User talk:FkpCascais: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:52, 16 April 2011

Archives

April-December 2009
January-April 2010
April-June 2010
June2010-November 2010

Re: Slobodan Mazić

You're right, he clearly passes athlete. The PROD was an error on my part. I simply missed the four caps for OFK Beograd. I would have contested the PROD myself but someone else beat me to it. Thanks for clarifying though. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Draža Mihailović Mediation

There is an initiative to reinvigorate the mediation here. Would you be able to indicate your willingness (or not) to participate?

Also I am willing to resume the discussion between you me and Direktor about the Legacy section. Would you be able to let me know on my talk page whether you are willing to do that in the near future? Sunray (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been constantly giving different treatment to different participants, making some of them close to mediators and completely ignoring others. Why should I beleave this proposal of yours wan´t make me loose time again? FkpCascais (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on mediation talk page

On the mediation page you made a number of statements that I said I would like to discuss with you. Would you be willing to do that here? Sunray (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said that you were postponing your decision as to whether you would be active in the mediation. However, I note that you are now engaging in discussions on the mediation talk page. I asked you if you would speak to me prior to returning to the mediation talk page. Would you please deal with this now? Sunray (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Sunray, I have just been bussy off-wiki. I´ll unswer this to you as soon as I can. FkpCascais (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Templates issues

Hi FkpCascais,

first of all, I have no complaints about a possible merger of the seasons template. ^_^

However, the inclusion of the 1992–2006 seasons together with any former teams might get a little tricky, to say the least. The current template presentation generates too much confusion for the readers and hence makes navigating rather difficult. I would thus suggest to separate the current, Serbia-only SuperLiga data from the 1992–2006 era by using a Navbox with collapsible groups. The collapsible groups basically work like a navbox in a navbox with almost all features of a "normal" navbox, so this should faciliate things. There is also the possibility to expand a group when the article is loaded; this could be helpful for certain articles (see below). In any case, please take an in-depth look at the documentation of the template.

In the first group, I would collect the Superliga seasons and teams from 2006–now, and also the related competitions. The second group comprises the 1992–2006 data. As for the teams, I would include a hatnote saying that only the former teams during that era are being listed and that more teams might be found within the "current" group.

I would further recommend that the 1992–2006 group of the template is always displayed uncollapsed on articles which deal with former teams. The reason behind that is to prevent any edit wars centering about the inclusion of the template as much as possible, especially in articles about teams which are now part of other countries (e.g. Borac Banja Luka).

Final disclaimer: The above text is only a recommendation. If you can fiddle out something different which might even better fit your needs, possibly by using other templates from the Navbox family, feel free to do so. :-) In any case, I hope the provided input is helpful and enlightening. *bows* --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... I am getting more and more curious about the decision to merge the Ser&Mon First League history into the SuperLiga article - do you have any kind of link which would point to it? The question arises since I could not find anything about a potential merger debate aside from the little bits at the SuperLiga talk page. The current SuperLiga article also covers only the seasons from 2006–07 onwards, which does not particularly help with any template changes. We should first decide how to deal with the years between 1992 and 2006 before focussing on any template changes. Since your input on the matter from last August gained no response, I would suggest to move the discussion up one level and take it to WT:FOOTY. The regulars there may be able to help in finding a solution for the problem. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: See WT:FOOTY#Top league of FR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro between 1992 and 2006 - opinions needed for the discussion. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Are you can help this user about this article[1]. So far it has done much. This is the original article[2].--Свифт (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet letters

Hi, I just noticed the message you left on my talk page about how to tell when a letter is substituted incorrectly with an identical letter from a different alphabet, e.g. a latin "a" instead of a cyrillic "а". As many default fonts include both latin and cyrillic character sets and use identical glyphs for such letter pairs, this is tricky. I myself discovered the error with Душан Савиќ only because I was doing some automatic text processing with it.

The easiest method I can think of is to copy the text into a text editor that allows you to set the strings in different fonts. Choose a font that supports latin but not cyrillic, preferably one that stands out visually. Then the misplaced letters should be easy to tell—the unsupported cyrillic letters will be displayed in a generic fall-back font or as boxes. Hope this helps. --Iceager (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

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. The thread is Yugoslav Front - 3rr, accusations of incivility, removal of other user's comments. Thank you. Dpmuk (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Yugofront

Thank you for helping to improve a little bit article Yugoslav Front‎. Look at this: Template:Campaignbox Yugofront! I have a similar problem.--Слободни умјетник (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Надам се да не кршим нека правила тиме што ти се овдје обраћам на српском. Тако ми је лакше и брже. Да не бих компликовао још више ионако компликовану расправу на страници Yugoslav Front, хоћу овдје да ти скренем пажњу на још једну ствар која тамо тренутно није у фокусу: Мислим да ни испред Косте Пећанца не треба да стоји црна четничка застава "за краља и отаџбину" (ако већ буде склоњена исред Драже), јер би неко могао погрешно закључити да су сви који су користили ту заставу били против савезника. (а питање је ко ју је све и користио, ја заиста нисам сигуран) Иначе, слажем се да треба користити званичне заставе, тј. ако је Пећанац био лојалан Недићу онда испред њега треба да стоји Недићева застава.--Слободни умјетник (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potpuno se slazem, i mislim da je tako vec bilo na template-u. Treba mi veca podrska da se to glasanje odrzi, pa nek kazu da ili ne i zasto, a sve vreme ga izbegavaju. Ja stvarno neznam kakve bi to argumente imali jer je predlog vise nego logican. Dok oni mogu da ugrozavaju tudju stranu kolko god hoce, drugi nesmeju ni da se brane!? Molim te glasaj i ti. Tvoje misljenje je vazno. Znaci treba dodati u predlog zastava da se od Pecanca promeni od crne cetnicke u Nediceva Srbija, jer on je direktno radio za njih. To je ja mislim tako nekad i bilo, samo je direktor sve namerno promenio u ove crne sa lobanjom, da bi cetnici izgledali kao nezvanicni i sigurno racuna da mu ta zastava dodaje indirektan utisak da su kolaboratori.

Ovde se preporucuje da se koristi engleski jezik kako bi svi razumeli, i u ovim slucajevima je obicaj da se sve ovo prevede i napise ispod teksta, sto cu morati sada da uradim. Mozes naravno i e-mail da mi posaljes, ako ti je lakse, vidi sa strane opciju na mojoj strani "e-mail this user". Probaj pa mi kazi jesi uspeo. FkpCascais (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I rarely use e-mail. Under this same name (Слободни умјетник) you can find me at sr.wiki. If you want, you can contact me there. Of course I'm planning to vote as soon as I can see that it started.--Слободни умјетник (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is not a voting process of the kind of the move request ones, it is just in the talk page of Talk:Yugoslav Front you´ll see me inviting everybody to express its opinion regarding the changes I proposed. All participants could/should add sugestions (I supose). FkpCascais (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion at Yugoslav Front

FYI, the idea of renaming/returning the article to Yugoslavia in World War II has been presented as a third option at the the move discussion for Yugoslav Front.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the notice. FkpCascais (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Altering other users' posts

Please consider this a formal warning and request that you immediately undo the alterations you made to my post on Talk:Yugoslav Front. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What post? FkpCascais (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding paste/copy text

"The parts you inserted hardly can add that to the article. [...] they just add more of same in the article." Half of your addition is redundant since the number of those rescued is already mentioned but then again 512 is a prettier number than 417.

