It's ok your moderation work on Zadar. Now I have problem with anoter Croatian user (User:Zmaj). He frot on my talk page "It seems you have a bone to pick with Croatians. Well, I'm here to correct all your errors. I'll be your guardian angel, so to speak. See you around!"". After he has started to perform massive reverts against my edits, without to give decent reason. Please, give your suggestion. It seems that the user use the edit war- tecnique even on the page Neo-Nazism, about the Neo Nazism in Croatia. Same for Ante Starčević's page, now blocked.Tx--Giovanni Giove11:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had a talk to him about his edit warring, but if he doesn't cease, please tell me. Also, I am not a moderator, but just a simple volunteer. And just a fyi, but the user's last block expired about 20 days ago...--Dark Fallstalk22:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, DarkFalls. Thanks for the notice, I didn't see the RFC on Zadar. I'll immediately explain my reasons over there. And don't just go throwing accusations around, OK? I'm not fond of mindless reverting myself. --Zmaj22:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if it seems to be accusatory or overly hostile, I didn't mean it that way. I was just trying to stop the reversions. I thank you for discussing the changes and explaining your reasons. Cheers. --Dark Fallstalk23:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed, that was a really gentlemanly answer. I'm looking forward to your contributions to the Zadar controversy. We could use your help in some other Croatian articles too. I hope you have nerves of steel... --Zmaj23:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Giove and I have an issue about Giovanni Lucio that has spilled into Marko Marulić. Before this turns into a full-scale edit war between Italians and Croatians, we could use your help. There's an ongoing discussion in Talk:Giovanni Lucio and a couple of edit comments [1]. If you can't help, that's OK, just let me know so I can look for someone else. --Zmaj10:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your fast and thoughtful help. Your comment for Lucio doesn't apply to Marulić, however. I can live with the article not mentioning that Marulić is Croatian, but there's no way that the father of my nation's literature can be classified as a Venetian only because Venice happened to own his hometown. I won't mention the Croatian nationality if it hurts Giovanni's feelings, but that's as far as I'm prepared to go. I hope that sounds reasonable. --Zmaj11:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem of your Dad is that he is more Italian of what you ever read in a Croatian book. This is simply a matter of fact, if you like it or not (BTW... I've proper sources...)--Giovanni Giove17:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but that's just me talking... Notify me of Giovanni's comments about this proposal, and we'll take it from there. Cheers! --Dark Fallstalk11:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smile
†Sir James Paul† has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Anyways, edit counters should never be used for RFAs....(haven't checked mine for a few months actually, until today.) Well, anyways, better go have a snooze... It's 10:30 here and I have a damn project in the morning... --Dark Fallstalk12:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto here - 10:30. Oh, thats right - your in Aus too. Im off too. Nice convos on RFA today. Should be quite the battlefield at WT:RFA and RFA by the time we wake up eh? Anonymous DissidentTalk12:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, and just so you know, I've rephrased mey comment about bureaucracy in wikipedia at WT:RFA. You were right - obviously Wikipedia isnt a bureaucracy - I just didnt phrase myself properly. Anonymous DissidentTalk07:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply to my question on Riana's talk.
You're right, ECHO is somewhat similar. I guess I'll be able to find someone willing at WP:TRANSL. Its the quickest way to add quality content, I believe.
I added Disputed, Original Research, POV tags to the article. Almost all history of Zadar is disputable. My intention is to clear it up through RFC discussion. I appriciate your help, even you gave me a lot of job by leaving Giove's last version. Never mind maybe it's better this way, since a lot of data could have been be deleted and, although a lot of it is incorrect, there's still some regular sections. I wonder if the article (history section) can be locked up during RFC. Cheers Zenanarh22:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to tell you that despite warnings you gave to user Giove that he continued his edit wars immediately after his block expired. --No.1322:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giove circus
He continues editing of Zadar article without consensus on the talk page, despite RFC. We are all dumb here? Zenanarh06:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reporting Giove's continuing ignorance and one-sided edit-war (well, if for the war takes two, than we here have an edit-slaughter). Can we do something about it?
Please, see his recent changes, Special:Contributions/Giovanni_Giove. This is obsessive behaviour.
Besides ignoring and belittling of Croatian sources (although they are online, and from official institutions, and some of those sources contain scanned original documents), now he ignores the sources on his mother tongue, from his country, Italian sources - and these sources are online, from Italian national TV!
