User talk:AlasdairGreen27

——————————————— TALK PAGE ———————————————

Dictionary Tower

You have nominated an article I did on dictionary towers for deletion, and asked me to refer to the article's discussion to see why you had done so

Unfortunately it was deleted before i got chance to look at it because i was on vacation - can you please let me know why you deleted it, i didnt feel it was a bad article, but welcome constructive criticism

(A Lewis (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Ashley Hermitage

Are there rules against including students on this page, even if they happen to be published? Wiley distributes it's works world-wide and has one of the largest readership for travel-guides... Is there any way the article can be modified to suit your requirements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thom davies (talk • contribs) 16:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bleiburg

Good idea. There's more to Slovenian mass graves than Bleiburg, I agree completely. Excellent work on silencing Tolstoyboy, I don't think I ever congradulated you on that.

And, yes, you should have looked me up. Where are you from, anyway? Somewhere in ex-Yu I presume? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As a suggestion, why don't you fix up your Userpage a bit? At least so it ain't red, you shouldn't look like a newcomer (or something). DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Lj"? Ljubljana? I suppose you go south for the summer? :) DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: :)

:D Thanx. Besides Split, at one time or another I spent a lot of time in Milan, LA, Zagreb and Riva del Garda, so I think I can safely say I don't have any excessively irrational infatuations concerning my birthplace, but while most of those places (sans Zagreb, I fear :) were much more beautiful, Split really does have a uniquely attractive culture and mentality. This is (mostly) because of the combination of the Slavic and Mediterranean (Italian) culture.

Anyway, be sure to drop by if you're in town. :) DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Istrian exodus

Giove/LEO is back. He's reverting/editing much of the Istrian exodus article again. Could you give this your attention once more? As you've probably heard, Giovanni and I are restricted so I can't revert him, and he can't revert another edit. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Istria

Well, I can't really. The thing is Giove/LEO's been editing in the meantime and if I return my changes it may be interpreted as a restriction breach by Giove and he may report me. The only way to return the changes is if you revert him...
(Giove and myself are restricted to one revert per week, per article, with discussion.)
DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About your userpage

You need to fix it up a bit. User:The Transhumanist has some really good stuff. Best, --Gp75motorsports (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWI frontline

The primoska begin in Koper/Capodistria until the Croatian boders. Right? If yes, it was never touched by the war, that was foguht in the "Carso". --Giovanni Giove (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked "Right". I thought that prim. means "coastline". Anyway I think is really un important. Anyway do not do personal attack agains my "knowledge" anymore!!!!! BTW I've seen that there are a lot of uncorrect claims in the article, many of them were written by you, so..--Giovanni Giove (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To write ""you obviously lack the necessary knowledge to edit accurately", because I do not know the Slovenian geography IS accutally a personal attack. You did worst errors, but I do not claim that you "you obviously lack the necessary knowledge to edit accurately". Som PLEASE, calm down. Tx.--Giovanni Giove (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attack

I've seen that you suggest me to go in the "evening school". I will not do it, and this is another "personal attack". I do not care of Slovenian regions at all, and I do not need to justify such a minor error (really minor if compared to your owns). Please stop to bother me, I do not want to discuss anymore about this silly problem. Do not insult me anymore. Decent discussion will be welcomed. Regards.--Giovanni Giove (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is, quite briefly, NOT a personal attack. That is a legitemate suggestion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Istrian exodus talks

Concerning talks with Giovanni Giove and LEO in the Istrian exodus article... Firstly I want you to know that I am certainly not against discussion, nor am I trying to biase you against anyone, but trying to talk to Giovanni is most certainly an empty pursuit. I've been dealing with the guy for months now, all he ever does is make around 30 reverts and edits every day, while his discussions are extremely brief, incomprehensible (the guy writes very bad English), and, most importantly, uncompromising.
"LEO" is suspected to be Giovanni's sockpuppet, but if he's not, he's even worse than Giove (providing that's even possible). In any case, he displays identical views, with identical fervour and bad English. It would appear that "both" of them are decendants of Italian "esuli" (It: "exiles") from Istria or Dalmatia. In either case, they are rabid Italian (Venetian) nationalists. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy WikiWar of Dalmatia

have you been involved in this before? If not, then I don't advise getting involved now. That is, unless you want to be called a fascist and a vandal. It's no fun, I'm telling you. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. I wish I could just block the guy, but I'm not an admin. Also, watch your main page, I've seen to it that you've got a suprise coming your way...--Gp75motorsports (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By now, you probably already know that I'm going to redesign your userpage. What kind of style would you prefer? --Gp75motorsports (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm

Might be a browser issue... the image was appearing off to the side when I looked at it. I just added 2 breaks to space it below your userboxes. Anyway... feel absolutely free to revert if you wish. --Isotope23 ^talk 20:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You ok?

