User talk:Director/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



I found some important info pertaining to the wiki activity of a certain sockpuppet and his/her supporters. It may aid in banning him/her, I will email it if you'd like. P R O D U C E R (TALK) 18:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do, thanks for your assistance. Unfortunately I'm still on a pretty strict Wikibreak so I'll probably not be doing anything about it for at least two weeks or so. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


What can we do about Ceha and his wrong map? We all agreed on no mistakes, yet he includes mistakes and in a very rude way says that is map is fine. Census has settlements with no population - he colors all settlements. He does not include "other groups" and ignores the list of mistakes that I have told him. Please but please do not leave us, as he does not want to cooperate when I am involoved. (LAz17 (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)).

Map is not wrong. It is clearly said why map is here and what is it usage. I again ask you Laz to give me validated submunicipal grid. And you can not do so. Moreover you did not comprehend a thing from that discussion. You can not force any other wikipedian (including me) to do anything what is against his (in this case mine) will. Only way to solve anything is to give sourced data, and than the things are going ahead. Cooperation is the key. But the person which is rude, are you, Laz. You even followed me on Central Bosnian Canton pages, just to start another edit war? That is unbelievable. I'm a little bit angry now, because I'm wasting my precious time basicly for nothing.
Director, I wish to sort this out, but I'm affraid that talking to Laz is a little bit imposible. The guy steadly refuses to cooperate, speaks in an uncivil manner and argues for everything. Maybe that is his stile. But this is an encyclopedia, not some wild forum. This is not a place for random ankets. If Laz does not has sources to prove the errors than he should accept the map as valid. I changed a lot of things in that maps just according to his "sources" and I hope there does not exist an error in them. I showed my willingness to cooperate. But I'm not going to pamper Laz. Map is made on the known rules. If he doesn't like them he can make his own map. --Čeha (razgovor) 00:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Your map has numerous errors and I have told you them again and again. You ignore that. Direktor has said that the milan-ivan map is superior to yours. You clearly do not want to fix the errors in your map. On top of that you do not use the census as a source- or to be precise you do not respect the c:::::::::::ensus as you exclude non-serbbosniakcroats and you exclude places with no people. Wait now, you ask for a submunicipal grid in order for something to be valid - you do not have such a thing, so your map by default is wrong. The only way you improved your map a little was to look at the milan-ivan map and make yours more like it.
As for the canton data, I simply erased some fraud bullshit that you wrote. You at least fixed your fraud bullshit, putting Muslims back to 43%, as they were before you changed it. (LAz17 (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)).
Fraud, bulshit this are the words for which you deserve a block. You did not follow me to check my edits. You wanted to provoke another edit war. And were so lazy that you did not even check the numbers (even if I've given you source for it). All of the numbers concerning CB canton where uploaded there by me and none of them has anything to do with your nationalistic fantasies.
As for ethnic map, you gave me just your word which in this circumstances doesn't worth much. Give me validated sources and then I'll do something. If you don't have them stop whining. --Čeha (razgovor) 01:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
As Direktor said, "That sounds like heavy POV when you omit Serbian and/or Muslim villages and settlements. I hope you can see how people can perceive that simplification as "biased"?. Hence, I conclude that your map is a bullshit fraud map. I have reason to say that. It is bullshit fraud.
I do not care if you were the one who put all the numbers on that CB canton page up. It really does not matter. I reverted your new fraud where you wanted to bump up the croats to be 135 thousand instead of 131 thousand. Your action there explained you quite well. I helped wikipedia by undoing that fraud. You did not even say sorry. So, we do not know if you see that you did something wrong. In fact you are angry at me for undoing your fraud. You might do the fraud again!
I listed many mistakes to you. Now, I did not tell you exactly what villages. I just told you the many obvious errors. You want me to produce a nice settlement map like Lilici did for bijelina. What a fool to make such a map for you. What a fool. You think that I am such a fool to make such a map for all of bosnia for you. Not gonna happen. Your map has no source. It does not match with census data. Your map is a fraud from the start. (LAz17 (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)).
Laz I do not care about your lack of manners, your wishes or your conclusions. If you wish to cooperate on fixing the errors on that map by providing sources you are welcomed. If not, that's your problem. And for your uncivil behavior, stalking etc you will be reported on every possible place. --Čeha (razgovor) 13:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Please don't do that. Nothing needs to be reported. Eyes are on both of you. Toddst1 (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Your map has way too many fundamental errors to be fixed. That is the problem. (LAz17 (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)).
Perhaps instead of filling up DIREKTOR's talk page, my talk page, ANI, WQA, and other WP:CANVASSING, you two should go to the map's talk page and discuss this there and avoid the ad-hominem arguments please. Toddst1 (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree, this is too much. No more. And that map talk is going nowhere. Direktor, when you come back, I expect from you to talk to Laz, because because of you I agreed to continue that map talk. (Let's say I'm holding you somewhat responsible for that>:). Thank Toddst1 for watch, I'm hoping that if anything Laz will try to behave more civil. I'm hoping that with this this discussion ends. Best regards to everybody. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for not calling me an idiot or a moron, which was what I was expecting. It would have prolonged the problems, and that is your style. But anyways, we at least agree on something - that thing should be put on hold until Direktor comes back. (LAz17 (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)).
I never called you an idiot or moron and hopefully never will, even if my opinion of you is not high. I do try to be civil in discussions. --Čeha (razgovor) 00:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
You say equally provocative things. And then you add a smiley face after a provocative sentence like "map is fine" right after I told you the many countless mistakes. Your response implies that I am a moron. (LAz17 (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)).
But I never insulted you. I try to be civil. I'm sorry for your conclusions. We obviously disagree on that map, and without valid mediation there is not nothing to be done. --Čeha (razgovor) 01:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediation of Byzantine Empire

A RfM has been submitted at the RfM page here for the article Byzantine Empire. You may add any comments you may have on this page and are welcome, but your presence is not required. Monsieurdl mon talk 23:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


Please come back. Please. (LAz17 (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)).

I'm shocked

It was disappointing, the way one was treated at Imbris' talkpage. But now this: Imbris has been caught, sock-puppeting. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

PS - ..and he accused me of being your 'sock'? He's ruined now, everytime a 'new' account appears around those Croatia related articles? they'll likely be CU'd. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
This probably isn't too shocking for regular Balkan editors. I've only recently delved into this area, yet I've already seen disruption from Serb nationalists, Bosnian nationalists, some Italian nationalists, and now this. I'm not too familiar with the details of Imbris' disputes or POV, only the editing similarities, but whatever the case, the last thing these articles need are socks. And nationalism is indeed the plague of these topics. So yeah, this kind of socking in this area shouldn't come as too shocking or surprising. Spellcast (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Flag

Thank you for your comment.

If you read this Order (article 1) you will see that official flag of Triune Kingdom was red-white-blue flag with CoA. That was official flag of Triune Kingdom.

Flags were made in different size, with different color shades, shields had different shapes, etc. Even the crown has different variants (or CoA without the crown). There is no official "technical construction" of a flag and CoA.

I like this CoA of Dalmatia :) With bears :)

I will try to make more svg's of historical flags and CoA's, so i will appriciate every comment. Chears --Ex13 (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see the sources for the files. Thank you--Ex13 (talk) 09:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sources for your claims. I answered to you on talk page. Thanks--Ex13 (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Tincture (heraldry). Please, read it. In 19th century there was no Pantone standards or CMYK or RGB. In heraldy, blue is azure.--Ex13 (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

November 29

Sretan ti praznik :) --Ex13 (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Oho, cestitamo si "praznike"? Moram zapamtit ovu gestu i cestitat tebi 10. Travnja... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Nisam ja od tih, ali rekoh, kad vidim na tvojoj suradničkoj sve one userboxes, pa što nebih čestitao --Ex13 (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Ma znam da nisi, nisam ni ja od onih što ti misliš. Samo mislim da je glupo da se najsrodniji narodi u Europi mrze zbog idiotskih ideja. Al dobro, što ćemo sad raspravljat. Moja jedina ambicija na hrvatskim povijesnim člancima na enWiki je da ih lišim gluposti i izmišljotina, a uz sve dužno poštovanje, devedesetih ih je stvoreno/uskrsnuto mnogo. Puno sam radia na hrvatskoj povijesti, npr, infobox u Banovina of Croatia članku kojeg dopunjavaš je moj edit itd. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Ja ne mrzim nikoga, ali ne volim da se ignoriraju neke stvari, a druge se stavljaju kao prvorazredne senzacije. Ti misliš da si objektivan, ali nažalost neobjektivan si. Ali naravno to je stvar osobne percepcije. Infoboxovi za povijesne članke su po meni glupost, ali to je tekovina civilizacije. Vidim da si puno radio na hrvatskoj povijesti, ali nisam proučavao tvoj rad do kraja, pa ne mogu zaključit jel to dobro ili loše --Ex13 (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Pa eto, uveo sam red na način da sada povijesni članci idu u nekom kontinuitetu. Prije su bila dva "tipa" hrvatskih povijesnih članaka: povijesne države i povijesni periodi. naravno da to nije funkcioniralo i da su se tekstovi preklapali. Totalni nered, imao si samo kao jedan primjer Croatia in the Habsburg Empire i Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg), u suradnji s drugima (pitajući i prethodno obaviještavajući o namjerama) sam reorganizirao čitav sustav, i sada imamo Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) -> Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) -> Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia -> State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs.
Da pogodim, imaš ideju da sam "srbijanizirao" članke ili nešto? :P Srpski nacionalisti na enWiki me ne vole baš puno zbog ovoga --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ne mislim da si srbijanizirao članke, nego da si stavljao gluposti. Dapače, ponekad mi se čini da čitam neku povijest koju nisam pročitao nigdje. No, zato ima drugi suradnika. U tome je čar wikipedije :)--Ex13 (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


I have read somewhere discussion about high-quality references like university publications which proved that university publications can be garbage the same as samizdat books. I wrote clearly (if you haven't noticed) that check of other sources is pending, so please stop reverting what is written in valid sources. Thanks in advance! SpeedyGonsales (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am asking you to be polite, sentences like you wrote me I really hope you read the above carefully... I get the feeling this is one of those things I'll have to repeat. are insulting. And for your "arguments":
  • There is not one (1) source for Croatian language in Kingdom ... but many, I only wrote one as I thought one valid source is enough, but as I see that number of sources count, there are four (4) primary sources now.
  • If sources state one thing, how you dare to state opposite? I really hope you see that is wrong, that it is actually called falsifying the sources. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
If you don't want to sound arrogant, then don't be. Please stop calling my edits as edit-warring, as I wrote in article just what is written in book, then reverted you blatant removal of valid source, and finally added text of Nagodba (primary source - which you deleted with superfluous remark Discuss first, please). Actually you are edit-warring and deleting valid sources. And to your plead Please read my post completely. - check my last edit on Talk:Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia page. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yugoslavia categories

Think you can help me in creating/sorting categories for Yugoslavia? P R O D U C E R (TALK) 02:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta

I've made another change to the sub-heading, it'll be my final one. I've no more 'compromise' ideas. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: I'm not peeved, just pooped. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the award DIREKTOR. Just one request, could you place it at User:GoodDay/My stuff? That way, it won't get lost in my talkpage archives. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated, good luck with the article. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

New Bruno

Just to let you know, Bruno's latest is User:Buistr. I'll SPI it in the next week or so. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Just a courtesy: Hello, DIREKTOR. 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. Thank you. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 19:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


Maybe Tito was Croatian Yugoslav according to your logic that Pavelić is Yugoslav Croat :) Actualy, you are funny gay. You make me laugh --Ex13 (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Pa kužim ja tvoju poantu. Ali je blesava. Imao je on i španjolsku putovnicu čini mi se. Pa stavi da je i Španjolac :) A možeš stavit i da je Bosanac pošto je rođen u današnjoj Bosni :)--Ex13 (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Po definiciji koja je navedena u članku Demonym, ispravno bi se trebalo kazati da je austrougarski jugoslavenski argentinski španjolski Hrvat rođen u Bosni. --Ex13 (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Your POV is not NPOV

Why do you refuse to allow these writer works to be cited in the article Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta you do not WP:OWN that article you are not allowed to violate WP:NPOV

  • Francine Friedman, Professor of Political Science at the University at Ball State University: “…nominally Croatia was ruled by the Italian Duke of Spoleto styled as King Tomislav II...”. “governed the NDH, although nominally Croatia was ruled by the Italian Duke of Spoleto styled as King Tomislav II.”
  • Professor Miron Rezun from the University of New Brunswick “The duke agreed to accept the throne and became King Tomislav II of Croatia. Ironically, the new king was very reluctant to enter the country,”
  • Professor David Crowe, Elon University “An Italian nobleman, the Duke of Spoleto, became its king, as Tomislav II, though he never visited Croatia. The new state was effectively ruled by Ustasa”
  • Edward R. Kantowicz, assistant professor of history, Carleton University: “When he took power in 1941, he proclaimed an Italian nobleman King Tomislav II

of Croatia, but the new monarch prudently never set foot in his kingdom.”

  • Dr Nigel Thomas (“an accomplished linguist and military historian, formerly a Principal Lecturer at Northumbria University, now a freelance military author, translator and military uniform consultant”): - “Croatia, technically a kingdom under the absentee King Tomislav II, the Italian Duke of Spoleto”

I better get a good reason or I will report you for vandalism, and not adhering to a NPOV If you continue to revert for your pov version. - dwc lr (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


Ovin retajima ić objašnjavat neke stvari je obično gubljenje vremena...Zajebali ste se što niste odavno napisali nekakov odsječak koji prikazuje pa makar i samu raspru o Titinoj ulozi u spomenutim događajima, dakle što vele ovi - što oni povjesničari...ovako ignorantni postranici stjeću dojam da pokušavate nešto "sakriti" čim ste za micanje sadržaja. Dakle prekrojiti, ne ukloniti... :) To je jedini dugoročan način da se zasvagda riješite Luiđija i ovih nacionalističkih izroda koji jedva dočekaju priliku da nešto zablate (jer bi tad oni izgledali kao PoV pusheri, ne vi). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed your question, sorry about that. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really. The article is on my wachlist, and i saw that there is incomplete list of bans. I'm not a gay that i have a need to follow young boys :)--Ex13 (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry... er... December solstice... !

So you don't feel left out! Btw, I was reading your user-page, and to quote a great man: "Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter." Many things I totally disagree with, variety being the spice of life, but the one thing I'm most curious about is your belief in the supremacy of economic strength - do you believe that human rights and liberties can and should be compromised in order to ensure economic strength? Laissez-faire capitalism? I'd personally say that it's human rights that are paramount, and economic strength secondary. I'm replying here because I feel sorry for poor Ivan, who we're spamming. PS: Yeah, I thought you meant you've been in Russia at first. Heh, where I am we're in the heart of summer. :) —what a crazy random happenstance 07:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Damn you, and double damn the southern hemisphere!
Ah yes, human rights. I'll be as brief as I can. A poor person has no rights in the real world. The more we lower "economic welfare", the more we see human rights forgotten as the silly unrealistic ideas they are. In any capitalist system a man is only as free with relation to how much money he possesses. A poor person is not free, a poor person has no human rights. The same, of course, can be applied to nations and peoples in general.
I do not mean laissez-faire capitalism, general economic welfare and laissez-faire capitalism are actually opposite. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow, yikes, drastic. What about innate human rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom of belief and assembly? Obviously a poorer person has less freedom than a richer person, but those are additional liberties, not fundamental human rights. And yes, these fundamental rights can be encroached upon by the rich, but that doesn't mean they should be, that we should give up on defending them. These encroachments are rare, and we should be shaping our philosophy to eliminate them rather than supporting them. In history, it wasn't capitalist economies that were the happiest, it has always been places where human rights were held to be sacrosanct. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Well this isn't really an "or or" dilemma. The point is that human rights aren't worth much if you're living in squalor, and that they are dependent on economic welfare. In other words, the more prosperous a society the more human rights are observed and vice versa. I'm not saying one should sacrifice basic human rights, in fact this would promote them in the best way possible. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe so. Even today, the people living in what you and I would term squalor but afforded fundamental rights are consistently happier than us in the Western World, which seems strange given that the entire purpose of money and a capitalist economy is the pursuit of happiness. It's only extremely poor conditions (lack of drinking water and food) that tend to make people unhappier than us. Are you an anarcho-capitalist? It sort of reads like you'd be content to let Citigroup take care of human rights, a prospect I wouldn't be too keen on, personally. :) —what a crazy random happenstance 08:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
You got me all wrong. In my opinion money itself as an institution should be abolished if possible. Some way has to be found to achieve that end. Money is a HUGE limiting factor on human development. Imagine what we could do if cost itself did not exist? Some society must be envisioned that can sustain the abolishment of money.
As for the current situiation, the ideal situation would be an incorruptible system of control over the massive companies. Since I'm slipping into science fiction, I'll say that if humans are always corruptible, then artificial intelligence should be granted power over the companies, its decisions at all times based on calculations, not opinions. No better way to regulate the numbers and the economy, methinks, than by an intelligent calculator :). That way we know decisions in that crucial area are not based on campaign donations.
As for human rights, who says they have to be abolished or even curtailed at all? Economic prosperity and human rights are hardly opposite ends. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. You're like in my philosophy then, an outward cynic and inward optimist. :) I concur that money is problematic, however a better economic system than social capitalism has simply not been discovered. I'm not sure that AI would be the solution, it would be too prone to abuse, people are always looking to backstab one another, it's in the nature of all life. Richard Dawkins proposed a simple chart in the God Delusion which culminated with the fact that backstabbing your allies is the most beneficial form of survival in terms of genetic selection and such and is thus a big part of human nature, I wish I had my copy at hand, I only remember that passage vaguely. Bah. Economic prosperity as the die-hard capitalists see it does indeed conflict with human rights, but if we stick to a social democratic capitalist tradition until a better system comes along, we get the best of both worlds. I may just be rambling at this point, I'm tired and extremely important exam results are coming out in four hours and forty minutes. Yikes. Wish me luck. :) —what a crazy random happenstance 14:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

1910 map

Hola Director! I added the percentages on that map [1], and when I'll have time I'll made another map on kotar level. Everything about it is here (census, borders, maps etc) [2] and if you have any suggestion, feel free to jump in :) See ya. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The thing is this, I currently do not have time to make a kotar map, but I think I will make it by christmass. Both of the maps would look great in the article. There is another level of precision on the censuss of 1910 (municipal), but I do not now exact borders of 1910 municipalities which were smaller than today's, so I won't touch that :) If you have time, or will suggestions are wellcomed :)--Čeha (razgovor) 15:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


And so what now? (LAz17 (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)).

Just so you know where we are now...
The conflict over the 1991 map has stopped for the time being. It has been put on hold, who knows when it will come back. I am fine with it being on hold indefinitely.
The only conflict going on was with this obscene image, [3]. However, please do check the file's history. You can see the different images that ceha has been uploading. First and foremost I think that showing only a few districts is stupid. Who needs such big areas? What also is troubling is that he labels the serbs red, after you told him not to in the 1991 map discussion. Can you help here? (LAz17 (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)).
It appears that there were six districts back then. But, there were several dozen kotars... perhaps 40 kotars. It's like mapping today's cantons instead of municipalities - only the units back then were even bigger than the cantons. What do you suggest? The units did "exist" I regret to say, but they were not the lowest units. (LAz17 (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)).
After more information has your opinion changed or stayed the same? (LAz17 (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)).
The census shows settlements numbers, kotar numbers, and district numbers. (LAz17 (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)).

[Moving the following here from LAz' talk page:]

[…] Well lets cut to the chase, in a way. What's your opinion, FPaS? Bosnia is, of course, a very sensitive area as far as ethnic distribution is concerned. Čeha keeps making maps that are generalized in such a way they are perceived as biased, and its perfectly possible his goal is to push a Croatian nationalist POV (Ceha no offense, trying to be objective). On the other hand, his maps are accurate for the most part on their level of detail.
Is it worth getting feedback from the community? Ceha seems "within his rights", as it were. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I could agree with your analysis of the situation, as far as my personal opinion goes. My impression is, Ceha's maps are generally correct (within the tolerance limits we usually apply to amateur cartography); they seem to be made in good faith; he's been willing to make factual corrections when errors are pointed out to him politely. That said, one can always disagree about what scope of a map would be most appropriate and most informative for an article. Plus, in purely technical terms, these maps are of course not very skilfully done.
Sure, yes, he is "within his rights" to make these – but then again, whether or not to actually include them in an article is a matter of editorial consensus. I don't think asking the community at large would be most useful here, at least not at ANI – if you need wider input on a content dispute, an article RfC is probably the way to go. And in order to make objections constructive, it would probably be best if people who raise concerns are also willing to work towards better alternatives – either show that better maps already exist, or be willing to create better ones, or at least make concrete and realistic suggestions about what to change. Fut.Perf. 00:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, no point going to WP:AN or WP:ANI. I doubt anyone really cares about this anyway. I fear RfCs will be ignored (I think LAz posted them and they already were ignored). I'd talk to Čeha but I don't know what to say to him, "your map is correct and sourced, but you can't include it"? If Čeha is actually POV-pushing, I think he found a way to get away with it. I honestly don't know if he is. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Hate to stick my nose in, but couldn't resist... If Čeha is actually POV-pushing, Laz has found exactly the worst way to stop him, just entering into endless bickering and namecalling instead of actually pinpointing what is wrong with the maps. His objections to Čeha's maps were just too vague to be actionable (unlike his objections with Čeha's personality, which were actionable... by Fut.Perf.) If he ever actually pinpointed something concretely wrong, I didn't see it, because it got lost in the forest. Laz is, I think, basically a good guy, but cannot control his temper... No such user (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sarcasm

There were no such trials in the vast majority of cases. No documents exist to that effect for the immediate post-war killings, and few even exist for the later killings of interred prisoners. Simo Dubajić was charged with about 13,000 deaths in a ten day period. This is in line with what he himself admitted. Clearly, none of these people were tried. Either these people were prisoners-of-war, in which case war conventions apply, or they were private Yugoslavian citizens who required a trial. In either case no law justifies mass killings.