See the talkpage of the article Jakov Mikalja. Kubura07:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All my edits in Zara come from Britannica. In Micaglia I've tried a neutral version, introducing several sources. Kubura's insults are shameful.--Giovanni Giove08:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are picking data from Britannica as an manipulator - facts that cannot harm your POV ideas, you are changing it in the way you like, playing some weird game with names, your texts are combination of sentences from other encyclopedias and your own POV statements. Zadar article now looks like your own private discussion (your private war) with only one purpose: to prove that Italians have historical and political rights for owning Dalmatia. Which is funny idea since Italians were always percieved as strangers there. You are ignoring sources and discussions of other users. You don't participate in the talk page. More than 75% of article edited by you describes global situation in Dalmatia by selective using of data, changing details, to produce some artificient factuality which in addition results with selectively picked statements about the city. A conglomeration of nonsense. You are doing it even there's a RFC going on. You are changing Wiki policy? Your contribution seems to be the same everywhere in the pages related to Croatia! Giove Circus!
I added tags to the article [3] with explanation in the talk page [4]. Giove deleted the tags [5] without explanation and made 9 edits after that. He doesn’t worry about RFC which started 30.06.2007. After this date he has 26 edits of any kind (changes, reverts, deletions) [6]. And that is just a little part of his vandalized contribution to the article.
DarkFalls I really think we need a lock up. And some administrator investigator to take a care of Giove. He already got a rich dossier and it's increasing every day with new vandalisms. Regards Zenanarh09:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact your tags have no reason to exist. You refused the use of historical names, but I've showed you that there is a rule for them! What do u want know? All my edits are totally sourced and I've used a neutral source (Encyclopedia Britannica). So that I've not broken the Rfc.Best regards. DarkFall, I want point out that a revert campaign has started again in 'Zadar', such us Croatisization, and others...--Giovanni Giove17:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place for discussion but let me just answer you. The main problem on Zadar are not sources but the practice of naming. If the article name is Zadar then the town should be refered as Zadar. The practice on Wikipedia where towns with multiple historic names have separate part which speaks about it. In the rest of the article the town is refered with it's present name. As for other article you are quite selective. For example on Giacomo Micaglia article you disregard the very sources you provide which clearly state he wrote a Croatian dictionary and equaled Croatian with Illyric or Illyrian. As for some other articles such as Croatisation and Marko Marulić you have provided no source whatsoever. In the end all these edit wars are direct consequence of your bad will (or you do it on purpose) to discuss and actually reach an agreement. Wikipedia is about consensus not about you forcing your opinion on others. --No.1318:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I have been a bit inactive as of late... but can everyone maintain their good faith here? I don't mind my talk being filled with discussion, but please keep the accusations to the minimal. Thanks! --Dark Fallstalk09:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV - July 2007
The July 2007 issue of the Novels 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.
Hi there. I saw your note left on Vtruth2007’s talk page and therefore I saw it best to come to you. As an obviously skilled and experienced editor, could you please look at the edits being made by Vtruth2007 on the Victoria Beckham article. I personally don't think the information about this forum's activities is of any benefit and is really quite messy in format and style. I'm too unsure to go on reverting so I would really appreciate your help. Many thanks. Eagle Owl19:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give the guy a day to find the sources, if they ever existed (I have my doubts). After that, the section will be removed... --Dark Fallstalk08:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey... when you struck out that IP from E's RFA, I think you made a slight mistake... You incremented the oppose counter, instead of taking one away from it :)
Well, you know you enter only so many summaries until you snap and just start mashing the keyboard, ten years later you've got three kids, two marriages and a lengthy stint in prison for setting fire to a monk. Cheers! Dfrg.msc09:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Setting fire to a monk? Those were the days... go to prison, get released in 5 years for a life sentence.... then get run over by a truck. Sobering moments:) --Dark Fallstalk09:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good try but no... Did you know that when you are sleeping, it's dark? And then you're dreaming of the old times, a truck falling on top of you...Need I say why it was memorable? :) --Dark Fallstalk10:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your optional question on Siva's RfA
How would a US Marine officer receive the Victoria Cross? It's a British war medal. Was this an error or an intentional trap for the candidate? :-) WaltonOne17:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be such a good idea for you to try for adminship at this time. You do not have many edits (less than 150), so your RFA would be extremely unlikely to pass. Sorry. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk10:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Anon Dissident on this. Although I don't see much wrong with trying, it is unlikely to pass and will probably be snowballed. A few more months of careful editing and contributions to the encyclopedia, and you will easily pass :) --Dark Fallstalk11:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. I have been given permission by the company to put their logo into the public domain. If it is not considered to be in the public domain, kindly advise as to how to label it.