After you made this edit, I'm not sure it's really you on the other end of the line. Giove hasn't hijacked your IP, you don't think? If you hav to, go create another account and respond on my talk. Best, --Gp75motorsports (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I know someone (a certain Italian user that you've dealt with before) who talks just like that. as you can see, I thought he hijacked you. Thank gods he didn't. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EXACTLY! w00t! --Gp75motorsports (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User page

LoL, I don't know why I changed that... it just sounded good I guess.

As for Giove, I was there the second it happened :D, but we will have to be on the lookout for sockpuppets. I don't think this is the last of him, he's just like Afrika paprika... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry about the misunderstanding in the Yugoslav Partisans article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giove IPs

I've posted a sockpuppeteering report about all this, here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (4th). Any help in the way of additional evidence or support would be appreciated. This guy simply must be stopped already! --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D Thanx, I could also use help with making my case in the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (4th) report. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation, please. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that, right after I clicked the save button. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let me know...

Thanks;)Ceha (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... and to let you know

See [1]. You've been mentioned. Kubura (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know about him accusing you being my sockpuppet.
You know the saying: "Tko o čemu,...".
It's a pity that noone (except Croatian users), at the time, believed us what kind of problem Giove was/is.
Otherwise, the sockpuppets or stringpuppets like RomanoDD or London321 'd be disguised much earlier. No money and no person on this world can convince me, that these aren't sockpuppets. How come that the first one appeared just in time for someone to evade the 3RR rule, and later never appeared... or when the second one, appeared as silent sockpuppet. Out of all games, but pushing the propagandism. Kubura (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Labus

Thanks for the source. I'm pretty surprised that he wasn't a hoax to be honest. Someone took the liberty of cleaning up the article, and I really don't feel that he's notable, so I'm going to keep the deletion discussion open. Thanks for pointing out that he was a real person though! Cheers, CP 21:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on Denis P. Cohen

It is my belief that the AFD debates should stick to the topic at hand and not degrade into a personal comment on the articles original author and their other original articles. The reason I took exception to your comments is that you didn't bother to have any opinions on the 3 articles that were up for deletion, and instead poked fun of the author when he wasn't there to justify or defend his articles. I would define that as a cheap shot and not conducive to settling what is a valid debate. Also, the articles were not junk. Yes, they need lots of work and proper citations like most articles on Wikipedia, but they were not junk vanity pieces with links to homepage, instead being fairly well stated but under cited pieces. You could have voted to delete and refered to the previous articles he had written as a possible conflict of interest, and I wouldn't have given it a second thought.

As to my own grammar and your pointed comments about it, well, I wasn't an English major. As you may have read on my page that you quoted from, I have already admitted my spelling and grammar are subpar, and honestly, I focus more on the meaning of what I say rather than perfect grammar. Hopefully the message behind the poor grammar isn't lost. Pharmboy (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on AtHomeNet Page:

I am new to this process on wikipedia. I already edited my user page so that it wasn't the same as AHN's, I really have no idea how that happened....and although another editor has suggested it could be advertising or COI, I have already levied reasonable arguments to show that I am not in violation of these policies. The article is from a neutral point of view, and has no elements of advertising to it. The sources I have added on the advise of other editors are legitimate, and I am trying to find a copy of one more mianstream article to post a link to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edenrage (talk • contribs) 22:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Cooper (American journalist)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Matthew Cooper (American journalist), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Matthew Cooper. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You copied the contents of Matthew Cooper and pasted it into Matthew Cooper (American journalist). This is what we call a "cut and paste move," and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming articles is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. --Oxymoron⁸³ 17:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bluetongue disease