Also, why the need to bring this up over the Karlovac mass grave? Even Boljkovac admits it was a crime, and denies having anything to do with the Dubovac camp (Pa tko bi lud zakopao leševe na promenadi?! - He would have hid the bodies somewhere much better I guess! (: ). If these people were killed because it was the "law", then why the state secrecy? Why the need to hide the evidence and totally deny the existence of graves for the entire socialist period?

Post-war France executed less than 1000 people, all of whom were tried, with a much larger number being imprisonned or freed. These executions were held publicly and are documented. Slovakia (whose circumstances parallel the NDH in many ways) lacks such mass executions. Meanwhile, Yugoslavia massacred at least tens of thousands in forests, pits, camps without any paper trail. There's simply no evidence of trials, charges of treason, even lists of executed people. This is a necessary aspect of the rule of law. (In fact, Yugoslavia also pandered these people off as victims of Germany to squeeze out more reparation money.)

Also, even in some magical Tito&DIREKTOR World where the law apparently allows for the murders of tens of thousands of people, that does not make it justifiable. Croatia has not tried anyone for treason in the RSK, because it makes no sense. Under your line of reasoning, you could not only excuse Milošević's actions against those traitorous Albanians, but encourage them.

Serbia has announced it is opening its archives related to the secret police in its new search for World War II crimes. As Serbia has the most extensive archives from your old country, it is likely that we are set to find out much more about Partisan crimes in all regions. Anyways, pleasnt Wiki-ing, and have a nice day! =)--Thewanderer (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


You like red that much? :P [4] No such user (talk) 09:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Its the communist party, ffs, which color would you use? :P If its too dark a shade we could lighten it, but pink? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, changing from FF7373 to FFD0D0 was lightening. Now, the definition of pink is "pale red"—I can't see how a color can be very light rad and not pink at the same time... No such user (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I know, I faced the same problem. However it is possible to have light red that does not look pink. Either way pink just looks silly, imho. (For the record this has nothing at all to do with ideology, if this were the Fascist Party of Yugoslavia I'd be supporting black or gray... [5]) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
May I humbly suggest pink for Nazi party? :P No such user (talk) 07:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Sounds plausible... :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi. Those templates may be of interest to you. If you havent seen them alredy.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Kosovo/Templates

All best,

Tadija (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


Maybe one comment i wrote on the Tito's talk page may be considered offensive. I apologise if you have been offended by it. See you. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it seemed necessary to me

I tried to speak to you, i even apologised. I invited you to assume a different behavior. I told you I was offended by your behavior. And i wasn't alone. But you keep making fun of other users. So i have to go with it. See here: --AndreaFox2 (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, User:AndreaFox2, but you have no concept of WP:NPA. I did not insult anyone. Please refrain from bothering other people if you happen to be annoyed by informal conversation. I'm "making fun" of you? If you say so...--DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


Rainbow trout.png You have been whacked with a wet trout! Hopefully this will make a subtle adjustment to your clue level. Well, that was fun. Congratulations on being my first victim. Have fun recovering from trout burns! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays

From my alter egos. PS: Don't give up the fight for accuracy, on the Tito article. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


Happy holidays, and I hope things are going well for you. I'm kind of loafing about today, debating about whether or not to go explore post-holiday sales, and a thought occurred to me. Have you considered formal mediation with AndreaFox2 and the other editors you've been in conflict with on Tito, etc? I sincerely doubt there would be much point with AP1929, since he only shows up to edit tendentiously a few days every couple of months, but I think getting some outside help on Tito and the regulars there might not be a bad idea. At the very least it would put a stop to the constant, "DIREKTOR must be blocked for things that we don't block for" threads at the various admin boards. Think about it, and remember that even if you think it might be fruitless, you might be surprised. Also, if mediation fails you'll have satisfied a step in the dispute resolution chain, making an arbitration case more likely to be accepted and getting some binding measures in place like WP:ARBMAC. Just a suggestion. AniMate 18:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

How did I miss your post?? My apologies for the belated response. Ah yes, DR and mediation. Of course, I'd like nothing more than to have more eyes on these issues. However, because noone really cares about this stuff, one of two things happen. Either nobody even shows up, or the guy that shows up has no knowledge of the issue and even less desire to waste any time trying to get to know the sources and the problem, and these sort of disputes are usually pretty complex. So what happens is that the mediator most often simply takes the middle ground, regardless of the fact that the "middle ground" is rarely or never correct. Then I get the annoying "you're all the same" attitude to boot. In short, it rarely works the way its supposed to, if at all. In fact, that's the main reason why the Balkans are one of the the "badlands" of enWiki.
Since the Tito article is pretty big and of relatively decent quality, I suspect it might get attention if someone were to file for mediation. But again, experience leads me to believe a superficial handling of this complex matter will likely be the outcome. Nevertheless, if the disputes flare-up again I'll take your advice. Thanks for your help :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I believe it all to be a bit of a waste of time. AndreaFox2 is, I would say, about 13 years old - have a look, for example, at this Honey the Cat stuff [6]. Wikipedia has an anti-intellectual, anti-content structure that favours etiquette over content quality. In the Tito article, Andrea has brought forward only internet sourced cheap hate sites, but at Wikipedia, these are given equal accord with, for example, Tomasevich. Ah well, only fools take Wikipedia seriously. My dear friends Animate and Direktor, I love you both very much, and have enjoyed our online interactions, and I wish you well with your future Wiki activities. Wikipedia is generally good in non-controversial areas, but in controversial topics it is a complete and utter disaster. By the way, the ethnic cleansing article now has some nonsense about Istria in the late 40's. Has had for a while. My friends, fuck it, bollocks, who cares. Wikipedia is nonsense, and only the dumbest fools believe it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
And because of those > 340 millions users per month it's worth fighting. Too many ignorant dimwits blindly take for granted everything written here. The truth must prevail and nationalistic history fabrications must be obliterated. Don't give up on your comrades-in-arms Alasdair! --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Mljet (talk · contribs)

Novi pacijent koji potalijančuje imena i toponime, po svoj prilici inkarnacija nekog starog "poznanika". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Savršeno... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Its a sock 100%. Either its Ragusino or Luigi 28/PIO. Most likely Ragusino because of the appalling English skills which ruin everything the man touches :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I've undone most of the damage by following his contribs, this has to stop. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

DIR you're used to manage this/these pacient(s), User:Cavtatraz is another one Zenanarh (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing him out. This is User:Ragusino again, revert all edits on sight. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Director. You have new messages at Ridernyc's talk page.
Message added 12:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ridernyc (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

House of de BONA

Direktor, no you don't have my support this time to delete the House of Bona/Bunic page. The information listed on it is not quite the same as last time and everything is referenced. It would only make sense to delete it if you were to delete all the other "House of" pages. Could you simply explain how you justify changing the Bona entries into Bunic without giving any reference or explanation as to why you did this (and how you get away with it?). Please don't say "it's not the Italian page, so the names should not be "Italian""...May I remind you that the Bona (not Bunic) name has appeared in Dubrovnik's documents since the 10th century (sale of Lokrum island). Can you say the same about the Bunic name? I don't want to get into a discussion with you about this all over again but to be fair don't you think the Slavic and non-Slavic names should be listed next to each other? Wouldn't this be a fair compromise? After all, as I have said numerous times, the Bona family still exists in Dubrovnik and uses the Bona name, not Bunic. The tombstones all say "Bona" (Caboga, Gondola, Ghetaldi, Pozza, etc.). By the way, don't accuse me of not speaking Croatian. "Pacijent" does mean "patient" and ok, it may have other slang meanings... Also, please don't accuse me of being somekind of Italian nationalist, etc. As you know, I only joined Wikipedia to correct an entry on Marino de Bona (since deleted - but I proved my point), then the House of Bona/Republic of Ragusa pages. In my line of business, I use Google all day look to check information. This positive thing about all of these exhanges is that I no longer rely on any Wikipedia information because I realize how biased it can be. I do believe however that you and Stambuk really do have a thing against Italians...maybe a generational issue. Debona.michel (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Direktor, re Mercy (de) Bona, for example, you're ok with Mercy de Bona...but my great-grandfather (Captain in Senj) - on the old House of Bona page (the one that was deleted) always went by the name BONA yet his name on the page was changed to Bunic each time... Debona.michel (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


Just made this moments ago, Zagreb Commuter Rail, if you could help it would be appreciated. I am not sure if this map is of it though... [7] Also, that EX13 guy wants to edit war again. He changed some stuff in december about the rail issue that I thought was closed. (LAz17 (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)).

One more, Zagreb Metro, though I think I'll be able to take care of it. (LAz17 (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)).
Okay, his edit warring has started up again. Could you please help? (LAz17 (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)).
Your presence is needed, like really needed, (LAz17 (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)).

Sincere apologies for my belated response, LAz. Unfortunately, I am overwhelmed with work. As you can probably see from my contribs, I barely edit, and what little time I can spare is completely taken-up trying to keep a bunch of Croat nationalists from vandalizing one of the few good ex-Yugoslavia articles, the Josip Broz Tito article (and I probably won't be able to do that either, I can edit maybe on average once or twice a week). Apologies, again, and thanks for bringing such issues to my attention. Rest assured I shall investigate as soon as I can get a few days away from the hospital. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion has moved here, . Hopefully you would be able to come soon, as this should be something that can be resolved quickly if there is the will to do so. (LAz17 (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)).
We really need help dude. It is near... so near... so come on. (LAz17 (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)).

WP:AN notice

Your editing is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#DIREKTOR_again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Republika Popullore e Shqipërisë

Constitutional Assembly said on Jan 11, 1945 proclamation of the People's Republic of Albania.

Albania proclaimed socialist country much later in 1976 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvi Hyka (talkcontribs) 21:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


Hello. I have not read the discussion archives but it seems the points addressed in the discussion page are not properly reflected in the article. I am referring to your statements, which are totally appropriate, regarding the burden of proof. Uneducated agnostics have tended to have a "can't know either way" attitude to the definition, which in essence gives equal weight to the statistical probability of the existence or not of gods. This completely disregards what you quite clearly stated, in that one can only disprove what has been previously proven, [or evidenced]. Yet this article goes on and on about how the non-existence is not provable... which is not a tenable position.

In addition, the article does not cover the 4 logical positions of knowledge and belief:

  • 1-Gnostic theist
  • 2-Agnostic theist
  • 3-Agnostic atheist
  • 4-Gnostic theist (which in reality is barely existent)

I don't know the history of this page (and can't say I'll have the time in the near future) but I get the feeling that theists with their shifting UN-understanding concept of burden of proof have been coming around and screwing it up underhandedly... I write you cuz you seem involved, maybe you can direct me further...--Tallard (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(Apologies for the belated response, Wikibreak.) All I can say is that I completely agree and hope the situation with that article can be rectified. Talking about finding proof for a negative statement is absurd ("prove to me god does NOT exist!"), it is a frequently encountered logical fallacy known as an argumentum ad ignorantiam. A person that is simply "agnostic" holds we do not have knowledge of god and additionally states his belief that such knowledge is unknowable. The belief that this is some sort of a "softer form of atheism" stems from the idea that agnostics also hold that we "cannot disprove (a) god" - but this latter notion is simply absurd ("a logical fallacy in which it is considerd that a premise may be true only because it has not been proven false") as one cannot ever disprove or find evidence disproving a phantasm that has yet to be evidenced (especially one that always modifies itself to advancements in knowledge).
An agnostic theist believes in (a) god (most often due to a reason unrelated to any empirical and logical reasoning), but does not think we can ever "know his ways" (or something of the sort :). The two are so utterly unrelated it is laughable to even think of using the category "agnostic" as a religious or spiritual determinant.
That said, as a student of medicine I cannot claim to be knowledgeable is philosophy. I make a point of usually staying away from subjects I am not very familiar with. I certainly hope you will fix this nonsense article, simply because that will establish a lower tolerance for nonsense on Wiki. Best of luck :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion Involving you on WP:ANI

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. Thank you. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply from Иван Богданов

Believe me, I have no intention to engage in edit warring, but I don't see anything wrong in edits that I made. 1) I can agree with you that "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" is the term used on Wikipedia for the state that was also named "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes", and that this edit of mine wasn't nessecary. 2) I must asure you that Janez Drnovšek wasn't an independent politician when he became President of the Presidency. He was an SKJ member, like every other Yugoslav politician at that time (Yugoslavia still was a one-party state in 1989). You can consult article about Drnovšek to see that yourself. 3) I think that article "Prime Minister of Yugoslavia" should be moved to "List of Prime Ministers of Yugoslavia" because this is already case with "List of heads of state of Yugoslavia", and because that article is mainly a list, not an article with description of office of Prime Minister; That criterium is used in many similar articles on Wikipedia. I'm sure that we can reach an agree abouth this issues. Bye! --Иван Богданов (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw problems that you have with abusive IP vandals, but I'm totally different person. I always resolve problems with dialogue, not with violence. Belive me, Drnovšek would never become President of the Presidency if he wasn't an SKJ member; It would be imposible in a one-party state. Because you said that you are "ok with SKJ until proven otherwise", are you agree that I mark him as an SKJ member? Next, I totally agree about renaming the article "List of heads of state of Yugoslavia" into "President of Yugoslavia" and creating a new "King of Yugoslavia" article, but, for now, it may be better to simply move the article "Prime Minister of Yugoslavia" to "List of Prime Ministers of Yugoslavia". Later, we can split heads of state to Kings and Presidents. What you think about that? --Иван Богданов (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

user page width

Hi Direktor, I notice that your user page User:DIREKTOR causes a massive width overflow in Firefox 3.5 (I haven't tried other browsers), so it can't be viewed with without a bunch of annoying horizontal scrolling. Do you think you can fix this? I'm willing to try to adjust it if you want, but I'd only do that if you say it's ok to. Thanks. (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure go ahead :) I've been meaning to remodel the place anyway --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I changed some unbalanced table tags that were causing the widening, and fixed a string quote that may or may not have been causing problems. I'll leave any further remodelling to you. ;-) (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

About Draža

Hi. You can have all your opinions as you want but you are trying to rewritte the history in many articles. I have no conection with Četnik movement (I even had Partisans in my family), but caling Draža Mihajlović simply an-Axis colaborationist and "Crimes agains humanity" criminal is just too NPOV. If you want to edit all historically related articles, you shouldn´t be lead by your own feelings, and you should at leat try to be neutral. FkpCascais (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I know you didn´t edited the article, it was another editor, and that was why this article called my attention. I think we both know all sides can find sourced backing, the point is to keep the article NPOV. The Cetniks did fought the Germans, and that is not to forget. Your last edits are pushing him in the same line as he was some kind of Serbian Pavelić, and that simply propaganda (again). FkpCascais (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I already read the book... FkpCascais (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
"...blatant illusions concerning the Chetniks and Mihailović..." Are you joking? What is illusionist about my edits? FkpCascais (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
And also, beleve me (I can also bold my words), I´m very NPOV about the question. I don´t beleve in peoples words, only seen actions. FkpCascais (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, now you know. I am not a nationalist, I grow up living as "international", in a sence that allways had friends from very much everywhere, studied in international schools, etc. I wasn´t there during the war, I left in 1988, when there were even talks about Yugoslavia entering the EEC, so I am bittered about what all the nationalism did there. But, we must really at some point get to the ground, and analise things (not saying this to you or me, but people there in general). The main question is to separate what were the propagandas and what is the trouth. The problem there is pretty much that everything there moves in gray areas... Of course, there are innocents, and there are criminals, I´m not saying otherwise, but the main point is to put owrselfs in a skin of others. I have good Croat friends, Kosovar-Albanins, Slovenians, Bosniaks... I do know well what each of them had as propaganda for breakfast (Serbs too, of course). I read many things, lost too many time :) ... But too many lies are also getting their oportunity in many cases. It´s not hard to spit now at all Cetniks, all Ustase, UÇK´s, naming all people back than (of all wars) as guilty of this and that, "Humanity criminals"!... Here we do have antagonic points, the Cetniks couldn´t "like" the Germans. The Germans never offered nothing to them. It was just an oprtunistic, and very ill and light, allience between them (cetniks and Nazy Germany). Mihajlovic fought for its own skin, trying to, at the end bring the Monarchy back, for some kind of Yugoslavia, or some Serbia, and he never get any kind of support for it, just some intelligence exchange about how to fight the Partisans... but with completely oposite purposes. That can even hardly be called an alliance, but I´m not even challenging that, just some minor wording about the hole situation. FkpCascais (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I´m reading all the talk page now (funny we both used the expresion:"Mihajlovic didn´t liked the Germans"), but anyway, I still think that having your changes, specially in the lead, are not objective, and very much concentrated in one part (important, yes) of his life. That is not the problem in only this article, there are much more having same problems, but the leads should be POV free, and contein only general notions, the text is to explore futher... FkpCascais (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I would be very happy if you don´t contact me directly no more. We have our discussions in the talk pages, but that is it. FkpCascais (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


I've block you and FkpCascais for edit warring on the page Draža Mihailović. Your both in open violation of the three revert rule, and I find that both of you have issues related to the page content. My advice to both of you is to leave the material alone. By the time this block expires, I'll have protected the article in question to keep both of you off the article until you can agree to edit civilly. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Great... just as the fellow started seriously discussing. I suppose I deserved it though, every once in a while one of these guys gets to me. But wait a second, his edit altered quoted material. He actually reworded a quotation from a historical document (Draža Mihailović's Instrukcije) because he did not like what it said - that's vandalism or very close to it. His edits were also in very bad English. I felt I was trying to protect what little quality is left in that article. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please stop edit warring on Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Prime Minister of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Military of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro and Template:Politics of Yugoslavia.

Across the five articles, you and Иван Богданов (talk · contribs) are edit warring, and I won't tolerate it. There are numerous dispute resolution methods, I suggest you use them before you get blocked again. Thanks. GedUK  14:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Very well, I take your warning seriously. I am simply annoyed and puzzled as to how an couple of users can simply undo all my hard work, create blatantly obvious POV FORKS, enter whatever nonsense they please (contrary to presented sources), and then simply edit-war to keep it all in. No discussion except empty repetition of phrases. And then, of course, I get blocked to boot.
(P.S. DR methods work seldom, if ever, on this sort of Balkans disputes (spoken from years of experience). Non-involved users most often do not respond at all, particularly when there are this many articles to get to work on. This is simply because Balkans issues are 1) obscure, 2) sensitive, 3) complex, and 4) are generally considered more-or-less irrelevant. Even if someone does get involved (a freak occurence), the well-meaning user usually has no knowledge of such matters (and this is often necessary, since as I say, the matter is usually complex). Its incredibly difficult to work on this area of Wiki...) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I also please you to stop reverting my edits. I have no desire to wage an edit war aganist you, nor I have desire to be blocked. I am also sure that you don't want neither of that. I am ready to extend an olive branch to you, but please don't revert my work. Also, you should see my latest post at Talk:Prime Minister of Yugoslavia. --Иван Богданов (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Facts: 1) We will both get blocked if we don't stop edit-warring. 2) One of us should stop reverting. Who? 3) You are introducing new edits that have been reverted and are opposed. Discussion is on.
To put it simply, since you are the one introducing new edits to the articles, you are the party expected to cease for the moment and start discussing properly. Or at least, if this were a civilized "region" of Wikipedia, instead of the Balkans, this is what would be generally expected. In short: don't edit-war to push a new edit, especially if you know it is opposed, especially if you have been reverted repeatedly, and especially if discussion is on and arguments have been presented (such as sources, policy, WP:MoS, WP:CFORK, etc.).
Look at it from my perspective: You start undioing and editing my hard work en masse, you edit-war to keep your edits in, and then you ask me politely to stop edit-warring since you'll get blocked? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand you, but you also should understand me. You shouldn't revert my work. You can't expect that I'll give up my edits just because you revert them. As you can see, I don't disrupt your edits at articles Draza Mihailovic, Josip Broz Tito, or at Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism. I really respect your effort and work there (although I have a different opinion). I don't interfere nor I revert your work there. I have no desire to get blocked, or to drag you into another blockade. I want to resolve all this disputes with you. These are my proposals to you:
1) If we put in place your version of the list of Yugoslav Prime Ministers, it will remove Drago Marusic as Prime Minister in 1945, between Ivan Subasic and Tito. If you agree to left him on the list, this dispute is over. If we can agree about Marusic, we can also agree about the issue "Kingdom or DF Yugoslavia".
2) Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was a complete different state than Serbia and Montenegro. It wasn't like Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and Kingdom of Yugoslavia, or Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In 2003, after the adoption of the Constitutional Charter, whole system of government was changed. Even the position of the Prime Minister was abolished, and merged with the position of the President. Those two countries realy need a separate articles. Also, their armies (Military of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Military of Serbia and Montenegro) need a separate articles.
3) Articles President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and President of Serbia and Montenegro should remain separate. The last President of FRY was Vojislav Kostunica, from 2000 until 2003 when he was replaced by Svetozar Marovic of SCG (2003-2006). Those two offices was very different (President of FRY wasn't both head of state and head of government, like President of SCG).
4) Prime Minister of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia wasn't "Prime Minister of Serbia and Montenegro", but of FRY. That article should retain its current name.
5) As you can see, yesterday I changed Template:Politics of Yugoslavia to a neutral, non-image version. I hope that you agree with this version.