I have added a government source for the information that you disputed. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 21:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. FkpCascais (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Hi

Its all explained on their talk page, despite all this, they refuse to even communicate. You can try and talk to them if you'd like, but so far they've just ignored any attempts to actually talk about the problem. I'll probably have to file a RfC if they ignore you as well. Buttons (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm unsure of their gender... chances are they are male though. Buttons (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Footballer biography

Yes thanks FkpCascais, I actually recall maybe two years or so back when you orininally created the articles. Many were started by you and those that weren't were certainly brought to life by your contributions. I thought even back then, one day I'll simply tidy them a bit. You can be forgiven when not speaking English as a native language for not realising that the ; as a punctuation mark serves a particular purpose. That said, how we do things on Wikipedia is not exactly how they might be done in other official contexts. The WP MOS obeys its own laws. Take paragraphs, a new paragraph will begin following a small gap on the line, and directly beneath the previous sentence. Here that option is not open because you know what happens when you skip the first space on a line. I don't know the purpose of this arrangement. Anyhow, the comma I feel just makes the articles look like others but don't worry, every other part of your editing remains untouched. As for "currently", I believe this to be a superfluous word, not just because it is unencyclopaedic but because there is no difference between "Ivan currently plays for Hajduk" or "Ivan plays for Hajduk" (it is the plays that is essential and that cannot point to the future or the past, there we'd have "will play for" or "played for"). Thanks for your support. Evlekis (Евлекис) 10:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My support for you on Yugoslav Front article

Hi! I just wanted to say that I support almost everything you wrote in the above mentioned article discussion. I don't know if it means anything to you, but I guess it's nice to have Croatian supporter on the article which deals with such a controversial topic. As for the certain Croatian user whom you had fight with, I won't say anything versus him (I don't want ban), but take note that he categorizes people (no matter Croatian or Serbian or any other ex-Yu) in only two groups: "normal" (yugonostalgics, communists, titoists, etc.) and "nationalists" (everybody other than them), while there are at least 5 groups (at least in Croatia), although they can overlap): yugonostalgics/communists, far-right ultranationalists , liberals , right-centre nationalists and left-wing supporters which opose ex-Yu. Regards! HeadlessMaster (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions

Hi. I want to inform you that there is current voting about name of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Momcsilló_Tapavicza#Requested_move Perhaps you can say your opinion there if you wish. PANONIAN 10:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Serbia" was a Nazi puppet

You might be interested in this move. It appears User:PANONIAN wants to rename the Nazi puppet Nedić regime to "Serbia". "Serbia" (instead of "Nedić regime") will then of course have to be listed on all infoboxes and categories as a Nazi puppet state, right alongside Ustaše Croatia. I myself am a little surprised and confused, but if everyone agrees "Serbia" was a Nazi puppet then I'll have to agree.

Football

Hello. As for the Velker article, I don't see any cleanup issues, so I removed the tag. As for the Josef Čapek article, I think it would be good enough to start the article on him, even if there are scarce sources about him. As we discussed in the past, there are trouble locating information about interwar football. Thank God sometimes historians publish valuable books. Last year I bought a book about football associated with the German minority in Czechoslovakia, a pretty interesting theme, now researched for the first time ever. It also reveals how many so-called "Czechoslovak" footballers were in fact ethnic Germans. This link to the official national team website can help you out with Čapek, though it doesn't mention his date of death, which is a common missing info from biographies on that website. Generally, if you collect some basic info about Čapek, it would be enough I think, to start a stub about him. By the way, it is interesting that FK Vojvodina was founded by Serbs in Prague. I did not know that. Last week there were some celebrations connected with the 100th anniversary of Hajduk Split, which was founded in 1911 by Croatian students ... in Prague. :) I wonder how many other notable clubs were founded there in the Austrian-Hungarian era. P.S. Maybe I asked you already before, but do you have facebook? - Darwinek (talk) 11:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP idiot

Hi FkpCascais, for the time being I will use your edits as a thread each time I log on to give you the extra muscle in fighting against these disruptive users. By all means keep an eye on them but if I am here when you are not, then I'll restore your version. On principle it is very difficult to deal with IPs; one attempts to communicate with them only to find that by the time they have returned, the same user has hopped number. This way, irritating users avoid the block and warnings and continue to assert rubbish. What is worse is that users monitoring Recent Changes cannot detect the unconstructive nature of the edits and so they pass as decent, it is sneaky vandalism. The only thing to suggest is that the pages be raised to Established User Only status. That way, whoever is messing about will have to get an account, dealing with him will be made easier. For now, I will back your edits up and if the idiot persists, we'll see about blocking the IP range and disabling the pages to new users. Evlekis (Евлекис) 13:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to this activity, I wouldn't worry, a month has passed and nobody has reverted you. Evlekis (Евлекис) 13:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I see your point. The anonymnous nature of this activity makes it impossible to communicate with the user. We cannot even establish whether he is being constructive or stupid; there is a chance it is the former. For now, what I would do in your position is continuously revert the user citing "unsourced" in the summary. This way if the IP engages in an edit war without explaining himself then he, not you, will eventually be blocked. If it goes on over days and days with different IPs then an admin will have the sense to see that the page is being abused by IPs so he should increase the protection level of the article. Hopefully by this stage, if the IP has something constructive to add, he'll realise he needs to start behaving appropriately and communicating in the summary if nothing else. Evlekis (Евлекис) 07:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help

(I'm posting here since your edit has nothing to do with Stepinac)

The Kingdom of Yugoslavia existed de facto up until its occupation by the Axis in 1941, it continued to exist legally through its institutions up until 1943, when the Allies (čitaj: Churchill) forced its reorganization into the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia. The government-in-exile and the King recognized this as well, kicked-out the pro-Chetnik prime minister, replaced him with the Croat Ivan Šubašić (the Ban of Croatia), and came to an official understanding with Tito and the AVNOJ at the soonest possible opportunity with the Tito-Šubašić Agreement
The Democratic Federal Yugoslavia existed de jure from 1943 and de facto in the large politically organized liberated territories. In time (by mid 1944), these constituted the vast majority of the territory of Yugoslavia.

To be clear: I'm not asking you to "believe me", I do not care if you believe me. This is all the most basic, cold, hard info, RAW FACTS you can read anywhere. I have explained them numerous times, listing numerous sources (including the King's own words). If you think the Kingdom of Yugoslavia lasted up until 1945, I DARE YOU to try and change that in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia article so that I may shoot that nonsense down in flames. I've had trouble even keeping it in 1943, with your good buddy User:Jean Jacques Georges who wants to list it as having existed up until "1941".

P.S. I must thank you for edit-warring over this petty nonsense with me while I try to get rid of Ustaše propaganda from that Croatian-nationalist-worship article, where they all sing songs about the guy who's chaplains and friars (e.g. Miroslav Filipović) brutally maimed and slaughtered thousands of Serbian women and children, while he publicly sang praises to them and prayed for Pavelić to be "guided by the light of god". Thank you for your help. You must really be neutral. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look Fkp, I did not call you "pro-Chetnik", and I do not think you are. Edits, however, are indeed pro-Chetniks at times. Now, as today's report may have demonstrated, you cannot forbid me to describe edits as being "pro-Chetnik", as being "nonsense", or indeed "pro-Chetnik nonsense". You may call this "labelling" or whatever you wish. One thing you should have noticed by now is that you cannot "threaten" me. Or I should say, you particularly cannot report me, and then threaten to report me when that fails. :)

That said, had you attempted a more civil approach than empty threats (which can only serve to agitate people who are aware of their emptiness), say something like "I am not pro-Chetnik and if you think my edits are pro-Chetnik you are mistaken", you would have found that I would have said "I understand and will be more careful in assessing and describing your edits in the future". And I will. Truth be told, given your unwavering support for Chetniks in every single dispute I have yet encountered since that "fateful meeting" at Talk:Chetniks, I hope you realize your editing can easily be described as such. I am frankly surprised that you reject such an assessment. But I do take your point, let us avoid such terms. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that I was called a communist, not some particular edit of mine. Also communism is a far more serious matter than simply being "pro-Chetnik". I am not a communist. I just feel (based on studying the hard cold facts) that the second Yugoslavia was a good thing for both Serbs and Croats, and that Tito did an excellent job running the country (and I do not think I'm exactly alone there). The fact that they were communists is to me something entirely secondary. As far as I'm concerned they could be Nazis as far as they brought about economic prosperity, the rule of law, and relative social freedom. I'm not a "yugonostalgic" either, since I am fully aware any such federation is completely impossible at the very least for the foreseeable future, and I do not like the idea of wasting away thinking about some bygone past.

So to keep it short: all right. Lets not use such labels.

Now, regarding SFR Yugoslavia. I do not know how I can be clearer.

The Kingdom of Yugoslavia was occupied in 1941.
It remained in de jure existence up until it was renamed and reorganized in 1943 as the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia. The King was not deposed. The Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was NOT a republic, and was also not a monarchy. The King and the government-in-exile did not like this but the accepted it.
After 1943 the country is therefore the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (most of which was still occupied) which at first had two recognized governments that agreed to merge as soon as possible. That they did soon enough in 1944, uniting under Tito as prime minister.

