User talk:LjL

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

I will reply on this page if you leave me a message. You may want to watchlist it.

click here to leave a new message.

Contents

User:D.R Neal G[edit]

Can you please STOP posting warning on my talk page, you have little concept of fair play or gentlemanly conduct, if you want adult conversation then I'm all ears. But.....If you going to respond to me in a childish manner then you know where to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.R Neal G (talkcontribs) 02:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Serbs of Croatia[edit]

Good luck dealing with him for a change. At least he won't accuse you of being a sock, and then have a support from an admin who blocks you on his own hand then when I complain he just repeats his allegation, "Yeah that's him", in the very own report I complain about him doing that, and it is somehow established I'm a sock. Well at least you went on looking a bit deeper on this than just listening to his POV. I'm only sorry an admin had allowed himself being manipulated by this user. Go and look for yourself, I'm not the only one that opposed him that he tried to ban, not even in this very own discussion, let alone other discussions. 212.15.177.45 (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Luckily for me, my account has existed for several years and I don't think I've been involved in editing ex-Yugoslavia-related articles before, so he'd have a hard time accusing me of being a sockpuppet or anything like that. I honestly had no prejudice about his views, and in fact I started out vaguely siding with him because of some assertions made by the person who closed the RfC, but he did a really poor job of convincing me. In fact, he managed to convince me of the opposite thanks to his very quotes. LjL (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Well I hope you see with what we have been dealing for the last month. If it were his only discussion in this manner. Much like he tried to ban me and another editor from this discussion, by luck I found another of his discussions where he exhibited the same pattern. Go to Yugoslavia article and you will see: [1]. Another editor filed a request, and he opposed. Soon after that admin appeared and he had blocked the user. I had to open a RfC and after a long time he backed down, only after a Serbian editor opposed his view. I found that discussion only by luck, because the editor who posted the last comment in the RfC on Serbs of Croatia started that discussion on Yugoslavia page. I now wonder how much more there are cases like this. 212.15.177.39 (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, it seems you will be reported after all. Not as a sock of course, but you "dared" to oppose him. [2]

I tried to warn of this behavior in the review ANI but I was blocked by that admin and my comment was deleted, and you all believed him without question when I reported him.

As I saw from his contributions this had gone on for ages, and that admin seems to follow him around. Well he calles him when he needs someone blocked, which he gladly does, on his own hand, no questions asked. 212.15.177.39 (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I hope you can see why the other editor who started that discussion didn't want to participate and I hope you can imagine how much I was subjected to personal attacks as an IP when even you as an admin are accused of lying, bad faith, etc...It really isn't a hard job getting an IP banned, even without that admin who does it on his own hand with no reasons in my behavior to do that. 54.158.155.211 (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not an admin. Why not make an account anyway, and stop being an anonymous, "dodgy" IP? That may help. --LjL (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I can't make an account because it would get blocked like my IP's got blocked, without any investigation and without any evidence of my bad behavior. I've edited Wikipedia as an IP for quite some time, and I really didn't have any problems up to few months ago when I bumped into that discussion on Serbs of Croatia. Look at what happened in the report I made. I said "hey this admin is calling me a sock without no reason. I've done nothing wrong" and he says "yep, he is a sock", and no one even questioned it. You've see how long the RfC is and all other accompanying discussions. It's sad I have to fight to get my perfectly normal comments trough only because some user was disruptive in the past. I really do not know what he had done to deserve to be blocked, but I can't shake a feeling of injustice when someone just has to say "yep, that's him let's get him blocked" and no one bothers to ask "what has this ip done"? 54.158.155.211 (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to reflect on your "change in status" claim. I think you are looking at it in a simplified way. Read the source that explains that in great detail. The think is that Yugoslavia went trough a process of dissolution. Every Yugoslav nation (Serbs,Croats,Bosniaks) were a constituent nation of Yugoslavia and as such a constituent nation in every republic. When republics declared independence, the change in status had to occur, since the republics stopped being a part of Yugoslavia. Croats were a constituent nation in Socialist Serbia as much as Serbs were a constituent nation in socialist Croatia, but that was all in the aspect of constituent nation of Yugoslavia. Serbs were not the only constituent nation of Socialist Croatia, every other nation was. For instance Macedonians were also a constituent nation of SRC because they were a constituent nation of Yugoslavia. They also had a change in their status. Also you have to note one thing. The new Croatian constitution did not clarify that Serbs were a national minority. Some of the sources say it correctly. Serbs were put in the same group with other minorities, but not called a minority. The constitution said "and a country of other nations and minorities: Serbs,....". It did not call Serbs a "minority" explicitly. The deal is more complex and all of the sources just make a blunt statements, while only one source elaborates extensively on this question. 54.158.155.211 (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I already agreed in the discussion that the status of Serbs had changed form a constituent nation of Yugoslavia to a national minority. That is explained in that source that is being ignored and that is the only source which elaborates on that question , and doesn't just make a statement with no reference to the primary source. There are basically 2 levels here, a constituent nation of Yugoslavia and as such constituent in each republic and a constituent nation in republics specially. The constitution of SRC says in it's first sentence who "constituted it", and it names only Croats. The constitution of Yugoslavia has the same first sentence and it names all Yugoslav nations as the one who constituted Yugoslavia. 54.158.155.211 (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

My current view of the matter is that we can claim that the status changed, but we can't claim that their rights changed, because sources contradict each other in that regard. A change in status may well be merely symbolic without an effect on rights. LjL (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes there was a change in status. Croatia was leaving Yugoslavia which seized to exist , and Serbs stopped being a constitutive nation of Yugoslavia and as such of SRC. But not only Serbs, other nations of Yugoslavia as well, and Croats in Serbia as well. A change in definitions had to occur since there was a significant change on the field. Yugoslavia was falling apart. Read trough that extensive source in the first post of the RfC. I also hope you see I am being prevented to state this in the discussion. The discussion is one way street where that user is trying to get his way, when I'm blocked from participating with no real reason. What's wrong with my 2 posts to you so they must be prevented from being posted in the discussion? 54.158.155.211 (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but if you are blocked, you should appeal the block, and then you will be entitled to state your opinion again. You may feel like there is no harm in you saying these things, but if you were blocked, the proper thing to do is to have the block removed officially, not to evade it. LjL (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I was not blocked until this admin had showed and blocked me for no reason. No investigation, and not a single complaint about my behavior. I tried to report him and you've seen what happened. He just repeated that I'm a sock and no one questioned it. I don't think I stand a chance. There is really no way an IP can win against an admin. I just tried to implement the consensus and I was prevented from doing the most legit thing on Wikipedia. You saw what happened when I complained. 54.158.155.211 (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
What was the user name under which you were blocked?
I had no account so far. Maybe an investigation would show I'm not a sock, but it never got to that. This admin just blocs on his own hand. I'm not too familiar is he is allowed to do that, but I feel it is not fair. That's why when I was prevented from doing the most legit thing on Wikipedia I though someone would actually listed to an ordinary IP, but boy was I wrong. 54.158.155.211 (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for listening. I got this RfC noticed and I hope that's enough, although it would be nice if I could post some arguments like the one above, but let's face it , that's not going to happen, so thanks for listening. Bye. 54.158.155.211 (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

If it's any comfort, "your" side will probably prevail anyway, since Fkp is along against several people, and apparently he "gave up" now (with their attitude, I honestly can't see how they could have won many sympathies in the long term). It's a shame, because I actually believe it's worth acknowledging the change in status, just not the hypothetical change in rights. I've stated this several times, but Fkp is blinded by the idea that everybody (now including, or even especially, me) is against them and "lying through their teeth"... oh well. LjL (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hardly, God knows what will happen to that article and other articles that editor is editing when I'm now being restricted from editing it. In my opinion I got in this 3 months of discussing him , I think he should be restricted to football related articles. I feel sad this discussion will finish, one way or another, and there are other discussions like this without me present to open a RfC and deal with it for a few months. 54.158.155.211 (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah he has that attitude. He actually followed me around trough some discussions and he was really disruptive so I stopped using the same ip in other discussions so he would stop following me around. Look at this case for example.On Novak Djokovic page he objected to a RS of Djokovic stating himself a certain thing. Then he went and entered that to the article. Then another Serbian editor accused him of being to mellow in his POV pushing that he is now playing dumb when he got reverted for no reason. They had a shameful discussion on his talk page [3] and he actually said "We all know Novak is Serbian bla bla". Big argument. We don't "know" here, but go there and move your ass and I shouldn't do all over there. They have a source where Novak himself said those things and you go and find sources to deny that one. ". It's sad he separates people to "them" and "us". "I shouldn't do all over there" is also really troubling. It sounds to me like they are trying to push their view and he is criticizing this other editor because he is doing all the work. 54.158.155.211 (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Just mentioning that I have blocked this IP you are talking too. They are a sockpuppet of a user who was indef blocked for POV pushing. HighInBC 23:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Acknowledged. LjL (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Good luck on your continuing discussions on this topic. But it appears to me that a lot of the participants of the RFC are now staying away. This leaves 2 editors and I fear little will be accomplished other than endless debate, which appears to be a pattern. AlbinoFerret 13:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@AlbinoFerret: I'm sorry you and others have been worn out by this (I've been suspecting other editors may also be staying away because of the possibility of "discretionary sanctions"). I am trying to reach a compromise and I think making a statement about "status" but no direct claim about "rights" would be the best achievement. I hope Fkp eventually realizes compromise is part of this. LjL (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Good luck with that. AlbinoFerret 13:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


I'm sorry for posting here again, but someone needs to say it. That user is claiming no sources oppose him, which is false. There is a source that opposes and it gives a more elaborate explanation than any of his sources.

To sum it up: There's 2 meanings to the term "constitutive nation." here. One is a constitutive nation of a republic specifically, and the other meaning is a constitutive nation of Yugoslavia and as such constitutive in every republic. That is what the source says and we can't neglect it. On the other hand FkP's sources say just "they lost their constitutive status". Serbs were not a constitutive nation of SRC but they were a constitutive nation of Yugoslavia and as such a constitutive nation of each republic. Yes they had lost their constitutive status as a Yugoslav nation because of the succession process. Croatia also lost their status of a constitutive nation on Serbia, as a Yugoslav nation.

I find it's extremely misleading to say that only Serbs lost their constitutive status. All other Yugoslav nations lost it as well, because of the dissolution process. However the constitutive nation of SRC specifically are only the Croats.

So how to interpret Fkp's sources in the light of this findings? We can't guess what each of the sources is speaking of, of the constitutive status specifically for the republic or a general Yugoslav constitutive status, and none of them defines the term nor references the primary source.

Here's something from the reliable sources: "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim.". I think 3 months of discussing makes this issue extraordinary. How are we going to deal with it with lightweight sources that do not even define the term they are speaking of, let alone reference the primary source. They just make a statement. Yes, there's a bunch of it, but a bunch of lightweight sources don't really sum up to be a reliable source on an extraordinary matter. FkP is constantly neglecting the source which goes against him and which gives an elaborate explanation of this whole deal. It both defines the term and references the constitution.

I also already spoke of the Badinter's commission. Serb loosing their "constitutive status" was never a legal question. It was never brought before the Badinter's commission. It only appeared in propaganda. I would like to state in the article this. Here's the suggestion. "Although Serbs strongly emphasized the lost of constitutional status, this question was never put before the Badinter's commission". I think that's a pretty big info, since it shows it was never a real question or a legal problem. And as the source explains, this claim was used only to further ignite the war in Croatia.

I also don't know what kind of consensus can be established. The user who started the discussion left because of the disruptive behavior of Fkp. I was banned on his request and others had also left...

I don't think FkP will agree to say that no change in rights had occurred. The whole deal with this "constitutive nation" issue was exactly to point to the loss of rights.

