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. New Page Patrol survey New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Director! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey Editing without consensus Stop editing without consensus. BoDu (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Haha good one. "Turn the argument around", is that it? Cut the nonsense, you're the one edit-warring without consensus. Yesterday you've introduced opposed changes on a half-dozen articles, and now you're edit-warring to have your way against three other users. This is going up on ANI. -- Director (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC) As I already said, it is not against the rules to remove the material that was added without consensus. BoDu (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Please read this carefully: that is nonsense. It does not matter for our considerations whether the information was added by consensus or without it, what matters is that your NEW EDIT is opposed. Opposed. What matters is that the stuff is that you're edit-warring against three people, on six articles. -- Director (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC) It is not against the rules to remove the material that was added without consensus. BoDu (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Every single POV-pusher invents some cockamamie "logic" for his edit-wars.. Can you show me a policy that says "its ok to remove material that was added without consensus"??? Which, incidentally, is the vast majority of content on Wikipedia. Look: when you see something, and you think it should be removed, and it wasn't "added by consensus" (which is 99.9% of content on Wikipedia), then you remove it. Once. If its not sourced. And if you're reverted, you discuss your proposal for removal on the talkpage and build consensus. This is not my "opinion" it says so very nicely on WP:BRD. Do I need to copy-paste it again? -- Director (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC) I answered on my talk page. BoDu (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Just like that "I think this is actually the correct CoA" [1]? You think? Without any source?[2]--Bracodbk (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC) To be honest I have no source, but I do recall I always thought that the blue-red stripes were the Republic's CoA, whereas the white-red combination was that of the city itself. I just know I saw the red-blue version on a lot of old Dubrovnik coats of arms. I know it was used, at least in some capacity or in one period. Its not a fake. -- Director (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Zdenka Janeković Römer: Okvir slobode, page 364.: After the Treaty of Zadar 1358 political reasons prompted the nobility that in the crucial moment of independence take the Coat of Arms of the new sovereign. Hungary, Árpáds (Apradovići) Coat of Arms with red and silver beams was adopted in the Republic of Ragusa as their own, so it stayed after the termination of state ties with Hungary. Luccari Giacomo (Jakov Lukarić) mentions that in the 17th century voting urns in councils of the Republic were labeled with the original red and white beams. Although recognized as a declarative character of subordination sovereignty of the Hungarian king, Coat of Arms with silver and red beams was conceived and used as a sign of the sovereignty of the Republic of Dubrovnik. Well, Zdenka Janeković Römer, Ivan Mustać, Jakov Lukarić (Giacomo Luccari), Vito Galzinski, Milan Rešetar, Frane Čizmić, they all agree that Coat of Arm is red and silver, sometimes red and white, and during the 18th century rarely blue and red (made by mistake according to those who have studied history of this Coat of arms). I have plenty of different pics with red and silver, or red and white (white symbolizes silver) from catalog of the exibition of history of Coat of arms of the Republic of Ragusa: Rectors Palace, picture of Saint Blaise from 15th century, in right corner Coat of Arms - red and silver Rectors Palace, picture in honor of Vladislav Bucchi from 17th century - red and silver Rectors Palace, picture of panorama of Ragusa before the earthquake, begining of 17th century, left upper corner - red and silver Pavao Riter Vitezović, Stematographia sive armorum illiricorum delineatio, descriptio et restitutio (Vienna, 1701), red and silver Antonio Primi, La legga dell' honesta e del valore (Venetia 1703.) - dark and silver (it's not colored but dark represent red) Matija Alberti, Oficij B. Marie D. (Venetia 1617.) - dark and silver (it's not colored but dark represent red) Stjepan Gradić, Peripateticae philosophiae pronunciata, front page - dark and silver (it's not colored but dark represent red) Gate of the Palace Spoznza, 18th century - red and white (white symbolizes silver) etc.... and only two with red and blue Coat of Arm. What else do I have to do to prove you that present Coat of Arm of the City of Dubrovnik is based on historical one with red and silver stripes? If anyone wants this pics please send me a mail.