It is perfectly accurate to say "occupied Democratic Federal Yugoslavia", since that was the last name of the Yugoslav state during WWII. It would be nonsense to say "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was occupied in 1941", but that is not what the text says, and I would never write such gibberish in the first place.

("Yugoslavia" is a summary article and not a former country article. Its not there to serve as some sort of "middle ground" when "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" makes no sense and we don't like "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia".) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? You want me to "try you"? "Try me" and similar such threats, empty as they are, are regardless themselves a breach of Wikiquette. Biut seriously, you think I'll be indeffed if I say "your edits are pro-Chetnik"? And after your "dare"? :)

Are you noticing how your posts are simply escalating the conflict here? Ja napišem normalan odgovor, pročitam neke bezvzne prijetnje i/ili izazove i odma mi digneš tlak... Ti znaš šta je dalmatinski "dišpet" jeli tako? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am aware that my post answered your intent, but you did not read my reply in full. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia was occupied in 1941, and changed to the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia in 1943. Again: it is perfectly accurate to say "occupied Democratic Federal Yugoslavia", since that was the last name of the Yugoslav state during WWII. It would be nonsense to say "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was occupied in 1941" or even simply "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was occupied", but that is not what the text says, and I would never write such gibberish in the first place. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what is this story of helping me??? When did you helped me? Regarding the wikette report I made on you? Yes, I wrongly edited the first time, but it was ME that corrected it (Here: [3]) and you say this edit of yours ([4]) was "Helping FKP" while actually you were helping yourself from removing your userlinks so people can´t see your abbundant block log. I´ll repeat myself, please don´t ever help me again. FkpCascais (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...

So quick to speak are we? :) -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 19:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that part of my comment because it can be decontextualised and missinterpreted. Listen PRODUCER, I hate the Nedić regime, my fathers father was a monarchist and my mothers father was a Partisan, so you can understand because both hated that puppet state in Serbia. But there is a limit of the nonsence attack some of you are making against Serbian history. You have plenty enough to writte negatively about that regime, but I apologise to say but that simply doesn´t sound logical and it is very much missinterpreted. I explained the reasons why on the article´s talk page. I don´t undertand how can you show that much lack of respect and behave in that insulting manner against an entire nation. I really don´t. FkpCascais (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: If you notece, you and some other editors loose more time writting negatively about Serbs than positively about your own nation. Pleae find one edit of mine that was negative towards your nation, and that is why it is not fair to mock me on this. You insult an entire natio9n history several repetitive times, and you mock and make fun and judge people defending it from nonsence. Think about your behaviour first. FkpCascais (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you take these discussions so personally that your willing to include family history while thinking about them and interpret my comment (which was a simple quote of all things) as an "insult to an entire nation's history" then you probably shouldn't take part in them. I gave a source which stated that two Serbian groups, led Nedic and Ljotic, killed Croats, Muslims and antifascist Serbs. You responded "if they were "Serbian ultranationalists" they weren´t certainly associated with Nedić regime". One group was led by Nedic himself while the other was a force permitted by the regime. You later say "that diminished Serbia to the maximum and that fought the real Serbian and Yugoslav royal nationalists who were against Nedić." This is the no true Scotsman fallacy in action. No "real Serbian" would collaborate? No "real Serbian" would ever massacre anyone?

You seem to have a collective guilt of the bad actions that some Serbs have committed. Denying their wrongdoings is not the way to go about dealing with them nor is shooting the messenger. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 20:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you missinterpret everything. I made you a personal comment on good-will and in private (meaning, in user-page, not in article discussion). I know quite well to distinguish the two, personal feelings and factual editing. I even gave you an exemple, where I said that I personally hated the Nedić regime, but I am NPOV and I want take crap against them by any price... And, no, it is not because they are after all also Serb, like me, and I already asked you tyo find even one edit of mine that was negative basically to any other ethnic group in the region. And you seem to have total prejudice against Serbs if you think that any Serb should have any feeling of "collective guilt", just like no other ethnic group should have. I respond to my own actions. And your reasoning about "real Serb nationalists" is wrong, because there are people labeled as "Serbian nationalists" and those were hardly Nedić guys. The Germans tryied to make them somehow look "nationalist" but that never worked and it didn´t convinced no one. And I never said "real Serbs didn´t collaborate" why you missinterpret this? I only said that in this case, the issue you were defending was hardly beleveable.

Now, I see no good-will from you, and you are the one trying by all means to forcebly add something into a wrong article only because of your ethnic prejudice. Not me, I´ll come to Croatia in a coupple of moths on hollydays, and I gladly have there Croat friends who are very different from you, that don´t hate just because, and that wanna move on, just like me. In the meantime keep on spending your time finding all possible negative references to Serbs that exist in the world and keep on trying to feet them wherever you can. You are the one being negative, and I´m not deniying anything, just arguing against nonsence and trying to avoid clear missinformation and basically nationalist hateriot. Each one of us know what is doing, so I think this discussion want take us anywhere. So, if you ever wanna join me in the club of non-resentimented people that are fed up of more hateriot and 1990s nationalism propaganda and wanna move on, call me, otherwise, good-bye. FkpCascais (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections

Thanks for your support. So far it has had no resistance. Obviously, "currently" means at the time of writing which should also mean the time of reading (because it would need to be edited instantly once something changed). There are two reasons I remove the word, the first is because it has no place in an encyclopaedia, only a journal; secondly because its inclusion does not modify the sentence. If taking it out made a difference then I would not have done so. 99 times out of 100 the word is superfluous anyway, even in newspapers; and if you come across the word then feel free to remove it. There are times however when its inclusion is for the more constructive and there is no way of removing it without spoiling the piece. If in politics, one wishes to say that Mr.X is the 21st and current President of ABC-land then there is no way you can remove the word unless you also remove the information that he is No.21 in a series. His predecessors will all be "was the 20th", "was the 16th", etc. Evlekis (Евлекис) 21:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Ace, maybe his intentions were good but there may have been communication difficulties; he may not be very good at English. Ako to je tačno onda ja bih govorio sa njega na srpskom ili makedonskom, sigurno razumije jedan od naših jezika. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Half Barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		For your cooperation on Nedić's Serbia article, although you hold diametrically opposed viewpoints from me. You will get the other half after some more cooperation in the future..:-) Regards, Kebeta (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You really surprised me Kebeta! Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FkpCascais. You have new messages at Kebeta's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FK Partizan - Reply

Hi there FILIPE, VASCO here,

regarding your message to me: 1 - what can we do, vandals will be vandals, getting really annoyed with their behaviour, have contemplated leaving WP over and over again (but end up staying everytime);

2 - Did not know about that situation with Almami Moreira. The president really behaved badly there, if the stuff happened as you say (and i believe you). Regarding the player's box, with must leave Partizan as his club, until any further developments. If we can't find and refs in English, it would be great if you could insert that stuff after he leaves (IF he does), surely lots of info is available in Serbian regarding his conflict with the club's board of directors.

Glad to hear from you, Abraços, from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010-11 winter transfers

It's tough to get any information on transfers of the Macedonian clubs. Only one team in the top division has a website (Rabotnicki) so it's very tough to get information about the transfers of the other teams. The list on macedonianfootball.com is of good intention but it's not entirely accurate because some players are listed by being linked and they may not have been officially signed. Many teams have financial difficulties and simply don't have the resources to sign many foreign players. Maklion19

Tečno

Tečno is one of those words such as selo which has an /e/ without /ij/ even in Ijekavian dialects. Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rijeka teče (the river flows), some use /j/ but it is non-standard. There are cases anyhow where in Ijekavian, you'd have a mixture: vrijeme ali vremena.

Nema problema Fkp! :) Any time! Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have new messages

Hello, FkpCascais. You have new messages at Matthew hk's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Matthew_hk t c 08:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Briefing

Olá FILIPE, VASCO here,

regarding the discussion (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Speaking_of_Zombie.28s.29.2C_some_categorie_stuff...), i have added more inputs, please elaborate and/or enlighten me over the matter. However, i do not understand the aggressiveness towards me, i thought we got along well.