Thanks Alaister. The article I added about bluetongue also being known as The Dancing disease came from a BBC News article, so would have been OK. Take care , KP

Dalmatian Italians

Please, do not erase the Italian tag, because the article is related even to the historical state of the Kingdom of Italy and its culture (and most living Dalmatian Italians, who were born in Dalmatia and are closely related to the few hundreds of them still living in Zara and Croatia, reside actually in Italy mainly in the "Quartiere Dalmato" of Rome). Read the tag description in detail. Please, read even in detail Delete Discussion and Rename Discussion. Tom

Dalmatia

Unbelievable! what is going on here? I think this is job for an administrator. Zenanarh (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look which articles they use to propagate Italian toponyms for places in other countries: List_of_social_nudity_places_in_Europe. Kubura (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

hello, i hope u re doing good, i just want to find out why my article For Uche Ume is being redirected. pls kindly send me details or reasons for such redirection. Thanks.

THE EDITOR FROM HELL FOR SPOOF WRITERS !!!!

Thanks mate. I feel you could be an inspiration for a new kind of Super hero .

" Is it a Bird, Is it a plane, No it's the Editor from Wikipedia ". Out to save the word from 'fallacious entries'. [ If I were Frankie Howard I would turn to the audience now and say 'Oooh eeer Missus "]. But I'm not. I'm Kent Pete.

www.petermusgrove.com

P.S. Just to warn you, I'm going flat out to get myself on Wikipedia next Year.

Take care

Pete

The Season of good will !!!!

Could you not just leave one of my spoof links on. It could catapault my writing career into exciting new areas. After all, is it Christmas !!!.

p.s. At least you take it in good spirit. Take Care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent Pete (talk • contribs) 17:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A report

Na dobro ti došlo mlodo lito, Alasdaire!
Now, to work.
I've reported that unregistered vandal 121.45.181.31 [2].
This'll be and RFCU case. Question is only, who's sockpuppet is this one, Giove's or Cherso's?
Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 3 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marie-Charles David de Mayréna, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 08:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP

Since it's shared, I would wait until there's a chain of edits and then block again. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!

I've made the proper adjustment. It must have slipped when i wrote the articles. Thanks for the warning.Mario1987 (talk)

Amico

Ciao amico, valid sources support my edits in every kind of articles.--PIO (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential vandal alert

Hey, Alasdair. Been a long time since we last talked, I know. Anyway, I've found another potential troll. He is User:NikhtaSt and he already has three vandalism warnings on his page. That's bad considering he's only been here a little while (the abscence of a userpage signifies a new user). Let's watch this guy. I don't like the way it's looking. (loads M4 Carbine) Here's some ammo. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 18:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 9 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Winston's Hiccup, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV: "Gregorij Rožman; Ljenko Urbančič; Domobranci"

Hi. Unfortunately, I have little time right now to edit the articles; I'm planning to do it after next week. In the meantime, I think is correct to put a NPOV notice for people who might read those articles. I'm strongly convinced they are not balanced enough. I've carefully read through all three articles (as well as the one on Leon Rupnik, which I find OK) - especially the sources. There are a lot of newspaper articles, references to web forums, clearly biased journals like Mladina etc., but I noticed a complete lack of relevant historical bibliography (save from some articles from the Yugoslav times - and I guess you know that in those times there used to be a strict rule what you can and what you can't write down). The essential and commonly accepted book on the matter is Boris Mlakar's Slovensko domobranstvo, then works by Tone and Mitja Ferenc, Bojan Godeša, Jerca Vodušek Starič, to name just a few. What do I find most problematic in the article on SD as it is? To put it generally, things are not put into perspective, there is little written about the genesis of the SD, the groups that composed it, the internal currents (I guess you know there was a pro-British current, represented by the Lieutenant Peterlin, deported by the Nazis to Dachau in 1944) and struggles. Rupnik’s anti-Semitic and proto-Fascist current was just one of many (of course, it is clear why the Nazis put him in charge). Secondly: the mention of the “prominent members” is completely arbitrary. Thirdly: the claim that the SD as such was anti-Semitic is exaggerated. Shortly: it seems that the whole thing is more of an accusation rather than an encyclopedic article. That's why I tagged it with NPOV.