I'm sorry if you think that people from the Balkans are uncivilized. It's not true, believe me. We aren't better or worse than other peoples. --Иван Богданов (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I knew I would find something funny here if I just popped in. DIREKTOR claims to be from Split. He just said that the Balkans area of wikipedia is uncivilized, which it often is. Polargeo (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
You can only say that individual users from the Balkans are sometime uncivilized, not the whole Balkans area of Wikipedia. It's unacceptable to generalize things in such a manner. --Иван Богданов (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
No, actually quite the contrary. I am "allowed" to make general observations, especially when I'm from the region myself, I should think. And I'm not allowed to insult fellow Wikipedians. Finally, if you read more carefully, you would've noticed that I was referring to a group of Wikipedia articles, and not a geographic region. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Disturbing page

I found this and was very concerned so I started a thread at WP:ANI about User:Иван Богданов. I may look stupid because my Serbian is not good. Polargeo (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I wrote that text myself, in my own sandbox. I didn't send that text to anyone, nor I planned to use it in some "attacks". I wrote it just for fun; I had no other bussines at that time. Text contain my address, and some of my personal beliefs (I am firm anti-Nazi). That text, wich I deleted today, was totally private toughts written in my sandbox. --Иван Богданов (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable. I'll translate this fully, its the most horrid piece of text I've seen on Wikipedia thus far. Not even that Ustaše guy topped this... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing

Hey, you're seriously overdoing (as usual) the S&M / FRY matter here. There was no such position as "Prime Minister of S&M", and the only one that existed was "Prime Minister of FRY". I don't see why the titles on "Prime Minister of Foo" and "Foo" must correspond. While the S&M was called FRY, it had the prime minister, thus it should be "Prime Minister of FRY". The current lead section is utterly confusing -- why not just follow the official title? No such user (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm busy now but I'll take a look later. I hope that they will take care of you and that you'll get well soon. I know that you study medicine but couldn't resist the punch. No such user (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC) you're using Wikipedia as a testing ground for your future relationships with patients? :). No such user (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

ARBMAC Warning

You are reminded that tendentious editing or outright edit waring is not an acceptable practice. This article, Serbia and Montenegro has been the subject of a slow edit war concerning the relationship of the present day state to past governmental entities. The conflict is marked by frequent redirects and reverts all of which seem to be without clear consensus. Under the final decision of the Arbitration Committee/Macedonia case I am reminding you of the need to reach consensus on the talk page and to not redirect or revert the page again without clear consensus. Failure to do so will result in the imposition of discretionary sanctions. This warning has been logged at ARBMAC Log of blocks and bans. JodyB talk 23:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have received your comment on my talk page. Thank you. I saw where you have reasoned that the existence of a separate article constitutes a POV fork. You may or may not be correct, I make no finding concerning that. However the ongoing war must stop. Issues surrounding naming conventions were a large part of the ARBMAC and ARBMAC2 cases. People thought they were correct and edit warred across many articles. The results of that edit war are now history. Editors must work to achieve consensus and can make use of various resolution tools to clarify the issue and reach a workable solution. Someone has mentioned an RFC which could be useful. I appreciate your passion and desire to craft good articles for Wikipedia. Please just keep it in line with all of our principles and policies. JodyB talk 11:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Balance icon.svg
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked for a period of 1 week from editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below; but you should read our guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks first. JodyB talk 15:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice to administrators: In a 2008 decision, the Arbitration Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Director (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

Unbelievable. Could this silly block possibly be because of this edit??! Forgive me if some of my outrage becomes apparent in this unblock request, I'll do my best to be brief. I am actually getting banned for no less than one week because I reverted an edit by User:Иван Богданов. The same user who was indeffed a week ago because of his editing (and of course, because he expressed his desire to see another user "SLAUGHTERED LIKE AN OX" among other things [8]).
Not only was this one edit part of an attempt to repair articles damaged by the indeffed account uwilling to familiarize itself with WP:CFORK, but was also done some ten days after the conflict had been successfully resolved and the disruptive account blocked. To add to this, my grand total or reverts on the page amounts to three (and I'm talking all time, one, two, three) with the last one apparently causing this "timely intervention" that managed to prevent an already successfully resolved conflict. On top of all this, maximum effort had previously been exerted to explain this situation to the blocking admin (by an uninvolved third party) [9]. Was I expected to "achieve consensus" with an indefinitely blocked user before reverting the damage he was blocked for inflicting? I emphasize that the only other person involved in the problem is unable to edit this website.

I've been around for years and (fully understanding WP:EC) I'm proud to say I have just under 24,000 edits on enWiki [10]. Believe it or not, when I edit I always do my best to improve the encyclopaedia and repair articles. I know the "success rate" of unblock requests, and if I were wrong here I would apologize immediately, but this is simply not a fair block in any way. Apparently, nobody is safe with these "liberal" interpretations of ARBMAC decisions on the part of some admins. When I'm able to edit again, I shall do my best to bring this matter to the attention of the community. These sort of actions leave people wondering about the general wisdom of their efforts on this encyclopedia.

Decline reason:

Arbitration enforcement blocks may not be appealed like this; see WP:AEBLOCK. If the ongoing community discussion about your block produces consensus against it after at least a day of discussion, it will be lifted, or you may request that it be lifted with reference to that consensus.  Sandstein  21:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

This is also at AN. JodyB talk 18:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(I would appreaciate it if my post were presented to, or read by, the participants of the relevant discussion at AN)

The sequence of events on the article in question (Military of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) is as follows:

  • The user and I entered into a very brief edit-war (he edited, I reverted, he edited again, I reverted again, period). [11]
  • Limited discussion on the issue took place elsewhere. I posted the last comment, it remained unanswered. [12]
  • The other user, the only user actively supporting his edit, was indefinitely blocked for expressing his desire to shoot a third user with an M-80 rifle. [13]
  • I waited for something like 10 days. [14]
  • I reverted his edit. [15]
  • I got blocked for a week.

Apparently, I did not act quickly enough to establish consensus - the only account supporting the edit (the same guy who posted it) was blocked too soon. My mistake, it seems. I have to say here: if the blocking admin (who I'm sure really is acting in good faith), felt an RfC on the issue was necessary, I do not see what stopped him from posting it himself, instead of blocking people for not doing what he deemed necessary. The discussion was (and I think still remains) clearly dead, i.e. - concluded. (Please note that No such user supports the merge, and even after all this "hubub" the talkpage is still dead with opposing voices.)

Regarding the issue on the whole, well, I was trying to get work done. I think anyone can see that it is very hard to interpret the exchange there as whole-hearted "opposition from the community" (apart from the banned user who, again, I obviously cannot engage in conversation). I discussed the issue, and despite Jody's interpretation, I cannot see how the wording of my posts prevents people from seriously opposing the (frankly very necessary and beneficial) merge. Do I go around asking people to oppose me and discuss so as to avoid getting blocked? How long does one wait? Fellas, if ten days was insufficient then I apologize, I'm a pretty busy guy, but I don't think I'm to blame for not posting an RfC... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I know you think you mergers and redirects were beneficial, maybe so. But the issue here was proceeding in the face of opposition. If you are agreeable to the following, I am prepared to unblock today. This is not a negotiation. If you accept just say so here.
  1. Be more aware of the WP:BRD guideline and put it to use whenever conflicts arise,
  2. Seek some form of assistance or dispute resolution in the face of persistent conflict, and,
  3. Avoid declaring something vandalism in an edit summary when an editorial dispute is underway.
I know that you are and have been a productive editor and I would very much like to see you back at work. I know that you do not agree with your block but please understand the importance, especially on these particular pages, of avoiding ongoing conflict. If you are agreeable, just post here and I will unblock. JodyB talk 12:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I decided to go offline for a while and concentrate on my studies, Jody, I never saw this last post. No hard feelings on my part, I probably wouldn't have done much editing either way with my workload the past few weeks. :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you back

Good to see that you have not left wikipedia after that overly harsh block. In the end I had to withdraw myself from the debate because I was so annoyed with JodyB's poorly considered stance. Polargeo (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm back, but I can't shake a feeling of apathy regarding the place. To be honest, I'm starting to think Wikipedia might really be too large for its own good, in relation to the relatively small population of editors that is. I understand Jody's actions and I'm not bitter about it, but I am a bit peeved that he managed to block me for a week while FpkCascais is out there removing sources because he personally disapproves of the professor's ethnicity [16]. Thanks for your support, Polar, I'm sure I'll be back out there in no time. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I am beginging to hate sanctions. The normal rules of wikipedia provide plenty enough to block difficult or problem editors. Sanctions seem to be simply putting good editors off the project. There has been a recent case of User:Atmoz in climate change and User:William M. Connolley being blocked again but this time for the very smallest of transgressions imaginable. As with you these people are consensus building wikipedians who try to defend and build wikipedia but fall foul of random admins who think they are doing the right thing but are simply that "random admins" who stumble across the issue and throw warnings and blocks around with no sense of what a block is actually for. I would have loved to have edited wikipedia a few years ago, you may be right it is getting too big. Polargeo (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
"I am beginning to hate sanctions".....well, it was time that the "doctor" tasted his own many times other wikipedians have been blocked/banned without a real reason because of you, DIREKTOR? I remember -just to name one- the good old user:Luigi28, who happens to be now one of the most respected contributors on it. wiki :) And who knows when you'll have your next block? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Another bitter IP sock. Confirms that you are definitely doing a good job. Polargeo (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Its good to hear from the trolls every once in a while... :) Mr. IP, as you can see, this isn't "my" medicine - I can't block anyone. I just report 'em. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A new sockpuppet of Historičar (talk · contribs)

As you've been involved with SPI's for this user before, I thought I'd let you know he has a new sock and there is a new case - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historičar.

Do you know if there is any way to get an IP range block/ban for this person? He just doesn't seem to quit with the sockpuppetry. (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Admins don't like placing range blocks, especially when an IP uses a wide range. Ask, though, see if its possible. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Yugoslavia Award

100px The Yugoslavia Order of Merit
I, Kebeta (although sometimes seeing things differently), award you with Yugoslavia Order of Merit for your dedication to articles related to Yugoslavia. Kebeta (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
You have my thanks Kebeta, you've shown that you have the amazing capability to get over my obnoxious character. :) Thanks again --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
You are most welcome "comrade"! Regards, Kebeta (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Serbian propaganda in the Yugoslav Wars

Hello DIREKTOR. I would apreciate your opinion regarding the article: Serbian propaganda in the Yugoslav Wars. Greetings!

Zdravo druže. Cenio bih tvoje mišljenje povodom članka: Serbian propaganda in the Yugoslav Wars. Pozdrav! --Mladifilozof (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: House of Crijević

Hello DIREKTOR. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of House of Crijević, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's not a portal, and it seems a reasonable redirect. Take to RfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  19:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: House of Đurđević

Hello DIREKTOR. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of House of Đurđević, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's not a portal, and it seems a reasonable redirect. Take to RfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  19:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Draža Mihailović

Replied on my talk page and more substantially at ANI. EyeSerenetalk 16:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Took a break to cool off. Thanks for responding to the ANI post. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Draža Mihailović. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.  Sandstein  17:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Sandstein, I especially like the standard-issue block message. This is what I get when I ask admins for help. Makes me feel stupid to spend so much time here and then get blocked by the community for restoring sourced material. Tell me, what was the point of warning and blocking User:BoDu (something you "concurred" with) for "removing sourced material on Draža Mihailović" and then blocking the guy that restored the sourced material? But never mind, I'm used to this sort of brilliant administration.
For the record this is not an unblock request, in fact I honestly think you should extend it. I deserve to be "punished" more severely for my stupidity. You'd think I'd realize by now that enWikipedia is far too large and does not function on the fringe. What does some guy from Switzerland care about these articles? He just makes sure he treats everyone fair and equal - the guy that restored five university publications and their sourced text into the article, and the guy that demolishes the place every now and again out of personal conviction. In fact, lets block the the restoring guy for double the period, just to be sure. After all, he's restored the sources way more times than the other guy demolished the article. Makes perfect sense.
I'm sorry I engaged in edit-warring, next time I'll report the matter to the admins... no wait.. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I concurred with the block for edit-warring, not for "removing sourced material". The point is that it does not matter whether the text that is being edit-warred over is well-sourced or not (WP:BLP cases excepted), or whether it is in any other way good or bad. Edit warring is wrong in either case. If you are in a content dispute, your choice is not between edit-warring or "reporting the matter to the admins", because admins do not have the authority to adjudicate content disputes. Your choice is between edit-warring (bad) or pursuing dispute resolution (good). In this case you chose to edit-war. Please choose dispute resolution next time, or you may be subject to blocks of increasing duration. (I took your previous block log into account in determining the length of this block.)  Sandstein  19:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I am fully aware of WP:DR and I tried it numerous times. Every single time its either 1) nobody responds (most often, 75% of times, particularly if its an obscure article like this one), 2) if someone responds, he/she does not really care about the outcome, and does not help resolve the issue at all 3) even if he/she responds and actually gives a damn, these sort of complex EE issues require at least some back knowledge, now that never happens: you can never, ever get help resolving a dispute from an informed, motivated user. Two people like that would be a miracle. It has not happened in the last 3 years, and I don't think its happening now.
ffs Sandstein, I know why you blocked me when you did, but why do you think those involved in Balkans disputes almost never ever even try using DR? I get that every time: "use DR". Its a joke. This is an obscure Balkans article about some guy who's name 99% of Wikipedians can't even pronounce. In short, yes I've heard of WP:DR, and no, I did not avoid using it because I'm too stupid or a belligerent Balkanite, I had a good reason. My two realistic choices are edit war or admin assistance. This isn't my first Balkans dispute. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I think most Wikipedians would agree that our lack of a solid content dispute resolution system is a deficiency. I do not have a solution to that problem. However, both edit-warring and administrative fiat are very solidly ruled out as possible solutions. If you find yourself unable to edit Wikipedia within these constraints, you will need to leave the project at some time.  Sandstein  20:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. I once had a bad edit warring problem and something that really helped me, although I am still not perfect, was I was put on a five week one revert rule on all articles. This was very good for not edit warring, which seems to be direktors only issue. Try it, one revert a day and if you are reverted that is that and you move to discussion, it was relaxing in a way, I had to discuss more but it was a very good lesson, although as I said I am not as yet perfect and still get into scrapes, since that five weeks on a one revert rule I have not been blocked for edit warring in fact not at all for anything and that was seven months ago, with respect. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
@Sandstein. I make do, as do we all. My point is that blocking the user that's trying to prevent the article from being reduced to nothing on the basis of an opinion is a lot worse than the dysfunction of the DR process - its blind Wikilawyering. For example, if I had asked a friend to revert the edit, which I easily could've done, I would not be stacking-up my block log and the result would be the same. I submitted the case on WP:ANI to get some eyes on it. I did not want, as I never do, for anyone to get blocked, even for 24 hours. I was hoping that the user that came along and removed the sources would be advised to stop doing so, urged to start discussing the matter properly, and to stop trying to push this destructive edit in by edit-warring.
@Off2riorob. Hi Off2riorob, long time no hear. I know about that, I actually did that before - turns out you can and do still get blocked. Its called a "slow edit-war", apparently. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, its been a while, I am glad your ok apart from this small issue...That is what they call a slow war, yes, if you made a revert one day and say you made the same revert the next day that could be classed as a long term war, what you learn is if someone changes something you don't think is correct then you can revert him and ask him to move to discussion, then you start a discussion about it, he should also move to discussion but if he doesn't and he puts it back, so what, he has to still come and discuss it with you, if you feel your correct and he won't budge, attract some imdependant opinions or start a RFC, a few days later when the change is officially reverted through process it is a much better feeling that warring, I don't do it so much now but it taught me when to stop and how not to keep getting blocked for warring. The real good additions or removals that are solid and stay in the article are inserted or removed through discussion, best. Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

An outside view

Well Direktor, at least in this case you don't have a reason to be bitter for the block. In the Mihailović case, I think you entrenched yourself and refused to listen to reasonable (well, and less reasonable too) suggestions that the case of his collaborationism is not as black and white as you insist on portraying. I know that you rewrote the article from a bunch of back-and-forth "hero and resistance fighter" vs. "collaborator and war criminal" nationalist crap (Talk:Draža_Mihailović/Archive_1#What_a_mess), but remember that you don't WP:OWN it. Your really stubborn insistence of putting the unqualified definition "Axis collaborator" adored with a half dozen ref tags in the lead has hampered the progress of the article so far. Further, if you read the talk page with an appropriate portion of good faith, no one is really denying that the collaboration did exist. However, sources point more to the strategy that Chetniks were opportunists who would use Axis offensives as a background to exterminate their communist, Croat and Muslim enemies, rather than to openly cooperate with the occupiers. Furthermore, the whole organization had a rather loose hierarchy, with local commanders having a lot of autonomy, so it's still questionable how much of that collaboration is to be ascribed to Mihailović himself. I admit I didn't read much about the matter though, and that those are rather rather superficial observations of mine.

However, I invite you to re-read Jean-Jacques Georges's comments at Talk:Draža_Mihailović#Article_needs_to_be_toned_out_a_bit, (which I happen to wholeheartedly agree with) as well as several comments at Talk:Chetniks/Archive 1 (for example, radek's at #Images) with open mind. They were fairly critical at "your" version of the article, and you certainly wouldn't call them biased, would you? No such user (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand, No such user: I am not at all hung on this exact same lead etd. - but there never was any chance for a constructive dialogue on changes. From my point of view, User:FkpCascais arrived at the article making unilateral edits that
  • a) remove sources altering quotes of historical documents to fit his POV, discriminating on the basis
  • b) alter the text of quotes of historical documents according to personal ideas
  • c) discriminate against authors on an ethnic basis
  • d) inaccurately insert the word "communist" at every turn (e.g. "Yugoslav authorities" became "communist regime", etc.)
  • e) and all of the above in bad grammar & syntax
The user never even considered discussing the changes in a constructive way, but merely proceeded to edit-war to keep them in. The massive unreadable talkpage posts are tyrades dedicated to attacking me and defending his uncompromising position, i.e. his refusal to even consider that his edit should be altered. The only thing I kept calling for was 1) an end to the edit-war, and 2) the start of serious discussion. For a while now I've been hoping that User:Jean-Jacques Georges and I will be able to enter into constructive dialogue on a version more acceptable to all (he stated that he needed time to do the research) - this prospect is utterly ruined at this point by User:FkpCascais' arrival. The man writes massive posts, has a limited knowledge of the English language, and insists on keeping his edits in the article, even though most of their aspects are totally unacceptable to any neutral user (e.g. grammar, ethnic discrimination of scholars, quote altering, POV ideological labeling), and has reduced discussion on Talk:Draža Mihailović to a hopelessly hostile conflict.
All I basically asked the guy was that he leave the article alone while we discuss. That's all. The revert war paints a distorted picture of my immobility on the subject. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
As you can see User:BoDu has immediately continued to edit-war on Draža Mihailović as soon as he was unblocked. Dialogue is impossible with these Chetnik sympathizers - they're just here on a crusade to remove what info they can get away with, preferrably from the lede. One asks for sources and gets fake links and total nonsense. I haven't managed to squeeze out a single credible source out of these people. He's also vandalized the Bleiburg massacre article. Someone should report him, I intend to do so as soon as I'm able. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hung out to dry

Buddy, I said I'd left Wiki due to the appalling nonsenses perpetrated against good editors. But I can't stand by and allow you to be hung like this. You know of course that the IP that taunted you today was your old friend Bruno? They won't let up. If you are alone, you have no chance - Wikipedia is edited and - most importantly - administered by teenagers, for whom the niceties of encyclopedic content are irrelevant. So I'll come back - and refrain from any comments about other editors, even if, like AndreaFox, they are 12 years old, and we'll see what can be done to improve things. Not much, I guess, but we can try. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it Al. Good to have you back. Bruno seems to think I'm about to be indeffed so that he and his buddies will have free reign. It gives a guy a strong sense of purpose and determination to make sure the hateful nonsense they peddle is kept well and out of enWiki. Oh, could you just block User:Arrgosie and revert his edits? Ragusino again, I think. At this point its really getting sad, poor fella's trying so hard :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Bleiburg massacre. The thread is The_three-revert_rule. Thank you. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about this, I've blocked the remaining sockpuppet, tagged all of the ones who've been recently involved at the page, and semiprotected it for a week to stop the IPs and other socks. Hopefully that's long enough to get them to go away. -- Atama 18:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation for Draza Mihailovic article

I filed the request for Draza Mihailovic article that needs your acceptance(signing)Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Draza_Mihailovic. BoDu (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Please learn how to file for mediation. Nobody is not going to agree to such a biased description of the issue. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Jean-Jacques Georges and User:FkpCascais already agreed. As far as you are concerned, I have no problem to edit the description of the issue (it must be finished within seven days). Write down your suggestion, and I will think about it. BoDu (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless you sign by 14:05(UTC) tomorrow, the mediation will be rejected. I edited the description of the issue, so you should urgently (today) either sign, or tell me what is wrong with the modified description of the issue. BoDu (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi DIREKTOR, just come across an edit by a vandal banned for sockpuppeting who seems to know your real name (and really hates you). Brutal Deluxe (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


Re: "The collaboration of Mihailović's Chetniks was "opportunistic" as a whole, but it was certainly not "sporadic".", I don't believe I said it was sporadic. Am I missing something? ----Nuujinn (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you did not state it was sporadic, you were responding to a a post by FkPCascais. You wrote "If you have sources that assert that his collaboration was 'occasional and oportunistic' [sic], please cite them." [17] So I responded "The collaboration of Mihailović's Chetniks was "opportunistic" as a whole, but it was certainly not "sporadic". Details can be found in the fully sourced "Axis collaboration" section of the Chetniks article." --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Gotcha, no problem. This is interesting, I have to say, I don't know much about this part of the world at that time. ----Nuujinn (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you are a communist, a Titoist! Why? Your one-point view: there is one truth: your truth obviously!