141.136.202.144 (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I normally dont reply to known socks when it has been pointed out that they are in fact socks. But Mr puppet, dont you realise that at this point the only thing you can possibly do is hurt accomplishing what you profess to want? Because thats the reality of it. You need to go away, show you are sorry for your actions by staying away, then after an acceptable time appeal the block and swear your never going to do it again. This is the blunt reality of the situation you find yourself in. More posting by you anyplace, even if it has the best evidence and the key to the problem just submerines exactly what you say you want, and lessens the chance that you will ever be able to be an editor ever again. AlbinoFerret 17:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Appeal the block, don't try to edit "through me". LjL (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I have "appealed". I reported an admin for telling everyone I'm a sock, and it didn't really help. They just asked "who's sock", not even dealing with my report. I'm sorry I had posted here but I just want it's seen that someone put those arguments to the table. I'm interested on editing Wikipedia, and not on dealing with this things you suggest. Maybe it's my fault for not making a report the first time they said I'm a sock, but I don't think that would have helped. My position is that I've done nothing wrong and I why would I need to prove I'm not a sock, it should be the other way around. I simply won't be pushed into dealing with this than editing Wikipedia. There are plenty more articles where this admin is not present, and I really have no problems there, as no one is accusing me of anything. I'm sorry I posted here, but If I wasn't concentrated on the discussion but on battling with empty accusations there would never be a RfC, and this editor would once again have his way, since the editor who started this had left because of the disruptive behavior by fkp. I will continue to "participate" in good faith, since I really don't deal in personal attack and someone saying "you are a sock" is nothing more than a personal attack. The fact that an admin is doing that, makes no difference. He is free to make a report. The fact that he is an admin gives him the power to ban me without any report and since he is abusing his privilegies as an admin and making a personal attack into bans I feel that gives me the right to use proxies. I simply don't accept personal attacks and I don't answer them. I haven't answered them in the discussion and I won't bother on accepting them as something more than personal attacks by appealing as a sock. 212.15.176.13 (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for the last source about the Badinter's commission. I was pointing to that a long time ago. This wasn't really a legal question. It wasn't in the dispute by the parties. Badinter's commission was established to deal with exactly this kind of questions and this question was not put before it. Have you read the source from the top of the RfC? It explains all how this "constitutive nation" question was used only as a part of propaganda. I would like to include that last source in the article because that's a pretty important info. It clearly makes a differance to know that this wasn't a legal question nor any kind of dispute between the parties. 212.15.178.142 (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I see you have changed the support comment on the review. I am staying away from that section right now. But I will point out something you may have missed by not reading the RFC. The wording that was part of the consensus, which I probably should have copied into this close is this. "On 22 December 1990, the Parliament of Croatia ratified the new constitution, which was seen by Serbs as taking away rights that had been granted by the Socialist constitution.[1]" So there was a statement that contained the things you are saying were left out. Live and learn is one thing I try to do, and in the future if wording is part of the consensus, I will be adding it to the close. AlbinoFerret 02:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The main reason why I changed the comment is that, while looking for more sources on Google Books, I've realized that the wording involving a "change in (constitutional) status" is virtually unescapable. It's mentioned everywhere. So I think the article really should state that there was a change in status - whether it's significant or not, whether it had any impact on rights, whether other ex-Yugoslavian countries also implemented similar changes, and whether or not the old and/or new statuses ("constituent nation" vs "national minority") had been rigorously defined.
We can't ignore what every source on earth affirms and none deny. "Rights", on the other hand, is different. LjL (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Which constitutive status defined by the only source that defines and explains the term in the context of Yugoslav constitution? Can I ask you, have you read the relevant quotes from the primary source? At the time of constitutionsl changes, Croatia was still a part of Yugoslavia, so a special care was taken not to call anyone a minority. Some sources say Serbs were called a minority, but read the primary source for yourself. It's quoted in the RfC. 212.15.177.134 (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Yugoslavia was a federal republic. This means its constituents, had each its own Constitution, including SR Croatia. So, the Constitution of Croatia changed, it didn't just replace the Constitution of Yugoslavia. That's my understanding, at least. LjL (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The new constitution was brought while Croatia was still a part of yugoslavia and as such couldn't and didn't call any Yugoslav nation a national minority. Read the quote provided in the RfC212.15.177.134 (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what the new Constitution of SR Croatia could do, but I know what it did do: "the Republic of Croatia is hereby established as the nation state of the Croatian nation and the state of the members of its national minorities: Serbs [...]". Which quote exactly are you referring to? LjL (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


No, you don't know what it did do ;) because you are looking at the wrong constitution. ;) If you have read the discussion this kind of mistakes wouldn't happen, so please read it when you have time before you make your stand. Luckily I'm here to help. At least read that only secondary source which defines the term and references the primary source. It's on the beggining of the RfC. I pointed several times to it, but I can see you still haven't read it since it contains this quote from the right constitution and not the later versions.
Here is the same sentence from the 1990's constitution:
"The Republic of Croatia is hereby established as the national state of the Croatian nation and the state of the members of other nations and minorities which are its citizens: Serbs [...]"
To repeat my earlier statement, Croatia was still a part of Yugoslavia and as such it couldn't and didn't call any Yugoslav nation to be a minority. That simply could not have been done according to the Yugoslav constitution. Again, read that secondary source which gives a much wider explanation. 141.136.234.160 (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
That wording is only found on that very Wikipedia page and one book I can see on Google Books and which I cannot ascertain whether it's talking about the actual 1990 Constitution, or a draft (there were more than one drafts with changes in that wording), or an older Constitution. Same with your source, which I cannot verify anyway. LjL (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm again repeating. That's because none of those sources reference the primary source. That the problem I was pointing the whole time. Again the secondary source presented by another user contains that quote. I also can find the constitution if you don't believe that secondary source. I already had found it and I already have confirmed that is the sentence from 1990' constitution few month ago. Here is the constitution: [4]. It's unfortunately on Croatian, but you look for the sentence "Republika Hrvatska ustanovljuje se kao nacionalna država hrvatskoga naroda i država pripadnika inih naroda i manjina, koji su njezini državljani: Srba, Muslimana, Slovenaca, Čeha, Slovaka, Talijana, Madžara, Židova i drugih, kojima se jamči ravnopravnost s građanima hrvatske narodnosti i ostvarivanje nacionalnih prava u skladu s demokratskim normama OUN i zemalja slobodnoga svijeta.". Maybe you can ask FkP to assist you translate it. 141.136.234.160 (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
That is more convincing. Do we have definite evidence that was the final constitution from 1990 and it wasn't revised in 1990 into a different text? LjL (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
That is not more convincing. This is a primary source and we already have the secondary source in the RfC which directly uses this quote during it's elaboration of the whole deal. I don't know what do we need more than a secondary source which references this sentence and says that is from the 1990'c constitution, but if you are doubtful, that link if from the official Croatian newspaper. I went to the archive to the date the constitution was brought: 22.12.1990. and clicked on "Croatian constitution", so no this is not a draft. 141.136.234.160 (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
This is why I strongly insisted that a source reference the primary source. I still stand by my stand that no quantity of lightweight sources can't have more value than a source that does reference the primary source and the source that explains the term "consitutive nation" in the context of the Yugoslav constitution which itself does not contain that term. Your claim that we can state something sources say, but do not define is wrong. We could do that if there were no sources that define the term and that oppose the first group of sources that do not define it. Furthermore the source explains that there are 2 possible meanings to "constitutive nation" and other sources which do not define the term are speaking of it as it has one meaning. That is a second big problem. If a term has 2 possible meanings sources that do not define it are even more useless. 141.136.234.160 (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I am very convinced that we can state "something sources say, but do not define". Wikipedia is full of that, and properly so. LjL (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm against that, since we can see for ourselves what the primary source says, and none of those sources reference the primary source. In the situation when the source that does reference the primary source says otherwise we can't use the sources that do not reference the primary source as equal. Especially not when we can read for ourselves that Serbs are not called a national minority in the primary source. I already said. Those sources have 0 scientific value. It is obvious they are claiming incorrect things and it is very convenient that they do not reference the primary source, isn't it? Of course they can't reference a sentence from the constitution which would deny their whole claim. You are free to compare this sentece with the earlier sentence from the SRC'c constitution, or just read what the secondary source from the RfC says by comparing these sentences, if you would not like to do original research.141.136.234.160 (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
This is unrelated to stating something sources say but do not define. "Defining" is about describing the meaning of "constituent nation" and/or "national minorities". This is different from referencing sources. Anyway, how come even European sources that claim the Serbs' right did not change acknowledge that there was a change in "status"? LjL (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
It's one problem that something isn't defined, but when the other source says that there are 2 forms of that something than we have a much bigger problem because it is not specified nor defined. We can't know of which of those 2 forms the source is speaking, not only that we can't say about what it is speaking. I really wouldn't go into why some sources say incorrect things. I can just speculate. One reason would probably be that they haven't actually studied the constitution. Some may have, like you, looked at the wrong constitution, and so on. We can't say why they claim something that seems to be incorrect when we do not know what that they are speaking of actually is nor we have a single reference to the primary source. 141.136.234.160 (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "it was brought to your attention". Look, it was said a long time ago, and this discussion you had with that user is pretty much one way street. He is perfectly aware of that info. User who started this had left because, as he said, of the disruptive behavior by Fkp. Others also left, I can only speculate to why....I would be surprised if he would actually go into that discussion since he refused to do it earlier, but let's see. This isn't a new thing, but one of the things taken into consideration when the discussion was closed by AlbinoFerret. Please read the discussion yourself because this is going nowhere when that kind of things were just "brought to you attention". I know it's hard, but we all have lost a considerable amount of time with this user who won't back down. 141.136.234.160 (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