--Bracodbk (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Request for arbitration You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Dalmatia and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration; Wikipedia:Arbitration guide. Thanks, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 01:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC) A plain Yugoslav tricolour is not merely a royalist symbol, it is the pan-Slavic flag. Pan-Slavic flag adopted in 1848. The flag was adopted by Yugoslavists and became the first flag of Yugoslavia. The plain Yugoslav tricolour flag-map is appropriate for the Yugoslavia-stub template because it is about Yugoslavia as a whole, not just the SFRY. The plain Yugoslav tricolour is not a royalist symbol, it is the same as the pan-Slavic flag and was used by Yugoslavists, it served as the flag of the rump Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the plain Yugoslav tricolours are seen used today by supporters of a state of Yugoslavia. Besides, the SFRY flag was based on this flag, it simply put the Communist Red Star on top of it. A plain Yugoslav tricolour can represent Yugoslavia from its beginning to its end.--R-41 (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC) The plain blue-white-red tricolour is, in general, a pan-Slavic symbol. Unfortunately, in representing Yugoslavia, its a royalist symbol, a symbol of the Serb-dominated kingdom (or even worse, a symbol of Milosevic's rump "Serboslavia", as some have called it). In short, non-Serbs don't like it as it represents Serbian hegemonism. I don't like it either. It would be nice if the plain tricolour didn't carry such political symbolism, but unfortunately it does. WikiProject Yugoslavia uses symbols which, though communist, ar at the very least not unacceptable to the majority of Yugoslavs. And besides, that outline of Yugoslavia represents only SFR Yugoslavia, no other. Also the last flag of Yugoslavia included the red star. So what are you going to do, edit-war? -- Director (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Your POV is inherent in this, you are refusing to acknowledge that a legitimate Yugoslavian state existed before the SFRY, and that the SFRY is the only legitimate Yugoslavia. There were people who strove for a democratic Yugoslavia just as there were those who did not - we should not judge those who sought a royalist Yugoslavia as wrong. Besides there was the strong republican movement led by Svetozar Pribićević ans his official "Republican" movement in the parliamentary politics of interwar Yugoslavia that supported the abolition of the monarchy, and it gained support from Yugoslavia's republican Social Democrats. [3]. Saying the plain tricolour flag is a symbol of royalists is like saying the British flag is only used by devote British royalists - it is not, there are British who are opposed to the British monarchy who still use the flag because they are patriotic to the country - not the Queen.--R-41 (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Can you seriously prove that the plain tricolour flag - the national flag of Yugoslavia from 1918 to 1943 - was never accepted by the many interwar Yugoslav republicans? You would have to prove this to justify your claim that it is a royalist symbol. The plain tricolour flag was flag of the state for many years, and then revived for better or worse in 1992 by the rump Yugoslavia - I don't agree with what Milosevic did but other people who opposed Milosevic also used the flag, there are many people who fly the plain Yugoslav tricolour since 2006 - I have seen the plain Yugoslav tricolour at events celebrating the Yugoslav Partisans. There were advocates of democratization of Yugoslavia even in the final years before the country broke apart in 1991. All that you have demonstrated thus far is that you are anti-royalist and oppose the use of the plain tricolour because you associate it with a movement you despise - that is a POV. In your aggressive haste, have you been willing to accept that there may be royalist Yugoslav or non-communist or anti-communist, or anti-one-party-state users out there who may desire a plain tricolour flag to represent them and not the SFRY flag.--R-41 (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Nonsense. I won't go into some historical debate with you, this isn't a content dispute. Your edit is opposed. Achieve consensus for your changes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yugoslavia. And I will repeat: that is the last flag of Yugoslavia, over an outline of the last Yugoslav state. -- Director (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC) No this stub involves the history of Yugoslavia. This IS about history, and the history of Yugoslavia is not just the SFRY. Can you prove that the plain Yugoslav tricolour has only been used by royalist Yugoslavs and not by republican Yugoslavs? Also, you have admitted by your very complaint that there is a community of Yugoslavs that needs to be considered in the use of imagery for Wikipedia templates - royalists, and I would add people opposed to the communist one-party-state in Yugoslavia - Yugoslavs who did not support the SFRY state such as royalists and opponents of the one-party-state are not represented by a flag representing the SFRY alone. Now remember you brought up the complaint that it is exclusively "royalists" and not used by republican Yugoslavs, so now you have to prove it. If you don't want to do this, and if you want a neutral compromise, then I propose that we agree to put a plain map of Yugoslavia up without the SFRY flag or any flag for on it?