Believe what you like. From my point of view, a western-democratic, liberal, economically significant, EU Yugoslavia with unquestioned liberty for all its nations would be the best-case scenario in the world we live in. Simply put, of course. This "best case scenario" is naturally an unrealistic silly fantasy, but still, it would probably be the best we can hope for in the Balkans.
Also, that "one truth" stuff obviously has nothing to do with communism at all, it refers to logical truth. Learn a thing or two before you start trying to insult me. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Region2

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Infobox Region2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI report against your behaviour.

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. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've now blocked User: as a sockpuppet of User:Ragusino. -- The Anome (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. The fellow has a lot of time on his hands apparently. He'll be back, though, with another IP. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Mavro Vetranovic

Look this edit!--Crisarco (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Concerning your and Novangelis' vandalism of my edits on Macro-evolution

Why are you trolling? How is it an invented term to say "macro-evolutionary biologists" WHEN THAT IS WHAT IS BEING REFERRED TO ON THE MACROEVOLUTION PAGE? Can you get any more absurd? Was "biologists" in references to CREATIONIST BIOLOGISTS? OF COURSE NOT, and yet in keeping with a weasel, you would have it so that people think "biologists" are only those who support MACRO-EVOLUTION. Second, what does it matter even if it were an "invented term", is that a sin? Is that forbidden in Wikipedia? Third, IT'S A PHRASE pointing out to what type of biologists are being referred to, and there is no law in Wikipedia and it is no sin, to clarify. Fourth, I already stated why I was removing, as I said in the notes, certain references which were not relevant. Fifth: what does the fact that the mainstream (and it was also left out the "scientific community" mentioned was the MAINSTREAM one (again with the weasel-wording and bigotry) have to do with CRITICISMS of macro-evolution? NOTHING, it's distracting propaganda used to distract any reader from focusing on the criticisms and to instead focus on THE ALLEGED CONSENSUS, and as administrators in Wikipedia love to point out only when it is convenient: "the truth is not determined by consensus". Can you answer my points? NO you can't Mr. LOLz, all you can do is repeat and divert those who input the truth to the talk page, to delay endlessly any progress, with the pretense of "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" and "truth isn't determined by consensus". The first immature remark you left in your first reversion of my edit shows what kind of mind you have, your level of maturity, and your true concern for facts: none. All you can do is make insults, mere claims based on your feelings, while disregarding any reasons anyone gives you if they don't agree with your feelings.Oriclan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC).

I've given some advice on Oriclan's talk page, and repeated the essentials on talk:macroevolution which would be the appropriate venues to discuss this. You are of course free to delete this from your own talk page, dave souza, talk 21:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure hope he stops. He won't last long with this sort of violent attacks. Next thing you know he'll be telling us all about how dinosaur bones are 4000 years old and/or were placed in the earth to "test our faith"... :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


You are playing with semantics to suit your POV. Yugoslavia was established in 1918, but it was not called as such until 1929. The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes may have been a South Slav state, but it was not Yugoslavia until 1929. You are misrepresenting facts. There was widespread opposition to such a name even being introduced (which is why it took a Serbian royal-military dictatorship to do so). My change is small and I do not doubt that it is the same country. But from the perspective of 1918 or 1921, Yugoslavia "did not exist" because that was simply not the country's name yet.--Thewanderer (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Reported you for Edit Warring

Since you have been several times reverting the article Julian March, claiming that "Venezia Giulia" is not an English term (despite the evidences in talk page), I have reported you for edit warring, right here [18]. -- (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

Exquisite-folder5.png A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic.
For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
Great, I was really starting to get skeptical. Thought nobody cared :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


Greetings! Have you got a diff for Ragusino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) that you could point me to, to show that Kruske (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is following the same pattern? I've left a comment on the user's talk page about edit warring in general and invited him to use more robust edit summaries or the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Please apologize for your ignorant accusation and personal attack against me that I am a Serbian monarchist POV editor, I'M NOT A SERB NOR A MONARCHIST!

Please apologize for the ignorant accusation and personal attack that I am inserting Serb nationalist POV in the Flags of Yugoslavia article. I am not a Serb, nor a Yugoslav, nor a monarchist! I am a Canadian of British, Irish, and northwestern Italian descent bordering France, who does not like the British monarchy that is the head of state in my country of Canada, nor any monarchy for that matter. If you do not apologize for such an insolent and ignorant accusation, I will report you for personal attack.--R-41 (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

R-41, calm down. I know you are not a Serb OR a monarchist. What I said was that the EDIT you were suggesting could be construed as Serbian monarchist POV. If I offended you in any way by this, I do sincerely apologize. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in..

This edit which was aimed at Jimbo Wales concerning your contributions. I cannot fathom the reason for posting it on a barely used talk page discussing improvements for his user page, but i thought i would let you know nonetheless. I have a feeling it might be moved to the correct place, so i linked the diff instead of the page. Kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, just check the account. [19] Its a very obvious sock of a user I reported, most likely of User:Ragusino but certainly of one of his banned buddies (User:Giovanni Giove, User:PIO/Luigi 28, etc.). This happens a lot, recommend a quick block. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
All i can say is about this is Quack!, and all i can do is offer you some duck stew as an apology for not seeing that talk page at once. I'd love to say "That takes care of the issue" but seeing the SSP case i presume there will be more. O well, guess the problem will eventually burn out in due time. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hope not, I like my roast poultry rare ;) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

re Ragusa edits

Is this editor likely to be a sock of User:Ragusino? They seem to have very much the same limited interests? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Very likely. At the very least (unlikely) he's a recruited meatpuppet buddy of his from itWiki. There's quite a club over there it seems. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I will block per WP:DUCK. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I am inclined to unblock, providing there are some undertakings not to revert war and to request input before opening a series of similar edits. If this stops the edit warring then I don't care if they are a meatpuppet (I don't think they are a sock). However, after reading the below, if you want to open an SPI on the two accounts then you might want to link to my comments above - and these as well, of course. Sometimes people will simply agree on a matter without any other motive, and I am going to proceed on that basis. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Another Ragusino sock

Uauy (talk · contribs). Account created just as Crisarco got indef blocked. (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Amazing... :) What do you do if someone just keeps creating socks to no end? xP --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Me? I indef blocked it. What you might do, such as an SPI, is for you to choose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mikulic.JPG


Thanks for uploading File:Mikulic.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).


  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yugoslavia article protected for 3 days

Per discussion at my talkpage I have enacted the above action so a consensus regarding the flag(s) of the various states known to English speakers as Yugoslavia, and their appearance in the article, may be formed. I should be grateful if you would interact civilly with the other editors, and refer only to such Wikipedia policies/guidelines as WP:RS, WP:MoS, etc. and not WP:VANDAL, WP:STALK, and the like. The recent editing of the article, where there were numerous reverts with little reference to discussion or policy, has all the appearance of an edit war, and longer (indefinite) protection and sanctioning of those who prefer to revert rather than discuss is an option I will consider if it breaks out again when protection expires. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is the Flags of Yugoslavia article - so I have changed Yugoslavia back to semi protected and protected the Flags article for 3 days. DIREKTOR, you know the processes when there is a content dispute - and especially nationalist orientated ones. Use them. Getting involved in edit wars gets you blocked as well as the other party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


I want to thanks about restoring my last contribution and the reliable sorces I add to Micaglia's article. But I want to advice you that you have to STOP referring to me as SOCK of someone I don't know, just in order to push your position. (Do you remember Crisarco and your accuse??). I need you apologize of it or I will consider it a PERSONAL ATTACK, and i will report to an admin. Be more polite, my friends, and begin to accept ather's contribution as useful as yours (remember WP:OWN). Regards, --Theirrulez (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


Hello, Director. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 22:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ho notato, Salvio. Thank you :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
My pleasure.
Anyway, if you don't mind my saying so, I do not think that User:Theirrulez is a sock. He is a well known and established user on He has made 1295 edits and his identity was created on 04.11.2006.
I fear he got caught up in a highly controversial issue, through no fault of his own, some sort of the person in the wrong place at the wrong time... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 22:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I inform you I noticed you on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. As several times tried to advice.--Theirrulez (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

To try and avoid much drama and WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT accusations, regarding the various Croatia-related articles, would you be willing to consider WP:MEDCAB? I think that this would go to great lenghts towards improving the atmosphere... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 12:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well yeah, I was probably wrong on the sock stuff, mea culpa, I'm a moron, etc. However, the guy is restoring edits of banned sockpuppeteers, that's what created the suspicion in the first place and started the whole mess, what do I tell him? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
That's why I was suggesting WP:MEDCAB. If we continue like this, we only risk sanctions. All of us. For edit warring — at least, so I fear —. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 12:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Hm, you think anyone there would be interested in this obscure nonsense? As for my previous edits, I know I violated WP:3RR, but I did so under the assumption that the account was a sockpuppet (3RR does not apply to reverting socks). And with the history of those articles, I really think my mistake may be considered an understandable error. I emphasize: every single account that restored sock edits & pushed the edits Theirrulez pushed turned out to be a sockpuppet. There were dozens of socks, so many they are now generally blocked per WP:DUCK. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
As I've already said, I understand your position. You edited in perfect good faith. Your only error is that you started off assuming bad faith. As I've said, again, that's perfectly understandable given the history of socking on those articles.
That said, I know that reverting socks is not subject to the 3-rr rule, but I think that, instead of keeping on reverting and fighting off socks, it could be useful to give a go at mediation. It's a process designed to help users to get consensus and avoid further warring. It is nothing like arbitration, it does not issue blocks, bans or other sanctions. You can give it a try and, then, if you're not satisfied still be able to go to WP:ANI or even WP:ARBCOM.
I also think that they would be interested in helping you. You should just choose one article and concentrate on it. Try to get consensus on a less controversial issue should then help you trust each other and learn to work better together, so that your future interactions are not this confrontational (for want of a better term, it's not meant as a personal attack. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 13:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Heh, yeah. Its not easy to be non-confrontational when the sockpuppeteers harass you both on Wiki and elsewhere. Thank you for your advice and understanding, Salvio. The problem now revolves around 3 relatively minor issues. We'll see how things develop, perhaps an amiable atmosphere can be yet achieved without bothering others. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got some apologizing to do. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


"Titoism and Totalitarianism", interesting article I found while editing Yugoslav categories. PRODUCER (TALK) 04:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo took care of it. [20] PRODUCER (TALK) 15:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Wazaaaup dudes? Long time no see. (LAz17 (talk) 05:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)).
Aww, nobody's home. :( (LAz17 (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)).
Come on, open up, I got chocolate! Who can say no to that? (LAz17 (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)).
Well LAz old man, I've got problems... its all serious here on the "front lines". :) The usual I guess, people continuously trying to get me banned, you know how it is... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI report on you for edit warring on my talk page

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. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I thank you

I thank you sir for your effort to patrolling my talk page, but there's no need to do that. I consider myself enough strong to take care of it by myself.

And I prefer above all to leave any comments where users or ip added them, in order to have always the chronology clearly showed.

Wishing you a good work, I offer you my best regards.
Sincerely, --Theirrulez (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, good sir. I'll be sure to continue to revert his edits regardless of where he happens to post. Best wishes, --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I reported you for edit warring

[21] FkpCascais (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You win the triple crown !!! AniMate 05:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, I can see you mean well, but maybe instead of reverting these socks and getting in pointless edit wars with them you should file WP:SPI reports as you detect them. After they are blocked all their edits can be removed without all this edit warring, if you can get checkuser to take an interest they may find "sleeper" socks as well, and it will give Fkp less ammunition in his never ending quest to have you blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
But I did report the sock - to Less [22], and let me assure it certainly is User:Ragusino, note the attempted WP:OUTING in his edit summary [23]. Writing SPI reports on these Ragusino socks is a pointless waste of energy imho. Yesterday it was "User:Butler.banana", today, "User:Kancetha", etc. etc. - no end to it. Textbook DUCKS. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand your position, and I am not doubting that you have correctly identified many socks of this user. I'm just trying to find any way I can to reduce the drama between you and Fkp, and since he has made it abundantly clear that he intends to continue making reports left and right and apparently isn't willing to make his case to ArbCom despite the mounting evidence that admins are unwilling to act on his reports, I thought I'd try nipping at the problem from the other end. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand, but what do I do? Its a sock - no question. Its insulting and OUTING me, no question. (Or at least he thinks he's OUTING me, I wisely did not give my actual full name and its proper spelling ;). Do I just let these (painfully obvious) socks edit enWiki? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
You should probably email oversight with the outing, so that diff can be scrubbed. Secondly, as annoying as filing daily SPIs is, that's the least controversial way to deal with these guys. It's obvious that Fkp is going to use anything and everything against you he can, so why give him any ammunition. It'll be tedious stuff, no doubt, but more eyes can only help. AniMate 02:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


Dir, please, don't ask me if I know how to check English usage; dont't ask me to provide evidence of English usage of name and words.. because I did it, you know better than me.
But I don't believe you want really I give evidence of that (I'm ready to do it really), while instead you rarely gave the same evidence you ask in your edits.
You know how balanced and sources-supported my edits are. If you want I begin to scan pages of The Britannica: maybe they will survive few hours before being cancelled, but could be enough to make you very sorry. And I don't want to make you upset, because we are just became friends.
So, please be less aggressive, do not intimidate me, stop accusing about races, ethnicity or nationalism. I'dont know this words, but I don't know why they sounds bad. Accept my contribution even if sometimes you not completely agree, but be critic, trying to be my best reviewer. Don't continue to push an edit if you see other users offering you different informations.
You don't own the truth, nobody can, so please read my sources, don't argue any more on little changes, don't bother repeating me everytime hundreds of wikirules not related to or subject to interpretation just in order to opposite my edit, and first of all respect my work.
Because it's hard, very hard and a long lasting work. It's hard to be a good editor. It's hard to find sources accessible to anyone. It's more hard to order informations in my head, and try to create knowledge from them. It's most hard to understand how to transfer this knowledge to others fitting everybody expectations.
Well, I choose to be an editor, at least a decent editor. Someone spend his time to hunt puppets like in a funfair, or to pursue and denounce others' mistakes: it's not for me.
Take a step back, read my edit, don't argue any more, scared by edits that seem not matching with your positions, leave me a bit of space, and you will not regret. Articles about your beloved (and mine) Dalmatia, now suffering and underdeveloped, will benefit, you'll see.
You told you are a doctor, medicine student learned latin usually, so you should know the meaning of the section title. Nothing is impossible if you want.
Have a good night Doc. --Theirrulez (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


Going to get some icecream. But anyways, check this, , could you make it into a table? I am gonna scan all of these guys and put 'em into wikipedia. I used to collect bills quite a bit - got my hands on all the croatian dinars, so this would be quite a cool thing to have uploaded. (LAz17 (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)).

np, first thing tomorrow. One request though, don't make that thing at DM personal, leave out whatever you may think I am, etc., it does not help discussion and won't resolve the issue. "Comment on content, not the contributor", as it were. :) Another thing: the discussion over there has evolved a lot. Now its strictly sources. Don't make any claim whatsoever without getting a university-published secondary source from a history professional (i.e. "a scholarly source"), preferably from outside ex-Yu. Anything less is kind of useless since there are already dozens of "university-published secondary source from a history professionals" in play over there.
P.S. Before going in, I suggest you quickly read through the "Axis collaboration" section of the Chetniks article. Every single word is copied almost verbatim from a large number of professional university publications. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Your search is one sided. Lets look at the other side, so look around this page, [24] , and you can see a slightly different story, that there was resistance, whereas you paint it as wholehearted loyalty to the nazis. maybe so in 1945, but I have issues that they were like that during most of the war, which is what you seem to have been saying. But, we'll deal with this later... this is a long thing and ja sam suvise lenj da idem u te stvari sada. :( But yeah, the last sentance on page 203 and 204... it shows that the Germans were fighting against the chetniks in 1943. So... I can sift through stuff like that. But it takes so much time... joj lenjost... (LAz17 (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)).
Another thing in that book - on page 206 it shows that the chetniks accounted for roughly one third of the resistance actions in 1943. Sure, partizans were the main part, but you give the chetniks no credit, and that is what I have an issue with. (LAz17 (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)).

I can't access those pages right now via your link but I'll take your word for it.
  • "so look around this page, [25], and you can see a slightly different story, that there was resistance, whereas you paint it as wholehearted loyalty to the nazis"
  • There was resistance, but "sporadic and incomparable to the extent of collaboration" (quote). Blowing up a few trains does not really cont for much when tens of thousands of your men are holding territory for the occupation. Saving Allied airmen at one time does not mean much when you also save German airmen, and even hunt down Allied airmen for the Germans at another time.
  • "on page 206 it shows that the chetniks accounted for roughly one third of the resistance actions in 1943"
  • Yeah, I know that. There were twice as many Partisans (2/3) than Chetniks throughout most of 1943. What does that have to do with anything? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The table on page 206 does not say how many total chetniks and partizans there were, but their actions. (LAz17 (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)).
What? Are you seriously comparing Partisan and Chetnik activities in 1943?? Neretva, Sutjeska?? Hundreds of thousands of troops, possibly the largest resistance "actions" in history, certainly during WWII. To be fair, both instances included several tens of thousands of Chetniks - participating in coordinated action with the Axis (which very soon after cost them their support and much of their remaining popularity). As the professor would say: budimo realni dragi kolega... :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Kolega, they lost support in 1944, with the Treaty of Vis. (LAz17 (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)).
Depends on who's support you mean. 1944 was when even the King told Mihailović to join Tito's forces and backed the Partisans, but he did so only because the Partisans had already received Allied support in 1943, i.e. because of Allied pressure. The Chetniks lost the support of the Allied powers in November 1943, when it was shifted to the Partisans. They lost the support of the King in early 1944, and on June 17 1944, that was formalized. (Of course, the support of the King was rather insignificant: he controlled no resources, and basically did what Churchill told him to do.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The allies supported the Chetniks beyond 1943. They got arms and stuff into 1944. Just because the partiznas got more support did not mean that the chetniks got no support. Nerazumem sto si zapeo oko ovoga? (LAz17 (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)).

a small doubt, bigger and bigger

hi my good medicine student, I was thinking today (reading you proudly warning: «Please provide English usage.. etc etc.» for all your patrolled articles...) that if you don't accept the neutral truth of a double romance/slavic name for all the atricles you deny, you should start to provide the English usage of every slavic name, well knowing that for lots of arguments modern English-language literature regularly uses the Italian names. And please stop counting every google entry! Do you agree? Sincerely --Theirrulez (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)-

A correct use of comment

Sir, please, leaving apart your automatic way to post a comment immediately after others comments to deny or dicredit others comments, I want just ask you to advice other users wherever your edits are insert out of cronological develop of the discussion, writing, for example, (out of crono). Thanks --Theirrulez (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate that... just don't. Thank you. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Theirrulez, it is not customary on Wikipedia -- on the contrary -- to leave such notes in the comments. It is not expected that the discussion goes top-down in chronological order; it is only customary to use indenting to indicate who you're replying to. The signature has timestamp, and the order of postings can be inferred from that. I don't feel that it particularly matters, especially when you just read the old discussions.No such user (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree, sir. What's not customary often is higly appreciable. Moreover guidelines clearly xplained something about it in WP:INDENT, or here, and about WP:INDCRIT.--Theirrulez (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I was replying only to your request that he "advice[s] other users wherever your edits are insert out of cronological develop of the discussion, writing, for example, (out of crono).": the discussion are written "out of crono" most of the time on WP, and it's not customary to "fix" that by other users. The guidelines you refer to are not applicable to the issue. If you refer to Direktor's, erm, combative style of discussion, I don't have a particular comment... except that there is a point in that... though Direktor probably knows my opinion. No such user (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Cancelling reliable sources without any discussion

Sir, could you kindly provide me a reasonable ground for which you and User:Kebeta auomatically cancel reliable sources like:

from the articles about Giacomo Micaglia, without any discussion in the related talk page? Thanks, --Theirrulez (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Which article is "Giacomo Micaglia", exactly? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fun --Theirrulez (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I am merely emphasizing that you are using a foreign language name for the person, instead of the English one in the title. That's the whole point in fact. The sources are fine, the additions are fine as far as I can see - just quit replacing "Mikalja" in the Jakov Mikalja article, and please give-up on the useless link you've dubbed a "source". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Beginning mediation

We are ready to begin the mediation here. Sunray (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


I suppose there's no need to inform you about what you already know following, as usual, my contrinutions history, don't you? --Theirrulez (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This is what alerted me to your activities. I do not follow people around. Also, I shall repeat my recommendation that you should become more familiar with what constitutes "vandalism" or a "personal attacks" on Wikipedia. I shall certainly not be apologizing for an objective assessment of your behavior completely supported by diffs. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


The Washington Times was founded in 1982 by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon, who has said that he is the Messiah and the Second Coming of Christ and is fulfilling Jesus' unfinished mission. One of the best trolls IRL. ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 13:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


Neznam, nekako mi je malo daleko ici do splita... ili igde u evropu. Skupe su karte, a student sam... (LAz17 (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)).