Rest assured, i will not remove the category in Darko Lukanovic again, i will "only" improve the storyline. Attentively, abraços - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally see your point my friend, 100%, this stuff should be discussed first, i was only embracing the spirit of WP:BE BOLD. Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My irony was totally directed at Zombie, but you are correct, i am not sure he was the "creator". As much as i am against it, but as i respect your work, i will undo me at the players you mention. Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as your last question, again Matthew is wrong, "para variar". It should be personal categories first (a sportsperson is first a human being), then sporting ones, ending with the expatriate stuff. Boa semana - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faces

Yes I like Šaban and I often flick through Youtube looking for old Yugo songs. The trouble is that 1990, when that performance was, was the beginning of the horrible period that would come. In sports, politics was at work; but with music and entertainment people remained united and never truly broke from each other. That audience will have been all Yugoslav ethnicities. Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Club categories without articles

While they are a problem and on the whole should be deleted, I don't think it's as big an issue as the expatriate categories. If a club is too small to have an article, it's a fair guess that not many players have played for them. —W F C— 13:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Yo no suelo editar mucho por aquí, mas allá de agregar algún interwiki o corregir algún error. Ese mensaje en Fooky fue porque alguien hizo un reporte de error en la es:WP. Igualmente, me alegra conocerte y también me pongo a tu disposición si puedo ayudarte. En cuanto a mi trabajo, si buscas en la columna de herramientas de mi usuario verás que puedes enviarme un mail. Puedo pasarte un par de invitaciones de sitios que pueden interesarte. Saludos desde Uruguay!! --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:FkpCascais/Wikileaks

User:FkpCascais/Wikileaks, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:FkpCascais/Wikileaks and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:FkpCascais/Wikileaks during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kayau Voting IS evil 15:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proleter Osijek, Metalac Zagreb, Arsenal Tivat, Leotar Trebinje, Jedinstvo Brčko

Apology?

You "apologize" for your unbelievably obscene comment about diarrhoea, and then in the edit summary you call me "diktator" and repeat your disgusting nonsense? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was having dinner and having a few friday night drinks and putting an eye on wp in same time, so I was not 100% myself there..._hip... Sorry. But, I am fed up of your insistence over that issue, it´s kind of insulting. You should be more carefull about such controversial hot topics. FkpCascais (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I also forgot you guys don´t say proliv, but proljev, so I was hoping you wan´t get it either... FkpCascais (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh we say "proliv" in Dalmatia. Reported [5]. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. FkpCascais (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Experiment

FkpCascais (talk) 07:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re: Zuba

No worries. I read the nickname in one of the sources, but have no idea what it meant in Serbian. Thank you for removing it from the article, as I don't want to offend new readers. I'm always afraid to add nationality to footballers from the former Yugoslavia - for example, I have seen people born in Mostar that consider themselves Bosnian while others think of themselves as Croatian. Other cities seem to have the same issues. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I have been trying to add articles about foreign players in the Greek Alpha Ethniki - mostly using RSSSF, but also some of the club archives. It's really difficult to research some of these players careers, especially the guys from former Yugoslavia. I noticed that there are some good sources in Greek if I can figure out the proper translation of their names into the Greek alphabet.

I haven't update the list of foreign players in Mexico recently, but please feel free to add to it. It's a massive task because the best source I have is mediotiempo.com, which is difficult to use. Someday it will be good enough to move to the regular article space, but I don't think it's ready yet. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, FkpCascais. You have new messages at Talk:Magical_Magyars.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Scoop Stanisic

I apologise for my comment. Mohrflies (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Hi FILIPE, VASCO here,

was just finishing something here, took me quite a while. Now, for you: joking? why? i clicked in SAP Vojvodina and SR Serbia and it leads to, respectively, the articles Socialist Autonomous Province of Vojvodina and Socialist Republic of Serbia, reading "Redirected from SAP Vojvodina" and "Redirected from SR Serbia" just below. So, what i meant is that the articles "SAP VOJVODINA" and "SR SERBIA", written as such, do not exist, hence the "redirects" reference.

Second, i don't know why can't we have Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia written in full in storyline (no need for compression there i believe), and also why can't the link be hidden in box, leaving the "SFR" out for compression purposes. Also, i really would like to know what changed your attitude towards me, i always treated you with respect and politeness...Maybe it's i who am not seeing it right.

Attentively, regards and happy week - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer man! I never intended to say i was right and you were wrong. Regarding the stuff about Yugoslavia and all its variations, i don't even dare to say that, of course not my friend. My edit had solely to do with avoiding the redirects (from now on, i will leave the "SFR YUGOSLAVIA" in the player's boxes) and box compression, i NEVER implied i knew more than you.

So, i have a doubt: when do we write "SFR YUGOSLAVIA" in players' articles and when do we write "YUGOSLAVIA" only? Thanks very much in advance. Also, i see you have again piped the links in Stepanov's article (please, tell me, why can't we write "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" not even in storyline? I found it very strange), don't worry, i won't revert you anymore.

About the "sensitive" part, Filipe, i only said i found your reaction strange because you treated me in a way in the past, now you treat me in a different way, just that. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, i know, sometimes a big discussion does not mean people don't love/like each other, it's a matter of personality, and we have to live according to our beliefs. Me, i'm just a sad lonely human being :(

Abraços - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top scorers

Hey Cascais, I've commented on the Yugoslav Second League talk page as you requested. I've also been meaning to ask you if you could be able to come up with some information about the missing players in the Template:Yugoslav First League top scorers (Stanoje Jocić, Todor Živanović, Zoran Prljinčević, Zlatko Dračić and Dragoljub Kostić)? I've created Boško Đorđević and Radomir Savić yesterday - granted, they are not referenced as well as I would like to but I believe what's there is decent enough, considering the general lack of sources about these fellas. I will probably get around to doing Dračić today or tomorrow. Cheers. Timbouctou 17:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks / Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For helping are being friendly without asking. Thanks, friend! :) Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need Pelmeen, but many thanks anyway! I´m allways here to help, and your intentions are good, so here we are. FkpCascais (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe made your day happier. Cuz Jmorrison230582 basically ruined mine. Cheers! Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don´t worry Pelmeen, you have to expect that on internet you may find all sort of people. But by watching to his block log, he hasn´t ever been blocked before, so I doubt that it was anything more than just an unhapy accident in a bad day of his. I haven´t crossed myself much with him, just the usual discussions around footy. But seems he took your critic personally (about the bot, or maybe something somewhere else). Don´t get too upset. You have been active around a lot lately, and not allways everyone agrees with everybody. I think he indirectly poked you about seing your own errors first before making direct critics on a open talk page. And maybe there is a little newcomer/long time user preconception there, not sure. Just don´t let yourself upset with it. I saw your ANI report, and I´ll abstain myself from commenting because of two reasons: I´m not admin (altough non-admins can also participate), and I´m not sure what happend there. Just to warn you not to expect much from it, because he has no precedents of that kind and admins have lately been forgiving much harder stuff, so better forget it and, honestly, perhaps the best way is to offer peace first... But again, just an opinion of one poor editor searching for better life... :) He seems to be a good editor and you are as well, so it seems that you two "lost yourselfs in translation" there. Tell me if something happends. FkpCascais (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My main intention is not to get him blocked if it's his/her first time. Why did you think so? Maybe the ANI will help him/her to become normal and to think before an edit (I hate when something is done too fast and not thought through). I'm sure most of his/her 62577 (I have 12354) contribs are fine and he/she has 6 barnstars (I have only 1), so basically it makes him/her better contributor than myself. Although I don't know what has he/she done or where he/she is orientated (Scotland maybe?). Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He/she did not want to make peace and thought I accused him of racism. Actually I didn't know people can take that question so seriously (or atleast he/she told so). I thought I know enough about racism. Will see about the future but probably no co-operation is possible. Pelmeen10 (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HAPPY!

Many thanx, you rule! FkpCascais (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You had a birthday? :) Best wishes and happy editing then. :) As for the debate, it ended unsurprisingly without conclusion. WP:ANI is not the place to decide about the shape of article names on wikipedia. The only concern was my mass moving of articles. - Darwinek (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, happy birthday :) Best wishes! Btw, I've been busy for the last couple of days compiling a list of Red Star seasons and I was wondering if you know of some sources which list Zvezda's top league scorers in the period from 1994 to 1999. It still has some way to go as it needs more references and prose, but I think the final version might end up being good enough for a featured list nomination. If this list goes through I plan to do the same for Partizan and hopefully some other ex-Yugoslav clubs. Anyway, have a happy birthday, talk to you later. Cheers. Timbouctou 12:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks all. You all rule! FkpCascais (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday! My best wishes too. Probably it would be inappropiate to ask how old are you now. Pelmeen10 (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too young to be old, too old to be young ;) FkpCascais (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday (sorry for being late), stay persistent in your work, and, of course, I wish you good luck in future ;) . HeadlessMaster (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, same with me. I will poke you sometimes, feel free to contact me anytime. Cheers HeadlessMaster (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some UEFA qualif.