--R-41 (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Here is an example of a historical Iranian flag used for the WikiProject Iran template and for the WikiProject Iran user template, it uses a plain Iranian tricolour because not all Iranian people support the Islamic theocracy of Iran. Also, here is an example of a similar flag map with a plain tricolour used on a Yugoslavia-advocate website: [4]. So it seems acceptable to me that a plain tricolour version of the flag-map since Yugoslavs themselves are using it. I am also showing you that a historical and non-politically charged flag map is used on the WikiProject Iran template.--R-41 (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC) ANI Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC) WikiProject Yugoslavia Please apologize. I am very offended that you disrespected and insulted my efforts to create the Yugoslavian coat of arms symbol that took me hours to make. After I listened to you and you spat upon me over a minor disagreement - I am outraged. You don't have to apologize, but I am offering you a way out of being reported for violation of WP:CIVIL - if you ignore or delete this like the last comment - I will report you, I don't care even if I get reprimanded because I won't put up with this kind of work abuse - if you are a good person you shouldn't spit upon people who are are working with you on something when they have listened to almost everything you requested. Now please apologize and let's restart positive conversation on the flag issue.--R-41 (talk) 01:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Ok listen, R-41. First of all, I want you to read my second-to-last post over there, and understand that its about your continuing to push for the plain tricolour. I did not "insult" your work, in fact I said it was excellent more than once. You showed me the coat of arms you made, and I thought it was great. However, being in Yugoslavia I knew it wouldn't be acceptable to this ethnic group or that because of a symbol or another. Then I suggested how you might make it acceptable to modern-day Yugoslavs. I still think you did an excellent job and that the new version is far superior to the original. And personally, I like it a lot. Its not about me, however. Ex-Yugoslavia is a real, complicated and fragmented region with over 20,000,000 people. Maybe its because I actually live here, but I would not dream of thinking you or I are somehow "empowered" to put together and push a new coat of arms around on an encyclopedia that's meant to inform people. WikiProject Yugoslavia is about a defunct historical country. Not about forming a "new Yugoslavia", or representing present-day ex-Yugoslavia as a single fantasy state (which will likely never reunite together again in the foreseeable future). With that statement you misunderstood completely, I just vaguely threw-out the possibility (which I am not particularly in favor of) that we might superimpose Wikipedia symbols over real, historical Yugoslav symbols, not that we should use a (quote) "Coat of Arms of New Yugoslavia". I understand that this was a tragic misunderstanding, and I apologize. I can't agree to using your symbols to actually represent Yugoslavia on Wikipedia, no matter how great they are. I'm sorry again. -- Director (talk) 02:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Well I tried to remove the curve from the bottom, and it screwed up the bottom of the symbol - I would have to make it from scratch, just as I told you it would. Thanks, thanks a lot for you pressing angry demands with complete ignorance of how to use inkscape, I took your demands into consideration and it just screwed up the image, THANKS A LOT for your helpful and ignorant abusive pressure against my warnings that it would screw up the image that indeed DID screw up the image for me - now I have to redesign it from scratch to meet your concerns.--R-41 (talk) 02:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Angry demands?? You might actually hear some if you continue with this sort of provocation. Excuse me but I use Illustrator and I have some concept of vector image work. Look, I suppose the only way would be to change the scope of the WikiProject to encompass modern-day ex-Yugoslavia, and not just the historical state. That's a big and controversial change, however, and I'm not sure people would go for it. As far as I know, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of ex-Yugoslav members on the WIkiProject who are just interested in local Yugoslav history and do not support the possibility of a "new Yugoslavia". And of those who do, more than a few are left-wing and don't mind the red star one bit. I suppose I/we could propose a scope change to include the modern-day. But even so we would need a