There are lots of sources I have seen on Google Books (not just Fkp's ones) that claim a change in status, so it's not so easy to brush it all of as it all being just Fkp's whims. LjL (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
But he didn't want to discuss in good faith at all, and he completely neglects that source that opposes him. He's still repeating that no sources oppose him while the most valuable source opposes him. Not only the most valuable but the only one which defines the term and which references the constitution. 141.136.234.160 (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Just another note you may not be aware of. I saw some sources stating an incorrect sentence from SRC's constitution. It says that: "Socialist Republic of Croatia is a national state of Croatian people, state of Serbian people in Croatia and state of all other nationalities who live within it". Some sources leave out all other and that is kinda important because all subjects are in equal position in this sentence. No one is having any more special status if it is mentioned explicitly or grouped with "all others". That is never done in the constitutions. I hope you realize that this sentence is not speaking of any constitutive status it simply states who's state it is. However even in this sentence SRC is stated to be a "national state" of Croats. You are free to compare it to that other sentence from 1990 constitution. The first part of the sentence is the same it states that Croatia is a "national state of the Croatian nation". The second part then expands all others and mentions Serbs with others. That in no was is any degrading of status as all subjects in that sentence have the same status. Croatia is still a national state of Croatian nation and it is still a state of Serbian nation, and Slovene nation, and Macedonian nation and Hungarian national minority and...By expanding all others Serbs were not the only nation that was specially mentioned, yes, but that is not changing their status. Croatia is still a state of Serbian nation as it was before. If anyone's position was changed that would be all others that now got explicitly mentioned, but as I said just from the linguistic point of view, all subjects are equal in that sentence. The definition "national state" defines the special status, but not constitutive status as such. If we are going to talk about a sentence that defines someone as a constitutive nation, that would be the first sentence in the constitution which defines solely Croats as the ones who established SRC. So there are more incorrect claims in that sentence: 1. Serbs were not called a national minority. 2. Serbs had no constitutive status in SRC specifically but they had as one of Yugoslav nations. I'm not making this up, but I'm telling you what the secondary source from the RfC says. I want to thank you again for listening to valid arguments. FkP could have told you that info since he was aware of it, but he is concentrated onto presenting his point of view, while no editors who previously discussed are there and I can't be because of the known reasons. 89.164.161.235 (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I reviewed that last source in the post at 14:33, 23 October 2015. Let me quote the source:"Serbs living in Croatia had been members of constituent nation while Croatia was a part of Yugoslavia". This source actually goes against Fkp. It very well says that 1990' constitution did not change the status of the Serbs. In 1990 Croatia was still a part of Yugoslavia, and this source perfectly clearly says that Serbs were a constitutive nation of Croatia while Croatia was a part of Yugoslavia. The constitution of 1990 had not changed anyone's status. As I explained earlier (repeated what the secondary source from the RfC says) Serbs were a constituent nation of SRC as a constitutive Yugoslav nation, much like Croats were a constitutive nation of Serbia as a constitutive nation of Yugoslavia. But Serbs were not a constitutive nation of Croatia specifically. I posted the first sentence from the constitution which clearly names who constituted SRC. 141.136.246.240 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of all this. Yes, we all know that Croatia was part of Yugoslavia before Yugoslavia dissolved (duh). It still was its own entity with its own Constitution; that it, in turn, was part of Yugolavia is inconsequential. It was also a part of Yugoslavia in 1990, so no difference there either. --LjL (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I got tired a long time ago, but what can I do, quit? Do you see what kind of ways I have to find so Wikipedia is edited in the proper and objective way? You know, I edit other articles as well, an no one is accusing me of anything, only when I come to deal with this Croatia-Serbian high tension articles I get accused by Serbian editors of various things. But what can I do. I'm interested in former Yugoslavia and I can't run away from my interests. To answer this. There are 2 constitutions that affect SRC. It's own and Yugoslavia's and that is why we have a constitutive nation of Yugoslav lever and a constitutive nation of each republic's level. Serbs were a constitutional nation of Yugoslav level, however none of the sources define what they mean by saying "constitutional nation" republic's or Yugoslav's level, and they do not reference the constitution so we really don't know from which one the source draws its term "constitutional". We can use other sources to interpret this one correctly and the other sources say Serbs were constitutional on Yugoslav level but not on SRC's level. I'm really just repeating myself for months because that other editor is not willing to discuss in good faith. He dodges questions and valid points and he is just concentrated in pushing his own view. I told you he won't participate in the last section you started. I don't blame you are getting tired, we all are. The editor who started this left a long time ago, because, as he said, of disruptive behavior of FkP. Other editors also left and I'm the only one who is trying to bring some objectivity to the discussion. It's not surprising POV pushers get their way since no one wants to get involved in several months of discussing. You are lucky, you can leave now and you haven't wasted much time. I wouldn't blame you if you did. Especially if it's not a topic that interests you. I'm very interested in it, but unfortunately I don't have anyone to discuss it with, since that other editor is not willing to discuss. If you leave I might as well since I'm prevented from everything. I really wouldn't want to mess up your talk board when you leave this discussion, so I really won't have anywhere else to post. Luckily they don't seem to protect other people's talk boards so I'm happy I can leave a trace of arguments. That's all I'm interested in really. The article can state various things but if someone is interested in this topic and want to know something about it, he is really interested in arguments and not statements. That's why I find those sources that just make a statement to be of no value.141.136.246.240 (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to correct yet another incorrect claim. One of the sources says "More to the point, constituent peoples enjoyed the right of secession", which is totally incorrect, because Badinter's commission was asked this question and it was determined that only republics have the right of the succession. [5]. Note also one more important thing. It was asked: "Does the Serbian population in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, as one of the constituent peoples of Yugoslavia, have the right to self-determination?". It was not asked if they as a constituent people of Croatia/Bosnia have that right. This is very significant, because the question was asked by the Serb side and even they had said "constituent peoples of Yugoslavia". If Serbs were constituent people of Croatia that would be even more favorable to ask for the right of succession, but even the Serb side knew that is not true. I again repeat that this was never a legal question. As the source says, it was used only in propaganda. Fkp is making a claim with some source and Director had explained it is wrong but I feel Badinter's commission is a better argument that his source is simply wrong. I also want to note that we also went trough this in the RfC, so FkP is aware of the Badinter commissions's conclusion on this matter. He neglects everything he doesn't agree with and just continues to push his point of view.141.136.216.242 (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, you've been fair so I won't go to edit warring with you. However, that is still the established consensus. It's not "my" consensus. I don't understand, what will become of it. It would really be a rare case that a consensus is prevented from entering the article. 141.136.216.242 (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion is ongoing, even though I've relented from it a bit, between Fkp and User:Director. You can see also that I tagged (and re-tagged after a gratuitous revert) the "status" part as disputed. But at the same time, there is no need to pour further fuel on the fire by means of having a blocked editor unilaterally rewrite the whole section. LjL (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, but the part I entered I did not unilaterally write. It's written in the RfC's closure as the established consensus [6]. Ok, would you enter it to the article if the review of the formal closure confirms the consensus? 141.136.216.242 (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The fact that you wrote it now makes it much more problematic for me to enter it, because by policy, I cannot make edits at the direction of a blocked editor. I think it's an interesting case of WP:BOOMERANG... LjL (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll still support that the consensus enters the article. I will probably go to ANI. It's not "my" consensus and it's not invalid if I point to it. I'm not really interested in this accusations that I'm a sock. I'm interested in editing Wikipedia and that's what I have been doing, without any complaints against my behavior. At least you didn't have to revert me. I'm afraid that you going by the rules will leave other's who are trying to prevent the consensus have their way. 141.136.216.242 (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Mr Puppet, it has been pointed out to you that you can only hinder anything you want to accomplish. LjL has just told you exactly that. Even if you bring forth the right thing to do, by presenting it, you make it impossible to recommend. Please stop involving yourself in the topic. AlbinoFerret 18:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Again POV pushing. The claim "that means Croatia was no longer a land of Croats and Serbs, but just Croats" is incorrect. The constitution says "the Republic of Croatia is hereby established as the nation state of the Croatian nation and the state of the members of other nations and minorities: Serbs [...]". Also, he's constantly repeating fallacies. He's constantly drawing attention that this sentence in the constitution is the one speaking of "constitutive status" while none of his sources have a single reference to the constitution nor any definition of the "constitutive nation" he is speaking of. 141.136.216.242 (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You said :"The only difference is that, for Croats, it is the "national" state", which is not exactly correct. It's not the difference since the SRC's constitution says: "Socialist Republic of Croatia is a national state of Croatian people, state of Serbian people in Croatia and state of all other nationalities". However I repeat again, this is not speaking of constitutive statuses. The first sentence of the constitution which speaks of who constituted SRC's does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.136.216.242 (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sincerely sorry I'm to blame for the personal attacks you are getting. [7]. I could only imagine what would happen if you entered that consensus which I have pointing to. Nice move for not doing that. 91.236.250.250 (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

[8], Director is right. I was putting it in more nicely when I was speaking of this issue not being a real legal issue in the 90'. I would only like to add that the Badinter's commission had reviewed the question and established that only republics have the right of succession.91.236.250.250 (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

What's this problem with finding the 1990 constitution you are having. Maybe I could help. I posted a link to the final version of the constitution. I searched the archive for the date it was brought so there's no doubt I posted a link to the final version. I'm not aware of any reference to the drafts, no I have seen them in the discussions. SRC's constitution is also pretty much well referenced. 159.224.0.18 (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

[9], it's amazing how he is still repeating that no sources oppose him when I listed all sources on the top of the RfC and the source that opposes him had so extensive elaboration that other editors had put it in that collapse tag. Even his own sources oppose him and he is still pushing a claim that no source oppose him. 89.164.236.170 (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this [10]. Serbs were explicitly mentioned before and so are in the new constitution. The fact that "others" got explicitly mentioned does not impact Serbs in any way. Both Serbs and others were mentioned in equal position in SRC's constitution. That other user asked why the change. If we would to speculate, maybe it was decided that others deserve to be mentioned as well so they don't feel left out;). I'm also repeating this is not the sentence that speaks of constitutive statuses. However in this sentence and in the sentence which is speaking of constitutive status, Croats are separated from the others by additional terms like "national state" and "along with". This user is separating them and the Serbs on the explicit mentioning and that is really wrong. No rights are ever derived from explicit mentioning. Serbs and the others are in equal position in both constitutions, the change is that the others now got explicitly mentioned. It's all in that source from the first post in the RfC, to quote: "and the only difference is that other nations and minorities were mentioned as well. 'Mean' interpretations of their dissatisfaction could lead us to the conclusion that the leaders of Serbs in Croatia and their numerous followers were bothered that besides them other nations and nationalities were mentioned.". 89.164.236.170 (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I might be starting to understand why you're all always at war in the Balkans. LjL (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Who? 89.164.236.170 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not always warring. Several wars had happened, Slovenia-Serbia, Croatia-Serbia, Bosnia-Serbia, Kosovo-Serbia, NATO-Serbia, but that's hardly warring ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.236.170 (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The review has been closed[edit]

The review of the first RFC on AN has been closed. It wasnt endorsed or overturned but left as is. I am really done with this article after the AN/I section closes. But it may be time for someone to start a well laid out reasoned RFC, I think you may be a good candidate if you wish to do so. AlbinoFerret 19:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I dont think that is a good idea. You Albino failed to clarfy the questions when I made them to you, and LjL had it "reviewing" for long, and closing it now that another editor arrived questoning the decitions it will really not look good for your side. At least you should wait and clarify the questions that editor has made. FkpCascais (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
@FkpCascais: What isn't a good idea, closing it? It has already been closed. Not by us two, by someone else. And I'm not going to entertain your forum shopping anymore. LjL (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
@AlbinoFerret: I've already asked two very precise questions in a way that could almost directly be translated into an RfC. If I start the RfC, though, FkpCascais will automatically object (see above, he doesn't even understand that who asks questions doesn't change what the questions are). At this point, I honestly only wish that he be left out of the equation and other people can resume debating in a sane manner, if there is a need. LjL (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
LjL I very much agree to stay out if you adress the concerns the other editor has expressed. I said it all, provided sources, my part is done. I will not interfere. FkpCascais (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Somehow I don't believe you. Anyway, as can be seen, I have been communicating with this Other Editor, and I'm not exactly sure what other concerns I should address. LjL (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree. He pretty much has an upcoming topic ban, and that should solve that. Even if it's not indef, I don't think he will be able to something similar like this. 141.138.44.84 (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure about the topic ban if I were you... LjL (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, what to do...until the next one. I already have another one started where he actually entered the source to the article and then back down when another editor accused him of introducing "Croatian propaganda". He answered: "Why did you come to fuck me around, go there and move your ass. I shouldn't do it all on all sides. They have a source...". The bold they is especially troubling. It seems he will win that one since he backed down from his edit and I'm in minority to others who claim "croatian propaganda". At least I made the RS source be stated in the talk page. I'm happy with that. However, a funny thing had happened. I made a formal closure request and another editor who strongly disagrees with the request and who had not closed a single formal request had closed it in his favor and that stayed. Funny things you can encounter on Wikipedia. A nice trick to win every discussion. If you don't want to discuss, just close it. ;) Well until the next time, bye and thanks for your objectivity. It's obvious I as an IP couldn't to that alone without bringing it to the eyes of the honest and objective editors. 141.138.44.84 (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I'm also gone when the ANI is over and the consensus implemented. There are plenty of more articles to edit, instead to waste 3 months like this.141.138.44.84 (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Now that he's been made aware that the review has been closed, he writes on ANI pretending not to realize that, and offering to "stay out" as long as, well, the matter stays in practice not closed. I find that convenient. LjL (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Director made a very on point comment on the AN/I section, my reply to it may help a little. The point is, someone should start a RFC soon and the sock should stay out of it. If the sock cant, I recommend contacting an admin like HiInBC to close the talk page to IP's for the remainder of the new RFC. This will give one less complaint for anyone wanting to question the closing of the new RFC. AlbinoFerret 18:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@AlbinoFerret: I don't even look forward to seeing another RfC where FkpCascais will participate with endless walls of text and answers to the wrong question. They should both stay out. LjL (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
While I agree there is a possibility that the RFC can become a repeat. I think how it is laid out can help minimise that, and a lot of the walls of text were in response to the sock who helped build them. I dont know how much experience you have had with designing RFC's, but if you would like to look I have had a recent discussion on that here [11] it may be of help. AlbinoFerret 18:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@AlbinoFerret: I think the [Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia#Two_points_about_the_RfC|"Two issues"]] section I created was pretty much a "non-RfC", as in, it could in other circumstances very well have been an RfC. It's how I would have laid it out anyway: two simple questions. LjL (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I think a thats very good idea. Simpler gets more responses and outside involvement, and having a response suggested like support/oppose yes/no with comment. I'm sure you will have a separate discussion area where those who like to add verbiage can, try and make the question area more for responses. AlbinoFerret 21:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The consensus is established and without new sources or new findings there is no point to have another RfC. All the source and all the arguments were presented in this RfC so no need to repeat all that once again. The result will be the same. If, however someone finds a new source or something we missed, then he can present that. I always thought this is how it works. We can't revise something without new findings. 141.136.225.143 (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