As for Rožman’s article: I believe it’s highly incorrect to start from the assertion that he was a collaborator, an anti-Semite and a friend of Ante Pavelić and Roesener (the last two claims are unreferenced; which is logic, since they are false). The whole article doesn’t follow the standard format for an article: he was first of all a theologian, bishop of Ljubljana, and then you can go on saying that he is a controversial figure for this and this reason. The whole stuff on Nazi gold can of course be mentioned, but not as a matter of fact, but as a theory or accusation. And, just for the record, Rožman did do other things in his life other than collaborate with the Germans during WWII (although the term "collaboration" is much more problematic here than with the SD). And of course, contrary views have to be integrated.

Urbančič: the claim that he was a war criminal is a strong one. The only reference is an obituary from a journal. Too little. Reference on his life previous to 1941 is poor; the claim that he was sent to Gonars because he tried to organize a pro-German guard is very unlikely to be true - again, no reference. In this case, too, I have decided to put the NPOV sign (rather than the the warning on possible factual inacurrance), because the whole article looks like anti-Urbančič propaganda. Now, I don't want to defend him: but wp is not a denounciation site.

As you see, there are a lot of things to debate and, I think, to change in the articles. I hope we'll manage to do this in a civilized way. About your allegation: I haven't put the NPOV warning because I'm pro-domobranci or anything, but because I believe the article is in fact biased. Honi soit qui mal y pense. Viator slovenicus (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, if you accuse somebody of being a war criminal based on an obituary in a newspaper and start from there, that's biased. (Urbančič) In Rožman's case: it is stated that he was a friend of Pavelić and Roesener. In the very beginning of the article. No reference. Now what do you want me to do? To quote you a source saying that he was not a friend of Pavelić or Roesener? The allegation on the Nazi Gold: dubious reference (journalist articles, not an accepted historical work); again, should I find a source that demonstrates he wasn't involved with this malversations? I'm afraid it doesn't work like this. If there is an accusation on an individual based on no source or poor source, and this accusations are put in the very beginning of the article and put togeher with phrases such as "he was a fervent anti-Communist" (again, at the very beginning of the article, before even the reader gets to know where the guy was born), then I think I have all the right to tag it with NPOV. As for the SD article I gave you a source: Boris Mlakar, Slovensko domobranstvo (Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 2003), published by a renowned historian and a renowned publishing house and which goes basically against everything written in the wp article as it is now. Viator slovenicus (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in the SD article I'll be more precise and will tag only what is problematic. And just to let you know: a lot of the stuff isn't sourced: newspaper articles are not sources. As of the Rožman's article, I can't but leave the NPOV on the whole article. You can see by yourself that most of the allegation aren't sourced ("friend with Pavelić", "Nazi Gold", etc. - again, ahat you quote there are accusations, not proofs). As of the nice confeti metaphor: I've been here for more than a year now and as far as I remember this is the first time I've NPOV-ed sth. Viator slovenicus (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, check out the Dutch and Slovenian article on Slovensko domobranstvo: that I think is how a neutral article should look like (and no, I haven't contributed to either of them). Viator slovenicus (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your last comment says it all. In short: the articles have to be rectified; until then, the readers have to know that their neutrality is disputed, so they can be careful with the data they're getting. That's all. We can debate on this when I start making some modifications in the articles, but until then I'll have to persist that the warning stays. Viator slovenicus (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reverting the changes, I'm repeating my claims: the warning has to stay, in my opinion, for the following reasons:

1.) SD-article:

The assesment on who the leading figures were is arbitrary and clearly aiming to give an interpretation of the SD as a Fascist Anti-Semite organization. This interpretation is in my opinion incorrect (see the above source Mlakar, cit.) and misleading. The pro-British elements are not considered and the actual stucture of the SD with all its internal divisions is forgotten (see the articles in the Slovenian and Dutch wp). How couls have Urbančič been a "leading figure" of the SD? He was a kid at the time!

There is no doubt that there were anti-Semitic elements in the SD; the claim, however, that the whole SD was anti-Semitic or even that it was its predominant feature is false (again, see Mlakar or the late Mladen Aleksander Švarc, ex president of the Jewish Community of Slovenia, in his articles: "Ni monopola na antifašizem" (Slovenec, 12.IX.1992), "Judje kot objekt teoretičnega izživljanja" (Razgledi, 14.X.1998) - these are of course personal recollections, but I believe they have some relevance coming from the president of the Jewish Comunity: he says basically the same as Mlakar - there was anti-Semitism in the SD, but several members of the Liberation Front were anti-Semites, too, and during the war both hatred as help for the Jews came from both directions).