Congrats for the win. You still basically have an option to qualify. Too bad that Serbian NT had no chance to face Italy, that UEFA decision was too harsh IMO, rematch would have been better. But maybe there's a chance that because of this Serbian (mafia, hooliganism) situation might get better?

Probably Tuesday's matches clear something up, but I still think Estonia will win it with missing of Zenjov. Serbia has many players missing too.

Btw in Portugal, there is a player named Vjatšeslav Zahovaiko, who I had thought he ain't good, but yesterday he played quite nice.

Urugay was a bit disappointment actually, but I liked it. They were lucky that Vassiljev played only 32 minutes... In the game there was also a fan chant: "Whoo the ** is Dieego Foorlan..." :)

Did you see the Serbian game and can you make me a short overview? 0:1 to 2:1 means they had to be better than Irish... Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just came home. Haven´t seen anything yet. FkpCascais (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap, saw the highlights. So sad, we had to play with no public... No problem, we usually do well with teams from the isles. :) FkpCascais (talk) 04:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, FkpCascais. You have new messages at Pelmeen10's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ethnicity vs Nationality

You asked me why I insist on labeling athletes by their nationality rather than their ethnicity? I don't. That's the standard Wikipedia practice. People are labeled first according to nationality. Then, ethnicity is mentioned if is interesting or relevant. For example, Tim Howard is called an American soccer player, not an African American-Hungarian soccer player. Tiger Woods is an American professional golfer, not an African American-Thai-Dutch-Chinese-Native American golfer. And so on. When athletes change citizenship, they usually get a hyphenated nationality, such as Raimundo Orsi or Sigi Schmid.

The only articles that don't follow this standard are about athletes from Yugoslavia. They seem to get labeled according to their ethnicity. When I notice that, I correct it. You mentioned that Stanisic was a citizen of the nation of Serbia. Unfortunately, Serbia was not an independent country until 2006. It was a state, similar to California in the United States. That is why it did not have its own national team until 3 June 2006.^[6] By the way, its not just me who sees things this way, FIFA does too.^[7] Mohrflies (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox templates

Hi, why did you change in Petr Stoilov the template Template:Infobox football biography 2 to the obsolete Template:Football player infobox with this edit? For your information, Template:Infobox football biography is the one which should be used. Template:Infobox football biography 2 was recently merged with Template:Infobox football biography and redirects to it. So, if you want to improve something, just drop the "2" and do not change the parameters. It is some work to change them to the "new" parameter format and I would really appreciate it if don't undo it. --Jaellee (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please show me where this issue was raised? I'd like to look it up because I only recall the discussions at WT:FOOTY where the result was that the new infobox should be used because it increases the web accessibility (e.g. screen readers). --Jaellee (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that I was not impolite to you, so please be civil to me. I'm not (yet) mad at you. I was wondering why an experienced editor like you did this (but I must admit that you snarky edit comment did not help). When you say that this was discussed long time ago, then there is a good chance that I did not read it. I just wanted to know what was discussed and what the outcome was. As I said, I can only remember the discussions about the web accessibility. I acted to the best of my knowledge when I created this article. You accuse me now of ownership and other things I don't really want to think about in detail (or I might get mad). In any case, I will raise it at WT:FOOTY. If they say consensus was to use either, so be it. --Jaellee (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's keep cool and see what the discussion brings. But believe me, I honestly can't remember such discussions about this topic. They were either before my time or my brain has turned swiss cheese. If they tell me at wT:FOOTY that this was discussed to death already 5 times then okay, let's keep the old parameter format for these cases. --Jaellee (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at WP:FOOTY the name of the template is a minor issue. That can be changed by a bot. The conversion from old to new format is tedious work (and a far as I know it can't be automated). I see that adding earlier clubs is difficult the new format and that you also want to avoid additional pointless work, but I thought that with the introduction of this new biography template everything should be converted and therefore I changed it to years1, clubs1 etc. That's what we are discussing, aren't we? Or do we suffer some misunderstanding? --Jaellee (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. So we agree on that point. --Jaellee (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Everyone has a bad day now and then. I have only created a handful of articles, so I guess the probability is low that you will come across one of them again. --Jaellee (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I'm not being aggressive at all - our opinions differ on this matter and I'm showing the weakness of your argument, that is all. Don't take it so personally! Giant Snowman 22:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides when a players career in "almost complete" enough for an infobox conversion? Are you going to devolve more infoboxes because you think a player may have played for another team? It's not difficult to convert the infoboxes, and it's not hard to change a few numbers to add in extra career details at the beginning. Giant Snowman 22:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing against consensus could be considered disruptive, and I would advise against it. Choosing not to convert an infobox is fine; but actively replacing the new version with the old version is definitely a no-no. Regards, Giant Snowman 22:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're a good, intelligent editor - why would you choose to openly edit against consensus, and risk a possible block? Giant Snowman 22:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A very sensible option! I hope everything's OK, happy editing. Giant Snowman 23:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FK Novi Pazar articles

Greetings. Since I have been nominating quite a few non-notable articles lately, I would be happy to do so with any articles linked on that club's page. My knowledge of domestic Serbian football is not good so you will have to tell me which ones aren't notable (I assume every one of Ludanoc's creations). I was going to ask how it was going on the WikiProject Football talk page but the discussion had been archived so I thought I would ask here if I can lend a hand. Argyle 4 Life^talk 02:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I have bundled them together in an AfD so they will be on the record and can be speedy deleted if recreated. I had a look at Miloš Đalac and Dino Caković on Transfermarkt and they aren't listed as having played in the SuperLiga either. Argyle 4 Life^talk 03:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. I've added Dino Caković to the list. Keeping Miloš Đalac proves to Ludanoc that we're not on a crusade against him. If he creates articles about players that meet the notability criteria and he sticks to the standard format used in infoboxes then we won't have any problems. Argyle 4 Life^talk 04:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. If you don't already have it enabled then I recommend using Twinkle because it makes maintenance tasks much easier. I hadn't visited Srbijafudbal until today and I have to say that it looks very useful. Argyle 4 Life^talk 04:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was a satisfactory AfD. I'll keep an eye on the club's page and if any are recreated then I'll speedy them. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Bek

I don't really know if these stats are correct. Pre-WWII stats for French leagues are very hard to find. They could be correct, given the fact Saint-Etienne played in Ligue 2 at the time. I can confirm club years are correct, caps for France, too. Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic descent in bios

Hi. I've read your discussion and I see that you agree with me. However in articles such as Dejan Garača with not much other information why not point out the descent in the lead? It would be pointless to create a new section titled "descent" or similar just to point out the fact that the player has foreign descent. If the article is larger I can see your point as the decent information can be added to a section like "early life" or similar. I'd like to keep the descent information in the lead. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OPENPARA does strengthen Thumperwards point, I'm once again sorry that I reverted your edit as I was unaware of the discussion at WP:FOOTBALL until you mentioned it to me. Like you mention the removal of the descent info may cause edit wars so we should definitely come to some sort of conclusion. In the case of Dejan Garača we have a footballer who was born in Sweden, but what about a player like Jiloan Hamad who was born in Azerbaijan, although lived the majority of his life in Sweden but has parents of kurdish descent? It'd be uninformative to not provide the reader with that information. I did some looking around and found that in the article of Mesut Özil the editors had ignored the nationality in the lead altogether by writing: "Mesut Özil (German pronunciation: [ˈmeːzut ˈøːzil], Turkish pronunciation: [ˈmesut ˈøzil]; born 15 October 1988) is a footballer who plays for Spanish La Liga club Real Madrid and for the German national team." Then they had written the following in the "Personal life" section: "Özil is a third-generation Turkish-German." This looks like a good enough solution to me, providing that the information can be sourced in a sufficient way. What do you think? I want to avoid edit wars with editors wanting to emphasise the players descent as much as possible. I generally look after player articles of my team Malmö FF and I've had the problem a couple of times for some players. --Reckless182 (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but he isn't arround, i think he retired. He is also not responding to emails. Maybe something happened to him, i have sadly no idea --Vinie007 16:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye?