Vidi ove smesne ljude, lol [26] (LAz17 (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)).
Nikad necu razumeti kako mozes da podneses neke volove na ovom sajtu... (LAz17 (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)).
Ha čuj... neko mora :). Dobri su rock partizani xD. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Treba mi hitno krema protiv ujeda od zivotnija sa vikipedije. Neznam kako ti ostajes ziv, al kakvu kog kremu ili napitak koristis, daj mi dva! (LAz17 (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)).

Colage pic

I would appreciate that you don't touch and edit my images! I put alot of time into takeing these pictures and puting them together. I'm not up for jokes like that! Thank you! Ballota (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Austrian language

Yes, I admit it seemed a bit funny.. -- Theirrulez (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 :) Well I understand what you meant... Austrian Empire/Austria-Hungary, right? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Exactly =) -- Theirrulez (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


This is Wiki Fight Club.

Fourth rule: only two guys to a fight.

Heh... I guess I am a member - or founding member more like :P. Loved that movie. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
lol (LAz17 (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)).
hhhaahahah [27] -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 19:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Bring 'em on! :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Awww... :( --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal comments

I've mentioned the importance of sticking to content several times now. Yet I've just removed a number of personal attacks from the mediation page, some by you. It does not matter whether they are provoked or not. You are responsible for your own conduct. Consider this a friendly reminder. Would you be able to stick to content from here on out? Sunray (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


[28] I honestly thought that all of the articles would be balkan related. Also [29] hahaha. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 15:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)



well, I moved the Chetniks quite simply because to categorize them as only Axis forces is quite a flawed perspective. They were, on an official basis at the beginning of the conflict, the armed forces "in the homeland" of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. That they proved a disaster and stopped being supported by the Allies is another matter which, I think, is quite clearly expressed by the mention "not supported by the Allies after 1944". That the Chetniks' attitude was more than ambiguous does not change the fact that a good deal of their groups were always considered rebellious by the German command and that Mihailovic was always targeted by the Germans. As for the infobox, I didn't change them in the first place (not that I remember of, anyway) but, seeing the change, I found it ridiculous that it had not been done at the bottom of the article. Using the label "Axis/Allies" which had been used before could be an option : but listing them as only Axis is ridiculous. (though make no mistake and please do believe me : after doing a good deal of research on the subject, as you may have guesse from my recent edits, I do find the Chetniks awful).

Considering that only Mihailovic was not a traitor among the Chetniks is misleading : some Chetnik groups collaborated, some never did at all. I plan actually to rewrite as far as I can the Chetniks and Yugoslav front articles using the relatively heavy volumes that I now have on the subject, and I can assure you that the result should be quite damning to both Mihailovic and the Chetniks, although I definitely want to correct the current manicheism. I think this might take a few weeks to do each and every article.

As for the "suppressed antagonism" : no, I don't feel any antagonism towards anyone so far. It's just that, after spending about two hours working on an article, I find it quite annoying, to say the least, to see that my edits have been reverted without any concrete reasons. Believe me, it's rude to do that. Anyway, I am quite willing to discuss any edits, I'd only like this to be done in good faith. I have no interest at all in a conflict with anyone. Actually one of my first motivations has been to contribute "neutrally" in order to calm the conflict between you and FPKcascais. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of image in the talk page

I understand the Dalmatian dog picture your added next to my post could be moved by your sense of humour (I laughed =) when I saw it) but the discussion is serious and that image next to my post ridicules its content. Please understand that personal sense of huomour can't always universally understood, so part of our readership could even be confused by that image. Regards - --Theirrulez (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Significant answer

You are not bad, Direktor, even if IMHO you need to improve your trust of others.
I used Governorhip of Dalmatia and Littoral Banovina, in order to guarantee an easy reading of timeline of Dalmatia history using links in the infobox: linking to Kingdom of Italy and to the State of SCS, as you did, would send the reader to two pages not exactly related with Dalmatia history.
I used Governorship of Dalmatia because, even if the Governorhip became official in 1941, Italian Provinces of Zara, Pola and Fiume were official respectively since 1919, 1923 and 1924, and were widely described in the Governorship article.
State of S,C,S wasn't recognized at all by international community and last just few days, so could be appropriate to add a link inside the text or in the see also section and choose to use the link to Kingdom of Yugoslavia in the infobox.
I chose to use the link to Littoral Banovina for the same reason I chose Governorship of Dalmatia instead of Kingdom of Italy article: Kingdom of Yugoslavia is too generic and can't help reader's navigation trough Dalmatia history timeline. Littoral Banovina was the subdivision of Kingdom of Yugoslavia for the Dalmatian region and even if was officially created ten years later than the birth of the Kingdom, it could fit for a link in the infobox, more than the article about Kingdom of Yugoslavia, too generic for a specific historical timeline of Dalmatia.
I'm sorry to see you are obsessed by my edits, I always try to do my best seeking for historical accuracy. I hope next time you will not accuse me so openly, it's not nice. You are my first interlocutor on Wikipedia you know, but your approach still need to preserve a bit more your consciousness of other's good faith. Please, let me know what you think about the modifications I did, remembering the only goal was to guarantee a continuous timeline for Dalmatia history trough infobox links. --Theirrulez (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Renzo de' Vidovich

Frankly i don't believe Croatian Project can fit for de' Vidovich article, but anyways I just want to ask: why don't you make an effort in revisioning syntax and grammar (you just added the tag), the article is not too long, so it shouldn't be an hard work. then why don't you make a serious research of sources about Vidoovich surname? We can then examine them and decide to improve the article. Let me know. Theirrulez (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

e evo ga

  • [30] a ti si prico nesto da ce Beograd dobiti to pre zagreba... eto vidis koliko je beograd "behind the times". (LAz17 (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)).
  • joj lele kako sam ljubomoran... [31] (LAz17 (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)).
Šališ se? To je iz 2004... nema šanse. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Come on guys. I can put this sentence after sentence into google translate and follow it but you should both use English on English wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I told him... :) and anyway its nothing, just a brief exchange about subways in Belgrade and Zagreb, i.e. lack of the aforementioned. :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Why do you want to sniff out our personal conversations that are not directly related to wiki?
Dunno how I missed the date... jee, I feel quite dumb now. I looked at that skyscrapercity forum and saw that as a new post and was like wow... but I guess one should look before they leap ,eh, skoci pa reci hop as we say... (LAz17 (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)).
there is no such thing as a personal conversation on wiki. Anyway when it is another language how do I know you are not calling me an asshole :) Polargeo (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
To je dobro pitanje. But likewise, how do you know that I am not praising you? :) (LAz17 (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)).
izvini sto nisam bio na tvojoj strani za ono hrvatsko/italijansko... pogresio sam. Brat srbin mi zabio noz u ledja. Ko sto je cuveni archibald rajs kazo - srbi cuvajte se sebe. (LAz17 (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)).
sorry that I was on your side in what the Croatian / Italian ... I was wrong. Sami's brother stuck a knife in my back. Who that is famous Archibald Rice Kazo - Nabi beware yourself is this a true translation of your private conversation? Polargeo (talk) 09:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hehe nope, but its close. Its "sorry that I was not on your side in that Croatian/Italian thing ... I was wrong. A brother Serb stuck a knife in my back, as the famous Archibald Rice said - Serbs beware of yourselves." :)
Well LAzo my "brother Croats" don't need proverbs to really really hate each-other. Every<one here's still in kind of a shock: "Hey we're out of Yugoslavia, we're gonna be rich! Any minute now. Are we rich yet? They told us we'd be rich... Why aren't we rich? We were supposed to be rich! Its all that guy's fault! We're not rich. Are we poor? Yup, we're poor now. Crap. Everything sucks..." --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Last time I went to Croatia it was as a tourist in 1988 (Yugotours). I would love to return to Croatia now though. Since then my only return to ex Yugoslavia was to BiH for a few weeks to help uncover mass graves (I did like Sarajevo and Tuzla). I would love to return to the fantastic coast of Croatia some time. Polargeo (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Tourism's about the only branch of the economy still holding out around here, though tourist numbers & income are still below pre-war levels. However, what you used to have was hotels that were effectively owned by the locals, i.e. all the money stayed in Split or Dubrovnik, for example. Now however, those of the old hotels that were renovated (after the utter collapse of tourism in the 90's) are virtually all owned and run by foreign corporations (e.g. Le Meridien). Its a bit of a cliche I know, the "evil corporations" and such, but its true - hardly any of the money from the hotels stays here. The sad thing is, people see the new "shiny" renovated hotel (owned by some Russian oligarch) and think "great, our economy is recovering..." :)
There I go again with the politics and the lot... :P During the summer I usually go on a bit of ten-day "cruise" with the sailboat, Hvar & Bol are must see destinations, esp the fabulous Zlatni rat ("golden cape") beach and the Paklinski islands. There's also Komiža, where a guy can find the best lobster in Dalmatia, and diving off the coast of Biševo is an experience one does not soon forget. Ah, *sigh*, I miss the summer... I'm a "summer guy" :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a little hello for a good ol' buddy.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Director. You have new messages at LAz17's talk page.
Message added 11:41, 25 May 2010 (GMT). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The walls were closing in on me. Then I found a file. Mauhahahaa. Some sucker didn't ban my IP long enough. But it's so lame to post with the IP. :( Pay a visit in the jail-cell, would you? (LAz17 (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)).
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Director. You have new messages at LAz17's talk page.
Message added 15:50, 25 May 2010 (GMT). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


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. Thank you. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 22:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Tito GA

Yugoslavian Merit Barnstar of Yugoslavia.svg

I plan on bringing the Tito article to GA status since WP Yugoslavia has no GA articles. At the moment I'm working on sourcing information in the article (per [32]) but also plan on sorting the pictures (Why is JFK in the "Tito-Stalin split" section?) and branching off some of the info in the "Final years and aftermath" section into a "Legacy" section. Any thoughts? -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've edited the Yugoslavia Order of Merit template to contain an actual barnstar. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Sir Floyd

Re your comment here, being blocked indefinitely and being retired are not mutually exclusive. That template is typically used for one-off vandal only accounts to schedule the talk page for deletion; this is not the case here and the talk page history should be retained. Note that when someone edits the talk page, they will be presented with the fact that the user is indefinitely blocked anyways, so the template is probably unnecessary. –xenotalk 16:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I admit that was a bit unnecessary and vengeful on my part. I'll remove the template. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your understanding. –xenotalk 16:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks like you beat me to it. :) Wait a second, why has Off2riorob removed my post?! --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe that Sir Floyd asked Off2riorob to keep the page "tidy", perhaps in an effort to discourage users from posting there - I assume in order to make their retirement easier. I'm kind of hazy on the propriety of this: while WP:TPO permits "Personal talk page cleanup", it doesn't really say if this may be done by proxy. –xenotalk 16:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I think your assumption may be wrong. I get the feeling Off2riorob doesn't like me very much, Sir Floyd was his pal and I'm one of the guys he got blocked for harassing. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
A historical indef block tag exists for these kind of situations. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 17:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, these will sometimes be placed by administrators when appropriate; when they are placed by users who are currently involved in a dispute with the blocked user, it is often regarded as unseemly. YMMV. –xenotalk 17:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes all right, I can see how the template is too much, but my post is clearly being removed out of spite by the friend of the banned guy that harassed and slandered people all over the web. I can certainly understand PRODUCER's position.
Do you think it will be necessary to report this? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully not. I've suggested Off2riorob should probably allow the blocked/retired user to perform their own talk page maintenance: the user is blocked but can still edit their talk page and blank any comments or templates they don't wish to be there (none of the exceptions apply). –xenotalk 17:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Xeno, is it me or has his ANI thread disappeared [33] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive616#SirFloyd?? Its supposed to be entitled "SirFloyd"? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Toddst1 unarchived it, it's on the live ANI page. The search engine returns results from an old cache. –xenotalk 17:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
This Is Madness! -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 00:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


I have been requested by the user that he wants to keep his talkpage clean you are of cource welcome to report me, better if you do that than just revert me. Off2riorob (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I will take your suggestion. You're censoring user comments. That is not your talkpage and you do not WP:OWN it because the banned guy was your friend. The whole idea of you "tidying" by removing my one sentence is laughable. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I think instead that could by fair and appreciable if you let Off2riorob do what Sir Floyd ask to do. --Theirrulez (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Kosovo

I´m sorry to disapoint you, but I really have a particular opinion regarding that complex issue. I think that as quickly as Serbia acknolledges that Kosovo is independent, it will be better for all nations in the region. Surprised? Well, I´m not a nationalist, as you had already acknolledged, but you malevoly tryied to paint, in some other ocasions. That doesn´t mean I suport much of what was donne, in name of the independent Kosovo, but looking to the current reality, that is my position (non-oposition to independence). If you really wanna know, I only think that what was wrong was that Kosovar Albanians spend 2 billion dollars to looby in the USA, when they should gave that money to Serbia (since Kosovo was legally its land), and both the land (lol). But, what happend, happend... See also Necronudist talk page, I gave there an opinion regarding Kosovo football. Also, Serbia without Kosovo could reach economical levels to entry EU much more easily than with Kosovo. I just gave you some reasons without thinking much. I´ll be out for some days... don´t abuse too much! FkpCascais (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Its not about independence or non-independence, and I did not invite you there because I think you're a nationalist (and I do ;). Its a Serbia-related issue and I thought you might be interested. Kosovo will be recognized by the UN sooner or later, but this is issue is about neutrality of approach to a sensitive issue. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
II know, and I thank you for the invitation, but the things I told you are the reason why I don´t participate too much regarding the Kosovo related issues. I already knew about it, and I´ll say something if it´s needed. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Ma dobro je stari, dobio si krivi dojam o meni - u to budi siguran. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


"and then the wiki gods bestowed Wikipedia:Requests for page protection." - from the wikibible lol -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 15:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"...and the Direktor then gazed down upon the article and saw that it was good." :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You remember Genesis? Book two, verse three: "And he breatheth into the nostrils of Adam on the first day and it was good." -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 17:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


Hello DIREKTOR, how are you? I'm Pippo Franco.-- (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pipo. :) I'm fine, just a little busy. Lots of work at school. How're you? You're the guy who hates me, right? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'm, are you studing at university? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Breaking of 3RR

Reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring‎. FkpCascais (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Three reverts is not an entitlement. If you game the system by performing exactly three reverts and this is a pattern of behavior, you can (and will) be blocked. Please talk it out on the talk page rather than continuing to revert. I have declined for now the AN3 request in this matter, but please know that if you continue to edit war, you will be blocked. --B (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Being careful not to break any policy is "gaming the system"? Fkp has removed information from the article without any discussion whatsoever, and has recruited buddies to help him edit-war. I'm "gaming the system", though, because he reported me instead of vice versa... :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Please note this text from WP:3RR ... "Remember that an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." --B (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Croatisation. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked.

Balkan topo en.jpg In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

New draft of Draža Mihailović article

You said, on the mediation talk page, that JJG isn't the only one who has been putting in effort on the mediation. I agree, and I appreciate your contribution in contributing sources. Your energy has not always been collaborative and I've had to make several comments about personalizing things. Hopefully that is behind us. Now I would like you to consider how you are going to participate from here on out. I've suggested a process for resolving remaining issues. That is my role as mediator. I encourage you to participate positively in this. That means assessing which of the three categories you are in. If you don't agree, that is fine, but the onus will be on you (and any others who choose that option) to work to propose alternatives in the wording and use of sources. Would you be willing to refactor your comment into one of the three categories and, if you disagree with JJG's draft, provide specific alternatives for us to consider? Sunray (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

For making phalse statements about other users ethnic prejudice

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. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Just walk away

Sometimes the best thing to do is keep quiet for a bit and see what happens. There's no reason to rush anything. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Right. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
And FkpCascais, since I'm sure you're watching, I offer the same advice to you.... --Nuujinn (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Its quite simple, Fkp dislikes me intensely, has a very low threshold/short fuse in conversation with me and reports me every ten minutes - a much lower threshold than WP:NPA. Also, he may think he's running out of arguments so he's trying to get me blocked. Unfortunately all that's accomplished is an increased annoyance with this on the part of all ANI admins. The only unfair thing about this is that its "oh no - its them again...", instead of "oh no - its Fkp and his reports again...". I'm not the one pestering with this utter nonsense all the time and I'm getting thrown in the same pot. Its frustrating :) And yet I have to respond lest someone accidentally acts upon Fkp's twisted take on things...
Also Sunray's pretty much convinced he's UNPROFOR and the two of us are standard-issue Battling Balkans Brutes... :) Its NOT an ethnic thing ffs, certainly not for me and for Fkp too, I think. Ethnicity just came up in the discussion about Tomasevich... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, for what it's worth, from the outside it does appear at times that there is an ethnic slant to the discussions, but I say that as a 3rd generation Ami of Scot/Irish/German/Italian descent educated in German/French languages and lit, among other things, and it's very difficult to know what people are thinking through a wiki. That being said, you do get wound up pretty quickly sometimes and let things get the better of you. Really, you don't have to respond as quickly or as often as you might think you need to--wikipedia's pretty transparent, and there are a lot of very smart people here. A few well thought out statements late in a discussion often carry much more weight than an elaborate discussion early on. But I'm rambling. I do hope that we'll all be able to reach some consensus on the article, that's the main thing, really. And I'm glad you're participating fully in the mediation. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
As I said, I'm just very annoyed with this whole thing lasting six months, knowing that the sources are clear on the issue and that I listed them in the article from the very beginning - can you really blame me? It takes five months apparently to get an admin to just say: "ok, he's removing something from teh article that's been sourced with a dozen scholarly references... and he has no sources of his own... I should probably tell him to stop doing so." Its just crazy...
Everything's immediately treated as a freaky Balkans fight, even something straightforward like this. Why the "diplomatic treatment"? To be blunt: Fkp's wrong and considers Mihailović a sacred cow, Georges probably thinks I'm a communist propaganda-pusher or something and is biased on ideological grounds, BoDu just talks about unrelated insignificant stuff - and we're just right, plain and simple. Not because we're so awesome, but because we've got a metric TON of expert sources that say we are. Plus its a little insulting to be treated like a POV-pushing newbie after four years and 25,000 edits... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think you should try to assume good faith on the part of all editors. As I've said, I think both you and JJG adhere nicely to sources, and although you have differences, you two are really not that far apart, and I'd ask that you both try to work together. I can understand your frustration, but one thing to think about is that, from one point of view, this will not have an end per se. I've worked in computer support for many years now, and a mentor of mine observed one time that there will never be a time when we are done, when there's nothing left to do. The same is true here. Wikipedia is a living document, and it will constantly change. I would suggest that you don't let perfection be the enemy of the good, and that you work for progress, not an ultimate goal. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