Right, sorry about that. The guy is very persistantly trying to make articles POV. I just thought he might actually start discussing issues this way, instead of simply reverting. DIREKTOR
While I can see your argument for the other points you made, I have not seen any diffs from any user showing that I do not understand policy. Please elaborate on which policy you believe I am misinterpreting or misunderstanding. Perspicacite06:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But how is that a misunderstanding of policy? There is no, nor as far as I know has there ever been, a prohibition on non-administrators closing 3RR reports. I've done it for weeks. It was not until another user disagreed with the way I closed a report that Deskana decided only administrators can close them. As for incivility, there is a fare share in the other oppose votes. Perspicacite06:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing an administrator of not doing their job, especially as it is a free encyclopedia is extremely disrespectful. [8] Telling a fellow editor not to post on Wikipedia seems to show a great deal of anger. [9] These diffs might be minor to some people, but I view them as incivil. --Dark Fallstalk06:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second case involved a user who repeatedly put the article Jews under Category:Participants in the September 11, 2001 attacks. So yes I would rather he not edit Wikipedia if that is what he is going to do. I would rather vandals not vandalize Wikipedia. Regarding the first diff administrators, including Daniel, have not done their job. If you disagree then explain why there is a four-day old 3RR report which has not been answered. I tried to close the report. That is the only reason I was blocked. Perspicacite07:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your attitude towards Daniel still gives me concern. As your RFA has been closed as unsuccessful, I encourage you to keep on editing and give me no reason to oppose next time. Cheers. --Dark Fallstalk09:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, DarkFalls. May I turn your attention to this rather obscure article? I have frequently over the last few weeks found myself in the position to have to explain to various Wikipedians what kind of editors we are dealing with in these Dalmatia-related articles. I know I have a personal interest in the conflict but let me point out these objective facts: There exists a certain group of Italian editors, with a strong interest in these matters, that do not posses a very good knowledge of English. Because of these traits they are heavily involved in every conflict of oppinion, but are unable to do much more than CONSTANTLY revert, copy paste, and occasionally write a couple of nearly illegible sentences in the articles. Because of this inability (or perhaps their unwillingness to work harder than most of us in order to write English) they nearly never constructively debate the issues, and when they do write something on the talkpage, it is not with the intention to improve the text, but to vent their anger at those who have dared to work on it.
Some of them have been temporarily banned, some of them are modulating their IP (Admins were frequently forced to semi-protect articles) and nearly all are involved personally to a very deep level. I have noticed your warning on the Zadar article and I, to be frank, I am concerned someone might block the article with their version being the last one (the last time this was, done these people actually gloated(!), even though the block was for just a couple of hours), since they (specifficaly Giovanni Giove) fanatically revert the article checking it in very short intervals. If this is done (aside from the fact that the article will be terribly written) they will certainly NOT start working on a consensus, since they didn't do it even when they faced an edit war. All I have said is basically evident from Zadar's talkpage. Regards, DIREKTOR11:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the possibility of locking a disagreeable revision could be problematic. Note that "protection is not a endorsement of the current version of an article". I am leaving the request for full protect of the article as a last option only, but it might prove necessary if the edit wars become inflamed. I've tried other solutions, if you take a peak at my June archives concerning Zadar and Giove. Keep me informed if Giove starts to revert the revisions, and I'll see the course of action I can invoke. --Dark Fallstalk11:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, thanks I'll do that. I invited the guy to talk over the issues a million times. All he seems to do is revert... DIREKTOR12:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
about logo of IANA
I am the owner of this logo. I wanted to submit a logo for my article but I received a message in the logo's page in wikipedia.
What should I do?
Director of International Affairs 06:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
If you are the copyright holder of the logo, you should be aware of the consequences of free distribution of the logo. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, therefore any GFDL images submitted is able to be used with no restrictions and free distributions. Please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for further instructions on the image. --Dark Fallstalk06:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment on my page - content's coming! Sorry for creating so many stubs but I find it much easier to make a few at a time and then return to fill them out when I have completed several - I have made each page with a link to the relevant fishbase article so it should be easy for anyone to find the reference material and fill them out too. I also feel that a page with at least a taxobox is better than none and I would be surprised if it were deleted for lack of content - surtely the taxonomic information alone is worth having the page for? Photo222207:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article shouldn't consist only of a infobox... Well anyways, as long as the articles has some meaningful text, and notability is assured, I don't see much reason for deletion. Cheers. --Dark Fallstalk07:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Palmer Abbott
Hi DarkFalls. You are off to such a great start on the article Joseph Palmer Abbott that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee(Talk)13:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please check my rationale that I just added and let me know if this is a rational rationale.