Hey Cascais, we haven't talked in a while. I wanted to inform you about the latest feud described here but from what I saw at WP:ANI you already caught it :-) I don't exactly know how this stuff works and what might happen after this so I just wanted to let you know that it was great working with you so far. As you know I never dabbled in the whole Chetniks issue and my opinion on the subject is probably different from yours, but I always thought that adhering to wiki policies alone will at least result in some consensual version which might enable people who are passionate about it to move on. History is just that - history, and serious historians interpret things of the past in context, avoiding labels and simplifications. I saw that you had left a lengthy post at Direktor's talk page the other day. I did not read it but I saw that he deleted it without ever replying, not giving it the time of day. Don't let stuff like that discourage you and keep fighting for what you believe is right. I'm sure that as long as you abide by wiki policies and properly follow reliable sources you will either eventually have your way or slowly change your mind - and you should be big enough to see both possible outcomes as a triumph. I hope we will work together again on Yugoslav football articles and even manage to promote some of them to GA or FA. As for this recent squabble I am certainly prepared to put up a fight against the likes of Direktor as they epitomize exactly what's wrong with the Balkans - he is a young man completely unaware of his ignorance. Regardless of the outcome, I will not put up with such disagreeable characters any longer and if I get blocked for good because of his manipulations you can bet that I will leave proud of every single thing I did around here. Anyway, talk to you soon :-) Timbouctou (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Goodbye"? no Timbouctou, don´t dramatise much about it, hey I´ve been trough this many times with direktor, and as much drama it seems, usually nothing happends! Direktor gets everyone to think this is some "primitive Balkans issue" and basically no one gets involved. Fainites has been the only one actually involved recently, but direktor has managed somehow to convince him about him being something of an missunderstood fighter for peace, as ironical as that seems... About Chetniks, the main issue is not what we personally think, but the enormous ridiculous ammount of bias that direktor wants to insert in it (and there we have the most ammount of all his tactics. He sees thinks like black and white and sometimes things are just not that simple. Anyway, just as you see, direktor distorts everything, and he tried to make me look many times as nationalist and many silly stuff. If you actually read what I wrote him there you´ll really get the point :) Lets see how this goes, look to mine last report by him: [9] What happend in my counter-report was brutal but that is some serious issue. Now this was the converstion on my talk page: [10].

About the report, I doubt anyone will do anything. The admins simply wan´t have patience to read all that stuff, so as you see I adopted a different strategy, cooler one. FkpCascais (talk) 07:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be pleased to see that Fainites seems to understand the problem. Over at WP:ANI he topic-banned Direktor for one month. Now is the perfect time to get more involved with Yugoslav articles and prove that things go a bit smoother without his disruptions. I plan to help as much as I can. I found Slovene and Macedonian translations for the Yugoslav Front article lede which had been agreed in January and posted it here to see if anyone objects. Feel free to comment. Cheers. (P.S. This exchange cracked me up :-)

Yeah, yesterday I was bussy but I did noteced that. It was time, really. We can finally peacefully discuss things now. ;) FkpCascais (talk) 07:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct unbecoming

Please stop poking DIREKTOR. Seriously. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Fainites, I definitely will. I apoligise and it was stupidly childish. I just touth that having him freely now insulting other users on his talk page was not right. His observations about me are not fair, not to mention what he called me in just previous discussions up in his talk page (ignorant, football fan, etc.). But fixing wrong with further wrong is definitely a no-no. Sorry once again. FkpCascais (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Čapek

Hello. Thank you for two nice articles, I think it's best for the situation now. Nepravidelně means "not regularly". :) - Darwinek (talk) 10:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR

DIREKTOR said you were welcome on his talkpage. That's fine. That's his choice. However, will you stop quite so obviously following him around and posting in response to every post he makes. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fainites, I´m not sure you see what he pretends, but it´s obviously an alternative discussion to the mediation. I´m not sure what you mean with your words here, anyway, why you claim I´m "following him around"? Because I responded to him on your talk page? Because that is the only one, hardly can be named "following", so would you please be kind to correct that sense you left in your comment. Quite unfair. FkpCascais (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and btw, I don´t see why you intervene by asking direktor about him wanting or not to participate any more on the mediation. Sunray was clear, and seems that issue is decided already, only opened now by you. FkpCascais (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved in the mediation - nor do I wish to be. I wish to make sure however that the topic ban placed on DIREKTOR is not responsible for derailing the mediation. That is all. As for the rest - you've even commented in a dismissive way on the exchange between DIEKTOR and me about this on his talkpage! Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you´re mad with me because I commented in a dismissive way an exchange between direktor and you? There must be some missunderstanding here. All I´m saying is that this entire subject is dealt in the mediation process. Right? Direktor made things difficult for the process to be drown to conclusion. Sunray (the mediator) gave him several chances. He blow them. Sunray even gave him the guarantees direktor now says he didn´t (about sources, see in their discussion up there at his talk page). Sunray said we must move on even withput direktor. And all this before his block. OK, so now direktor wants to make a parallel discussion? That is my point and that is what I meant. Are you sure you didn´t missinterpreted some words of mine? FkpCascais (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I said it as response to your "Fkps inability to produce sources" which is all but fair, because I am not obligated to present sources anywhere but in the mediation, and I already explained to you my interventions when I act like this. FkpCascais (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not mad at you FkpCascais. It's just that it's the same argument over and over. I agree this should all be discussed in mediation. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also - why don't you use sources? There are plenty of serious scholarly tomes that give a more nuanced analysis of events. Like Pavlowitch and Roberts. No serious source is ever going to say there was no collaboration but there are good sources that examine the issue without seeing it as just goodies -v- baddies. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fainites, I know I sametimes maybe wrongly asume everyone sees things so I skip the explanation part of what I consider obvious and move further. All this dialogues direktor tries to make around are basically directed to me, or to possibly convince someone else (like you) that he is right. Now, in part, that is a disruptive action by itself, and specially unpolite towards the mediation and its participants, that he basically abandoned and named many silly stuff. All this discussions have a place where they should take, and that is the mediation. I already said to you the relation of direktor and the mediation, so he has no right whatsoever to start finding alternative solutions to it. I never intended to be dismissive at all at you, no chance. I just touth you understood this "alternative" situation. I basically did wrong to even enter into any dialogue with him, however, he is the one that asked for discussion, so he can´t be mad if he receves unswers that he dislikes. I followed him to your talk page, yes, but because he said that same thing to me at his page, thus dubleing the conversation seeking alternative support.

I could have ignored direktor, instead, I decided not to ignore him and started a discussion on general issues, but he took advantage of it to start the same arguments over again. I really dont see anything wrong that I´ve done, and you never told me not to post comments on your talk page, specially when it had everything to do in a discussion very related to me. I will wait for your view on this and I will ask you permission to delete this entire post if you allow me. After all, it is direktor that has eventually something to say, not me... FkpCascais (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had this "up part" composed before you made a second part. Now, regarding sources, and since this process is in mediation, I really think that it is there that those sources should be presented, so until then, it´s better for me to wait, rather than "opening my game" and allowing all sort of comparisons and non-official judgings. Since there are no sources that deny collaboration, and that is also not what I defend, direktors exagerations could make a phalse off-mediation debate where he could claim victory, and that would/could be potentially bad for the mediation itself. Not sure this was all well explained, but I think it is the right option. FkpCascais (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand that last bit at all. You have said quite plainly you are not averring there was no collaboration. Still - it's up to you. As for his talk page - DIREKTOR has said he is happy for you to post there. I was concerned earlier about poking and gloating. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean in the sentence "...and that is also not what I defend..." The "not" was possibly wrong there, it should be removed, since I don´t deny collaboration, that is my point. FkpCascais (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Đurišić and Đujić

"He was a Chetnik commander, with all that implies." What does that imply? What the hell are you even saying? "That category is wrong. Nazy can´t be used in that context (it should be Axis, say thanks)." Đurišić and Đujić‎ collaborated with both the Nazis and Italians, therefore the description "Axis collaborator" can be used in the lead and the "Serbian Nazi collaborators" category can absolutely be used in this context. "And, btw, you use 1 source for all..." Lol what? -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 20:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, first, and you seem to ignore that, those pages are related to the mediation. But, anyway, you can expand sections, I don´t mind. Now, regarding lead, and since his ammount and importance of collaboration is still on discussion, it wouldn´t be apropriate to add it to the lead. After all, they were resistance movement, so we could then add that as well, to compensate. "... was a Chetnik commander, a resistance movement leader, and a collaborator". Should we start adding all that to the lead? Don´t think so. For now, Chetnik commander (with the Chetnik article already off-balance to "your" side) is perfectly enough and fair. Now, regarding the category, Nazi is wrongly used there. He was not "Nazi collaborator" but eventually "Axis collaborator". Now, I told you to thank me because I gave you the idea to rename the category. And, you used only one source for all your additions there. FkpCascais (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now what you mean. OK, could you provide me the exact sources that they claim direct collaboration with Germans? I´m not saying there aren´t, just to which ones you refer? FkpCascais (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"OK, first, and you seem to ignore that, those pages are related to the mediation."