I have spoken to you several times about sticking to content and not making personal remarks to/about other participants. However, in the last several days, you have repeatedly done this. I want you to stop. If you continue down this path, there may be no other choice but to exclude you from the mediation or block you until you cease. This is the last warning I will give you. The other party is also being warned. Sunray (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you specify the problem posts? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
A piece of advice from me is to stop arguing with him and start arguing sources. You are coming from an amazingly strong position. The main objection to Tomasevic is his nationality or ethnicity. No one has challenged his work with contradictory scholarly information. Ignore FkpCascais and his posts to AN/I and hammer home your strong sourcing. Any posts he makes that seem disingenuous, rather than commenting on them, rebut them with strongly sourced points. Ignore him as a person, and focus on the article. AniMate 11:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
AniMate, I agree, everyone should stick to the sources. But I wouldn't suggest "hammering" to DIREKTOR, as I would be afraid to be in the room with him if he had a hammer in hand. (;
Seriously, it would be helpful if you could tone down the rhetoric. If you get frustrated, just take a little while and keep in mind there's no burning house full of kittens that need to be rescued. There's plenty of time to sort stuff out. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
By hammering I mean focusing. Hammering in this situation isn't ideal... or good... or recommended. Just try focusing on your sourcing, and with that I retreat. AniMate 11:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
..sticking to content and not making personal remarks to/about others.. WOW.. it seems an hard job.. =) - Theirrulez (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It also seems you never heard of that "job". Are you trolling here, User:Theirrulez? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Not at all sir, I was just curious seeing how many people gave you the same advice, so I was wondering if it was an hard job for real.. =) --Theirrulez (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
LoL... Theirrulez, ALL you do is talk about me. :) ALL the time. Non-stop. I'm glad to see you're having fun, though, since I'm being amused as well. Your presence here has certainly lightened the mood of the discussion. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Guys, glad you came by (yes you too, Theirrulez :). I myself suggested on the mediation talkpage that, in addition to discussing content exclusively, only sourced statements founded in sources should be taken into consideration and responded to by involved users. As you say AniMate, I'm coming from a strong position exclusively based on professional sources - which is why I'm baffled that this dispute took six months - and now they're even discussing bothering ARBCOM over this. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You asked me to specify the problem posts. I am willing to do that provided that you agree to continue (as you are now) with collaborative discussion, focussing on content. I do not want to get into a whole lot more discussion about who did what when. I want you and Fkp to disengage. I also want both of you to be able to accept my judgement on things. I don't intervene unless I have to and my decisions are made with the best interests of the mediation outcome in mind (to the best of my abilities). Would you be able to simply accept my examples without argumentation and continue focussing on content? Sunray (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Frankly I'm a little confused. I'm just hoping this was not construed as a personal comment on my part. I'm fairly certain I did not make personal remarks there. Judging from the response, the post was misunderstood (Personal attack removed) by Fpk, who did respond with personal remarks. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
You say that you are confused and I am prepared to accept that, especially when you add that little dig that I just removed. To be blunt, you sail very close to the line on personal attacks/personal comments and sometimes cross it. I am trying to get you to stop that. I need you to a) understand what I am saying, b) take it to heart, and c) move on.Sunray (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
"the post was misunderstood in bad faith by Fpk"? Whoah, that's a personal attack?? Well I think I'm finally starting to see what you mean. :P Total lack of mention of any user in an even remotely non-positive context. Though I can't say I agree with such stringent restrictions (since these I cannot see any backing in WP:NPA [34]) you are the boss as far as the mediation is concerned.
Just square with me for a second. "Misunderstood in bad faith". Would you say that's really a violation of WP:NPA? ;) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
(I don't mean to butt in, so feel free to tell me to pound sand). Yes, I think so, strictly speaking, in that policy dictates that we WP:AGF, and you're attributing the misunderstanding to the bad faith of another editor. It would be better just to say that you believe editor X might have misunderstood, and let everyone draw their own conclusions. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Yes, absolutely. IMO you were making a pejorative assumption about faith (or the lack thereof). You are right that I am taking a stringent interpretation of WP:NPA. I have found that it is best to do so in a mediation so that the parties can focus on content. While many personalized remarks and attacks get overlooked on talk pages in articlespace, in mediation it is important to stay with the spirit of the policy, which, in a nutshell, is: "Comment on the content, not on the contributor." Clear? Sunray (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well all right then. You may expect the very strictest adherence to the above on my part. See you at the mediation, gentlemen. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • It is not my opinion that this comment by Direktor constituted a personal attack, but I do concur with Sunray that Direktor has been seen to have made inappropriate comments (in the course of this mediation, at least). As Sunray is not empowered to enforce party conduct with any mechanism beyond removing any comments (or portions thereof) that he deems unhelpful to the mediation, so in future don't expect to be blocked for personal attacks made on this mediation, Direktor. But do expect to be excluded from the mediation, and thus to have your ability to contest any consensus reached therein severely restricted. This comment applies equally for every other party; it is perfectly within Sunray's power as mediator to exlude one or more parties from the mediation. Also, this comment is made strictly in my capacity as an individual and third-party observer. AGK 09:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop personal attacking me (and the other users)

Accusing someone of something he/she hasn't done, assuming bad faith ("for the purpose of POV-pushing") and openly accusing him/her of the "Insertion of usourced claims, fake sources, removal of sourced info" is very problematic, considering the fact that this isn't true (and so this is a personal attack). This is even more problematic considering that i never accused you of anything nor i talked harsh towards you; besides you even don't provide demonstrations to support your statements when i asked you to tell me what do you meaned whith "fake sources" (they were sources from a princeton academic, the new york times and an historian) or "removal of sourced info" (i didn't removed anything). When i say you personal attacked me i'm referring to statements like this two: "Extreme undiscussed POV-pushing. Insertion of usourced claims, fake sources, removal of sourced info, and addition of unrelated data for the purpose of POV-pushing" and "In short, the edits inserted by Fox are a slap in the face to Wiki policy. Sources were misrepresented, text supported by them altered, fake sources were added, and laughably biased wording was introduced". You have to stop talking like this to me, because i'm not here to be insulted. You can express your opinions like any other users can do: in a civil way. AndreaFox2 (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I already told it, ..sticking to content and not making personal remarks to/about others.. seemeed an hard job for Direktor.. =) - Theirrulez (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Just report me already, don't clutter my talk with these outbursts. Those were comments on content, on your edits, NOT you.
Theirrulez, too much excitement of this sort can't be good for ya... :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I would have expected something better than "just report me"... we aren't here to show our muscles. It's a pity that you're not able to change your way of behaving towards the others. AndreaFox2 (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
AndreaFox2, your post is highly offensive in itself. I did NOT personally attack you, and that is actually evident from your own claims that I did. I suspect the goal of the above is to create a false impression about my behavior to any interested admins. Fine, knock yourself out, but I will certainly not apologize for something I did not do, to someone running a smear campaign against me. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
"the goal of the above is to create a false impression (you keep on accusing me of something that i didn't do: i cited exactly your own words. Everyone could read them on tito's talk page and on tito's history page) about my behavior to any interested admins" (Another false accusation: if it would have been the case, i would had simply reported you. This is not the place to question your behaviour to the admins and i don't think admins are interested in our discussion. This is your user talk and i'm talking to you, so don't came up with something like that, which is simply not the case. If you felt "checked" it's your problem, not mine: so don't accuse me) and "someone running a smear campaign against me" (that's a curious accusation: last time i spoke to you was 6-7 months ago. Notherless you accuse me of something like that and you pretend you're not insulting me and that you are not presuming my bad faith?). The fact here is that i's not the first time that i and other users politely ask you to change your way of talking to the other users. you always had two choises: choosing to talk less harsly or choosing to refuse any criticism, going on accusing others of something very serious like "removal of sourced info" (i didn't removed anything), "Extreme undiscussed POV-pushing" (i simply rewrote a passage when you wrote that all the germans in Yugoslavia supported nazis -which is A POV- changing the "all" with "many"), "Insertion of usourced claims and fake sources" which is simply not the case),"for the purpose of POV-pushing" adding that "the edits inserted by Fox are a slap in the face to Wiki policy. Sources were misrepresented, text supported by them altered, fake sources were added, and laughably biased wording was introduced". There you are not questioning my edits, you are questioning me, because you didn't say that you felt (for example) this was POV, that was unsorced,... you said that i had the "purpose of POV-pushing" and that i faked sourced (a very serious statement) and removed sourced info (which isn't true) becasue of my "Extreme undiscussed POV-pushing" and because i was laughably biased. AndreaFox2 (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Andrea, I am worried, deeply worried. I am frightened beyond human comprehension that your attention to detail here on DIREKTOR's alleged misdemeanours may cause you to take your eye off the ball regarding the maintenance and upgrading of such crucial articles as the now sadly deleted Honey the cat [35], List of One Piece characters and Ryota Hama. It reiterate, I am worried. Seriously worried. Can you reassure your eager audience that such fears are misplaced? Please help. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
This is an off-topic hironical misrepresentation which could be very offensive AlasdairGreen27. And because there's too many offenses spreading from here around, posted often on the same talk page, if I were you I'll try to be more respectful. IMHO Direktor is using personal attacks and offense too easily for leaving it aside. I hope he will offer his apologize to Andreafox2, it will be the best and most appreciable behaviour by him. - Theirrulez (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
There is an odious gang mentality atound here these days intended to harass and hound DIREKTOR into submission. If you feel my comments, which were in no way related to you, nor did they mention you, but you choose to comment upon regardless, "could be very offensive", well, I will not comment upon your sensitivity. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
You make me smile. Do you remember this pearl by you, or this one by Direktor, or again this another one? Please be serious about where is harassment and hounding. Theirrulez (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea for everyone to take a deep breath and a pause for the cause. This is starting to sound like usenet instead of wikipedia.... --Nuujinn (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Cancelling sources and an entire paragraph from Croatisation against any reasonable consensus

Regarding the Croatisation article, please note you are inexplicably fighting for cancelling a paragraph from the above mentioned article since several weeks ago (see the diff of your first cancellation) when I had never set foot on that article yet. The same paragraph still existed in the article two years ago [36], and without a proper section title even more time before (more than 3 years ago) [37]. Despite it was more than reasonable to suppose a discrete consensus about the paragraph, you, on may 18, cancelled the pagraph for the first time, asking for sources supporting it (please note the entire article is barely unsourced) when you could more simply add the tag "{{citation needed}}". I, and other users, punctually improved the section you challenged, adding sources and re-writing some lines, but you continued for days to deny my modifications despite others users espressed in the talk page their consensus to leave the section in the article.
Because it seemed consensus about the paragraph was again recently confirmed by several users, despite your undiscussed cancellation, please kindly stop your edit-war as already openly adviced on the article's talk. Thanks to propose your modifications on the above mentioned talk page and to respect other users contributions. - Theirrulez (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

1) User:Theirrulez, you don't get to proclaim "consensus" or "no consensus" every day whenever you feel like it. :) Its pointless, it does not help you in any way, and I suggest you stop it. Consensus is not required to remove unsourced material. On the other hand, every single edit you've ever made on this Wikipedia has been either blatantly against real prior consensus, or done without seeking or establishing consensus.
2) There is not a single solitary source that confirms your claim that the events described in your text are, in fact, "Croatisation". All I've seen is one arguably biased Italian source describing the events in Rijeka and Rijeka exclusively as "Croatisation".
Theirrulez, you have no sources. Nothing you say here can change that fact. I suggest you get used to it and either find some or let it go. You may rest assured I will not agree to you going around claiming "Croatisation" is whatever event or process you (or your buddies) personally decide it may be. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 05:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Reminding you were already warned for edit-warring cause your pov-pushing on Croatization, if you agree I can request a comment about the existence of consensus about the paragraph which scared you. --Theirrulez (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
LoL, thank you for "reminding me". :) The rest of your post I can't really understand. "RfC about the existence of consensus"? Again, you and/or your few buddies don't get to proclaim "consensus" or "no consensus". :)--DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Copy-and-paste other user's comment from a talk page to anothher talk page without permission

I'm not able to understand what's your goal. What does it mean to restore my comment (with my signature) I just cancelled, against my will? I clearly added to another talk page. So you cannot manipulate it moving it on another talk page.
This goes against Wikipedia policies. Please kindly remove, as soon as you can, my comments from the talk page where Kebeta first, and you then, deliberately copied and pasted. Thanks, --Theirrulez (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

I found an article and a book by Marko Attila Hoare that may be of interest to you:

Hoare, Marko Attila (11 June 2005). "Adding Insult to Injury: Washington Decorates a Nazi Collaborator". 

Hoare, Marko Attila (2006). Genocide and Resistance in Hitler's Bosnia: The Partisans and the Chetniks, 1941-1943. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0197263801. 

Also could you take a look at User:PRODUCER/Tito and give me your opinion on the progress so far when you get the chance? (I got sidetracked lately). -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 18:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Continuing edit war

BTW, I stopped just short of issuing an WP:ARBMAC sanction restricting you to 1 revert per week on any Balkan-related article after observing your interaction at Croatisation. Toddst1 (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Toddst, the was inserting highly controversial conspiracy nonsense - without even a single solitary source. Its absurd really. I can't believe he actually edit-warred over it. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


I am not "recruiting" anyone, I am merely answering to messages that some users, who are interested by the subject and whom I do not know, have left on my talk page. I am entitled to my personal opinions, and do not consider you qualified to "warn" me against anything. I would also appreciate if you would abstain in the future to leave messages of any kind on my talk page, especially if they are to be of such an agressive nature (are you trying to scare me or what ?). No answer requested . Since I find your behaviour to be untolerable, I will now report it and sincerely hope that you will leave it at that in the future. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

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. Thank you.

JJG reported you to ANI for your "aggressive message", see here.--Atlan (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Campaigning, ARBMAC restriction

This is just to let you and others who read this page know that User:Theirrulez is now openly soliciting other editors at itwiki to join his campaigns here. One can only imagine that this is an attempt to create a new "consensus". It's so blatant that one can come to no other conclusion. See here and here. A clear breach of Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Purpose_of_Wikipedia. I await developments. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on your Victory!

Dear Direktor,
In the name of all civilized and educated visitors of these pages, I want to congratulate you for your notable efforts to present the TRUTH on Wikipedia, and to fight successfully against the last remains of the pathetic cro-nationalistic propaganda (Zenanarh, Ex13, and maybe 1-2 others). We have followed your battles on many wikipedia fronts, and we are glad that you have achieved an absolute VICTORY over the these last spreaders of hatred and separatism between south Slavic peoples. We wish you, and all other heroes of the truth on wikipedia to continue presenting FACTS on these pages, facts which will forever exterminate these last remains of the evil on it. Have our best Blessings for successfully presenting the truth about our one, same and forever united Serbo-Croatian language, for focusing on the facts about Croato-Serbian unity instead of separation, for defending the truth about the illegal formation of R. Croatia in '90's, which started the war in '90s, and which had the same 'recognition' in the world as SAO's, etc.
Thank you, be Blessed in your future work on wikipedia and may your big VICTORY over the evil LAST FOREVER! Kindest Regards. (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well... thank you; even though "Blessings" are not likely to help anyone much :). However:
  • Wikipedia is not a battleground where one wins victories or loses battles, nor should anyone perceive it as such. One should always remember this is just a website we've volunteered to fix-up, not a place for fighting political conflicts (or campaigning of any sort for that matter).
  • Secondly, Croatia's secession was not "illegal" in any way (unlike that of Kosovo) - it was a constitutional right of all republics. The issue we were discussing was Croatia's (temporarily) low level of international recognition, not its legality.
  • Thirdly, the war in the 1990s was started by Slobodan Milošević's choice to use nationalist circles and propaganda to rise to power and his decision to assume illegal political control over Montenegro, Vojvodina and Kosovo, thus creating an atmosphere of ethnic fear in Croatia, resulting in the election of the nationalist HDZ to power, in turn frightening the Croatian Serb minority, etc. etc.
    The secession of Croatia and Slovenia was a late-stage manifestation of the political atmosphere created by events in Kosovo and Serbia.
  • Finally, despite your apparent impression, those guys are good contributors. It is not in the spirit of Wikipedia to "categorize" people thusly.
On the rest we agree. Cheers :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your modesty and the optimistic feeling about those few guys, whose comments on various topics are usually nationalistic POV's and totally opposite of yours (-the facts). Still, it's good to see some good changes that happened recently on wikipedia (I.Stambuk's case), the fact that wikipedia has almost completely changed for the better in the recent years as far as the topics about South Slavs are concerned, and in all that maybe the greatest credit goes to some brilliantly educated guys like yourself. Regards; —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

The Bugle.png

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010)
Front page
Project news
Project news

Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank


Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content


June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members


LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic

Few small points:

  • 1) The first collaboration between the Chetniks (Colonel Bajo Stanišić + Captain Đurišić) and Italians (General Pirzio Biroli) took place on the basis of special agreements February 17 - March 6 1942.
  • 2) General Draza Mihailovic established his headquarters in Montenegro in June 1942.....

Formal basis for "armistice" agreements between Germans and Chetniks is given in November 21 1943 directive of german CINC for Southeast Europe (Field Marshal Maximilian von Weichs):

  • point 2) The condition for this agreement were that the Chetnik forces:
  • point 2a) Stop all fighting against the German forces
  • point 2b) In the case of combined operations against the Communists the Chetniks put themselves under German command......--Istrebljivač (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for the info, but its not much use without a source... :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Overkill :)--Istrebljivač (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Don't get me wrong the documents are certainly authentic, but the kind of discussion going on over there would require me to explore their origins more carefully.
  • Tell me about, is it an official or private website?
  • Most importantly, what source does quote for these documents? In other words, where do these documents come from exactly?
Thank you once again for your assistance. Just to explain the current situation, Chetnik collaboration on the whole can hardly be disputed - but sources referring to Draža Mihailović personally would be the most valuable (even though we already have a large number of sources that provide them :). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Original source is German archive.
For example November 21 1943 directive of german CINC is in:Microcopy No. T-313, Roll 488, Frame 245. If you want timeline: 1) Hitler directive of October 29, 1943 entitled:"The Unified conduct of the Struggle Against Communism in the Southeast (Microcopy No. T-120, Roll 753, Frame 533-536)
About February 17 - March 6 1942 source is:Dokumenti o izdajstvu Draže Mihajlovića I, str 65 from 1946.
Maybe it is time for emails ??--Istrebljivač (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


Hi there, hope all is well. I have seen your contributions and I have come to like them. I hope you might have seen some of mine in Wikipedia. Still it was the first time we interacted and it was funny. Hope no hard feelings for Venetian Albania: it's an article that must be improved, but WP Italy is extremely important as they have the best sources. Albania as well is closely related to it and the name Albania Veneta is not a coincidence. You might be interested in reading this article, Albanian–Venetian War (1447–1448), which took place in Albanian territories. Again, thanks for being around and for your contributions! See you around.--Sulmues Let's talk 12:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

My mistake my mistake, I realised that pretty soon so I stopped pursuing the matter. Apologies. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


You claim not to be an edit warrior but this revert is coming close to just that. The nationality of Tesla is a controversial issue that is interminably debated. Any changes to the status quo of the article should gain consensus on the talk page first before making any edit. SpinningSpark 23:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Croatian grammar

Just a heads' up, in case you're interested; I forgot to protect the redirect when I merged this into SC grammar, and now there's an edit war going on. I tried coming up w s.t. that wouldn't be a content fork, but it was rejected, so I'm back to reverting to the rd. — kwami (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoah, BIG mistake - always expect the toughest resistance on this.
Just to be clear: I definitely agree with you on this, completely. There are however two reasons why I hold back from giving this matter my full attention: 1) I don't know much about grammar and linguistics, 2) most opposition from this will come from Croats and I don't like going against "my own kind", as it were. :)
If things get tough though, drop me a line. (I'm already involved so WP:CANVASS certainly does not apply.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)



Could you give your opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/ (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Flagicon of the Independent State of Croatia

I have noticed that your comment in Template_talk:Country_data_Croatia resulted in the creation of another template for the Independent State of Croatia which holds the corresponding flagicon. However, this is the cause of a problem. Some articles reference the Croatia|1941 flagicon with the intention of displaying the ISC flagicon. As this has been moved, these articles now display the flag of the present-day Republic of Croatia which implies that it, and not the ISC was an Axis ally and combatant. I have corrected this in Operation Barbarossa, but there needs to be a systematic (and hopefully automated) effort to correct all such instances. Silver hr (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, forgive the question, but is there a way to see where the 1941 template is being used? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the technical details of Wikipedia, unfortunately. What seems odd is that in a help page about searching, it says that the wiki source is searched. Yet, when I tried searching for "flagicon Croatia" (without the quotes) I didn't get results I should have got. Therefore it seems that Wikipedia search is broken. While this is so, I see only a few ways of doing this. The most comprehensive (and laborious) would be to check all pages that link to the Croatian flag file. A perhaps less laborious one would be to check all pages that contain "Independent state of croatia". But all of this is manual labor; the search feature really should be fixed to do this properly. Silver hr (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

edits to Template:Country data Yugoslavia

Please make sandbox edits first, or request somebody from WP:WikiProject Flag Template to offer assistance. It is not acceptable to make experimental edits (16 edits in a few hours, most only a couple of minutes apart) to a high-use template (several thousand pages). I realize your edits were made in good faith, but they caused significant numbers of pages to be broken, which is why I reverted them for now and re-protected the template. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Foreign relations of Kosovo

Hi DIREKTOR, how is it going?

It seems that you moved Foreign relations of Kosovo to Foreign relations of the Republic of Kosovo; I'd suggest you to revert yourself and continue the discussion that you've initiated some time ago or request a move. Cheers. — Kedadi 16:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It was a good faith move, and frankly I'm hoping this could be done sans the lengthy politically-infused debate. It is very much obvious that the move is proper and demanded by policy. In the discussion there wasn't presented a single argument, in fact, anticipating what the Albanian users might say I actually answered most of their objections in my first post before they were even written... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I moved it back. No consensus was reached for such move. I will also vote that no split be made to the Kosovo article. --Sulmues (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:PGMayor listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:PGMayor. Since you had some involvement with the Template:PGMayor redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). EmanWilm (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Join the vote

Check this out: Is Kosovo War part of Yugoslav Wars?. Hope we can have a constructive dialogue. --Justice and Arbitration (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrators noticeboard (not for you) about the Serbocroatian article.