2.) Rožman's article:

I don't know where to start. From the very beginning, there are dubious claims ("close to Pavelić"), very little mention of his life previous to wwii, no mention at all of his help to Jews and anti-Fascists (as you may know, the mother of the Communist hero France Tomšič was not allowed to testify in Rožman's trial that the bishop tried to help her son; cf. Tamara G. Pečar&F. Dolinar, Rožmanov proces, Ljubljana: Družina 1996). Several dubious and certainly non-neutral claims, such as that he was a leading figure of the SD - this is highly disputed even among historians that are very far from Catholic sympathies (see Janko Pleterski, "Ob knjigi "Rožmanov proces: Človek, ki je aneksijo "vzel na znanje", Delo 4.I.1997).

3) Urbančič's article: the claims that he was a war criminal, ex-member of the ZBOR (although this might be true, it's not sourced), that he was imprisoned by the Italians for being too pro-German (also not sourced). The claim the he was known as "Ljubljana's little Goebbles" is sourced by an Australian political speech! How neutral is that? I don't say that all the data in the article are wrong. I'm saying they're poorly sourced and arranged in such a way to make the whole article non-neutral. That's why it needs to be tagged until it gets put a little bit in order.

That's all. No need to take it personally. If you want to get a "conflict manager", that's fine with me. The discussion it's here, everybody can check it out. I'll submit to an outside decision. But I'm gonna revert back if you try to cancel the NPOV tag. Sorry, but I think I've explain why I think so. Viator slovenicus (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New sig?

AlasdairGreen27

done by typing

'''[[User:AlasdairGreen27|Alasdair]]''''''''[[User talk:AlasdairGreen27|Green]]''''''''[[Special:Contributions/AlasdairGreen27|27]]'''

If you want it, just copypaste the above tevt into your "Nickname" box in "My preferences". Don't forget to check the raw sig box. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 01:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP?

Last I checked, it was a name. Funny. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 01:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply

I have just posted my reply on my talk page, bellow your message. Cheers. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 19:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 16 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Directa Decretal, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

revision

well i tried to go to the article but it says 404-Page not found.--THUG CHILD z 08:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's all the reason it was undone but if there's working link go ahead.--THUG CHILD z 08:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my fault, i didn't copy the link all the way. I'm sorry.--THUG CHILD z 08:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

go ahead and add both the links.--THUG CHILD z 08:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tolstoy

Alastair Horne is of course entitled to his opinion, but it is only that - his opinion. A great many others (with education equally as good as Horne), including myself, do not share that view. I thought just adding that little bit of mud-slinging was rather unfair. Unless you are biased against Tolstoy you could have the common decency to add the the article some of the first rate reviews of his book when it came out. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your message is unnecessarily and inappropriately blunt. It is not mud-slinging, nor is it unfair, to draw attention to the fact that the Minister and the Massacres was sternly criticised by somebody as eminent as Horne. "A great many others ... including myself, do not share that view". Well, I'm afraid that your views have no relevance as far as articles in Wikipedia are concerned. Nor do mine. Should you wish to bring the "first rate reviews" to the table, I'm sure they would do nothing but add context to the article, which, by the way, was all that I sought to do in adding that link. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I'm unlikely to remove what I added today, probably the best way to defend your man is to actually defend him, rather than waste time writing to me... isn't it? -- AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odgovor

