fainites]] <sup><small>[[User_talk:Fainites|barley]]</small></sup>[[Special:Contributions/Fainites|<small>scribs</small>]] 13:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
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.
Another edit war
.
Hello, Director. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Director. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Can you please stop playing with the infobox. I'm kind of working on the article. Infobox should contain only basic infos so it should not draw attention from the article. And he was wounded in an assassination attempt, not assassinated. You are making a bad joke on the article.
Yeah. Classic WP:OWN. Please stop with the nonsense edits. What in the world gives you the right to remove accurate information from the infobox? I don't really care that you find them "distracting" (for some strange reason), and I must say I'm not at all concerned whether you are editing the article or not. Infobox lines are there to be filled-out. (And do not restore the copy-pasted "(1941-43)" brackets, they have no place in an office entry which lasted only for a few months in 1941. They are added only when the other office was not held for the whole period.)
Also when someone gets shot by an assassin, and then dies from being shot - he just got successfully assassinated. Definition. Had JFK gotten shot in Dallas, then flew to Timbuktu for treatment before dying of the wounds, he would still have been "assassinated". There was no "attempt", the assassination was successful. But never mind, have it your way, just use English ("Department of State Security", not "UDBA"). --DIREKTOR(TALK)00:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my intervention, but I think that the name UDBA can be used in bracketts, like ...Department of State Security (UDBA)... I mean, UDBA was a known security agency worldwide, and a renown name in the diplomatic sphere during that period, and we wouldn´t be loosing anything by reminding it here. I mean, not only reminding it, but correctly using it. What you guys think? When going trough the article, I also founded a need to further explain the simplt UDBA mentioning, but the combination of both would seem just perfect. Don´t you guys forget we are editing worldwide encyclopedia, so any short additions that would help exactly identify/explain some movements or organisations are allways welcome. Resumingly what I am saying is that using simply UDBA is not much informative (unless you actually go to the link), but either way, using simply Department of State Security we´ll be missing then the common name given to the agency. Just similarly to one recomendation about wheather a minor explaining adition to the "Bar Association" or "Pašić" was usefull as Wustenfuchs well solved, those tipes of minor additions are very usefull to provide without much effort a bit more information. We could perfectly have something like "...the Department of State Security named UDBA was... The first (as now in articles title) is the translation of the official naming, but everybody knew it as UDBA around the world. FkpCascais (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look DIREKTOR, kenedy died because of bullent in his head, Pavelić died year and half later after this "assassination" of yours... :/ My God.
As for infobox:
“When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content.”
Two points: 1) You're not in charge of the article and don't get to "decide" when the infobox is overcrowded. The AP infobox is a LOT shorter than most. 3) You misunderstand the point of that quote. E.g. "Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." In other words: fill in the infobox fields, but do so in the briefest way possible. That's what's meant. Trust me Fox, if my years on Wiki have made me good at something, its infoboxes. They're my "speciality", I suggest you leave it to me.
Re: assassination. According to you, the target has to die immediately in order to be assassinated? :) Such utter nonsense, assassination can take years. One of the most popular historic forms of assassination, arsenic poisoning, has been known to take a decade or more(!). I suggest you leave this alone, you've had your way. --DIREKTOR(TALK)14:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Year an' half is long period... and we will rarely use term "assassineted" if victim died of arsenic poisonong, we'll rather say Mirko was poisoned by Slavko, isn't it?
And I don't know how long are you here on Wiki, but I also have some experience. Reason why we should add his kids to the article is if his kids are notable, and since they aren't... And you had no problems with that in earlier edit war of ours... or I'm wrong?--Wustenfuchs16:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes all right I understand your point of view and I said have no problem with your version, shall we not go into this?