consensus to use your images and not real ones, and I'm not sure that's in accordance with Wikipedia principles. -- Director (talk) 02:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Of course WikiProject Yugoslavia should continue to include the modern-day - there are still Yugoslavs today, and there still is Yugoslav culture and Yugoslavist politics today - just as Roman culture still exists today through the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Italian culture. I'm just frustrated that you did not take my warnings, that it would screw up the image, seriously - that was one of the main reasons why I did not want to remove the point - I tried to remove the point and I failed - I would have to make the symbol from scratch to meet your demands. If you want to solve the issue of the flag using the politically-charged red star, unfortunately contrary to your opposition to these people, we do have to get imput from royalist Yugoslavs and Yugoslavs who opposed the Communist one-party state of the SFRY, but identify as Yugoslav - I have encountered two or three such people on Wikipedia and one on Facebook.--R-41 (talk) 02:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) So you would say that a "WikiProject Roman Empire" should include modern-day Italy? Look, I'm a "Yugoslavist" in the sense that I think it would be good that some kind of union existed. I'm also a realist and I know that's just pipe-dreams. I'm not a communist or socialist either. I'm a very rare kind of ex-Yugoslav person that might support your coat of arms and what you're saying, in principle, but I also know that in practice it makes no sense. What you're saying is called "Yugonostalgia" in our local context, and its vehemently opposed. The general opinion, at least in Croatia, is that Yugoslavia was a mistake. To try and apply something called "WikiProject Yugoslavia" as encompassing Wikipedia's modern-day Balkans articles will be opposed both in the project and without. If I were to try and go though with this I would need the support of the project behind me, and I'm not going to have that. -- Director (talk) 02:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Yes Italian culture is related to the Roman Empire - that does not mean it is the Roman Empire but that it is closely related to the Roman Empire - the founders of a united Italy explicitly referenced the Roman roots of Italy and have stressed the precedent of Roman culture and laws as models for Italy to follow - that the territory of Italy is based upon the name and the Peninsular territory of the Roman territory of "Italia".--R-41 (talk) 03:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Thank you for yet another history lesson. There was a Roman territory of Dalmatia as well. Anyway feel free to propose a change of scope for the WikiProject if you think that's a good idea. You have my support. -- Director (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC) I wasn't talking about Dalmatia, if you are attempting to bring up the old Italo-Yugoslav tension about Dalmatia due to Italian nationalists and Fascists appealing to old Roman stuff please don't start - I am a part-Italian Canadian, I know about Italian history, but I personally don't give a damn if the Romans and Venetians controlled Dalmatia at one point of history or another - it has been populated by Slavic people for centuries, and by law of national self-determination the Slavic peoples there deserve to have Dalmatia.--R-41 (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Um... what? First with the "snotty" and now this? Damn it, R-41, how about a little WP:AGF? Since we're revealing our family histories to each-other for some reason, I'm part Italian as well (in fact I'm from an Italian family). I was merely pointing out that your argument does not make much sense since all of the Mediterranean and half of Europe were Roman both in culture and politically, and that by your logic they all should be part of one massive "WikiProject Roman Empire", since very many areas carry a distinct Roman cultural influence. Also, the the law of self-determination is pretty controversial. To use a Yugoslav example, according to that rule, about half of Bosnia and Herzegovina should be part of Serbia (and a goodly part should be in Croatia). Kosovo should be part of a Greater Albania, etc.. But lets not digress. If you think WikiProject Yugoslavia could be expanded to include modern times, you should propose that to the members. You have my support. -- Director (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC) There, it's done - I added a section asking for an extension of WikiProject Yugoslavia into modern times. Also, here is a plain Yugoslav tricolour flag combined with the European Union flag as a flag symbol fluttering in the background of text on the cover of a book written by a Yugoslav author: [5]. So this Yugoslav author does not see the plain tricolour as offensive.