The pages under mediation are as follows: Draža Mihailović, Chetniks, Yugoslav Axis collaborationism, and .... oh wait that is it. Not every Chetnik article is under mediation. No matter how related; understand that.

"Now, regarding the category, Nazi is wrongly used there. He was not "Nazi collaborator" but eventually "Axis collaborator"."

Wow, what warped logic are you using here? He collaborated with the Nazis and the Italians; hence it's perfectly suitable to have "Axis collaborator" in the lead and the "Nazi collaborator" category. It is not my fault that there isn't a "Italian collaborator" or "Axis collaborator" category.

"After all, they were resistance movement, so we could then add that as well, to compensate. "... was a Chetnik commander, a resistance movement leader, and a collaborator". Should we start adding all that to the lead? Don´t think so."

We are discussing Đurišić and Đujić and their collaboration started in 1941. If they were "resisting" anyone it's the Partisans.

"For now, Chetnik commander (with the Chetnik article already off-balance to "your" side) is perfectly enough and fair."

It's funny seeing the little factors you're taking into account into this revert. The Chetnik article is not what is being discussed here. Do not mention it.

"Now, I told you to thank me because I gave you the idea to rename the category. And, you used only one source for all your additions there."

Hah, no "Serbian Nazi Collaborator", as much as you loathe it, is perfectly fine. My information is reliably referenced.

"OK, could you provide me the exact sources that they claim direct collaboration with Germans? I´m not saying there aren´t, just to which ones you refer?"

You think I'm going to serve sources to you on a platter for you to ignore them? Do your homework on the subject, read what I've added to the articles, and consult the sources cited. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 21:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Producer, sorry to tell you this, but you´re just repeating direktor´s words. Why do you think the mediation is taking so long? The issue is not as near clear as you or direktor want it to make look like. Sorry to tell you this, but I´m actualy not adding anything controversial, but your additions are in fact very controversial. I didn´t reverted your expansion at the article body; you added sources and I haven´t had time to check it. But you know very well that they were a resistance movement with official Allied recognition until November 1943. They were a movement that turned out progressively to have the Partisans as main enemies. They balanced, yes, making agreements with other parties involved, yes. Producer, it is wrong to edit them in same way as the other "real" collaboration forces. The differences are great, and they must be exprssed in the article for the NPOV. Now, you are not being neutral in your aproach to them. And not every article is related to Chetniks, but their n2 and n3 are quite related, specially regarding this polemical issue of the collaboration, it´s ammount and overall importance. If you are so interested and so sure of your views, why didn´t you ever wanted to participate in the mediation? FkpCascais (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The issue is not as near clear as you or direktor want it to make look like. Sorry to tell you this, but I´m actualy not adding anything controversial, but your additions are in fact very controversial."

Erm, no, actually they are not. Controversial to you perhaps, but they are very much in align with what reliable sources have to say on the matter.

"I didn´t reverted your expansion at the article body; you added sources and I haven´t had time to check it. But you know very well that they were a resistance movement with official Allied recognition until November 1943."

First, we are discussing Đurišić and Đujić who began collaboration in 1941. The very start of the war in Yugoslavia. Acknowledge this. Second, "official allied recognition" does not cancel out or lessen their collaboration.

"They were a movement that turned out progressively to have the Partisans as main enemies. They balanced, yes, making agreements with other parties involved, yes. Producer, it is wrong to edit them in same way as the other "real" collaboration forces."

This is interesting. Apparently to you a "real collaboration force" is one that must have its own puppet state such as in the case of Pavelić and Nedić. This is simply not the case.

"If you are so interested and so sure of your views, why didn´t you ever wanted to participate in the mediation?"

Why are pushing me into the mediation? We are having enough difficult as it is with this. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For exemple, you say they started collaborating at 1941, but in 1943 a German officier claims Mihailovic (and their also because he spoke on M. Chetniks) were murdering German soldiers. Now that seems ambiguous, just as they were. They collaborated, yes, but with the intention of surviving, and ultimately liberating Yugoslavia from both (Germans and Partisans). And here you have the difference between receving Germans with hugs and aplause, and receving Germans with bullets and eventually to have to make agreements ocasionally with them. You can see the difference, can´t you? So you find no reason whatsoever to mention and balance with the positive part, right? (hey, I even said to mention the reasons of the unhappiness existing in pre-1941 Croatia that was missing in Pavelic article, so don´t call me anti anything, please.) FkpCascais (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They "murdered" a few German soldiers, from time to time, and engaged in limited acts of sabotage, but the movement on the whole collaborated. That is sourced. Do you find this too complicated? Or do you actually believe that you have somehow "disproven" the fact that the Chetniks collaborated? Those are not contradicting statements. A contradicting statement (from a source) to "they collaborated", would be "they did not collaborate".

Fkp, if you can prove that they killed some Germans, that ok - we'll include that in the article (and mind you you have not proven anything, you are jus talking). If I can prove they..

...collaborated extensively and systematically with the Italian occupation forces until the Italian capitulation in September 1943, and beginning in 1944, portions of the Chetnik movement of Draža Mihailović collaborated openly with the Germans and Ustaša forces in Serbia and Croatia. Moreover, as already mentioned, the Chetniks loyal to Kosta Pećanac collaborated with the Germans from early in the war.
- Ramet, The Three Yugoslavias, p.145

..we'll include that too. These are not contradicting facts for the Chetniks. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if collaborating with Nazi Germany makes you a "Nazi collaborator" (and it does), then they were both Nazi collaborators. Make sure you elaborate on their extensive collaboration with the Ustaše, PRODUCER. I myself could not believe that until I read the agreements themselves, I thought it was Croatian nationalist propaganda :)

There is nothing paradoxical about "organization founded as primarily as a resistance movement, that collaborated extensively and systematically with the Axis" (quoting Ramet there). The universe will not implode, Fkp, you can relax.

Yeah, I was stupid and actually wasted time writing whole chapters worth of sources for him when he demanded (like the above), that you "provide me the exact sources that they claim direct collaboration with Germans". Rest assured that if you write the stuff up, he will attack the sources. I have, of course, posted a few sources on this at Talk:Serbs of Croatia:

"A report of the [German] XCVIIth Army Corps notes that (...) In case of an Axis landing they would change sides, as would collaborating Serbian groups, that is, Ljotić's Serbian Volunteer Corps, and the Chetniks of Dobroslav Jevđević and Momčilo Đujić."
— Tomasevich, Occupation and Collaboration, 2001 (p. 127)

But in other cases, for example that of Revered Đujić's detachments in northern Dalmatia and Western Bosnia, the Italians used Chetnik Units almost...
— Tomasevich, Occupation and Collaboration, 2001 (p. 262)

"Some troops, notably those under Đujić and Jevđević, as well as a large part of the forces in eastern Bosnia, continued to collaborate with the Germans against the Partisans."
— Tomasevich, The Chetniks, 2001 (p. 428)

"On November 20 1944 the Germans intercepted a radion message from Mihailović to Vojvoda ["duke"] Đujić, his commander in northern Dalmatia, instructing him to cooperate with the German forces. He himself, he says, "cannot go along because of public opinion". Microcopy No. T-311, Roll 196, Frame 225. This refusal to have any personal dealings with teh enemy is a policy that Mihailović departed from only on five occasions: the Divci conference in mid-November 1941, two conferences with Envoy Neuerbach's representative [Hermann Neubacher, chief envoy of Nazi Germany in the Balkans], Rudolf Stärker, in the autumn of 1944, and again with Stärker on Vučjak Mountain in 1945."
— Tomasevich, The Chetniks, 2001 (p. 329)

Oh here's Ramet, she's a lot more superficial than a work that deals only and specifically with the Chetniks, but here we go:

"By mid-June 1942, the NDH authorities have established cooperation with the following Chetnik leaders: (...) Momčilo Đujić (Strmica)..."
— Ramet, The Three Yugoslavias, (p.129)

This, and much much more, I found in five seconds by googling "Đujić collaborated" :). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Direktor, how is that "by googling" you only found two origins of the sources: Tomasevic and Ramet? Aren´t there any other historians to confirm this? And, why are we discussing this here? Mediation is the place, remember? FkpCascais (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and btw, it is incredible to see how you´re still blackmailing everyone with your participation at the mediation and the insinuated "my fault" for your non participation. You´re just making pressure to your cause, as if I was the one to blame, and not your own failure to impose your POV against the obvious. FkpCascais (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.. as I said, he will simply attack the sources. With his own theories and opinions, raising the bar on evidence.