Can I get your opinion on this? [38] Came out of nowhere for me, and I'm still not sure how the whole thing works, so can you tell me if I'm in the wrong here or something? (Have also asked Kwami, feel free to reply on your talkpage, not mine) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Lepa Radić

Hi Direcktor, I created a page for Lepa Radić, if you have time would appreciate any additions, comments you might think worthwhile. For example, I'm not absolutely clear if she was a member of the NOV i POJ, if you have access to a WP:RS it would be useful for the article. regards --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Banovina of Croatia

Because of the constant edit warring there due to over a flag image, you and Ex13 have a 48 hour block. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Zscout, please note my unanswered thread on the talkpage [39], as well as my attempts to start a discussion with User:Ex13 [40]. The user has ignored the talkpage and continued to edit-war. I do not object to being blocked, since I was indeed forced to breach 3RR, I object to the equal treatment with the edit-warmongering user, as well as the apparent endorsement of his version. To be clear, I do not consider that to be your intention, I am pointing out that it will be interpreted as supportive of the account's non-responsive and aggressive attitude ("just edit-war, ignore the moron and his threads, and your version will eventually stick out under indef protection"). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

3rd opinion invited

Hi, would you perhaps be willing to intervene with a neutral 3rd opinion as regards my current dispute with milhist admin (on WW2 discussion page)? It's a long-running battle. My intention is only to improve the article without getting bogged down in editing wars, arbitration, mediation etc. The dispute is under several related section headings on discussion page, starting with "Link to", then evolving into "WW2 origings of Cold War", then "Flawed overview - para.3", and currently "Editing dispute - expressions of interest invited". The main issues involved are NPOV / Parity of Sources. With regards. Communicat (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


How's life o'er there on the front lines? I made something, though I imagine that you are not too focused on sports. Croatian Inline Hockey League. Perhaps it will confuse some of your adversaries, you ol' commie munckin!, come 'ere, long time no hug! lulz (LAz17 (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)).

3RR Breach

You've broken WP:3RR on Yugoslav Partisans: [41], [42], [43], [44]. Please self revert and don't troll for an edit war. Lt.Specht (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverting a vandal IP that's been going around section blanking is exempt from the 3RR. Please read WP:BRD. You've been bold, you've been reverted, discuss. You have edited the article, your edits have been reverted by a number of users and are opposed on good grounds by others on the talkpage. Discuss, and please do not try to push your edit with edit-warring. It is quite obvious you have arrived on that article with an agenda, the point is beyond discussion. Your edits are not aimed at improving the article but are coated in a specific "anti-communist" POV. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The IP was not doing obvious vandalism per the rule. Lt.Specht (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah so you support an IP that restored your edits? Surprising.
Could you elaborate on your persistence with partial answers to user posts? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't support the IP's edits, he/she heavily modified my original edits which added sources to some of the content which was being reverted before and requested citations for other things instead of removing them. The whole situation seems to have been getting out of hand and needed to be stopped which I thank you for. As for any "agenda" I have, I simply don't. I've not been that interested in or read much of Yugoslav front topics until lately. My major concern is that the fact that some sources relating to the article are simply being ignored, with no clear rationale as to why they should be excluded, and also citation requests are being removed. I'll post further on the talk page. Lt.Specht (talk) 10:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello DIREKTOR and Lt.Specht. Without comment on the content disagreement between both of you, please be aware that some of the material being added by the unregistered editor in the diffs given by Lt.Specht above was copied verbatim from the source. If either of you were considering restoring the edits of the unregistered editor in full, please could you be mindful of the copyright issue. CIreland (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Socialist Republic of Croatia

Information.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Socialist Republic of Croatia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lt.Specht (talkcontribs) 21:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, if I had a penny... I invite you to have a look at what constitutes, WP:VANDALISM. :) I also hope you will read WP:DTTR, User:Lt.Specht, I do have some 27,000 edits here. Your edits constitute very obvious WP:OVERTAGGING. I invite you to ask anyone's opinion on whether each section and the article itself should have a template, or whether its just the article. You clearly need guidance on template use.
Most importantly: please stop starting edit-wars or you yourself will be reported for disruptive behavior. Once again: WP:BRD. Bold. Reverted. Discuss. Do not start edit wars to push your very obvious POV on subjects you are very marginally acquainted with. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)

The Bugle.png

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010)
Front page
Project news
Project news

New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced;
Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections


Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content


July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy


Opportunities for new military history articles

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

3RR at Marco Polo's birhplace

Actually you're over that. I've warned the other editor, I'm warning you as well. Dougweller (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


Unbelievable. I would seriously advise you to cease with your offensive behavior. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The editor User:IP IP Hurra! has already been indef blocked by myself before seeing this comment from DIREKTOR. I only did this because of the obvious and extreme nature of the harrassment. I request all other admins clamp down on this sort of nonsense. Polargeo (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The Republic of Serbian Krajina Coat of Arms and Flag

Dear Sir,

There have been problems with who is right about the Republic of Serbian Krajina Coat of Arms and Flag. Please visit the semi-official museum of the Republic of Serbian Krajina at, and you will see original documents, badges (both metal cap badges and cloth sleeve patches), State-issued bonds and currency, certificates, identity cards, military documents, etc., all of which date back to the war period (1991-1995). Please look at, where you will find the State flag (not the civil ensign) of the RSK. The RSK had a State Flag with a crowned two-headed eagle and Serbian National Cross in the middle.

The plain Serbian tricolor is the civil ensign commonly used by the people and sometimes, due to a lack of funds, by the Government and Army. When most of the RSK was taken over by Croatian forces in 1995, the unconquered eastern part of the RSK became the short-lived Republic of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia. This new entity kept the old Coat of Arms of the RSK, but they changed the flag by adding a blue shield behind the crowned, two-headed eagle. There are scanned copies of magazine photos from Eastern Slavonia from that period that can by found on the Military Photos website (I will try to send you a link as soon as I find it in my records). On the aforementioned RSK museum website, you will also be able to find militaria from the Republic of Srpska. Even a superficial examination of these items will show that the Coat of Arms used by the RSK was not the same, although there were similarities, as the Coat of Arms of the Republic of Srpska.

The Coat of Arms that you have listed now is not the Coat of Arms of the RSK. It is the Coat of Arms of the Republic of Srpska. If you go on Google and type "flag of Krajina", you will immediately see a high-resolution photo of the State Flag that Croatian troops found in the office of then RSK President Milan Martic. Sadly, this Flag and the Coat of Arms that go with it were never vectorized, since it was always easier to use the Coat of Arms and Flag of the Republic of Srpska (which, unlike the RSK, did use a plain Serbian tricolor as its State Flag). Recently, people have even begun to use the current Flag and Coat of Arms of Serbia (both of which date back just a few years) as the Flag and Coat of Arms of the RSK, but that is because of laziness. Quite simply, no one ever bothered to do a high-quality vectorization of the State Flag and Coat of Arms, which is why my friend and me decided to do a professional vectorization of both the Flag and Coat of Arms, and to make them available to everyone.

I hope this answers some of your questions. I honestly appreciate your dedication to maintaining the articles about the RSK, so that they are correct. Believe me, this is my desire as well, which is why I put so much effort into making sure the Coat of Arms and Flag were correct.

By the way, as far as the Emblem of the Serbian Army of Krajina is concerned, please take a look at the following link:, and you will see that the Emblem of the Army as I represented it is just a vectorization of the original emblem worn by the RSK Army soldiers and officers on the sleeve patches (the same Emblem was used on all military documents from the RSK, as you will be able to see when you look at the RSK museum website).

All the best, Marko Maljkovic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlovi Gvozda (talkcontribs) 18:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Some more references about the Republic of Serbian Krajina Flag and Coat of Arms

Dear Sir,

I have found two more references for the changes that I made to the Coat of Arms and Flag of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, as well as to the Flag and Coat of Arms of its short-lived successor, the Republic of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia.

The first reference is a scanned copy of a photo-reportage made by Serbian journalists in the RSK during the war. The photos in this photo-reportage show an official RSK military ceremony taking place. The RSK President Milan Martic is clearly visible in one of the photos. The photos also clearly show the official Coat of Arms of the RSK, which is visibly different from the old Coat of Arms of the Republic of Srpska (the Republic of Srpska Coat of Arms was mistakenly used in previous posts about the RSK; the two Coats of Arms are similar in many ways, and it is a common mistake to mix them up).

The vectorized RSK Coat of Arms image that I produced and posted here is the same as the official Coat of Arms used by the RSK during the war. The photos also clearly show that the official State Flag used at official State-sponsored ceremonies of this kind had the RSK Coat of Arms on it, as I have presented in the vectorized flag that I posted here on Wikipedia. This is the link to the first reference:

The second reference is also a scanned copy of a Serbian magazine article. The article is from November 19, 1995. It shows soldiers and officers of the RSK Army at an official, State-sponsored ceremony to celebrate the Day of the Serbian Army of Krajina ("Dan Srpske vojske Krajine"). By the time that this article was published, the Croatian Army and Police had already taken over the territories that used to be held by the RSK. The only remaining part of the old RSK that was still under Serbian control was the Republic of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia.

The Serbian entity in Eastern Slavonia maintained the same Coat of Arms as the old RSK, as can be seen from the magazine article I am referring to here, but the State Flag was changed. A blue shield was added to the Flag (the Coat of Arms would now be superimposed over that blue shield). Since the article describes an official State ceremony, it is safe to say that the symbols used here, including the Flags, were the official symbols, as opposed to popular, but unofficial, symbols by the people and non-State organizations in the RSK. This is the link to the second reference:

As far as the differences between the old Coat of Arms of the Republic of Srpska and the RSK Coat of Arms are concerned, I have put together a short list of links that show those differences. The differences are not major, but there are definite differences, and it cannot be said that the two Serbian wartime entities used the same Coat of Arms, because that would be a mistaken assumption.

First, this is the list of links to photos of State-issued symbols (in this case, military symbols) used by the Republic of Srpska during the war:

And, this is the list of links to photos of State-issued symbols (in this case, both military and political symbols, including postage stamps and RSK treasury bonds, all of which must, according to law, use only the official rendition of the Coat of Arms):

When it comes to the Flag, it is absolutely true that a plain Serbian red-blue-and-white tricolor was commonly used in the RSK during the war, but this plain tricolor was not the official State Flag. The tricolor was commonly used because of a lack of funds (or perhaps bureaucratic laziness or lack of interest; who knows?) to produce the official State Flag, which, as can be seen from the first two references above, definitely had the Coat of Arms in its middle (and even included a blue shield beneath the Coat of Arms in the case of the Serbian entity in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia in 1995).

In the Wikipedia article about the Flag of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, the article shows a plain Serbian tricolor and calls it the "National Flag of the Republic of Serbian Krajina". However, the original name (in Serbian) of that particular flag, as can be seen in the same Wikipedia article, is "Narodna zastava Republike Srpske Krajine", which, in this case, means the "People's Flag of the Republic of Serbian Krajina" (a "people's flag" is the civil ensign used by the citizens of any particular country, while a State Flag is the official banner of that same country; not all nations differentiate between these two types of banners, but the Serbs and some other European nations do).

Serbia changed its State symbols a few years ago. Here is the English-language web-page on the Serbian Government website that shows the new State symbols, including the new State Flag. As you will see from this Serbian Government web-page, there is a clear difference between the official State Flag (that has a Coat of Arms) and the "people's flag" (i.e. civil ensign), which is a plain Serbian tricolor. This is the link to the Serbian Government web-page:

The same holds true for the State Flag of the RSK. Unlike the Republic of Srpska, which actually did use a plain Serbian tricolor as its official State Flag (and continues to do so), the RSK never used a plain Serbian tricolor as its official State Flag, except when it had no other option (e.g. due to a lack of resources, etc.).

The work that I have presented here is entirely my own work and that of my friend and colleague, Vladimir Jovanovic. Neither one of us has anything whatsoever to do with the RSK Government-in-Exile that appeared in Belgrade a few years ago, nor do we have anything to do with any nationalist political or other groups in Serbia or anywhere else.

This work is merely our contribution to historical memory. We were motivated by the fact that various sources were mistakenly using the old Coat of Arms of the Republic of Srpska, or even the brand-new Coat of Arms and Flag of Serbia, and presenting them as the Coat of Arms and Flag of the RSK, which is factually incorrect. Since no professional vectorization had ever been made of the RSK State Flag and Coat of Arms, we combed through all of the reference material we could find to make as true and correct a vectorized version of the RSK Coat of Arms and Flag as possible.

I notice from the history of this and other Wikipedia articles about the RSK and the 1991-1995 war in Croatia that you have invested a great deal of time and energy to making sure that the articles presented here are as correct and objective as possible, and, believe me, I truly appreciate that, and I hope that you will continue to do so in the future, since there is always a danger that these articles will be misused or vandalized. I hope that this small contribution I have made will also enrich the historical accuracy of some of the articles referring to the RSK. Thank you once again.

Best regards, Marko Maljkovic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlovi Gvozda (talkcontribs) 01:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The genius linguist Snjezana Kordic

Dear DIREKTOR In the past two weeks in almost all West Balkan written media there ware articles about the genious croatian linguist Snjezana Kordic. Promoting her new book "The nationalism and language", using linguistic facts she speaks openly about the same language that Croats, Serbs, Bosnians and Montenegrians use, one more time victoriously confirming the truth about this language. She also speaks about the nationalism between some croatian linguists as a scientific nonsense and as an absolutelly defeated strategy in today's world. Her interview was given to a few bosnian, croatian and serbian newspapers. Knowing your great reputation on wikipedia, as a fact and truth presenter known for his objectivity, maybe you can be the first, who can write an article about this brilliant linguist? You can simply google her name and find a lot of useful information. Anyhow, she is the only type of linguist that EU accepts, and she definitelly deserves a place on wikipedia, which, sooner or later will be there. Thanks and Best Regards. (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

I see you are edit warring on Aloysius Stepinac. Stop please. Toddst1 (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

...Must be some mistake? I reverted User:Paxcoder only once (undid myself the 2nd time [45]) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
[46] [47]. Toddst1 (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Um, I immediately reverted myself the second time [48]. :-) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Five more years here and I might just learn, eh? :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Dalmatia

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Infobox Dalmatia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

yum yum

Is this wikipedia worthy? - [49] lolzers. :) (LAz17 (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)).

Keep it up and you guys will be funnier than Bosnians ;). Btw if I may digress, are you aware that those folks up in Zagreb are anatomically incapable of producing a single decent sitcom? The worst part is: that does not stop them from trying - the channels are clogged with all sorts of downright crappy purger flicks. The only half-decent local shows on our TV screens are Bosnian shows, and those Croatian shows that are half-funny are only so because of Bosnian actors (such as Bešlagić) that carry the whole thing. Dalmatians are capable of comedy, but aren't producing any shows (the few Dalmatian exceptions such as Po ure torture and Gitak are actually very good, have a look :). I just watched this horrid television manifestation that almost made me believe in hell: Nad Lipom 35 :P. Not only is it not funny in any way whatsoever, its actually offensive and annoying beyond measure... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Have a look at this, exempli gratia, the Po ure torture guys are asking vlajs in Split if they know what an "analni otvor" is xD --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
"...Uzrok amputiranog smisla za humor je najčešće gledanje hrvatskih humorističnih serija." [50] --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
neznam... negledam mnogo tv... jedinu seriju iz bivse juge koju sam gledo je Lud Zbunjen Normalan - znas njih prepostavljam. Dal imas nesto poput njih? Oni stari nadrealisti su bili dobri... [] []
The big game's on in two days! And it's quite stupid if you ask me. To have two teams instead of this old beauty... [51] at the 2011 eurobasket we have teams from five of the six republics... a bit sad I think? The tallent gets diluted in this and every other sport. It's okay in waterpolo where we usually take all three medals, hehe, more medals to go around... but in most sports it only means that it's harder to get a medal! :( How are we gonna get a gold now without some sort of divac-petrovic combo? Meh, regardless, hopefully we repeat this [52] or [53] this year. Funny story about the 2002 tournament - I was young back then, and was taping it on a video. :) But there were too many commercials... because of them I wasn't able to record the entire thing and just discarded what I recorded. :( (LAz17 (talk) 05:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).

Yugoslav Partisans

Hi DIREKTOR! I have made some suggestions on Talk:Yugoslav Partisans - Infobox War Faction. Can you implement some of them into the article? Kebeta (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


Pa to si ti imao negde - na stranici ustasa il negde. Secam se dobro da sam te cak pitao odkle to, i ti si mi reko source. Pri kraju rata su neke ustase presle na stranu partizana, znas da je to tako. Moj profesor ovde u americi cak zna ustasu koji je bio americki spijun protiv komunista. To je sta je u pitanju. (LAz17 (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).

Secam se dobro da si to imao napisano i da sam te pitao o tome. Svakako, to nije o cemu je tema, tema je da su hrvati masovno poceli da ulaze u partizane u 1944. Zavrseno. (LAz17 (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).
I srbi u srbiji i ustase. (LAz17 (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).
Pa da, dok su nemci bili tu nije bio nijedan razlog da predju kod partizana. (LAz17 (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).
Okej, mislim da vidim sta je problem... ti pricas prelazili. Nije prelazili, nego prelazili i ulazili (prvi put). (LAz17 (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)).

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)

The Bugle.png

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010)
Front page
Project news
Project news

The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election


A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound


Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants


In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations

To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


Check out Sunray's talk page, he blessed these edits.... --Nuujinn (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies talk 21:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Petar Stambolic1.jpg


Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Petar Stambolic1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Director. You have new messages at Talk:Breakup of Yugoslavia#New states.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stojadinović-Pavelić agreement

Hi. Are You interested in translating this article to English? -- Bojan  Talk  14:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible mistake

Hi, DIREKTOR! Did I made a mistake here? Kebeta (talk) 08:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lazar Kolishevski.JPG


Thanks for uploading File:Lazar Kolishevski.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).


  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


Before calling editors "nationalists" and threating them[54]. You should take a look at Wikipedia:Five pillars. Especially Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Consensus. Good reading. UltimaRatio (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If you look carefully, you'll notice that I did not call anyone a "nationalist". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
You replaced a longstanding picture without consensus and when someone reverted your edit, you threating him to report his edits for not respecting Consensus ! I'm not sure this is the way Wikipedians should work... UltimaRatio (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I was "threatening" to report you because you removed the picture altogether for no reason whatsoever. The Dunkrik evacuation of the British is hardly the point of the article, the image is very much anglo-centric and seems to center on the British role rather than on the actual battle which was fought overwhelmingly by Frenchmen and Germans. The new pic represents the disasterous Battle of France in a more direct way.
I want to be clear here: I am not some sort of "Nazi/German-sympathizer", nor am I a German for that matter. I'm just trying to improve the articles. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The threats I'm talking about where made on the Paris article, not on Battle of France, see [55].
By the way, there was not a single battle in Paris during the Battle of France, the battle was almost entirely fought between Belgium and Dunkirk. The german occupation of Paris is a consequence of the battle, not the battle itself.
I'm not interested about your political opinions. UltimaRatio (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Légion d'honneur#Requested move (2010)

I creatded fr:Museum van Hedendaagse Kunst Antwerpen with its title in dutch, not in french; also, frWP has a lot of articles with english titles, even abbreviated, cf fr:MASS MoCA.
Can you explain "Nationalist POV is likely to blame"? Who are the nationalists there? Am I among this nationalists?
Thanks in advance for your answers.

Alvar 06:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"Nationalist POV" does not imply anyone in particular here can be described as a "nationalist". It means that the edits were done from a point of view which favoured one's own culture. This is neither strange nor uncommon, but it is something we must avoid at all costs. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I note that you have been canvassing at WT:MILHIST. Whilst I don't think that this is a problem per WP:CANVAS, you should also be requesting the same assistance from WP:ODM which is after all the primary sponsoring project. Please cease and desist from implying nationalist-centric viewpoints when there is no black and white evidence of that. Not everyone who has opposed your position on this move has been French and even those for those that are, your implications are a leap too far. Suspicion is not enough and you are giving others a strong impression that you are not assuming good faith per WP:AGF. This does not help with consensus building, no matter how frustrating you appear to be finding the debate. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
If you believe I've violated policy, please do not hesitate to report me. If not, don't. To be blunt: the RM very obviously needs attention from people outside of frWiki who will render unbiased opinions, and the discussion itself needs to focus on the reason for the move (i.e. policy). Not everyone opposed to the move is French but every French person is opposed to the move, and frankly I've ceased believing that you guys are objective and unbiased over there. The whole thing is turning into an emotional squabble for some strange reason - its very hard to AGF when you are being called a "diktator" by someone you've never even talked to and for no apparent reason. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Part of the issue is that your proposal is perceived to violate Wikipedia:Article titles#Considering title changes, specifically "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed". You obviously think there is a good reason to change, but this is not a view shared by most of the others contributing to the debate. Unfortunately, the language that you used to start with and in dealing with various editors subsequently, has contributed to inflamming the situation. Whilst you may not have intended to cause offence, your remarks have been interpreted that way and other editors have replied in kind - none of which has been productive. At this point, you are probably not going to achieve anything positive by continuing to try to moderate the discussion. You have made your arguments clear and it is now up to the RM process to run its course. As you yourself noted, the ultimate decision will be based not on weight of numbers but on the relevancy of argument, in which policy considerations carry significant weight. My personal view is that this would all be a lot simpler if the policy was a blanket everything gets translated to English, no exceptions - then there would be no need for the debate. The exceptions are what adds difficulty and complexity and opens up questions of WP:IAR. My intent has been to offer some constructive (hopefully) feedback and I have no intention of reporting you (although it is likely someone else will if things continue on their current course). Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I can only echo AusTerrapin's comments. Whilst it may not have been your intent, your choice of words on the thread are inflaming the situation unnecessarily. Allthough you may see nothing wrong with the term 'nationalist POV', you'll find that a great many people do. Please try to be constructive and not comment on the motives of other editors - you'll probably find you get more results that way. Cheers, Ranger Steve Talk 10:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mikulic.jpg


Thanks for uploading File:Mikulic.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).