Pozdravljen. Ne, nisem iz Vipavske doline, ampak iz Nove Gorice. Sicer pa, glede "najine" teme: prijatelj mi je prinesel iz Slovenije knjigo zgodovinarja Bojana Godeše "Kdor ni z nami, je proti nam: Slovenski izobraženci med okupatorji, OF in protirevolucionarnim taborom" (Cankarjeva založba, 1995). Izredna knjiga. Če te zanima tema, ti jo priporočam v branje. Kakorkoli: izpisal sem si reference iz te knjige in ko bom imel čas, bom vnesel v članek o Rožmanu in domobrancih. Verjetno pa vsaj še naslednji teden ne. Članek o domobrancih nameravam tudi malo razširiti in vključiti poglavje o nastanku protikomunističnih milic (MVAC, "bela garda") pred septembrom 1943, kakor tudi poglavje o strukturi domobranstva (Slovenska zaveza, Rupnikov krog, Peterlin-Mačkovšek-Uršičev krog, itd.). Glede Urbančiča nisem našel še ničesar; mislim pa, da bo zaenkrat dovolj, če se članek malo obrne, doda malo več biografije, še en ali dva "nasprotna" vira in se malo distancira od virov. lp. Viator slovenicus (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

A mediation case in which you have been mentioned has opened here Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-19 Australian rules football. Comments are welcome at the article talk page. MBisanz ^talk 06:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dictionary towers

Hi there

you recently nominated an article i did on dictionary towers for deletion.

You referred me to the articles discussion page where you explain why you have done this

Unfortunately the artickle was deleted before i got chance to look ( i was vactation)

Cajn you tell me why you thought it ought to be deleted

I thought it was an ok article but always open to constructive criticism

Thanks

(A Lewis (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)) A Lewis[reply]

Re your reply to the dictyionary tower

Hi thanks for coming back to me. I appreciate what you are saying regarding dictionary towers. The term isn't in general use, however I did make a link to the Capenhurst Tower in the article which was discovered to be a dictionary tower used to spy on communications between the UK and Ireland.The capenhurst tower article has plenty of links and reference associated with it to verify its accuracy and thtas why i was suprised my article was removed especially as it had been in existence so long.

regards

(A Lewis (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Open your mind on Dalmatia

You wrote: "I understand your POV, but logically and historically you are opening up a big hole for yourself. If you want to put Dalmatia related articles into WikiItaly projects on the basis that Dalmatia was once occupied by Italy, then I will put every Italy-history related article into the Spain, France and Austria Wikiprojects on exactly the same basis. Those three empires occupied Italy for hundreds of years longer than Italy controlled Dalmatia. Big Spanish, French and Austrian flags at the top of every article related to the history of Italy. Hmmm. Think about it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)"

My answer: DO IT! I don't see anything wrong on a french tag in an article on the napeoleonic Kingdom of Italy, for example! The problem is that you Slovenian-Croatians cannot open your mind about Dalmatian Italians and so you keep on and on with your ethnic hate and your Balkan wars. A simple tag makes you behave like you were in a war, instead of understanding that the future lies in the MUTUAL COOPERATION between the different ethnic components of a united Europe: it is similar to what the Croat government has done about a simple post stamp with Fiume (your Rijeka). Open your minds!!!!

I cannot speak for anybody else, but I have a very open mind. The drawback in what you have just written is that if I added the tags as you suggest, so that pre-unification Italian history articles had big flags of Spain, Austria and France at the top, well, I think you can imagine what the reaction would be. And I can't really speak for Slovenian-Croatians, as I am neither, but evidently I can see what is afoot here, which is naked Italian irredentism. And that, in a nutshell, is the problem. Do, please, leave the eastern side of the Adriatic alone. It is not your concern. I think that your "understanding that the future lies in the MUTUAL COOPERATION between the different ethnic components of a united Europe" means specifically an Italian imperialist agenda as regards territories in the Adriatic that you covet. I think that there are enough problems in the territories that you do currently control without adding any areas to them. Perhaps turning your mind to solving the waste disposal issue in and around Naples would be a useful start? I've seen it on TV, and it looks terrible. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are totally wrong, my dear Slovenian-Croatian. Put a french tag on the napoleonic Kingdom of Italy and you'll see that nobody will erase it. Because it is History, based on real facts, do you understand? And nobody will write that the french tag is "french irredentism" and write "please, live the eastern side of the Alps alone". Because everything related to Napoleon is concern of the french people, do you understand? BTW, only a Slovenian-Croat can write of "Italian imperialist agenda as regards territories in the Adriatic that you covet". So please, open your mind to a real MUTUAL COOPERATION between european different ethnic groups and end your dependance on your Balkan mentality, full of ethnic hate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.207.226 (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like Il Cuore nel Pozzo was opening everyone's minds to "a real MUTUAL COOPERATION between european different ethnic groups". ROFL. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was Tv "soap opera"....open your mind and get rid of your Balkan mentality! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.164.50.249 (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I comments

