User talk:Antidiskriminator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Userpage | Talk page | Articles | Sources | Gallery | Sandbox | Awards |
|
||||||||||||||||
The Serbia Barnstar of National Merit
|
The Serbia Barnstar of National Merit | |
| Many thanks for your numerous articles about our WWII history. I appreciate your work and find it quite inspirational. Congratulations! Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC) |
Sadko, thank you very much.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Re: Alija Šuljak
Well, no mistake here. Unfortunately this is just another example of WWII denialism hr wiki is known for. This sort of stuff has not only been built upon for years and years, but also very likely rests on top of systemic bias created by the sources. (I.e. this is very likely source-level whitewash, not cherry-picking by the editors involved.) This is why fixing hr wiki will be very difficult, but one has to start with something. GregorB (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Your articles are welcome! Hope you're well!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 37
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019
- #1Lib1Ref
- Wikimedia and Libraries User Group
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Explanation
I have written 17k of text and bibliography to improve a very bad and small article that was all over the place - Hoti and you just deleted it with no excuse other than I "removed cited content". What "cited content did I remove"? The only cited content that is being removed here is 17k of text and bibliography I've written. If you think that I've removed something, please explain to me what it is or add back it yourself and let's discuss this but please don't remove the very careful work I've done. Before I worked on this article it had maybe 5-6 sources of bibliography, now it has over 25. --Maleschreiber (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hello again, I've answered your concerns. In short: what you think that might have been removed, hasn't been removed. I have expanded that article. If you think that something on how I presented Durham's account can be written in a better way, you could do that. There's no reason, however, to do that massive deletion you did before of content that is really not about the story Durham recorded. I have also raised some concerns on Talk:Shllaku.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion
Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Tribes of Albania.
If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.
If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 20:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.
The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
March Madness 2020
G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team
WikiCup 2020 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.
Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.- The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included L293D,
Kingsif, 
Enwebb, 
Lee Vilenski and 
CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.
.svg){kind=small}
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.
If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup newsletter correction
There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; 
L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Sadko. I have not received any mail. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Check it again. Thank you, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Check it again. Thank you, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
And? Was something I wrote was untrue/incorect? --13:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Issue 38, January – April 2020
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020
- New partnership
- Global roundup
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Precious
Serbian epic
Thank you for quality articles about the history and culture of Serbia, such as Autonomous Albanian Republic of Korçë, Marburg's Bloody Sunday and Jelena Lazarević, and Danilo Stanisavljević as #512 right now, for templates such as Serbian epic poetry, for service in over ten years, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
You are recipient no. 2388 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you Gerda Arendt.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2020 May newsletter
The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.
Our top scorers in round 2 were:
- Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
- Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews- Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
- Lee Vilenski with 869 points,
Hog Farm with 801, Kingsif with 719, 
SounderBruce with 710, Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and 
MX with 515.
The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
You added a reference to
- Vujnović 1986
in that article, but without a full citation it's impossible to know what the reference is. Could you add it please?
Also if you use User:Svick/HarvErrors.js, you'll be notified of these errors in the future. If you don't know how to install it let me know, I'll walk you through it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Headbomb resolved. Thanks for pointing me to this error.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
AfD for Demonization of the Serbs
I have nominated Demonization of the Serbs for deletion.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Re:
I don't hate you personally, I don't have any reason to do. But I dislike(d) some of your contributions. I corrected obvious error in article Operation Bullseye. That led me to article on Đilas. There I read that period of leftist errors begun in summer. No, it didn't. It is illogical knowing chronology of events - it begun in winter. There weren't reason to purge potential enemies while Axis were still advancing (in Soviet Union, in North Africa), there weren't what to purge - there were notchetniks units in Montenegro, colonel Mihailović is virtually unknown person among masses in Montenegro in summer of 1941. Then Drvar Uprising - it is like copied from Pogledi, from that jester Samardžić. -- Bojan Talk 08:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- You simply don't know history and keep inserting lies. OZNA didn't killed 60,000 men. Perhaps half of these men - volksdeuchers weren't murdered, they died in labour camps from hunger, diseases. Among these 60,000 men are those killed by Balkan Air Force (bombing of retreating German and Chetnik Collumns), some were murdered by Ustashe, like Milorad Mojić [1], Dimitrije Ljotić's secretary and translator to Serbian of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion , when Serbian Volunteer Corps retreated towards Slovenia via Zagreb. His entry is incorrect. Nesko Nedić, Milan Aćimović and many other weren't killed by OZNA, they died in combat against partisans. Dragoljub Mihailović, Milan Nedić, Nikola Kalabić, Velibor Jonić, Dragi Jovanović, Dragutin Keserević, Božidar Bećarević, Svetozar Vujković, Svetislav Stefanović, Krsta Cicvarić were everything, but innocent victims civilians. And again, some of them weren't murdered by OZNA --- Bojan Talk 17:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Re: Mijo Bzik, a victim of communist purges
Unfortunately it's almost a run-of-the-mill example of right-wing bias Croatian Wikipedia is notorious for. Note that, compared to its original version (vetted by Kubura, no surprises there), the article was significantly expanded (and thus somewhat balanced) by Inoslav Bešker. Its only major problem now is indeed the outrageous description of Bzik as a "victim of Yugo-Communist crimes". A minor problem is an unnecessary use of hu-benedikt, a super-fishy right-wing source, when scholarly sources can be found to support the same statement.
I keep all these problematic articles on my watchlist (200+ at moment!). I believe we're not too far away from getting a chance to fix them at last. GregorB (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- The Meta-Wiki RfC, of course. I believe the three responsible admins will be removed in the end. GregorB (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! GregorB (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)