  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Petar Stambolic table crop1.jpg


Thanks for uploading File:Petar Stambolic table crop1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).


  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stojan Novakovic table crop.jpg


Thanks for uploading File:Stojan Novakovic table crop.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).


  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Benevolent Dictatorship


In [56] you added

'have generally characterized by as "benevolent dictators".'

Did you mean "characterised by others as"? Rojomoke (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Milka Planinc table crop.jpg


Thanks for uploading File:Milka Planinc table crop.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 02:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Croats infobox picture

There is a parallel discussion about 'Croats infobox picture' at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia and Talk:Croats. Your comments and suggestions will be appreciated. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

The Bugle.png

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010)
Front page
Project news
Project news

The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals


A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles


Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)


In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Vitomirmisimovic.PNG


Thanks for uploading File:Vitomirmisimovic.PNG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vanjagenije 19:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


You were correct about Chetniks and their collaboration with Nazis. Yad Vashem clearly states that Serbian Chetniks collaborated with Nazis . "The Chetnicks turned on the partisans. They even collaborated with their former enemies, the Germans and Italians, against the partisans. When the Chetnicks began cooperating with the occupying forces, any Jews among their ranks left. There were even instances where the Chetnicks killed Jews or surrendered them to the Germans."Yahalom Kashny (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Commemorative Medal of the Partisans of 1941

I see you put this medal on Wikipedia commons. By signing themselves you have violated the provision of Wikipedia and I as author reserve the right to sign or take proceedings to the medal with your signature as by removing it form Wikipedia. Medal will stay but authors name will be changed. In future actions will be reported against you.Snake bgd 11:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Draza Mihailovic's Troops Slaughtered Serbs

For the record, Dubrovnik is the most beautiful city in the World :) . Ok. Now back to Draza Mihailovic and his Chetniks (two articels). We need to improve the article by adding information that General Draza Mihailovic's Chetniks committed a massacre of innocent Serbian women, children and the elderly in a Serbian village of Vranici, near Belgrade. To verify this information, you can read a book from Dragoljub Pantic - survivor of the massacre (there are also photos of his slaughtered relatives) . There are hundreds of Chetnik documents of Draza Mihailovic's crimes against Bosnian Muslims and the Chetnik collaboration with Nazis. The documents were preserved in the Archives of the Military Institute in Belgrade. Dr. Branko Latas organized some of these documents in his book, which you can download here (by chapters) (or for individual documents, you can look bottom of theis page ). Yahalom Kashny (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Swearword username

Hello. I have replied to [57] Regards --Jebacz (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture modifications for Arc de Triomphe


I modified the pictures for the History section of the Arc de Triomphe article. Please read my justification before taking any action. This is an attempt of improvement. Badzil (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Far-left totalitarian communism

Why are you so narrow-minded. Can you leave your totalitarian idols behind and live in a modern world? Defending communists and their ideology leads you nowhere. Why don't you live in DPR of Korea if communism is so great. I would like to see how you defend communist from North Korea, but, well, you couldn't do it, because the Net is a subject of censorship in your dear communist states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a pal of Frania

Hi Direktor,

could you please stop using that contemptuous tone when mentioning other contributors? I think that we both follow the same goal, improving Wikipedia but your tone makes you appear arrogant and therefore usually transforms discussions about content to confrontations between contributors. I don't want to go down that way. I assure you that my modification on the article Arc de Triomphe was meant as an improvement and not as a try to remove the image Commons:File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-126-0347-09A, Paris, Deutsche Truppen am Arc de Triomphe.jpg. I do agree with you that this image is important in the history of France and Germany. I think it should be shown at least on Battle of France and probably History of France. However I am not sure that it is a relevant image for Arc de Triomphe compared to other images on Commons.

Also please stop judging people on their nationality. My nationality has nothing to do in that. I went to highschool in Germany ([58]) and studied extensively the history of the Third Reich in german, so don't accuse me blindly of NPOV. Badzil (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


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. Thank you. Badzil (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your notification. Regards, --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I closed the incident: [59]. Badzil (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you again for taking the time. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


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. Thank you. A link to discussions can be found here. Mathsci (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Bosnian War Introduction

Hi. There is a discussion on Talk:Bosnian War on how to revamp the introduction of the Bosnian War article, so it could be made shorter, more coherent and concise. It would be useful to have some more opinions on this from people who have knowledge on the subject and region. So if you have the time, you can chime in. Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

POV image

Thought I'd give you a heads up on this image (and its discussion) that shows the genocide committed during WW2 in Yugoslavia in a POV manner. I'd deal with it myself but I'm bit preoccupied at the moment. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 22:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


He spent five years in prison. A good part of his life he spent in prison. This period of his life was marked behind bars. This image must therefore be found in the article. In his apartment in Zagreb, police found a hand grenades. That's why I wrote in the description of images is due to the prison for the criminal activities.--Свифт (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Its a good image, don't get me wrong, and I would like to include it - that's why I fixed it up anyway - but Tito's got like a thousand photos from all periods and the article is getting really crowded. The Wikipedia Manual of Style strongly discourages over-imaging, and if we add the photo where you added it we'd be over-imaging. I would like to see the article become featured eventually so these little details are rather significant. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

OK as you say!--Свифт (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta

Howdy. I see the article has been relatively stable, these last few months. GoodDay (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It currently features both the claim that he was an actual king, and that he had refused to assume the throne. There is only one detailed paper on the subject, the one by by renowned British historian specializing in the Balkans, Prof. Stevan K. Pavlowitch, entitled "The King Who Never Was". It might finally give us the bare facts behind the conflicting assessments in the more general sources. The problem of course is that its not available for free :), and I also get the feeling the other side of the argument might be gearing up to disregard it on the basis that its "just one source" (even though it is the only source that does not deal with this matter very superficially, and is used as the reference for most of the otehr sources). Its a very frustrating issue. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank goodness we got the article's title correct. GoodDay (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes indeed. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Puppeter template.svg

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DIREKTOR for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


Thought that you would find this entertaining: [60]. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 23:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What a surprise. :o You do realize this means they should all be blocked now, right? Report this --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Done [61]. Its a bit abrupt but they'll get the point. Feel free to add any user that I may have overlooked. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 02:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


DIREKTOR, dear friend, enough of this. Please do not try to tell the world that Tito was a Croat. This is not true. He was a Yugoslav, who refused to identify himself with any of the geographical groups. By going down this road, you ally yourself with all of the Balkan mentalities, the haters, with the prejudiced, jaundiced and racist. If you profess to understand anything at all about Tito, you would understand that he would despise you for what you are trying to do. To call him a Croat is opposed to everything Tito stood for. But hey, if you're following Tuđman's path from pan-Yugoslavianism to out-and-out Croatian nationalism, you will enjoy yourself in the company of AP1929 and similar. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


Would you care to comment on life without mediation? Your presence and comments would be appreciated.... --Nuujinn (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


Lunalet is currently at WP:ANI. It is possible that you may be able to shed some light on who this user really is. It is also possible that this editor is socking in breach of an editing restriction/ban/enforcement action. If you are able to add anything to the discussion please do so. Mjroots (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


Hi there.. I got back to you about the flag. Discussion continues there. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. I really need to clean-up my watchlist :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


"Another antisemitic incident happened when an HČSP member in another debate stated: Whoever doesn't listen to Thompson's music in Croatia is a Jew who hates Croats[9]. These two incidents outraged the minuscule Croatian Jewish community." - This wasn't stated by a HČSP member, but by this idiot: He is from HP-HPP, npt from HČSP. HeadlessMaster (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Please don't remove such things in future, I described everything in "Discussion", so it's not "unsourced". I may as well report you for giving HČSP a bad name. Write that on the page of HP-HPP, I don't care, but please don't write wrong informations anymore. HeadlessMaster (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


Just to let you know that if there's an outing issue, you need to e-mail oversight; bringing it to ANI will just make it much more public. I've removed the thread for that reason; feel free to revert, but I'd recommend not bringing the outing to the attention of the many watchers of ANI, at least until it's been oversighted. If you wish to create a new thread dealing with the personal attack issues rather than the outing, feel free to do so as well. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


I just fired an Email off for you, I didn't see the outing explicitly but I assume that portion was enough to have you worried. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I have just gotten Word from oversight that the information in question has been suppressed The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

So, which is it?

Are you a Commie or a Nazi? I can never keep this straight. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

He's obviously Al-qaeda The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
You leave Hitler, Stalin and Bin Laden in a dimly lit room for 20 mins - you get me :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Dragan Antic

Dragan Antic

Hi DIREKTOR, happy new year to you and best withes for 2011.

I nominated this guy for AFD as I couldn't find anything about him, however this could be just a local thing as there aree a few pics of albums on google pic search as it is your area-ish but perhaps not your field, do you know if he really was a popular singer there and are there any cites you can find, perhaps in another language? Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

WPYU listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WPYU. Since you had some involvement with the WPYU redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

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) 19:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ExamsDIRshort

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:ExamsDIRshort has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 00:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yugoslav Front

I have undone Fkp's edit putting the Chetniks in the Allied column, pending agreement on the talkpage, as this seemed to me to be a continuation of the edit war. However - it is also partly my fault as I did not express myself clearly. I have now made it clear I will protect the page if there is any resumption of edit warring. I have also added a proposal for how the infobox should be constructed though I hasten to add that the content is a matter for discussion on the talkpage, not for me! Fainites barleyscribs 13:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


I had few sources that also claim Chetniks colaboration with Italians in Dalmatia and Lika, those Chetniks were under command of Momčilo Đujić. More corectly his Dalmatian division, or something like that, but I can't find them. When I do, be sure I'll add them to article dealing with Yugoslav Front.--Wustefuchs (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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) 14:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the Universe

"The tautological statement is correct, but irrelevant. Discussing the prospect that the universe has come into being at some point in some way (but keeping in mind that it was not necessarily so!) we find that "in fact, 'nothing' did come from 'nothing'. The universe is in actuality an engagingly reorganized form of 'nothing', while a-causal events are capable of seeing it come into being without intervention". This is a very interesting perspective you are advocating. Have you seen this documentary? [62] --Justice and Arbitration (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

The Bugle.png

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


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. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI notices

Dear DIREKTOR, I just wanted to drop you a kind note and let you know that you forgot to inform an involved editor in the thread that you opened on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Don't worry! It's been taken care of. Just wanted to gently remind you to make sure to do so when and if you open a new ANI thread in the future. Thanks! Basket of Puppies 03:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Srbija u 2. svetskom ratu

Dobro, ajde mi sad objasni zašto si vratio moju promenu naslova kod tog članka. O kakvim izvorima govoriš? Niko ne spori da je Nedićev režim ili vlada postojao, ali svaka vlada mora imati teritoriju kojom upravlja, dakle postojala je teritorija pod nazivom Srbija kojom je taj režim upravljao. Ili možda tvrdiš da nije? Što se izvora tiče, evo ti nekoliko:

Što se tiče drugih teritorija u okupiranoj Evropi, evo ti članci o njima:

Dakle o svim teritorijama postoje članci, samo o Srbiji ne. U čemu je problem sa tvojim gledištem o Srbiji?

Na srpskoj Vikipediji postoje članci i o Srbiji kao teritoriji i o Nedićevoj vladi:

Dakle, pošto veći deo članka koji sada nosi naslov "Nedić regime" govori upravo o Srbiji kao teritoriji (a pored toga koristi i "Infobox Former Country" i nalazi se u kategorijama "Short-lived states of World War II", "Former countries in the Balkans", "States and territories established in 1941", itd), logično je u naslovu ovog članka koristiti naziv Srbija, a ti ako hoćeš napiši poseban članak o Nedićevoj vladi. Ili hoćeš da ja napišem poseban članak o Srbiji, ali da onda pola članka čiji naslov tako ljubomorno čuvaš "prekrojim" i da iz njega izbacim sve što nema veze sa samom vladom? PANONIAN 20:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The only comparable situation to Serbia was in Norway: Quisling regime. I suggest you also read the talkpage a bit better.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Director. You have new messages at N5iln's talk page.
Message added 22:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re-"My dear good Mr.IP", on User Talk:

User : may have created User:Vidboy and User:Vidboy10 as a disposable sock to sacrifice to prove his 'Innocence'. Same disruptive tastes, on-off edit war and trolling, I’m hunting another trouble maker on Egypt's protests. See Chetniks, Talk:Chetniks, Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jash and Talk: 2011 Egyptian protests.Wipsenade (talk) 05:17, 5--Wipsenade (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC) February 2011 (UTC)

He’s even exploded off at XLinkBot now-

(cur | prev) 17:18, 13 January 2011 (talk) (36,661 bytes) (please **** off mr bot, I'm, not even ADDING them) (undo).

See for proof [[64]] Wipsenade (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Block him for me or tell the admin's, I don't know how to do it.09:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

He may be related to the all ready banned User:Magic elephant.Wipsenade (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 :-)Wipsenade (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I've found the admin's page and will let them know!16:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I told them.--Wipsenade (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Nedić regime

Hi, my friend. Can you please explain me your reasoning for Nedić regime, as article have former countries infobox in it, and related categories. Please, talk page is waaay TLDR, what do you think, i dont understand quite. :) All best. --WhiteWriter speaks 12:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, i saw a bit, but dont you think that with this title we dont have coverage of entire Serbia as an Axis country? As far as i know, occupied Serbia had more governments then Milan Nedić... What do you propose as best possible title? --WhiteWriter speaks
I read it all! :) Well, other users also mentioned Aćimović's government... But i also dont think that it is irrelevant. It is part of Serbian WWII history, and must be mentioned. :) I think that Nedić should not be mentioned in article title, as his government is only one part of WWII Serbia. Serbia was, in some way puppet state, as:
  • Government existed. Government = statehood. It was Nazi-backed Serbian puppet government, but still existed. In a similar way as Manchukuo and NDX existed. Not the same, but similar.
  • Serbia at the time had its borders and territories.
  • Other users presented numerous sources that claimed it as Serbia, and not Nedić regime.
So, what do you say? --WhiteWriter speaks 13:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You have been reported

Hello, you've been mentioned on WP:ANI. Regards HeadlessMaster (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Regards Direktor, Can you do something about this facts?

Dear Direktor, thank you for your absolute objectivity in presentation the facts about former Yugoslavia and congratulations again to your total victory over the croatian nationalists on wikipedia. Just wanted to remind you about this very important and relevant link, attached under my text, which PROVES the facts about who started the civil war in formar Yugoslavia, particullarly in Croatia. That's an interview that the former croatian defense minister Josip Boljkovac gave to 'Slobodna Dalmacija' and a few other magazines in 2009. In this interview he tells the truth about the war in Croatia, saying that croatian para-military formations first attacked JNA and Serbs, and clearly denies the opposite as a lie which the failed croatian nationalistic propaganda has tried to present to the world. Now, when all the pieces of the truth about the war in Yugoslavia are slowly falling into right places, it's probably time to make the facts even more aggressive and more present on wikipedia, thus eliminating the last remainings of the nationalistic lie-spreaders. Maybe you can check the article about Josip Boljkovac and correct some of the things there, as it seems to contain many irrelevant things, missing the important facts. Zivio! (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The only way of solving our dispute

I opened this discussion about you:'_noticeboard#How_can_I_deal_with_difficul_user.3F So, you might want to say your defense there. PANONIAN 19:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Venetian Albania

Hello, I left a message here. Can you please check? --Napoletanamente (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Tito in VladimirBakaric.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Tito in VladimirBakaric.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Brioni summit.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Brioni summit.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:JNA Military police vojna parada 1975.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:JNA Military police vojna parada 1975.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:NoviAvion1.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:NoviAvion1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Vladimir Bakaric facingleft.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Vladimir Bakaric facingleft.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Mi-8 YPA.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Mi-8 YPA.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Dalmatian Heraldry

Could you please take a better picture of the Heraldry of Dalmatian Nobles...Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


Check out WP:NORN and WP:FTN an individual is ranting incoherently about your so called "WP:OWN issues." [sarcasm] Thought you might be interested. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:FPRY Merit Order.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:FPRY Merit Order.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Aloysius Stepinac

Hi DIREKTOR! You should undo or rewrite your edits regarding Aloysius Stepinac. I am not refering to the correctness of your edits, but to the style. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects, not as detail explanation as you have recently added. Shortly, most of your edits should go into the body of the article. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I know. I've been attempting to include and integrate the new information into the main body of the article so that I can rewrite the lead. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


Hello, Director. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr.direktor, can you please, for the record, provide any evidence for your continuos insinuation of me being a Chetnik sympatizer. I beleave you do it purpously with a discrediting purpouse and you do it towards other users and administrators by other means and channals as well. Please provide what makes you link me to Chetnik movement so you frequently in a insulting tone label my edits as "Chetnik nonsence". I will consider the report I done today ([65]) on this as a warning that you accepted, having in mind that you have been already warned on this in the past as well. Knowing the ammount of effort that you spent in recent years nazifiying the movement (and knowing the connotation given to the expression in your country Croatia, stand and prejudice that you acknolledge and defend) I will obviously consider deeply insulting any further behavior of such kind towards me and I will take strong action against it. Now please be kind and at least provide me an excuse for such behavior. FkpCascais (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You know that perfectly well. I may agree with some issuea and disagree with other, but I have expressed this to you in the past several times. As I remember, you felt insulted a long time ago when several users called you a communist, and I had allways since then respected that and never labeled you despite the fact that I could accurately label you directly and with evidence many things and many times, however, same situation in contrary you don´t respect at all. However, I am civil, I do respect other wikipedians (even those that don´t deserve that respect, not mentioning anybody in concrete) and I don´t do such things. Now, I beleave that if you still want to play the game of not knowing or understanding, now you do, so consider yourself warned.
And btw, you know very well that the occupation of Yugoslavia didn´t happend to SFR Yugoslavia that officiually started existing only in 1945, 4 years latter! So could you please revert your edits regarding that issue and return the the (I don´t know why, it shoulf be Kingdom of Yugoslavia because that was the country occupied by Axis in 1941, but "diplomacy" ands good-will on my behalve) version I first corrected using simply Yugoslavia, and that is knowing your prejudice to wards the monarchic period of the country. FkpCascais (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Empty threats? You know wp works with warnins don´t you? Try me. And you changed the post on my talk page while I answered you here, so you still want to play the game of not knowing about this labeling... Again, and anyway, now you officially now. FkpCascais (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
When did I called you a communist? FkpCascais (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Now, regarding the issue, you answered to yourself in your own comment on my talk page: "The Kingdom of Yugoslavia was occupied in 1941". Yes, the Kingdom, not SFRY, and that is what is in question there. Is it possible that you do everything you can to avoid linking the articles to the Kingdom? What is the problem? FkpCascais (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Lets discuss on your talkpage since we started the thread there, I'm getting a headache.. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Actually, you are the one treatening me that reporting you want have any effect on you. I already asked you several times not to label me that, I did again.
I´m going out now, and everything has been said. You are not right to use SFRY in that context, and you don´t want to accept my good-will solution to use simply Yugoslavia. It´s up to you now. I am not going to be calling this or that because of it, but I also want allow you to do that to me. Now, it´s up to you to show any good-will. Good-night. FkpCascais (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tito Life Magazine.jpg


Thanks for uploading File:Tito Life Magazine.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


Molim te, ako imas bolji kvalitet one slike grbova iz Raguse, da mi ih posaljes na email Vrlo bi bijo zahvalan vama.

Sve najbolje. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Croats infobox image

Wher did you get idea that image has copy right issues? It won't be erased. And you added Comrade Tito with no discussion, even though we had discussion and agreed - no criminals and dead communists at the infobox.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The image does have copyright issues, it includes several non-free images athat are already tagged for deletion. I did not want to report it since I generally support free media usage, but it seems I will have to tag it now... Good work! :) It is also a COMPLETELY non-consensus image that was supposed to be a temporary solution, but tragically stayed on a bit too long.
The new template only uses persons which have been agreed-upon on talk.
As for Tito - you must be joking xD. According to Talk:Croats he is the third most voted-for Croat in the "politics" category. The consensus was to include him, nice try :). I mean, you do "disagree", but consensus fortunately does not require a complete agreement. The "criminal" nonsense seems to be WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, I though we talked about that Foxy. Though I agree he is "dead"... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No, ther are no copyright issues, and you tag them, like I care. Your adding of Tito is NPOV.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not give a damn what you think about Tito. See Talk:Croats, consensus is to include him (in fact he is the third most voted-for Croat political figure). You really need to stop telling me your thoughts and opinions, since I'm starting to sound repetitive explaining how much "I just don't care!" over and over and over again.
As for the image
  • It has already been tagged several days ago. Now I will also report it officially.
  • The image is NON-CONSENSUS, whereas the new template ONLY uses persons we've agreed to include (apart from obviously being far better than the crappy low-res collage).
P.S. For future reference, when you say something is "NPOV", that actually means it follows the neutral point of view. What you want to say is "POV". Just ask :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you teach me the alphabet to? I know what NPOV is. And don't ask stupid things. Smart thing would be to return messages to my talk page. But, we alredy open discussion at Croat talk page, so no need to do that.

Regards.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I see. Well then I must thank you for your compliment. I do know and agree that the infobox is NPOV and I thank you for saying so. I am however somewhat confused.. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

Sry, I'll take care of it. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)