Thanks! Ben01:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
(PS:How do I respond to a message??)[reply]
Massive disruption
I have just came here from reverting massive vandalism over whole Wikipedia. There is a user who keeps disrupting articles regarding cities in Croatia. He posts either as anon or uses one of his two-three sockpuppets. I suspect this user has an original account named Inter-milano. The other accounts (sockpuppets) he uses are: Wermania and Benkovac. Bunch of other disruptions are made with anon accounts always with the IP beginning with 124.181.xxx.xxx. Check contributions: Inter-milano, Wermania, Benkovac and couple of anon accounts here and here. It is possible that he or she has more sockpuppets. Can you please help? --No.1308:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please fill me in on what Republic of Serbian Krajina is, and why it is disruptive to put towns in the category? Unfortunately, I have no knowledge about this (my European history is very rusty), and am unwilling to revert blindly. Sorry. --Dark Fallstalk08:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The so-called Republic of Serbian Krajina was a illegal entity unrecognized by anyone, basically it was occupied territory of the Republic of Croatia. Recently with the confirmed indictments to Milan Martić and before him Milan Babić, it was also confirmed that this illegal occupation was part of the joint criminal enterprise between these men and some others I am not in the mood to mention, don't want to go on great length about this. Basically this quasi state was formed on genocide and ethnic cleansing of these mentioned cities and villages. This is not only ridiculous category because it goes against the rules but it is also highly offensive to any decent citizen in Croatia (regardless of their ethnicity), or anywhere else for that matter. --No.1308:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and the very use of this shows clear pretentions on the sovereignty of Croatia. While I am at it I forgot to mention that User:Inter-milano uploaded several of "his" pictures of orthodox churches in thise places and wrote below "from my trip to RSK [abbreviation for Republic of Serbian Krajina] in 2005". Needless to say this illegal occuppation ceased to exist in 1995 (formed in 1991 on genocide and ethnic cleansing as I mentioned) with the UN approved military action Operation Storm. --No.1308:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's understandable... Taking a quick look, the person seems to have ceased reverting now, but if he continues, I suggest starting a post in WP:ANI regarding this. Cheers. --Dark Fallstalk08:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, will do. I was in doubt wheter to report it at WP:ANI or to some admin (like you), then I decided to report it first to an admin and see what happens. Hopefully he will stop now, though I am not optimistic considering his behaviour until now. Regards. --No.1309:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, sorry I somehow thought you are. My apologies. P.S. Nevermind, I am thankful for your help despite the fact you weren't able to do much here. Cheers. --No.1310:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left a suggestion which might help :) Please also note this, and revert with utmost malice if it was like it was originally for a reason. Cheers, Daniel→♦11:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. This message is to inform you that the forumer Direktor is a well know propagandist of tito-style propaganda on the internet. He has been banned from other forums because of his harrassment against italians in Istria and Dalmatia. He has used other nicknames and WRITES ALWAYS IN A SYNCHRONIZED GROUP WITH OTHERS, who support him. He always writes to be of distant italian roots in order to obtain support for his harrassments (he often identifies Italians in Dalmatia with fascists), and writes even to be a "not nationalist" while he fanatically promotes the Tito Yugoslavia with many lies and deceits. An Italian forumer born in Istria.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.200.216 (talk • contribs)
Hi, DarkFalls, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Good luck in your RfA! Thanks again, GiggyUCP04:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template Time!
Again!
Dfrg.msc has smiled at you, revealing rows, upon rows of gleaming pointed teeth. Wait a minute, that's not Dfrg.msc, it's a dragon! Run! Run for your life! Aaaahhhggg!!! Ahhhhhhaaaa!!!! AAAAGGHHGH!!!!! This confusing and rather contradictory message is probably supposed to promote WikiLove and hopefully has made your day better, or just weirder. Cheers, Dfrg.msc06:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC). [reply]
I supported you on your RfA. I wish you the best of luck. I can't rig the ballot, so I won't try, but the thought is there. Cheers, Dfrg.msc10:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