[12] Well that admin was really supporting his behavior from the beggining. Now he has removed diffs where FkP was swearing. First he prevented consensus to be implemented and now he actually erases inappropriate behavior of FkP just because I posted it. I can't fight an admin, but at least I managed to get consensus implemented. It's only sad to all the trouble to do the most legit thing on Wikipedia because this admin was supporting the disruptive behavior of Fkp. 212.15.178.221 (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I see you implemented the consensus. I would just want to say that you removed the things Fkp was adding to the article in later phases. The original sentence from the RfC "the 1990 general election, the Croatian Parliament ratified a new constitution in December 1990 which changed the status of Serbs from a constitutional nation to a national minority, listed with other minorities", is still in the article. I don't know if he did any more of that since I wasn't paying attention. He also did it on Croatian war of Independence article [13], which is just plain disruptive since he posted the link to the discussion dealing with that himself, then went to unilaterally edit the article while the RfC was ongoing. I don't know if he did it anywhere else, but I know one thing. If he had sincerely dropped the stick he would revert himself across every article he had edited so we don't have to look around. I'll give him some more time before I notify others that he has been holding back that he edited other articles against the consensus as well.141.136.225.143 (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr Puppet, You dont really see or care about the damage you have done this whole time. While you may make points that make sense you make it impossible to use them. Stay away from the new RFC. Others will come to the same points and they will be usable. Your continued involvement only makes a mess of this whole situation. You are as much a problem as anyone in this whole situation. Clear up the problems with being a sock, until then you are more of a liability than a help. AlbinoFerret 18:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Not a sock, and soon this will be over and I'll go somewhere else where I'm not being accused to be a sock. If I had accepted that accusations we wouldn't have a RfC and the article would be full of POV, so I disagree I caused damage. I caused other editors notice this whole thing. I tried to stay away from the report so I don't appear to be too pushy, but then I saw you hatted other editors opinion and I wanted to correct that. After that I notices you said that it is resolved without a ban, so I thought that I should mention that there are 5 other opinions in the article. Then I notices that others had said this is second of third time this is happening with Fkp so I wanted to mention that we can't always take his word that he won't do it again. Then I wanted to mention that swears and personal accusations are still a standing violation even if we take his "dropping the stick" to be sincere. Then I went to the article and saw that mistake I noted above. Then I remembered that Croatian war of independence article is still standing with his edit, although he had accepted the consensus. That is just a pointer that he is not sincere. Then all of the sudden I noticed I'm fully engaged. I'm not sorry, things had to be said and I don't have much of a reputation to hold on. I'm subjective, I admit that but I'm the one who had to spend 3 months to make Wikipedia a better place. If I wasn't "pushy" all other editors wouldn't bother with him. They all left because of his behavior. I'll be here for this little time that had remained and then I'm gone to other articles where I'm not being accused of anything. 141.136.225.143 (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
If you are not a sock, then clearing it up shouldnt be a problem. The thing is, do it before going any further. AlbinoFerret 18:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh my. First of all, I'm sure you know that the burden of proof is not on me to prove that I'm "innocent". I really didn't want to go into explaining it, since I'm very interested in this way Wikipedia works. It seems that "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't work on Wikipedia, and I really had proven it trough this whole example. Not only that it doesn't work, but even you, who I regard to be rather objective, are now suggesting that I should behave according to "guilty until proven innocent".If I'm a sock, then they who think that way should make a report. I'm glad they didn't and I hope they don't do it, because it would finish like the last one (where I reported the admin), and then they would actually have a report to show around. If you aren't aware I already tried to "fight" that admin and it wasn't really a "battle". I thought I could have at least some chance into reporting him for preventing consensus established in the formally closed RfC to enter the article, since that is the most legit thing on Wikipedia. I didn't even mention his accusations that I'm a sock so I don't cloud the main point of the report. He just came and said that I'm a sock and that somehow made it all right for him to prevent a consensus enters the article. He didn't even provide a single diff, nor a report(which of course doesn't exist) or anything. He just said "he's a sock" and the others hastily accepted it. Imagine that someone who's not a sock (and how could the others in that report know I am) reports an admin as an IP. I perfectly showed that that person doesn't have a chance even if he is trying to to the most legit thing on Wikipedia. You have to take into view the things other editors in that report had to work with. They had my whole report with diffs and links to the consensus, and on the other hand they had only a statement "he's a sock". I'm glad I exposed that but it seems that others are bling to what I'm showing by example. Here's another example. I know that that admin has been following me around trough my contributions. That's why I was doing perfectly normal edits that he has been reverting for no reason. While I was involved in the ANI I saw a perfect opportunity. Some dispute on Franjo Tudman's page. I posted a perfectly normal post [14]. That admin of course reverted me [15]. He made a mistake, he didn't explain that I'm a "sock" which exposed the following thing. The other editor there had reverted him because he didn't saw anything wrong with my post [16]. The admin then reverted and explained I'm a sock [17], and it remains to be seen if that will be accepted. I'm really interested in that case since the initial mistake when he forgot to say I'm a sock had exposed this interesting case. The editors there are not familiar with any of this you are familiar with. If they now accept the simple accusation to what it really is to them it would prove that any IP can be accused of being a sock. Go and look, he just said I'm a sock no link to the report no mentioning of who's sock I am. I'm maybe naive to think other's notice this examples, but look what a wall of text it took to write it down. The other interesting thing is that other other admins appear calling me a sock, which is interesting. Did you wonder how they all know that? Here: this, an answer. To repeat the other admins comment :"Per your request..." 141.136.225.143 (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello. You entered this edit. I wanted to change just one technicality but that disruptive user is again going to edit warring and asking for page protection. The technicality that I wanted to correct is described in the secondary source from the RfC: "They [Serbs] were treated in the same way as in the constitution from 1974, and the only difference that besides them other nations and minorities were mentioned as well.". I really don't have any more willpower to battle with that editor. He was reported and he claimed he had accepted the consensus but he is still edit warring against the consensus over such minor edits. Did we establish that Serbs were explicitly mentioned in old and new constitution and that the only change is that some of the others got explicitly mentioned in the new constitution. That's a slight different than your edit that "Serbs were listed with other nations and minorities", since other nations and minorities were not listed in the old constitution. They got explicitly mentioned in the new constitution, as the above quote says. As I said, it's a technicality and I won't really waste my time as I had to do it with that RfC, but since FkP is still not accepting the consensus I wanted to make you aware of that. 89.164.171.62 (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I have the page on watch, I saw it. But I think it's too minor to make a ruckus about it, especially given that if I reinstate it, I'm reinstating a supposed sock's edit against page protection. LjL (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it really is a minor correction and it's incredible that that editor is willing to go into edit warring over it. I think he's point of view (POV) is that this version the the very same sentence has a bit closer interpretation to his stand that Serbs had their status changed, since the sentence says that Serbs were now listed with others (but weren't before) which would reflect a change. Don't worry about me, since I was the one who opened the RfC and I was supported by virtually all in the RfC. It really isn't about me but about that quote I posted in the previous comment. And it really wasn't about me when I posted the correct quote from the constitution here on your talk page. Let's not neglect the sources because some disruptive editor says I'm a sock. 89.164.171.62 (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


Hello. I think it's better to ignore those two pending new sources. I tried to discuss but that turned out to be impossible. I think that he has a very similar pattern to the previous editor that made so much trouble over there. He refuses to discuss the primary source, he turns my words around, and finally when he saw I won't give way to that kind behavior, he turns to the same personal attacks the other editor had made. I've discussed with Fkp for a long time(few months) and I can tell that the pattern of behavior of those two is very similar. Then I looked up the profile of that new editor and saw that both he and Fkp speak Portuguese. That's too much coincidence for me. Also, let's remember what Director (who has a lot of experience with Fkp) had said in the report you made, that Fkp will lay low for some time and then call up one of his friends to continue the discussion. The new guy is just a proxy for FkpCascais. Best regards. 141.138.21.12 (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

HKWNB, HKCOTW, Current events[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your contributions to some Hong Kong-related articles. You might be interested to take a look at HK wikipedians' notice board, HK Collaboration of the Week and Current events in Hong Kong and Macao. Happy editing! — Instantnood 09:11, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Most verbs are regular by definition, aren't they?[edit]

No, not by any definition of regularity.

"Regular" when applied to verb forms doesn't mean what you think, apparently.

A "regular" verb is one that follows a fixed inflection pattern, that can be learned once and then applied to all other verbs in its group. An irregular verb's inflection pattern can't be applied to other verbs, or only to a handful of other verbs.

When the article says "most Italian verbs are regular", it's actually saying something. Most German verbs are NOT regular. It's not a given. I'm putting back that phrase in a day if you don't, because it's important for the record, ok?

There's a really interesting science of the mind that's growing up around irregular words (in one's first language) lately -- read "How The Mind Works" by Steven Pinker.

http://www.google.com/search?q=how+the+mind+works&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

According to Pinker and other research he cites, irregular nouns and verbs are dealt with by a different part of the brain than regular ones.

Please note, however, that the Irregular verb article, which I have now linked into Italian grammar, apparently disagrees with you, basically saying, AFAICS, that classes of similar verbs are irregular when there are few enough of them. It looks a bit like the discussion about Italian neuter that I've had on the Romance languages talk page.
Now, I'm not qualified to decide whether yours is the correct definition, or Irregular verb's one is, or both are alternative, current definitions. Please have a look at the article.
LjL 12:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't see the conflict -- as far as I can tell the three definitions are identical. Look again at mine, yours, and the "irregular verb" definition:

An irregular verb's inflection pattern can't be applied to other verbs, or only to a handful of other verbs.


VS

classes of similar verbs are irregular when there are few enough of them.


VS

In contrast to regular verbs, irregular verbs are those verbs that fall outside the standard patterns of conjugation in the languages in which they occur.

Where's the conflict? In all cases it's still useful to mention whether the majority of verbs are regular or not. If you take "a handful" as being between 1 and 10, that's a rough magnitude for an irregular verb class. When the size of the class is more like 100-200, it's borderline (like the Swedish strong verbs), and when it's over 400, it's a legitimate declension or conjugation class of its own.
But in each case, Pinker would agree too, and point out that the "production rule" seems to trump all these definitions, at least as far as the brain's sorting mechanisms: The pattern that newly invented or borrowed verbs (or nouns) takes on is the "regular" pattern. Usually this is the majority pattern, but not always. For example in German nouns, there are 8 different pluralization declensions, and almost all nouns take one of the first 7. The 8th declension ("just add -s") is by far the smallest numerically, but it applies to all new and borrowed words. And according to language acquisition studies, the "just add -s" rule in German is treated by language acquirers as "regular", and the other 7 rules, though they're in the majority, are dealt with within the mind as irregulars.
This rule also deals with the English vs. Old English strong verbs in the irregular_verb article. If you make up a new verb, like "flink", in English and ask a native speaker to fill in "Today I flink once, but yesterday I ______ twice, and I have never ______ more than three times in a day". A modern English speaker might be tempted to conjugate "flink" like "drink" or "stink", but they'll laugh, and in the end they won't-- they'll follow "blink" instead, and use the regular forms "flinked" and "flinked" instead. An Old English speaker, used to umlaut, will consider "drink" and "stink" to be a "rule", not an exception, and will probably fill in "flank" and "flunk".
Well, myself, I have to admit that I'd certainly conjugate "flink flank flunk", but them I'm no native speaker... I suppose that I see "blink" as an exception rather than "drink".
Anyway, the part I think the article deviates from what you say is when it states that Latin, Greek, etc. verbs are not considered irregular. If, as the article says, each of them basically has its own unpredictable pattern, they would definitely be irregular according to your definition, wouldn't they? (besides, is your definition the 1st or the 3rd?)
About "irregular" verbs in Latin (i.e. those forming present, perfect and participle from different and unpredictable roots, as the article says), I'll point out that I think Italian has a lot of those, too. Probably less than Latin, and maybe not a majority, but as a skin feeling, I'm quite sure there is a lot of them. Now, since the article says they are not considered irregular in Latin, they're probably not irregular in Italian; but if one considers them irregular, then the concept that most Italian verbs are regular might turn out not to work.
LjL 15:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your edit to "Common Era"[edit]

Judging by the quotes that you provided, your edit to "Common Era" does not provide adequate citations. The citations support the idea that AD refers to "Our Lord" or some similar phrase, but does not establish that this served as motivation for Jewish scholarship to change to CE/BCE. --signing for User:Jc3s5h

It wasn't intended as such, but just to support the statement that it refers to Jesus as Lord, which is the sentence that came immediately before the "citation needed" tag. I see you've now also requested a citation for the statement before that one, which is fine with me. LjL (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

English language[edit]

Hi LjL. You made a good point at the AN/I noticeboard. I thought that I had included the word "comprehension" when referring to Keysanger's use of English. I provided Neil a good example of it ("An example of a problem..."). Basically, paraphrasing and summarizing sources in any language requires that the individual have an adequate (i.e., competent) understanding of the language. I am assuming good faith in Keysanger's misunderstanding of sources; otherwise, he is doing these things on purpose. Regardless, thank you again for the comment—I will make sure to fix it!--MarshalN20 Talk 18:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that sort of misinterpretation of sources you present in the example is something that a native English speaker could very easily fall into, and if you put it down to "English skills", you might not attract much sympathy (although yes, technically even a native speaker can lack "English comprehension"; I just wouldn't put it that way). LjL (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I totally understand. I see now that it was insensitive of me to write it the way I did; thank you for opening my eyes. I will edit the proposal accordingly.--MarshalN20 Talk 19:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I find it interesting that you can write (but not speak) English. I have a friend who can write and read Arabic, but he can't speak it either (or, at least he isn't well-understood). My French speaking is also not on par with my writing/reading. Monolinguals usually don't understand the complexity of being multilingual. [:)]--MarshalN20 Talk 18:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I've spent many years communicating in various ways on the Internet (mostly in English, just a little in Italian), but only in writing. At this point there are many technical or semi-technical topics where I find myself lacking words in Italian, even though I know them in English, but when it comes to speaking (and understanding spoken) English, well, I've tried and it turns out I can more or less do it, but it's just a tad embarrassing. LjL (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. I've also had that experience with English. It's the listening part that gets complicated. I've been using Duolingo recently to sharpen my French listening; it's surprisingly helpful. Language is an art that takes lots of practice—much in the same way as most learning in general (albeit it's not as easy to practice speaking, even with the emergence of the Internet). Please let me know if I can ever be of help to you here in WP.--MarshalN20 Talk 19:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Computational informatics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bayesian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Your last edit in Asturix[edit]

I agree that the sentence " against 300 competitors under-18 years old" is awkward, but your edit removes information from the article. That is, that he won in the "teen" category, and that there were 300 competitors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.35.42.149 (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@81.35.42.149: there is nothing saying that superfluous information can't be removed from an article. The article is not about him, nor about the price; the article is about a Linux distribution. Saying that its original creator won a prize might be worthwhile, but detailing how many participants there were and how old they were seems completely out of place. If people really want to know, anyway, they can click on the linked source and find out. --LjL (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Book numbers in citations[edit]

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart File System you write: "There is also the problem that I don't exactly know how to refer to different page numbers within the same source, unless I duplicate the entire citation each time (or we change the article to Harvard referencing, which I don't even like)."