Hi there. Regarding your comment on WP:AN/I, I certainly didn't mean to suggest that it was "best" that Adam Cuerden leave. I feel quite strongly that his loss is a loss for Wikipedia, and that his case was badly mishandled. What I meant was that at this particular juncture, Adam appears to have made up his mind to leave, per his on-wiki and off-wiki comments. Given his decision, I thought it best to let him delete the relevant pages without a technical discussion, and without turning his departure announcement into a free-for-all or general airing of grievances which, as you may have seen, are fairly widespread.

That said, I agree with your general points about Wikipedia needing to be more serious about becoming a respectable reference work. I hate to see good editors like Adam leave. If you're having problems with disruptive editors and drive-by tagging, then let me know and I'll be happy to take a look. I hope that clarifies where I'm coming from. MastCell ^Talk 04:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Mentoring, guidance, coaching

Cool. Help is always welcome. You can check my contributions any time and if you have any suggestions, feel free to use my talk page. My last substantial contribution was on the article France Prešeren. You can start from there. Take care, Viator slovenicus (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rugby

Well yeah, I already know about the difference of rugby league and union but the thing is sevens is still a form of union just like 20/20 is a form a cricket.--THUG CHILD z 07:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contributo

Ciao amico, comunicando in italiano forse ci capiamo meglio quindi puoi dare un contributo in questa discussione in qualità di mediatore tra me e THUGCHILDz. Nella tua pagina di utente aggiungo che puoi contribuire in lingua italiana. Amichevoli saluti.--PIO (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can vote in mediation. Ciao,--PIO (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian links

Hi, Alasdair.
If you have any Slovenian links that deal with Italian irredentism (especially from recent times), that'll be welcomed. Reactions from Slovenian officials would be a bingo.
Article Italia irredenta began having romanticized lines, it needed corrections. Greetings, Kubura (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Do not make VANDALISM in my own introductory user page! It is against Wikipedia rules: next time authorities will be notified.--Cherso (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that these Cherso's edits weren't made in good faith:
19:48, 17 February 2008, Cherso wrote: [3] 'Today (february 17, 2008) for the first time since WWII a piece of Yugoslavia breaks away from the Slav control!! KOSOVO IS INDEPENDENT ! I hope soon other parts of ex-Yugoslavia will follow....may be even my CHERSO, or Istria or Zara....who knows" ??????? On his userpage.
20:11, 17 February 2008, Cherso wrote: [4]. Comment "Independence of Kosovo...... what a beautiful day for the non-slav (and even Italian) Irredentism!)". ????? On the article Italia irredenta.
20:24, 17 February 2008, Cherso wrote: [5]. "! BTW, "Enjoy" the independence of Kosovo! Finally, the Slavs have lost some territories in ex-Yugoslavia since WWII and withdraw from Albanian Kosovo.....As you can see, the legacy of your Tito (with his ethnic cleansing) is starting to disappear...""??? On my talkpage. He probably tried to taunt me. That's inflammatory behaviour.
These are the inflammatory edits. I think this is for ANI. Do you agree? Kubura (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the answers to the ANI of the fanatic Kubura:

If you're opposed to people abusing their Wikipedia user pages to make divisive political statements that have nothing whatever to do with Wikipedia, then why does your own user page say "This user is against the joining of Croatia to the EU" ? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is how nationalist conflicts work on Wikipedia. You continue to call the kettle black, hoping that someone will grab the bait and block the opposite party of the dispute. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite is always when I end up having to block the original poster because they were the one initiating things. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open your mind...I am sure Croatians and Slovenians and Italians will be together in the European Union soon or later. Ciao--Cherso (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rožman, Slovensko domobranstvo, Lyenko Urbanchich - last time

I believe the articles are not neutral (which is by the way quite obvious), that's why I have tagged them: I have explained my arguments very clearly, extensively and with a great degree of tollerance. Please restrain from vandalist behaviour, otherwise I will have to report you. And I will not tollerate your disrespectful speech: you have no right to tell me to shut up. I will however not anwser to your provocations any more, unless you come up with new arguments. Until then, I have nothing to add. Viator slovenicus (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]