User talk:Director

Home   Talk   Contributions   Archives Make yourself at home....

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 Hello, Director. You have new messages at Talk:Socialist Republic of Croatia#Predecessors/Successors. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. 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. 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 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Talkback Hello, Director. You have new messages at Paul Siebert's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Talkback Hello, Director. You have new messages at PRODUCER's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Talkback Hello, Director. You have new messages at Kubura's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Recent refactoring Hello, Director. You have new messages at Sunray's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. of utmost importance Bro, I feel their pain. [1] Howabout you?? (LAz17 (talk) 05:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)). I thought you might find it funny. No? :( LAz17 (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC). Over limit posts You have exceeded the limit of three posts per day, as agreed in the Terms of Discussion for the Draža Mihailović talk page. Please refrain from further discussion for today. Sunray (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC) I did not agree to the editing restriction, Sunray. You instituted it without regard to my having stated my objections. As I have already stated, I have absolutely no intention of limiting myself to three posts a day for no good reason. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC) You did agree on June 19 here. Even if you are rescinding your agreement, it was still a valid consensus decision. Consensus is not necessarily unanimity. You will be expected to abide by this decision. Sunray (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I agreed to the rules nuujin originally proposed, which did not contain a post limit (see above the post you quoted). When he re-posted them in the thread you cite, I had not noticed he added the limit, and repeated that I agree. I would never agree to anything of the sort as it slows down discussion. You may rest assured that I will not limit my number of posts at any time or under any circumstances. It will simply never happen. If you have any sanctions in mind, you may as well implement them now. I would like to see the verbal acrobatics required to justify sanctions against a user for not following your own mini-policies. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC) You agreed in this discussion. The same discussion where you also said the only issue was collaboration in the lead. Perhaps if you didn't make so many argumentative posts you would have a better memory of previous statements. Everybody else has moved on, on the basis it was agreed. Your constant filibustering in becoming increasingly disruptive. Fainites barleyscribs 09:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC) To that end, let us stop talking about this. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Both limitations were in Nujinn's original proposal,contrary to your assertion. You expressed you agreement twice. Here towards the bottom. Then you agree again here in this discussion just below. The same discussion where you also said the only issue was collaboration in the lead. Perhaps if you didn't make so many argumentative posts you would have a better memory of previous statements. Everybody else has moved on, on the basis it was agreed. Your constant filibustering in becoming increasingly disruptive. It is not acceptable to argue for pages and pages against proposed discussion rules, agree them,and then a week later re-start the same argument. A straight question. Do you agree to abide by those terms of discussion? Yes or no? Fainites barleyscribs 09:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I have nothing more to add. I will not limit myself to three posts, the rest of the pointless "rules" I will abide by. I did not notice the limitation, and I apologize for the inconsistency. I shall not write another post on any subject apart from the dispute itself. I am sick and tired of the one and the same people consistently ruining this exeedingly simple and straightforward discussion. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I shall hold you to your statement above that I shall not write another post on any subject apart from the dispute itself.. That is what the rules were trying to achieve. Fainites barleyscribs 14:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC) That's all I am trying to achieve myself. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Hooray!Fainites barleyscribs 16:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC) sjdfljsglhsjkfhghjflajfldshgslkajg Sretan ti dan borca buraz! LAz17 (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Personal attack Nuujinn has requested that you remove recent personal attacks. I am concerned about the tone of this post (third paragraph), and this, which I regard as a personal attack directed at Nuujinn. You also state: "And should you proceed with it regardless I reserve the right to list all historians I can find that make no mention of Karchmar's theories." This kind of threat is contrary to our terms of discussion and both it and the attack demonstrably violate WP:ARBMAC. Consider this a warning. I suggest that you remove the paragraph in question, apologize to Nuujinn and move on. The discussion had been proceeding well until this, I hope that you will continue in a more positive and constructive vein. Sunray (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC) I have removed these remarks as I regard them as a violation of the Terms of Discussion (#3 & #6). Sunray (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC) WP Croatia in the