I agree, I don't like Harvard referencing either. The simplest solution is using the {{rp}} template to append page number(s) after each ref tag. There are some other choices at Help:References and page numbers. -- intgr [talk] 14:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I should have known about that template; last time I stumbled upon a problem like this, I was trying to provide different quotations (usually provided by a single "quote=" paramters) for similar references, not just different page numbers, which are easier to provide as they are clearly a more compact piece of information. By the way, the !vote is appreciated. LjL (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Hey! I just wanna thank you for your help in Asturix. A lot of work must be done in the article, but your contribution is helping a lot! --Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 21:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Thanks for looking at my application. LjL (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Controversial source[edit]

Sorry, but I can't recognized this report of US departament Bulgaria 2015 Crime and Safety Report, which you added in Sofia as reliable source. The information is too controversial and too different than official statistics of Bulgarian and European agences. It's government source for another country and can be influenced by political bias. I deleted this following WP:NPOV and WP:No original research.--Stolichanin (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Stolichainin: If you actually read WP:NPOV and linked articles, you will find that it doesn't talk about suppressing sources, but about presenting a balanced summary of sources. If two sources are conflicting, we present both and attribute them. That "you don't recognize" a source just means that, you don't recognize it. Other editors disagree. And in any case, that is no justification to blank an entire section, as I've explained to you in the warning on your talk page. WP:NOR, on the other hand, doesn't apply at all, since it is about research that Wikipedia editors do, not about research that sources do. As I said, please don't throw guidelines that don't apply at random. You also threw WP:UNDUE, but that says to avoid giving undue weight, not to give no weight at all to something as basic as crime statistics. That Wikipedia is not a newspaper is also not a justification, as crime statistics aren't "news" at all, and anyway Wikipedia does report news - read what the essay actually says, not what you think it says. And anyway, let's discuss this in the proper place, not on my talk page. LjL (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I just want to ask you to stop your edits in this article. It's article in encyclopedia, not a evening news! If you hate Sofia by some reason it's your problem! No need to write whatever bullshits there. Thank you!--Stolichanin (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
@Stolichanin: Tone down your language on my talk page. I don't hate Sofia, you seem to be the one wanting to suppress factual information about that city. You should stop immediately. You are well past the WP:3RR and you were reported for that, nevermind asked numerous times to stop this. LjL (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The crime exist in London too, but nowhere in their article is mentoined about that. But in WP exist article Crime in London, where all things are good explained. You just can to create an article Crime in Sofia and to add this info there. What is the problem?--Stolichanin (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
There is not nearly enough information yet to create a separate article (despite your ludicrous WP:UNDUE claims), and such an article would have to be wikilinked from Sofia anyway (I have no idea why the one about London isn't, I might fix that). In any case, this debate is about Sofia and its specifics, not about other cities. Well, it's not really a debate, but let's call it a debate. LjL (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
@Stolichanin: you will be pleased to know that I have now expanded the section about police and crime, and linked to the main article on London. LjL (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Your comment.[edit]

Hi LjL, I have replied to your question on the Administrator's page. Thanks for commenting. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

That funny smell[edit]

Renuzit air freshener dispenser.JPG Air Freshener
Perhaps this will help remove the smell of Socks. :) AlbinoFerret 19:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Crime in Sofia[edit]

Hello, Ljl!

I'm sorry if I'm offended you! Because the text raised during the last days, I remove it to the new article Crime in Sofia, where the all POVs were represented. I want to ask you, it may be better to add some link to the new article, but where exactly. May be in the beginning of section "Government and low"?--Stolichanin (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The (short) length of the section does not currently warrant creating a separate article for it, and even if at some point enough material were available for a separate article, there would be no reason not to provide a summary of it inside the main Sofia article. That's how it's usually done: a section, with a {{main|Secondary Article}} template, and then a summary of the secondary article's contents. In any case, I strongly suggest you stop removing the section without consensus for now. LjL (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it will be very useful, because it will stoped the edit wars in this article and the editors can to concentrated over the work there.--Stolichanin (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Or you could concentrate on the work there, if you want, without censoring relevant material out of articles. Seriously, how crime rates in a city may not be considered relevant in the city's article is way beyond me. LjL (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm living in this city from 24 years and believe me, many of represented sources gives a too controversial and disputed information. Many of them are of newspaper or tabloids origin and sometimes representing wrong interpretations of some facts. The question is very specific and I suggest from the beginning to remove that material in new article like in London and Crime in London. Sorry, but claims like "the capital of corruption of Europe" seems very...excited!--Stolichanin (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Check out one of the first sentences in WP:V (one of the core policies): "[Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors.". Your personal experience in Sofia can't be considered a reliable source; we can, of course, discuss particular sources' reliability, but the fact in itself that something on Wikipedia is sourced from a newspaper doesn't make Wikipedia a newspaper (in fact, a lot of material on Wikipedia is sourced from reputable newspapers). LjL (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The sources were representing in Talk page, but you just ignore them. And what is the problem to create a new article about that. It's a normal policy in WP. In the new article you can to developed the questions and the content, because Sofia is overview article. Detail info can be find in Crime in Sofia. --Stolichanin (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm really starting to think you are not here to make an encyclopedia, but just to silence potentially negative information about things like "your" city. Anyway, I encourage you to keep the discussion on the RfC page, not here. LjL (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I have really think you are here to create a negative image to Sofia, maybe following some nationalistic or political bias. Look, I make a compromise to you as I just copied the content in new article to devoloped this and the last think you can say about me is I'm censor. Maybe you are needed by more patience and to make a compromise too.--Stolichanin (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
You should have discussed and reached some reasonable compromise long ago instead of furthering your by-now-pretty-obvious nationalistic bias about not wanting to show any of your city's negative aspects. I'm done discussing with your here. Talk on the article's talk page, if anywhere. I will revert any further edits to my talk page. Enough of this nonsense. LjL (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Mediation[edit]

I am going to ask for a mediation there. Sorry, I can provide a series of atitudes of yours trought this entire process that clearly show you are lacking imparciality there. Why, I dont know. But seems enough. We are not getting anywhere with you ignoring secundary sources and engaging in WP:OR and your own interpretation of the Cosntitution. FkpCascais (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It is allowed to make own interpretations of the primary source in the discussion page as far as I'm aware. However, you also said I'm making OR when in fact I was repeating what the secondary source say, so you really don't know what OR is. It's not repeating the secondary source and it's interpretations of the primary source. 91.236.250.250 (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, of course it is. OR is not okay in articles, it can be entertained on talk pages to discuss an issue. But FkpCascais has clearly gone into rage mode again. It even shows through the change in amount of typos and so on. LjL (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, a check on imparciality then: tell me: diff. Couse till now, all you have been doing was finding ways to make me wrong. Lets see now. FkpCascais (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I am here User:LjL, now tell me, imposing their religion is not lowering their rights?FkpCascais (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The IP[edit]

Would you consider taking your discussions with the block evading IP to a forum outside of Wikipedia? E-mail or IRC would work well. The reason is that the user is not allowed to post on Wikipedia. It would be a lot easier to continue the conversation if the other side was not constantly being blocked and reverted. HighInBC 00:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, at least here the fact we're communicating is transparent. You can see above that I explicitly refused to make edits following his directions, but that's already complicated enough when other people can see what he tells me; gets hairier when they can't. But maybe I can solve this by telling Mr IP that I'm not communicating with them anymore? 'cause this entire situation has got well beyond my amount of giving a damn about Croatia. LjL (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you are acting by proxy for the user, nor was that what I meant to suggest. I also have very little interest in Croatia and am experiencing a similar exasperation with this issue. As far as I know there is no rule against you responding to the IP, my comment was more a suggestion to avoid the constant game of Whac-a-mole that is going on here. Your argument for transparency does make sense. I will leave it to your own judgement but will continue to revert and block this user until they address their indef block. HighInBC 00:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
It's well beyond anyone's amount of time. That's why people left. They got fed up with Fkp and now there's no one left to implement the consensus. It's hard dealing with disruptive editors, I know. I wouldn't blame you if you left as others did. I'll try to make less trouble to you. I apologize again. I really don't know why this admin is telling everyone I'm a sock, but that's ok. I'm ignoring it as I would with any other personal attack from a random user. It's only pointing out how admins have their word believed and how Wikipedia is just another place where people battle for influence. I don't guess someone would beleived me if I told that this admin is a sock of FkP. ;) 89.223.47.218 (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
How can you not be a sock when you changed like two dozen IPs? That's pretty much the definition of it. Admins are doing their job. You are not going by the rules - that's your choice, but don't complain about the consequences. LjL (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
What pisses me off is seing all time LjL giving more credit to this nationalist lunatic IP that the sources I presented. I provide 20 sources saying "Serbs lost constitutive nation status", the IP comes here directing LjL how to challenge me, and there they go, "lets ignore 20 sources and do what IP sugests"... For God sake, the IP was blocked because is a nationalist lunatiic, the guardian of all of Croatia and Croats... FkpCascais (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure you're currently coming across as much less of a lunatic? I've seen some of what the IP has told me, I've seen what User:Director has been saying as well, and they have some good points. You can have an army of sources all saying one thing, but the Croatian Constitution, as much of a primary source as it may be, is there for everyone to read (except it's a bit hard to find out which one is the 1990 draft, which the 1990 final, which the old 1974 one, which the 2001 revision...). You're not seeing the giant in front of you. LjL (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
So the 3 of you know to read better the Constitution than 20 scholars? Dont joke! You cant compare me to them at all. FkpCascais (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay. LjL (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
You are breaking rules LjL, and not just one. Wikipedia:Verifiability to start with. Dont let yourself go intoo that path. I will remind you WP:TRUTH. Stop Wikiloyering. FkpCascais (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
If you're going to accuse me of breaking rules feel free to do it at ANI on the relevant report. LjL (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Smart Filesystem (SFS)[edit]

Hi, I see you haven't been active on Wikipedia for a long time, but I thought I'd try informing you anyway that the Smart File System article is up for deletion, and has been relisted twice. I guess you may be too directly involved to endorse or oppose the deletion, but I thought perhaps you might have comments to make or know of sources to add. LjL (talk)

The only other "source" there is, is at: http://hjohn.home.xs4all.nl/SFS/ written by me and left up only for nostalgic reasons. It's an older source, and doesn't cover any changes since it was made public domain.

It's nice that Wikipedia wants to link to sources, but sometimes there just aren't any (don't expect SFS to be mentioned in books or other media). The article on SFS was written by me a long time ago, and I guess as the original programmer of the software it can't get more authoritive than that. The information in the article is still accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Hendrikx (talkcontribs) 17:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

That source (your site) is already mentioned in the article. It may seem counterintuitive but for Wikipedia, the fact that you're the author makes what you wrote less authoritative as a source in a way. SFS is actually mentioned in books (and some magazines), though! Just passing mentions, apparently not enough to sway the deleters. But see the current article. Anyway, we'll see how it goes: two people who were for deletion already changed their mind, and I reckon there is only the original nominator and one other person (who gave no serious justifications) who are for deletion. I'm not sure why the article keeps getting relisted: the consensus seems clear to me. LjL (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Ferrets who use free software are very curious, couldn't help but read this section after looking at the one above. AlbinoFerret 18:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@AlbinoFerret: it's an old Amiga filesystem, it was freeware at first, but released as free software later. Now it's used in three different Amiga-related OS's (the Amiga community is very fork-y), and it was a pretty, well, smart filesystem for its time, if I may say so. LjL (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I already left a Keep, the manuals do satisfy WP:NSOFTWARE. Sometimes WP can be to mainstream, we are here to write an encyclopedia, and that includes alternative OS's and their software sometimes. AlbinoFerret 18:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@AlbinoFerret: I am mostly an inclusionist in general. Article deletion is, conspicuously, one of the few things on Wikipedia that is almost irreversible, "destroying" the entire history of an article, and people's work (yes, I'm aware simple deletion can be undone, but it gets difficult very quickly). I think it should be reserved for clearly bogus articles like the typical example of garage bands, not for things like software that is known and used by a relatively large amount of people all over the world. Keeping an article is cheap, deleting it is expensive. And yet I keep seeing many terrible lists of things survive unscathed while there's a trickle of deletion of interesting niche stuff... LjL (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Editing my posts[edit]