--R-41 (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Nomination of Unitary National Liberation Front for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Unitary National Liberation Front is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unitary National Liberation Front until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Nobody Ent 11:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC) DRN Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism". Thank you. --BoDu (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Enjoy your Wikibreak Don't be too long out there in the real world... Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Ugh.. I hate the real world. So much better to enjoy the scholarly serenity of Wikipedia ;). Thank you. -- Director (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for March 4 Hi. When you recently edited Dalmatia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dalmatian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Template:Yugoslav_Axis_collaborationism_discussion Sssshhh! *rubs jam on your nose like the dormouse in alice in wonderland* Your recent comments had uninvolved people in a tizz thinking a textual fight was about to break out commenting on dispute resolution volunteers talk pages. Your contributions are very valid, and appreciated, but stop scaring the newbies! :D In disputes, people tend to be emotional, and may take tongue in cheek witty comments out of context and have a bit of a wobbly over it, and as some parties involved are clearly pushing an agenda rather than understanding the policy implications, it could very easily get ugly. I apologise for contacting you personally about it, but you seem like a wonderful contributor so I thought you ought to know first hand that someone is :( and may have taken your comment out of context. <3 BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Damn it.. I've been trying to ease myself out of involvement in these various petty disputes. I should be off on a Wikibreak but somehow can't seem to get out (just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in! :P). That whole dispute can be summarized as a user trying to delete a template that lists other persons of his nationality as having relations with the Axis (which is thoroughly sourced). I'm just so completely sick of that my fuse is about the length of a cigarette butt. -- Director (talk) 08:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Nomination for deletion of Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. BoDu (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC) DSS From your edit moving the "State Security Service" to the "Department of State Services" I believe you have not read the act establishing the agency. The National Security Agencies Act of 1986 (Decree 19) and the the SSS Instrument I of 1999 (General Abubakar invoked his powers under section 6 of the NSA act to define the objectives of the SSS before transition to civil rule)only recognizes the "State Security Service" and not the Department of State Services. The DSS is a cover name used by the organization because it is in reality only a department within the presidency. Please cross check and make necessary amendments. If you have been mislead by the agency's overt use of the DSS name in recent times, please don't. They have only resorted to the DSS name in a bid to shake off the negativity associated with the SSS name due to the long years under the military. The agency still writes ALL official correspondence, presents their budget and prosecutes cases with the only name recognized by the law, the State Security Service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamodele (talk • contribs) 17:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Pavelić image DIREKTOR, can you please just tell your reason why you find this first image better then the new one at the talk page, since you initiated the discussion. --Wustenfuchs 13:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC) This is a subjective issue, Wustenfuchs. It just "looks better".. Its an official portrait, centered, turned towards the text, etc. -- Director (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC) I don't get you, subjective issue? Why? The second one is far better since you can see his face. If you could just flip the image, I noticed your activity on some other images also. The most important thing is that people can see how he looked like, and the first image only shows his profile. Also another imporant problem with the first image - it's nominated for deletation since Dec '11. And discription doesn't say it's official image. As I recall official image is him in a white uniform. --Wustenfuchs 14:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC) The deletion isn't going anywhere, trust me, there is no violation. And I can't flip it, it isn't allowed and it will likely be reverted (some retarded rule about people not being symmetrical, which actually goes against basic anatomy I was taught). Its the official state portrait, its well proportioned in relation to the frame and it looks more appropriate. As for appearance, why don't you include the other image somewhere else in the article? -- Director (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC) AE You have been reported to WP:AE. BoDu (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)