Signpost "WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Croatia for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011 Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Warning I view your continued dispute of use of Karchmar as a source here, despite requests by other editors and myself to support your claims, and my subsequent request to cease the discussion, as disruptive and a violation of WP:ARBMAC. Consider this a warning. If you believe I am mistaken and wish to continue with this assertion about Karchmar, you may, in accordance with the "terms of discussion" (#6) on the talk page, present your case at WP:RSN. Sunray (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Quite simply, I am not disputing the use of Karchmar as a source - and that is blatantly obvious from every single one of my posts. Sunray, your liberal interpretation of what constitutes "disruption" may not be shared by other people. Especially since it now apparently extends to discussing, on a Wikipedia talkpage, the possibility of attributing an author to a disputed theory. With that in mind, Sunray, a question (and please do not be evasive): does a mediator require the consent of the discussion participants to assume that role? Or can an admin simply arrive at a talkpage and proclaim himself the mediator (after 15 months of previous mediation on the same issue without resolution of any sort)? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC) I note that you are continuing to discuss Karchmar, despite my request to cease. You are also continuing to side track the discussion by going on about "arguments from ignorance" (which you have repeated three times). You have exceeded the three posts per day limit (Terms of Discussion). Please stop now. No more posts today. When you come back, please find another topic besides Karchmar. Stick to content. Sunray (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC) I was not going to write any more posts today Sunray, but I suggest you seriously reevaluate whether you have the authority to forbid users to discuss this or that (content-related) subject on Wikipedia talkpages, under threats of sanctions no less. ARBMAC does not stretch so far. I think you are taking this mediator thing too far and too personally. The current discussion is on the best way to include a particular claim by Karchmar which is disputed in other sources. I shall not stop discussing this on your "orders", as you are not authorized to give any, even were you recognized in your role as self-proclaimed "mediator". And you are not. I find your most recent threats and orders, completely detached from any Wikipedia policy, quite assuming and offensive indeed. I have not done anything. And you may rest assured I will not take any sanction sitting down. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC) DIREKTOR everybody - including you - agreed to a set of rules about discussions in order to avoid the long, unsourced, pointless and repetitive arguments that characterize these Balkans articles. (The new draft was not unlocked until this was done). You made a series of extreme, unsourced statements about the reliability of a source (Karchmar) for which, despite repeated requests, you have failed to provide any supporting evidence. The ensuing "discussion" took up pages and pages of text and included you repeatedly ignoring requests for sources and making offensive personal remarks about other editors which impugned their integrity and basic understanding. Other editors have wasted time and effort hunting evidence relevant to these supposedly well known views on Karchmar. The net result is that you do not appear to stand by those rather extreme claims. Why were they made? Why have we all had to waste this time and effort on this? Your method of laying down the law in repetitive, patronising and aggressive statements in which you claim you are backed by sources which you then fail to produce (a procedure you are also currently following on the Nedic's Serbia naming issue) is not acceptable and isn't going to work any more. That is why the discussion on the Mihailovic page is taking place under agreed rules and that is why people keep reminding you of ARBMAC sanctions. Please start taking these issues seriously if you wish to continue editing articles on this topic.Fainites barleyscribs 17:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Fainites, you simply did not bother to read my posts in any detail. And neither did Sunray, considering the fact that he thought I was lobbying for Karchmar's removal. I made it clear, continuously and repeatedly, that my position is NOT to exclude Karchmar, and that my request to have this particular claim of his attributed to him in the text is based on objective data from peer review and other sources - not my own opinion. The fact that he's known in general as a pro-Chetnik source, is something I wanted to let all of you know. But I am an educated person, Fainites, and I certainly don't expect anyone to take my word or his "reputation" as a reason to disregard him as a source. If you want confirmation of Karchmar's reputation, here's a response to Wikipedia's Draža Mihailović article from the Srebrenica genocide blog. He does have that reputation, and I wanted to inform other participants of it - I did not and do not consider that grounds for his removal. As for the above, I am not disputing the rules themselves, I don't know why you're going on about that. I do, however, refuse flat out to stop discussing the best way to address the disagreement between Karchmar and other sources. Sunray quite unambiguously "ordered" me to stop discussing any subject related to Karchmar on pain of sanctions - for no good reason and without any connection to either Wiki policy or The Ground Rules - on grounds that he will consider such discussion as "disruptive". How can you defend that, honestly? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)