Dont edit, change, add or remove my posts. If you want put it at ANI, but dont restore it there. There on the discussion, focus on the content please. Thanks you. FkpCascais (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yourself, do not delete talk page posts, either. Especially if they are offensive posts of yours. Etiquette is to strike them out if you change your mind. I'm most certainly noting this incident at ANI. LjL (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Instead of doing your best to eliminate me, please focus on the questions raised by another editor there. I removed the comment not because it is wrong, I even thought of reporting Direktor, but because I want you to focus on content so you cannot have me as excuse. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Then if that's what you want, stop making accusations and swearing, and stop being the one telling other people not to accuse, when you routinely do it, as well as threaten "sanctions". LjL (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@FkpCascais: by the way, at this point I don't believe an iota in your good faith. You have manipulated me before and you are trying to manipulate everyone now. You, yourself, aren't focusing on the content, but on furthering your pro-Serbian agenda. I have no agenda for or against Serbs because I am, thankfully, from a place that's not involved in all this mess; but if everyone around there acts like you, then it's easy to realize why there was such a mess. LjL (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@Director: says he's been doing that for quite some time. Maybe the ANI would be a good place to note that.89.164.236.170 (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I've basically been told to note at little as possible at the ANI in the near future (although I couldn't but note this double revert on a talk page). LjL (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree. He cursed me as well, but maybe it's allowed to curse IP's. I can also see he curses much more on Serbian, so it's not a new thing. 89.164.236.170 (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I read all about that awful guy don,t worry I am not related to him in any way I'm just say that the c company never did the Simpsons witch is true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveyoooou (talkcontribs) 23:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello again . Thank you again for saving my bacon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevsentell (talkcontribs) 01:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks[edit]

Hello LjL. Thanks for you efforts in dealing with the socks of "The Love Pony." Between you and BMK a whole drawerful of smelly socks were sniffed out. Your vigilance is much appreciated. Cheers and have a delightfully spooky week leading up to Halloween. MarnetteD|Talk 01:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

You might be interested in the report here. --MelanieN (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN: thank you, I was going to do it, but you did it more extensively and with a detailed description of the issue. --LjL (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
They are not the same user... I really could have sworn they were. The two reverters, at least. LjL (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
That is surprising; the reverters certainly pass the WP:DUCK test. --MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe they're just "clever" and can use open proxies or whatnote, which the use of one IPv4 and one IPv6 also hints to. LjL (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering about that too - although it's hard to recognize anyone in this situation who seems skilled enough for that. Bad news: this probably means that the reversion by "unrelated" new users will resume as soon as the semi-protection expires. --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, maybe in a week's time I'll have reached a compromise with the other reasonable editor and we can have a useful but brief list and socks won't have to object-by-reverting. LjL (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
That would be the best solution. And if they object-by-restoring the original list, against consensus, that could reasonably be described as vandalism. --MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

I did as you suggested, I moved the discussion to the link you provided, hope things go in order. (N0n3up (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC))

@N0n3up: that's not what you were supposed to do, though... WP:RFC merely explains how to start a Request for Comments (which is done on the article's own talk page). LjL (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Well I'm sorry, I'm not very experienced at this. (N0n3up (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC))

From a talk page stalker[edit]

You may have to create the archive for the bot to use. AlbinoFerret 00:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated[edit]

I'd be remiss if I didn't thank you [18]. 2601:188:0:ABE6:80B1:14A7:1EB4:5451 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. It would be a bit too ironic if the misbehaving admin got away with the whole thing because they're, well, an admin, but the reporting IP didn't because they're, well, a mischievous IP. LjL (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Good job catching those barnstars. NeilN talk to me 20:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I think this is my first "real" barnstar in ten years... if you exclude one I deleted because of sad business. LjL (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but[edit]

Thanks for the revert on ANI but please don't 3rr template [19] an editor who had just been 3rr reminded [20]. Let's try to deescalate situations, okay? NE Ent 00:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see the warning. LjL (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case accepted[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 20:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Origin of language[edit]

Report me for what? I didn't delete anyone else content so there was no content warring. I just present my language evolution model. And it is sourced with a peer reviewed paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolivaOren (talkcontribs) 23:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@PolivaOren: I told you for what: for WP:COI and WP:3RR. The former is obvious (you wrote the paper), and for the latter, it doesn't matter if you didn't delete other people's content, what matters is that you edit warred over your addition. Have you read WP:BRD? You were the one changing the status quo, you were reverted (with good reasons), you reverted back without giving any reasons. That's definitely not what you should do.
As to the paper itself, well, to me it's pretty obvious that a lone paper can't be used to propose a theory like that in the article, especially not as a very, very long section with no secondary sources. The paper is a primary source. Read the policy on reliable sources please, it gets into details about primary and secondary sources.
In any case, given your conflict of interest, the best course of action for you is to not introduce the material into the article at all, but simply discuss it on the talk page and ask others to introduce it in your stead in the extent and manner the WP:Consensus finds appropriate. LjL (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

From where to what language evolution theory[edit]

PolivaOren's content is now here: From where to what language evolution theory. I added a COI hat note. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Maybe I should have reported him after all, instead now an WP:AFD will likely have to take place. LjL (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
There's no doubt this will deservedly be deleted, but please, "don't bite the newbies". Oren is a postdoc researcher (Google tells me) and deserves some respect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but the respect I grant to people isn't based on their academic degrees. On the other hand, he edit-warred repeatedly at Origin of language, even after I repeatedly warned him not to, and then went on to create From where to what language evolution theory, even though I had explained to him how he should act given his WP:COI. This makes him a case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU in my book, which makes my respect slightly weaker, regardless of academic badges or anything else. LjL (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Greetings[edit]

Hello @LjL

I am optimistic that this email finds you in good health.

Look! This Wikipedia is a global research site for many to gather information around the world, so entering wrong information could mislead these people. I am a Liberian-America, I was born and grown up in Liberia and Schooled there. I live in the US now. I have worked with the Liberia Institute of Statistics and Geo-Information Services, United Agency for International Development (USAID-Liberia) and the National Elections commission as well. I tried to rectify your mistakes and misinformation on this global site yet you reverted it.

Even your district listing are very wrong and naive. How will you say Grand Kru which is one of the smallest and least populated in Liberia has 17 Districts, Sinoe as you said have 16 Districts, Nimba which is the largest County and Second most populated after Cape Montserrado County has six districts? Those are all wrong and misleading information? Kru doesn't even have five statutory or Electoral districts and it is the least populated Country after River Cess. Please do a better research before publishing false information on a globally recognized site. I did Social Study Went I schooled in Liberia even before working so know how Knowledgeable I am when it comes to this. I know all the Statutory and Electoral Districts in Liberia by each of its 15 Counties, so if you don't know leave it for people that know it or simply asked.

Another thing, Who told you that only 15% of Liberia's 4.36 Million people speak English? Have you been there or you are counting people by their accent? Does a British Man and an American Man has the same accent? so does it means they don't speak english? Even if you take Monrovia for instance, which is 43% (1.86 Million) of the total population, English is what they speak, School and Do everything with. So you want us to believe that only 651,003 people speak english in the entire country?

Again, Gio is not the name for that ethnic group, it is the Dan ethnic group. That Ethnic group can be seen in Ivory Coast where they are called Yakubah. They migrated from the Ancient Songhai Empire. Gio is just the nick name so you don't put such in a place for reliable information.

LjL, Please take your information down because they are misleading and false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theojaspite (talkcontribs) 17:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Theojaspite: Hi, are you sure you are addressing the right person? I do have the Liberia article in my watch list, and may have made a couple of edits, but I really don't recall making any of the edits you mention and asserting those facts. I would likely not to do that, as I'm not actually very familiar with Liberia. Please remember you have the ability to make needed changes yourself, as long as you attribute them to reliable sources (claims on Wikipedia must be verifiable) and do not engage in edit warring, but instead discuss on articles' talk pages. LjL (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Generations page[edit]

There are no "precise years" that a generation is born. Who would decide that? So your argument about precise years is moot. If you read the intro to the Baby Boomers it discusses that there are no precise years, yet people persist. Also, it's not edit warring because I made or added some changes --- never going over the bright line and I took the initiative to go to the opposing editors talk page first. Did they do that? No. Wikipedia does not belong to a small group of editors. The tagline is "The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit". 2606:6000:610A:9000:E92B:3B0:A2EB:D277 (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

But it's not "the encyclopedia anyone can edit war on". Even if you only did partial reverts ("made or added some changes"), that's still against WP:3RR (I quote: "whether involving the same or different material" and "whether in whole or in part"). Who would decide that? Sources, of course. The "precise years" don't have to be clear-cut limits, but that doesn't prevent them from being the pivotal years. In any case, that's a source-based debate you should hold on the talk page, together with other editors (who have, in fact, started it, but once again you haven't taken part). Note, also, that not breaking a bright-line rule doesn't give you a wildcard for breaking policy more subtly. LjL (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Correct, the source (Strauss and Howe) use early 40s to early 60s. And you apparently decided to remove them for some reason. Just FYI...they are credited with naming the Millennials and have written over 10 books and it's not a source we should remove from the generations page. You brought up an argument for precise years and now you are arguing against that. Yet the article was locked (probably in part based on your revert using a precise years argument). You should have left the Strauss and Howe source in there and added or changed the wording in the spirit of collaboration. It just seems like a biased move. 2606:6000:610A:9000:E92B:3B0:A2EB:D277 (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
"The" source? There is not only one source. Other editors proposed another source, and I didn't "remove" yours, but simply reinstate theirs. Theirs is more precise. If you have reason to believe it's less appropriate, discuss it in the article's talk page. You have developed a clear habit for edit warring without discussion on the relevant talk pages, and this is annoying. LjL (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Free speech can be annoying. The S&H source has been there for a long long time, check the history. And yes it appears you absolutely did remove it. Also, I was never notified there was a discussion going on the talk page. Now that you notified me I've contributed to it. 2606:6000:610A:9000:E92B:3B0:A2EB:D277 (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, where did you think discussions about article content were meant to talk places? User talk pages (perhaps you did, since here we are on my talk page)? No, it's article talk pages. That should be your go-to places whenever you get reverted in the WP:BRD cycle. And don't start with the "free speech" nonsense, which I've heard too many times: free speech doesn't mean the ability to disrespect a community's rules, such as the policies on edit warring of Wikipedia. LjL (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't an edit war, if you check the history. So could you replace the Strauss and Howe source to the page? If not why? 2606:6000:610A:9000:E92B:3B0:A2EB:D277 (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
It was an edit war, I checked the history, and i could 5 edits from you reintroducing essentially the same contested material (not always with the exact same edits, but as I said, that's irrelevant). Please make a proper protected edit request on the talk page, and then I will add the material you want, but only after you have obtained consensus for it on the talk page. Instructions are at Wikipedia:Edit requests. LjL (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I feeel like you should add the source because you removed it. 2606:6000:610A:9000:E92B:3B0:A2EB:D277 (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I removed it because there was a contradicting source that other editors favored, and you were edit warring to push yours instead. Go through the process please. WP:There is no deadline. LjL (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I would rather you re-add the source because it was there for a long time. I've already given you good reasons. If you are an admin or employee you probably should do it yourself to be fair.2606:6000:610A:9000:E92B:3B0:A2EB:D277 (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Employee? Whose employee? Wikipedia editors are volunteers, including admins. You can check my user rights from my "User contributions". Now please stop insisting and follow the process: you're the only one to blame for the article page getting semi-protected in the first place (because you aggressively edit warred, and deny it all you want, but actual admins blocked that and other pages because they recognized you had edit warred). Enough of this back and forth on my talk page. LjL (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Let me know if you have any problem with the redacted comment (using a line) on the discussion we're having here: discussing at the RSN Thanks! 2606:6000:610A:9000:4B:3F3C:E92B:5B77 (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@2606:6000:610A:9000:4B:3F3C:E92B:5B77: I see no substantial difference with the original, so I don't have a problem. If others do, however, I suggest you just accept to go back to the original, for the same reasons (i.e. if the differences are minor, it's not worth arguing over it). LjL (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Great thanks.