His kids are not notable, granted, but he is. Information regarding his personal life certainly fits into the article's (and the infobox's) scope. Edit wars are not "mine", and I cannot notice everything. --DIREKTOR(TALK)17:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DIREKTOR, a week ago you were involved in a long discussion on Stepinac. You left the discussion saying were too busy at the time to deal with the detailed points on sourcing and so on raised there and would come back to it later. However, shortly thereafter you were involved in a budding edit war on Pavelic. Then a full blown edit war on Croats. I appreciate all of these Balkan articles are the subject not only of endless dispute but also random POV attacks, but there does seem to be a pattern of various ediotrs carrying on the same Balkans wars from one article to another with very little constructive editing or real attempts to reach consensus. The prime example was perhaps that argument about the translation of the title on the Yugoslav Front article on which agreement was reached yet nobody actually added the translation. Everybody had gone off to argue about something else by then. I appreciate this is not just you but perhaps you might like to consider these points.Fainitesbarleyscribs21:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you are right. Let me try to explain. The Balkans articles have just one main problem: they're open for editing to the general public in the Balkans :). There was bitter war here just 15 years ago. And with war comes wartime propaganda, or to be more accurate, a wartime mentality of extreme nationalism is created (out of necessity, basically). With this, a large number of "glorious national myths" are grounded firmly in the public's mind. People generally believe one thing, while the facts are demonstrably opposite - and it does not matter whether you can "prove" the falsehood of the myths and demonstrate the facts: the myths MUST be true. Its something like challenging one's religious beliefs. Like a fundamentalist Muslim and a creationist Christian debating, in such a discussion the actual facts are of the least importance.
To address your point, you must understand that it is virtually impossible in such an atmosphere to actually do some real editing. You are "not allowed" to display virtually any facts since, if they agree with one side, they will surely offend the other. You will simply be reverted. In fact, the only way to actually bring about a serious article expansion is to aggressively establish the facts. Political correctness or "middle-grounds" has no place here. At least one side is nearly always dead wrong in these things, and 99% of the time its the members of the nationality to whom the myth belongs. Therefore one side, or sometimes both, eventually need to be be "broken" (no sense using euphemisms) one way or the other into giving-up (99% of the time), or acknowledging he/they are wrong (rare), so that the actual facts can be displayed and that at least some editors can edit without being molested. As you saw in the Chetniks article, often one is forced to "establish" the sources and the facts over and over and over again. All this is a full-time job: to edit an article with an unresolved issue you have to "fight" your way through a "battle" to be "allowed" to do anything. This is in essence why you see more conflict than editing.
See for example the Croats article. I tried to do some editing because the page looked abandoned and I thought I might not have to "fight" my way through. I invested serious effort: I found a nice format, I thought of a nice concept, a historical procession of notable Croats. I found the appropriate images of Croats, I carefully cropped them, checked the licensing, uploaded them, wrote all that-up - and now its gone. Plus I just actually got laughed at and insulted on the takpage, with numerous personal attacks (if you'd care to note). I did the research and edited the Stepinac article. I simply looked-up the facts and wrote them up - they're gone now. Sourced scholarly info. Gone. Now, am I stupid to waste hours of my swamped schedule like that again? I'm just a student over there, not even an intern, I hardly have a moment's peace. --DIREKTOR(TALK)23:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do know what you mean about POVs like religious beliefs, having battled in pseudosciences myself. However, there is a danger of getting into the habit of acting as if every editor who appears is merely yet another nationalist mythologist and that every proposed change, however anodyne has a hidden motive. If I can give examples, on the Stepinac page, whilst I would agree that various RC tomes on lives of saints are unlikely to provide a fair summary of the more controversial aspects of Stepinacs life, why flog yourself to death and make sweeping statements about the likes of Ramet? She hardly gives him a free pass. But then she hardly gives Tito a free pass either - or Mihailovic. There is a danger also in being more than merely firm in holding the WP policy line. The fervent nationalists are not going to go away. However, the aggressive and insulting tone of much of the discourse on these pages will assuredly drive off the more moderate and thoughtful editors. Your edit on the talkpage, in response to a carefully set out analysis of source issues, which said To paraphrase your troll edit summaries: Alojzije Stepinac was a collaborator, get over it. It really is high-time this abhorrant, fascistoid, Ustaše-praising article is rewritten in accordance with (proper) sources. instantly personalises all the issues and everything gets derailed. Less involved editors then can't make head or tail of the issue without back-tracking through pages of TLDR insults, accusations and circular arguments. I would hope that with a little policing, sensible editors with a genuine interest in history may be induced to take part.Fainitesbarleyscribs19:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well.. I'm not saying I don't go overboard in the "nationalists everywhere!" department from time to time but I do think I'm not wrong most of the time. The fact that I'm trying to relate is that most normal, ordinary people in Croatia would say Stepinac was not guilty - yet his activities under any interpretation of law constitute "mild" collaboration (corresponding with his "mild" five-year jail term). The same goes for Mihailović: most normal, ordinary folks in Serbia would say the guy was a "hero". E.g. I certainly don't think the guys at Aloysius Stepinac are "hell-bent zealots", they're perfectly normal people - from around here. They grew-up thinking Stepinac was a "martyr" for dying of polycythemia in his bed in a country estate (in which case I can see "martyrs" every day in the hospital :)), and they think I'm here trying to destroy the reputation of a "great Croat". (As far as this recent thing with User:Timbouctou is concerned, he's certainly no "nationalist fanatic", imo he's just annoyed his vote didn't work out and the article remained the same.)