One source is enough. You have none. I copied down two. There are dozens more of them. One source is enough to sink you completely. Because you are not a scholar.

How many sources would you like me to post? I'm serious, I'll post them here. How many do you need? 6? 9? 34? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, direktor, this hole panic of yours seems to have made some effect around few pages, so you really want to make me go into finding sources and expanding text. OK, you wanted, you´ll have it. I didn´t intended at all to digg much into this because with a few simple facts and with the weakness and nonsence of some of your sources things were quite balanced already, at least for my taste, cause I never intended to make much effort on this. You know, my south-eastern genes in this hot Iberian environment (yesterday was the firs beach day) made me be somewhat of a lazy mf, and with one grany Partisan (active WWII combatant) and another monarchist (he was not Chetnik in field cause he was also a lazy mf like me, but was an engeneer that played tennis in middle of Belgrade bombardments), I didn´t intended to do nothing against any of them, but by now, I think they would have both took arms and fought this war against you. Now, you´ll make me actually move my job to find time to digg into this, so now, I´m teling you this, every blody German death, action, condecoration, etc. will be recorded and you´ll have Chetniks chasing you even in your dreams. I swear that by the end you´ll remember with nostalgy this period when I actually didn´t care much beside the lead and cats. OK? FkpCascais (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am so pleased and greatful that you have at long last decided to find sources that say the Chetniks did not collaborate. A monument should be built to commemorate this occasion. Mind you, be careful to find sources that actually contradict Ramet, Tomasevich & company, not just vague records of anything the Chetniks might have done against the Axis. You need sources that say "the Chetniks did not collaborate". Not something you decide "shows" that. We all know they did sporadic acts of anti-Axis violence and sabotage, but unfortunately The Big Beard himself explicitly ordered them not to engage in actual, real resistance. His quite famous "waiting" policy (also known as "We are incredibly static, strategically immobile, disorganized, and weak, so we would probably be exterminated if we did anything, lets wait for the Allies and make sure that the Partisans are dead by the time they arrive.") --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and here´s something I also lajk. FkpCascais (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, you contaminated my talk page with all your quotes and stuff. Bad boy! FkpCascais (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha opet me zajebajes. Dobar si ti lik ajde :). You do realize I'm not actually looking at your YouTube music links, right? Something tells me you don't really have any sources, though. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don´t you watch them? All the ones I posted I actually like. Well, beside the drunk guys one, but that one is definitelly funny, and even the music is not so bad, specially by the end. I edit wiki with the basic purpouse of having fun. You basically ruined that, but neverless, it is ok because the issue itself it´s not "funny" at all. On the other hand, I have music in my blood so I really post them to cheer up everyone, not just to have fun myself.

Now, regarding sources all I can say is that you can stop missinterpreting everyone about what I pretend, and I am actually not even limiting my searches just to contrare you. That was basically what I told you earlier. I´m grabbing a book, one by one, and reading everything related. Now, I´m not gonna present you sources saying "...and Mihailovic didn´t collaborated." because that is not what I pretend. I have started gathering sources just to demonstrate how your doubtfully sourced collaboration is just a drop of rain in the occean of everything that happend there. At the end, you´ll have your collaboration mentioned somewhere in the article with all other things that happend, many good and some wrong. Btw, just by now, I even have material to fullfill your collaboration section of facts and explanations, so, as I said, you´ll be seing with nostalgy the period where I basically offered you a peace agreement of having your own "collaboation section" but without the nazi cats and lead. Now, it seems you wan´t have even your collaboration section clear as you wanted... But hey, I still have many more sources waiting for me to pick them, so give me a bit more time, OK? Anyway, have you decided youself about what you want? Because I´m doing this for the mediation, not to chat with you. FkpCascais (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, "Laki je malo nervozan" is a real masterpiece of old Serbian electro, both music and video, but if you dislike it maybe you´ll like better the story how Cica goes to war for first time a real master source for all Yugoslav wars. I think it should be translated and included in all related articles. "Cico lezi!" FkpCascais (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Since last september, I have been lacking the spare time and most of all the willingness to participate in that farce. However, since you remind me of this, I agree that it should be about time to put an end to it. I will be on vacation next week but will try to take a look and hopefully finish off this mess when I return. cheers, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan tags

One option would be to create a List of CLUB players, if you can find the appropriate stats/references etc. (look at List of Bradford City A.F.C. players, my team's list) - another option would be to improve the player articles, adding more prose, and linking that way. Regards, Giant Snowman 12:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AWB automatically adds/removes orphan templates, and looking at Wikipedia:Orphan, a page is no longer considered orphaned when it links to three other pages. Regards, Giant Snowman 19:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, AWB is some pretty neat programming - voila! Giant Snowman 19:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resposta

Oi FILIPE, VASCO "por aqui",

muito obrigado pela tua mensagem simpática, estou de volta...Concordo com o conteúdo da dita "missiva" a 100%, esperemos que eu não volte a estragar tudo outra vez :( :(

Abraços e bom fim-de-semana - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bom, cá por Beja anda perto dos 40º, e ainda só estamos em Abril!! Respondendo á tua dúvida: clicas em "edit history" de qualquer artigo, aparecem-te os "fulanos" todos. Depois, é só escolher, ou carregas mesmo no IP ou no "talk", não interessa. Depois, cá mesmo no fundo, vão-te aparecer várias "variantes técnicas", carrega em GEOLOCATE, vai aparecer toda a informação do endereço anónimo: país, cidade, estado, etc.

Espero ter ajudado, até mais "ver" - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the Balkans. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part, merely to warn you of the Arbitration Committee's decision. Thank you.

Courcelles 04:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 593: / Line 593: @@
 Espero ter ajudado, até mais "ver" - --[[User:VascoAmaral|Vasco Amaral]] ([[User talk:VascoAmaral|talk]]) 17:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
+== Notification ==
+[[Image:Balkan topo en.jpg|30px|alt=|link=]] In a 2007 [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia#Discretionary_sanctions|arbitration case]], administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the [[Balkans]]. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice  is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part, merely to warn you of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee's]] decision. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-balkans-->
+[[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 04:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:52, 16 April 2011

Re: Slobodan Mazić

Draža Mihailović Mediation

Your comments on mediation talk page

Re: Templates issues

Alphabet letters

ANI notice

Template:Campaignbox Yugofront

Move discussion at Yugoslav Front

Altering other users' posts

Adding paste/copy text

Re:Hi

Footballer biography

My support for you on Yugoslav Front article

Naming conventions

"Serbia" was a Nazi puppet

Football

IP idiot

Thanks for your help

...

Corrections

The Half Barnstar

FK Partizan - Reply

2010-11 winter transfers

Tečno

Briefing

Faces

Club categories without articles

Hi

MfD nomination of User:FkpCascais/Wikileaks

Apology?

Experiment

re: Zuba

Talkback

Scoop Stanisic

Redirects

Top scorers

Thanks / Barnstar

HAPPY!

Some UEFA qualif.

Talkback

Ethnicity vs Nationality

Infobox templates

Infobox

FK Novi Pazar articles

Ivan Bek

Ethnic descent in bios

Recent comments on mediation talk page

Goodbye?

Conduct unbecoming

Čapek

DIREKTOR

Đurišić and Đujić

Hi

Orphan tags

Resposta

Notification