Sorry maybe I was talking to the wrong person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theojaspite (talkcontribs) 21:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

IT[edit]

Well I tried closing it but someone wanted it open. Some men just want to watch the world burn.--Loomspicker (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

edit warring[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

You know where. Volunteer Marek  23:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it makes sense to counter-warn when you're actually the one above 3RR and I've done one actual revert, but suit yourself. LjL (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


Paris-related business[edit]

do you have server access ? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANovember_2015_Paris_attacks&type=revision&diff=690700413&oldid=690700288 70.195.64.5 (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, but when you post to article talk pages, try to make a bit of sense... LjL (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you![edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG Are you on? Allygggggg (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, such as November 2015 Paris attacks, which you have recently edited. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. RGloucester 01:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Posing with a terrorist name[edit]

I wonder if it is okay to have the user name Osama bin Laden! And to post: >> An individual named as Sheik xxxxx is reported to have said of bin Laden, as a "really nice guy".<< Someone is simply posing with the name Salah Abdeslamuser:Salah Abdeslam - --84.170.80.182 (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@84.170.80.182: it is probably not okay, see Wikipedia:Username_policy#Misleading_usernames. But you should contact administrators over this, not me... I did what I thought I could by sending the user a COI-username warning, and watchlisting their articles. LjL (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: I am obviously not an experienced WP-User. Where can administrators be contacted?! NeilN want me to find the proper venue! I looked for an hour, WP is quite complicated. --84.170.89.97 (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@84.170.80.182: WP:ANI is a general venue that often works (although do mind the rules for posting there). FYI, the specific situation with this user has been resolved, anyway. LjL (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
It was in my post - WP:UAA. --NeilN talk to me 20:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Abdelhamid Abaaoud article[edit]

"Before we towed jet skis, motorcycles, quad bikes, big trailers filled with gifts for vacation in Morocco. Now, thank God, following God's path, we're towing apostates, infidels who are fighting us."

the See also links are altogether appropriate, yes or no? Aikiangelos (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Aikiangelos: no. Instead, those terms should be Wikilinked within the quotation itself. Additionally, in "See also", you should usually refer to the linked article directly, not pipe it into things like "an apostate" or "an infidel". LjL (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Pssst. WP:SEAOFBLUE. "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article." --NeilN talk to me 17:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh. Uhm, I find that a peculiar policy, but I stand corrected. In this particular case, seeing those terms in "See also" would definitely make me scratch my head, from a layman point of view, though. LjL (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"...pray that Allah will break the backs of those who oppose him..." Aikiangelos (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Aikiangelos: what's your point with that? You aren't threatening me, are you? LjL (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The quote shows as I was indicating because of the following; the comment shows implicitly (not explicitly) he considers Allah is male. You're confusing the comment of Abaaoud lacking a direct explicit reference to the apparent gender of Allah, with something which doesn't show his awareness of a gender. His comment infact shows absolutely he considerts Allah to be male. I wasn't threatening you. Aikiangelos (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Aikiangelos: Okay (some context might help when messaging). See, this is what Wikipedia calls original research: you're making an implicit interpretation of a quotation, and drawing explicit conclusions. That is not allowed on Wikipedia; instead, a reliable source needs to have drawn that conclusion for you, and you need to cite that source, instead of just using your personal logic. By the way, it would be better to discuss these issues on the article's own talk page, where other editors can see and take part, instead of here. LjL (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

good talking to you, maybe we will work together again another day, idk. Merci (thanks) Aikiangelos (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, it is better to have the other photographs also, than not, because, why shouldn't they be included? It is good to see other images, the image from the front-cover of Dabiq is a strong image, it is interesting, why rely on just one image? Does one image ever show a person so fully as 2 or 3? If people want to understand as fully as possible, then relying on one source isn't a reliable situation. Aikiangelos (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Aikiangelos: "Why not?" is not a good rationale for adding something. The article is not a place to celebrate this individual's image, for a start. One indication of what he looks like is more than enough (perhaps actually more than enough, since that image is copyrighted and arguably not suited for inclusion). There is nothing to "understand" about seeing several mugshots of a terrorist.
On the other hand, there are policies on Wikipedia for what external links should not contain: in our case, they should not contain "any site that does not provide a unique resource", so if we already have one picture, that will be enough and external links should not be provided. LjL (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I really appreciate your clarification proposal. That's just what we need. I hope there hasn't been any bad blood. I was just trying to bring some clarity to the situation. RGloucester 18:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar for your work[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your tireless work on updating and maintaining the November 2015 Paris attacks page. Keep up the good work! -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! LjL (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Correcting pings[edit]

Just a heads up re this. Due to the limitations of the notification system, this correction doesn't work; the user will not receive a notification. The correct ping and your signature have to be added in the same edit. In this situation, you have to (1) add an entirely new comment with a correct ping and a new signature, or (2) self-revert and start over. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that. LjL (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Paris[edit]

Re this - so remove them, too. No way are we including the Government of Catalonia, which is where this mess began. - Sitush (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: why not, though? Do you have a pointer to the Catalonia discussion? We include Iraqi Kurdistan for instance. We could make a difference between central states and federal states (Spain is the former), or perhaps we could simply include sub-governments when their stance is markedly different from that of the main government, and otherwise let the reader assume it matches. LjL (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Or maybe we could just bin all the crap? Where does it end? You are now opening the door to another 50 statements from the US, to every state in Germany, etc. It is becoming absolutely ridiculous. - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Sitush: we already mention US state reactions, although probably in a different place. Realistically, the UK's constituent countries aren't quite the same thing as German Länder, and the fact that (say) Scotland and Catalonia have recently been pushing for independence is liable to make their stance more "independent" from the central government's than happens with other sub-entities. Anyway, if you're going to remove sub-entities, please do it fully (leaving Northern Ireland in after removing Scotland and Wales is just inflamatory) - why should I be the one taking the potential slack for removing the rest of them just to make it consistent with your initial removals? LjL (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
You didn;t have to reinstate. I'm going to remove the entire section later and replace it with a summary. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Sitush: I felt it was right to reinstate because having Northern Ireland but not having Scotland or Wales was just arbitrary and inflammatory. I won't consider it edit warring if you remove it again, as long as you do a thorough job of removing all the sub-countries (or at least have a rationale for leaving some and not others). LjL (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sofia, for last time[edit]

Very interesting why you revert all my edits in this article, without any explanation. And always in alliance with Serdik. Interesting where are the neoclassical and Neo-Renaissance architecture that dominate the landscape in all of the old part of Sofia, but are not represented in the collage. National Theatre is an typical example about that styles and one of the most famous buildings in Sofia, but not in the mosaic for Sofia. I'm dealing with the history of architecture and photography more than 10 years ago, I have a scientific publications about that and I say that this collage is very bad as photographic composition and selection of images. Because of that I create a few mosaics and use the ideas of the other editors. And many editors support my suggestions, as ypu can see in talk page. I'm not sure, but I guess you do not know absolutely nothing about the city and its architecture. Your ally Serdik even do not know which building of what architectural style is, as seen in talk page. Instead of dialogue with other editors, you both are conquered the article and destroy all different ideas. Why the photo of a mountain is presented twice, but not during the spring and during the winter what I suggest? Actually it does not matter! I know your reasons and they are only personal. Well, you win! I promised to stop my edits of this page and I leave the article from this moment. I'm out! You win! Yes, the current mosaic and the selection in this mosaic are bad, but it does not matter because you win! The most important thing for you is your POV to win! You are who can to impose a censorship on this article. Stupid artists like me are not needed! Nobody believes in Wikipedia because of people like you, but the important thing is to impose your point of view, even by force methods. You want to remove me from the article, but I leave it from now. You win! I hope you are happy! Goodbye!--Stolichanin (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Do not make false claims: I gave you a long, detailed explanation. I'm not even reading the rest of your blurb above. You were indefinitely blocked, and only unblocked because you promised to stop reverting. Yet you did it again. You should be glad I'm not reporting you again. LjL (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit problem, November 2015[edit]

Hi LjL (Re: Latest revision as of 21:07, 20 November 2015 ( Read talk page, Peter. You basically just changed the article back into what it was, except while breaking things in the process.)

I don't know what is going on with that paragraph. (final paragraph re Perpetrators). Every time I view it as READ, extraneous words and two citations appeared after the final sentence. I removed all of the paragraph, posted it into WORD, checked it and the extraneous words and citations did not appear. I made no changes and then simply re-inserted the paragraph. But the extraneous words and two citations still appeared. But I just checked it in READ now, and that is all gone. (I have no idea how that happened or who solved it, but I appreciate the help. Cheers! Peter K Burian 21:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: what had happened is that there was a wiki comment in it but you had removed the ending, so it swallowed an entire section. But anyway, that is the least of the issues here. Please check the article's talk page, where I have repeatedly tried to write you. You have repeatedly restored sections that you thought were "deleted", but they were never "deleted" (except one), they were simply edited. The one that was deleted was deleted because it was plagiarized from a newspaper, you shouldn't do that. Please reply on the article's talk page, and do look at the edit history! It's not too easy to follow, but neither is looking after your edits which definitely messed up things a bit now. LjL (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks; I have found your notes on the Talk page now and replied. I am struggling with some aspects of Wikipedia, as I explained there. Peter K Burian 21:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: Sanctions template[edit]

Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous at this point. I'm not even supposed to be here today, but for that the 18 November aviation strike delayed my wikibreak. The whole WP:1RR idea whipped up by WP:Arbcom has been an abject failure; it just lets more committed POV pushers (who somehow get to ignore WP:YESPOV and WP:PRESERVE, with complete impunity) do their thing. But ArbCom found a hammer, and so every civil war looks like a nail.

But, oh well. Illegitimi non carborundum; don't let the WP:JANITORs get you down. :) -- Kendrick7talk 04:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Call me dense, but could someone explain sanctions to me? Are there several types of sanctions? Peter K Burian 21:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

1RR on reactions[edit]

I do believe you've just broken 1RR on the article. Since the sanctions do apply to it, you might want to self revert. Volunteer Marek  21:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

1RR on what? Why does 1RR apply? And how does it apply? Eg: what if someone reverts two different people who made completely different edits? What if it is vandalism? Etc. - Sitush (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I have self reverted, but as you can probably see, I'm not getting scared and shutting up about your bullying. I have a battleground attitude? Look at yourself and your bullying already. LjL (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Call me a newbie but I don't even know what a 1RR is. Peter K Burian 21:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@Peter K Burian: I'm a bit busy with trying to avoid getting in trouble for things I didn't do at the moment, but check WP:3RR. 1RR is like 3RR except after one edit instead of three, and it is in place on certain articles about certain topic that certain people have decided are "sensitive". LjL (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@LjL: thanks; got it. Peter K Burian 15:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@Peter K Burian: the ping is simpler than what you've tried, you just have to type {{ping|LjL}}, but anyway, pinging me on my own talk page is rather pointless, as I'm going to be notified about the message anyway. It's more useful on other talk pages. LjL (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I just want to get the format right for when I do need to use it. ping|User:LjL with the brackets seems to work fine, and easier than nowiki>@LjL:</nowiki. Peter K Burian 15:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@Peter K Burian: ... you don't have to type the "nowiki" parts. Those were for me to make the command show up as plain text instead of actually executing it. What you should type is ping with the brackets but without "User:". LjL (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: Man, this entire HTML coding is complicated.

@Peter K Burian: actually, it's (mostly) MediaWiki code, which is almost completely unrelated to HTML. LjL (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, I found https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Formatting ... but some of it is HTML like the method for making something bold, underlining, etc., for example. Peter K Burian 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@Peter K Burian: As I said, "mostly". However, the major features, like bold, are not normally done using the HTML method, but using the Wiki method (three apostrophes two apostrophes is italic). LjL (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, LjL if it can be done with HTML I do it; I don't have much HTML experience, but I have some while MediaWiki is all Greek to me. Peter K Burian 02:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Cheers[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, LjL. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

@MyMoloboaccount: Hi, were you trying to tell me something? Is there another talk page I have to look at? LjL (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
LjL : Thanks for putting up with my posts indicating that "entire sections had been deleted" (and for finding where they were moved to ... that is still difficult for me on very long articles or when the content is moved to another, related article). And thanks for the general guidance and help you have provided on the November 2015 Paris Attacks and the related Reactions article. (I have a lot of experience as an Editor of print magazines, but that is very different in format.) Peter K Burian 02:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: Italian[edit]

(moved from a talk page where it was not on-topic)For that matter, I speak Italian too, which I'm sure they've seen from my user page (I might remove that user box because of incidents like this one); it's not the first time I've noticed that sometimes some Italians think that by code-switching to Italian they can, I dunno, perhaps feel "tougher" or "closer" (in a positive but also often negative way) to me. It's quite annoying and I wish they did not do that. I don't think it speaks well of them, at any rate. LjL (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, hi! I didn't think to check your page to see if you also spoke Italian. (I used to have the language boxes on my page, but that was because I was open to translation requests, and I don't really have the time to translate entire pages anymore.) I think I assumed that the switch to another language would be to put a non-speaker out of their depth, but of course it could also have an intended effect on a speaker. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@Roscelese: I will remove those user boxes. They are not useful for anything aside slight bragging, while they are detrimental when characters like that individual come along. LjL (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference![edit]

That janes.com link about the Su-24 radio was timely and allowed us to move forward on this issue. Very appreciated! Observer31 (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Reactions to Paris attacks[edit]

Hi, just curious why you apparently did not restore the One WTC image. The reason User:Herve Reex gave for deleting that and the Prague image was formatting, which I pointed out could have been better handled differently on their talk page [21]. Best, Castncoot (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Castncoot: I didn't notice it. I did a manual revert instead of automatic so that I could change the location of the image from "left" to "right", and I apparently missed the other removal. LjL (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Listing COI editors at Talk:English Democrats[edit]

Hi LjL, just a quick message - I don't think putting "see admission and threats" is a good idea, maybe just "see admission"? Just a thought Face-smile.svg -- samtar whisper 16:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

hello![edit]

passing by to say hello! btw, i saw your edit on the user Shenme about a ANI. was curiosu about that.

anyways, how to tag someone? just out of curiousity and not related to what i said above.Winterysteppe (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Winterysteppe: hi; by "tag", do you mean "ping" like I just did? You can type {{ping|Username}} to do it. I haven't filed a report against Shenme, but against an editor who disrupted several articles that Shenme helped restore. LjL (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
@LjL: i think i got it now. haha.
Yep, that worked! (although it's unneeded on my own talk page, as I'll get notified anyway) LjL (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I've added my comments at AN/I[edit]

I've added my comments at Content removal / BLP violations by IslamicrevialistmMujahid. Nothing that will draw any immediate action, but drawing attention to the long-term, misdirected nature of the bad editing, and waiting for the usual eventualities.