Concerning Ramet. I think we have a misunderstanding there. Ramet is an excellent author. However, so is Bernd Jürgen Fischer. Now, I've read most of Ramet's stuff and when you brought her up I checked out the statement you quoted. It has no direct backing. Fischer, however, does. He bases his statements on the work of Alexander and her research into Stepinac's activities in April 1941 (the month Yugoslavia was occupied). Not to go into details, but his activities at the time do constitute treason under any Yugoslav law (collaboration with the occupying forces). On the other hand, I can't find anything Ramet uses to back her statement up, let alone anything that addresses the evidence otehr sources quote. I'm not saying she's "pro-nationalist", no way, I've used her myself, all I'm saying is that this is an obscure issue and that she is contradicted by research quoted by other historians - she may be simply wrong (and frankly, Fischer is a historian of high repute, whereas S. P. Ramet is a political scientist). --DIREKTOR(TALK)21:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose one of the points I was trying to make is that the very controversy makes the Stepinac's and Mihailovic's more interesting. As in - are the British noble defenders of democracy and freedom or are they evil imperialist fascist bastards - or are the two necessarily mutually exclusive. On Ramet - I would think we are entitled to assume she did her research before writing her conclusions. You don't expect little blue numbers attached to all her sentences. I don't think it's an obscure issue and she devotes quite a chunk to it. If there is genuine controversy (not as in Intelligent Design I mean) then that ongoing controversy is part of the subject matter of the article, particularly when it is still such a live issue in ex-yugo.Fainitesbarleyscribs22:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit-warring at Fausto Veranzio
Please stop immediately the edit-warring (1, 2) at Fausto Veranzio. There has been a clear consensus in the Talk:Fausto Veranzio#Requested move redux from June 2010 that he was a Venetian from the Venetian Republic. I think you'll still be very much aware of this discussion given that you were found canvassing then other users. It was enough of an editwar then, so please not again the same stuff reloaded. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DIREKTOR - do you just not realise how rude you are? Look at your post about Timbouctou on the info box dispute. I started a fresh discussion to see if people could agree at least some of the names and then discuss the rest. Timbouctou made a perfectly civil contribution. Your response was a litany of personal insults. Do you simply not realise you are doing that? Fainitesbarleyscribs15:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can see: he started it. See his first post in the topic, personal attacks one next to another - completely unprovoked. And he just called me "arrogant" 2 mins ago. As for the MASSIVE posts, Tim has a bad habit of writing those and frankly its annoying. I had previously told him several times, very politely, apologizing all the way, that I can't be made to write for 30 minutes every time he posts some essay like that, and completely unnecessary to boot. People just ignore his essays 90% of the time anyway, and respond partially (if at all). As opposed to simply ignoring him, I'm trying to get the guy to be more concise so we can actually discuss instead of write letters to each-other.
I'm not a polite guy, I know. When someone starts something I'm not going to post any outright personal attacks, certainly, but I am not exactly going to be courteous with the guy. His previous vote is no way to go. And it failed, anyway. --DIREKTOR(TALK)16:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 intensly 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. Fainitesbarleyscribs13:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added and excluded few images on the infobox at the page. I followed the statistics, how much an article about some person was viewed so persons with most views were added or remained, whatever. I saw your activity ther on talk page, so, you agree with it? I saw that you had "problem" with Rade Končar, can we sort this out?
--Wustenfuchs16:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