Today I was trying to describe my worries for WP to someone, and came up with this. Remember when everyone suddenly realized that public statues were slowly melting away, and that monuments and buildings of limestone and marble were being disfigured? Even copper roofs and bronze statues were eroding far too quickly. And all because they had been thrust into a corrosive atmosphere of nitric oxides and sulfur oxides and more.

Effect of acid rain on statues

Wikipedia is in a corrosive atmosphere, with random vandals combining with idealogical vandals combining with political and corporate interests to erode pretty much every article. I don't believe an effective solution has been found yet, though *many* have been proposed. Have you seen anyone else use the terms 'corrosion' or 'corrosive' anywhere around here? As it is, there is a continual fear of what will happen next. Shenme (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Shenme: and you can try to add some cement to the statues, but as long as the water keeps flowing... I try to remove another large amount of unencyclopedic material (a substantial portion of an article made up of verbatim hadiths, really?!), and I get randomly reverted by a user who probably only cares about annoying me, because we have some unrelated "history". So it is. LjL (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:AN[edit]

Hi, can you please take care/close the WP:AN, I am getting the heebie-jeebies about the other guy continuing to post and stalk me on that page. I seriously don't know what is going on and what he's talking about a week old post that he didn't like. Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Sorry, I'm not an admin and given I've taken part in the discussion a lot, I don't think I can close it properly. I don't even know who's "ultimately" at fault given there seems to be a long-winded history being brought up, but at least, I can say the other people sound like bullies. LjL (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll see what I can do. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: For the record, I think your latest message might be taken the wrong way by admins. I understand you're probably at your wits' end, but it sounds like a personal attack, calling him delusional and so. LjL (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I removed that. But I don't want to open up an AN for him because I don't want to deal with him. I just want him to stop stalking me and stop dealing with me. This was over a week ago. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

A question[edit]

What do you think about Istanbul regarding the recent disputes?Sevt V (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sevt V: didn't I mention it? It's one of those cases that was brought up to compare it to Plovdiv, but I simply don't think it compares, because Google Books shows that Constantinople is still the leading term for the city in English sources, by a fair margin over Istanbul, albeit declining (I'm less sure about keeping Byzantium in the lead line). LjL (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure, that Google Books is a reliable proof. See WP:EN#Divided usage in English-language sources:Search-engine hits are generally considered unreliable for testing whether one term is more common than another. I don't know whether Constantinople is used in English in any other context except hisotircal, now.Sevt V (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Google Books N-Grams search is not exactly a search engine. It searches a semi-vetted corpus of literature in time. I don't know if the prevailing context for "Constantinople" is historical, but historical context is a perfectly valid context too, and if "Constantinople" actually prevails overall over Istanbul in (even current) literature, I find it very hard to argue against its inclusion. LjL (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Steve Comisar[edit]

Hello LjL,

Please reconsider based on my responses at ANI. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Hi. It seems reasonable to re-add the "external link" since an IMDB page about him does, after all, exist, but do you think we should also re-add the in-body mention of his being an actor, since your previous stance was that his role as that was of no notability? LjL (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
He is not notable as an actor, and based on only the acting, if he was not a criminal, we would not have a page on him. Therefore, I oppose any language that implies that his acting is comparable to his criminality, and that he is notable for two roughly equivalent reasons. On the other hand, his minor acting roles are verifiable and are standard biographical details. I think the acting should be mentioned, giving it due weight.
Comisar is devious, tenacious and has plenty of spare time on his hands. He is determined to create a more positive online identity before his 2018 release from prison. Expect much more of this from him. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@Cullen328: I have added the details back. I didn't put them in the lead where you originally placed them because in my view that would have been WP:UNDUE, while they can be part of his overall "career" as a footnote (I had to change the heading of that section for it to make sense). LjL (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, and please consider keeping an eye on the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
It's in my watchlist, I will. LjL (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

see my solution at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_25#Germanic_peoples[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_25#Germanic_peoples 95.128.118.58 (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit Quest![edit]

Hardenstein 2014 - Adventurers.jpg Edit Quest!
Titusfox has requested that you join them for an afternoon of questing, slaying and looting at Edit Quest, the Wikipedia Based RPG! I Hope to see you there! TF { Contribs } { Edit Quest! } 19:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

AfD[edit]

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victims of the November 2015 Paris attacks, the tally currently stands as delete:17, keep:9 and merge:1, with 3 days remaining. This AfD is important because, as has been pointed out, people have been slipping in lists and tables of victims into other articles about mass-casualty events. Should this AfD close with a consensus for deletion, I think it's important to extend this consensus to all articles containing such lists, (as already required by wp:notmemorial, wp:bio1e, wp:blp, wp:list, wp:victim, wp:oneevent, wp:undue, wp:n, np:notnews, wp:indiscriminate, etc., etc.) After the conclusion on this AfD, perhaps an effort should be made to have more definitive wording added to WP:NOT to specifically address these random lists of victims? As you started this process, I thought I would see what your thoughts are on this. Cheers - theWOLFchild 23:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I think WP:NOTMEMORIAL is clear enough, especially given its origins, but given there are some WP:IDHT folks around, yes, perhaps it should state "List of non-notable people who died in mass-death incidents are inappropriate for Wikipedia". Changing policies is a tricky process though AFAIK, and even in the AfD, while I think 17 vs 9 is pretty clear, it's not so striking that there is zero risk someone won't have the bright idea to close it as "no consensus" (especially when seeing the lengthy debate on the page, although it's mostly all coming from... one person). LjL (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I agree that changing wiki-policy is very, very difficult. But I'm looking more along the lines clarifying already established policy, not actually changing it. And it would be for the very purpose of shutting the IDHT edit-warriors who persist in "interpreting" the policy and/or relying a OSE. I think the line you suggested above would do just fine. - theWOLFchild 00:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thanks for clearing up the vandalism on my page by Villano MMIV. If you don't mind me asking, which blocked user do you believe they were a sock of? Thanks, GABHello! 18:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: This one, which was doing the same sort of vandalism at the same time, and which must be in turn a sock of various sock users starting with "Jabberwock", but I'm just basing that on the names. LjL (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I must have reverted them somewhere... GABHello! 18:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Sofia[edit]

You may be interested. One day after the semi-protection of Sofia had expired a new account(registered today) along with two IPs are repetitively trying to do this again [22] and further image changes that are essential and nothing new for the article(not indicating that these are new users). They even discuss on the talk page the introduction of some images by the same uploader. One of the IP has the same contributions [23] as a persistent edit-warrior's edits[24] at Bulgarians article who seems to could not have waited for the semi-protection to expire in order to attack the article with new image changes. Before it was about the introduction of a view of a mountain excluding the city, now it is about an inclusion of some girls that are not even from Sofia or have anything to do with Sofia in one of the sections. Quite funny isn't it? Editing here is anything but not boring. I don't know what to think of this[25] and this[26]? I hope you laughed at the new nonsense. I am very tired to fill reports of the "new" user Vargala and the IP 151.237.102.118 which he acknowledges[27] is his at WP:AE for their 3RR violation today. I am also very confused where to start explaining all this, at the edit-warring noticeboard, at the sockpuppet investigations or at the semi-protections. As you are familiar with the case, I find the easiest way to be explaining all on your talk page first. Cheers.Serdik (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

RE[edit]

Just to clarify -- I have absolutely no history with the user in question; I just happened upon the posts through recent changes. GABHello! 18:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: well, as you may have inferred, I do have some history, and I've always found him very rude and scorching. But I won't/can't pursue this any further, either, because I already filed two ANI reports about him in the past, and they were both simply forgotten away, with him mocking me about "how many more reports will you file" and things like that, so I'm not going to file a third just to be mocked more. I guess sometimes people who are a negative force on Wikipedia will just stick around and annoy others indefinitely. LjL (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:ROPE is very real. In a couple days, after Christmas, I am considering going to ANI, in light of the recent userpage edits made. GABHello! 18:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Christmas![edit]

Christmas tableau.jpg Happy Christmas!
Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Steve Comisar Article Changes[edit]

What was wrong with the January 16th version of Comisar? It gave a new "con man" fact and mentioned he was an actor without giving it too much credence or a separate acting career section. Everything else was the same as the previous version. Please reconsider your deletion and revert back if you think January 16 was fair. Amit Mishra, India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniamit (talkcontribs) 08:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Maniamit: similar, or rather almost identical, changes were made several times, and rejected several times. Someone can't get a free pass by just making them yet again, without even an edit summary. You don't understand why I undid the edit - well, that's unsurprising if you don't know the backstory, since I gave no edit summary (because it was one in many reverts that had to be made). See the problem with making unexplained edits like these?
If you, or anybody else, wants to add information about acting back into the article, I'd say after the events (which I encourage you to investigate), the burden is squarely on them to take it to the article's talk page and make a good case for adding them. See also the latest section and plea that someone made at that talk page. LjL (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Jumping into an edit war (again)[edit]

Unless the rules have changed recently, the editor who adds material to an article has to justify including it, not an editor who removes it. In any event, see User talk:Broadmoor#African Americans, where I tried to discuss the matter with the editor who added it. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Next time I suggest you discuss article issues on the article's talk page, as I'm going to do in a minute. There are also no "rules", especially not ones that let you revert based on what a template's documentation does not state. LjL (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

With respect to your comment at WP:ANEW, I understand the concept of a bright-line rule—which is why I knew better than to cross the line. I also started discussing my first revert before I made my second revert. English may not be your first language, but saying that I "came very close to violating 3RR [my]self by reverting 3 times" is just silly. I didn't "come very close to violating 3RR"—it's a bright line, so either I violated it or I didn't. In fact, I didn't. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: if you refresh your memory by reading WP:3RR again, I'm sure you'll find that it does highlight how not violating the "bright-line rule" but purposely coming as close as possible to it and then stopping (or doing things like making the 4th edit just after the 24 hours, for instance) is considered unacceptable. You discussed your reverts in the wrong place (which is not just a procedural detail, but is actually problematic to third parties like I initially was, who come to see what's going on), and as I brought it to the right place, you reverted again. Edit warring is edit warring whether or not you reach a 4th revert - that's exactly what WP:Edit warring says - and edit warring is never considered an okay thing to engage in. One revert with a meaningful edit summary may not be edit warring, but more than that is hard to defend in most cases, even if it isn't immediate WP:ANEW material. Finally, rest assured that you don't need to worry about English being my first or second language when judging my contributions, as I feel comfortable enough with it to let people assume I mean what I say. LjL (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you ought to refresh your memory. You seem to be confusing 3RR and edit warring. One cannot "come very close to violating 3RR"—either one has performed more than three reverts or one has not. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Laffer curve discussion[edit]

There is a discussion on Talk:Laffer curve which you may be interested in as you commented on a similar discussion at Talk:Jude Wanniski. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Absolutelypuremilk: sorry but it seems I might need to stay out of it at this point because after I did the first recent revert on Laffer curve, someone went to some random unrelated articles that I had edited and reverted me, seemingly in retaliation; I filed a complaint at WP:ANI but since I have three "fans" and they all found at about that complaint and they all started pouring crap on me and nobody else really said anything, well... I'm pretty much helpless. Good luck with keeping the Laffer curve stuff sane, however. LjL (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for addressing the issue on the Budbrooke article. Whilst I now know that I did not go about it in the right way (felt powerless) it appears that we now have it protected so the person leaving unsourced material cannot edit it :-) Cls14 (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Cls14: Wikipedia has many eyes on it. Things can still go unnoticed, but sometimes the best route is to wait and see... in this case, your opponent actually went and shot themselves in the foot by filing a pretty dubious report. That sure drew some attention. LjL (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@LjL: Actually I, ironically, feel a bit sorry for the editor who has been causing the hassle. They don't seem to be able to respond to anything with rationality or, more importantly to me, any form of politeness or decorum. Still, hopefully this is the end of it for me. It's the early hours of Saturday where I am and my film is about to finish so I am going to bed! Cls14 (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@Cls14: Goodnight. Wikipedia can really test one's nerves. I really mean it. Take it easy. LjL (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)