User talk:Silvio1973

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

Re: Some comments[edit]

Yes, posting comments to Talk:History of Croatia is fine. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Your changes in Zadar article...[edit]

...are not written in good faith. It's based on selective sources and interpretation. It represents extreme politics of the Italian irredentists. No need for that. (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Example: you wrote: "Andrea Schiavone, known in today's Croatia with the name of Andrija Medulić", as you don't know that "Schiavone" means - a Croat! (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Fist, you should log. In principle I do not answer to anonymous users. Also I think you should read about wikipedia code of conduct before posting again a comment of that kind, or your user ID could be blocked. To enter in the matter of your concern. Being qualified of irredentism is inappropriate and injustified. I do not consider that Italy has any right of claim for Zadar and or anywhere else in Dalmatia or Istria. Italy started a war and los it. It is a logical consequence to lose land. What I do not uderstand are the efforts made by modern Croatian storiography to change the history of people that lived in territories that today are in the border of modern Croatia. Concern the etymology of Schiavone I know where it comes form and it means "Slav",because it was from Dalmatia. But Damatia at that time was not Croatia, was the Republic of Venice. --Silvio1973 (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Your Italian educational system as such is very problematic concerning Dalmatia and its population in history. They don't teach you the real stuff, you have distorted paradigm abaout it. Example - you use Austrian censi from the middle 19th century but you obviously dont't know that these censi were not like modern ones, it was not based on ethnicity as modern censi are, it was based on "language spoken in public life" which cannot be equalised with ethnicity in this case since official language in Dalmatia was Italian, proclaimed by Italian administration with a fake document. Dalmatia was a part of Venetian Republic, but it was not populated by Venetians or Italians, neither it was part of Italy. But all of this was already said and resolved in Zadar talk page. You are just starting problems from the beginning. (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Giorgio da Sebenico[edit]

I noticed you talked about Niccolo Fiorentino, so I thought you'd like to have a look at Talk:Giorgio da Sebenico. We have an Italian user there who insists that his proper name was Giorgio Orsini, but has not been able to provide a proper source to verify this. Either way the issue of most common name looks to favor the more geographic name for the main title, but it would be good to verify if there's any real merit to this argument. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

On my books of Art they are reported as being the same person. I gave a look to the talk on Talk:Giorgio da Sebenico (honestly disappointing, I wonder if these users mind really something about art) and I must confess that it's a true mess. Also, it is simply not serious that 80% of the article is about the dispute on the name and only 20% about his masterpieces. And everywhere in the article there are translation in the two languages of names and places... honestly the article should be written again from scrap. It should be an article on art and it is looks indeed as a street fight. What some users should understand is that in the XIV century parents did not go to the Town Hall to register their children! Only people with noble origins were keen in transmitting the family name to their children. Most of them were called "Name" + From (da) "somewhere". Concerning Giorgio Orsini (Alias Giorgio da Sebenico) this name was given to the artist when he was already dead. My proposal is to report in the text (briefly) this fact but to use for the rest of the article the name Giorgio da Sebenico. Side comment : in Italy it is quite known as Orsini. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that basically confirms what I suspected to be the case. I also don't really like the fact that I contributed to an expansion of a name debate that is already overblown and has undue weight. Hopefully a person interested in art will come along and offset this with actual art content. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion response[edit]

Hello there. I'm in response of a request for a third opinion. I am currently reviewing the talk page of the disputed page and should come up with a response in the near future. Whenaxis (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

January 2012[edit]

A thread that concerns you has been posted on WP:ANI. See Personal attacks and incivility by User:Zenanarh. Regards -- Director (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


Hi Silvio1973. It's Whenaxis again. I would just like to follow up with my previous mediation and I would like to see if there are any remaining issues that have been on your mind. Any questions regarding what the next step should be or anything else, I am happy to help you with your journey on Wikipedia. Please leave a message on my talk page on anything I can do to assist. Thanks, Whenaxis about | talk 20:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for arbitration[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Dalmatia and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 01:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I will revert all your corrections later[edit]

I do not understand the comment that you placed on my talk page regarding the Zadar article: I will revert all your corrections later. My corrections were just that, corrections, they didn't change the content. There is some really poor writing in that article, and it is not properly sourced. I didn't find anything on the talk page that would suggest that correcting spelling or grammar would be improper, or fixing a redlink. Could you clarify your comment for me please? I did notice the warning regarding violations of Wikipedia policy, is that what you mean by: There's a lot of discussion going on Zadar right now.? Reading the talk page there was a decision six weeks age (12 January 2012) by administrator Whenaxis, is there still a problem? --Bejnar (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


One of the things that might help citation in the Zadar article is use of the Template:Cite in its various formats: Cite news, Cite web, Cite book.

Also it is sufficient when linking to a page in a book on Google Books to limit the url to the book id and page number. Thus:

provides the same display as:

--Bejnar (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Improvements to Rasac[edit]

Hi, Silvio1973, I just wanted to stop by and say that your improvements to the Rasac article were exactly what I thought was needed when I placed that tag on it. Well done! - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 12:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: Italians of Crimea[edit]

Hey, I responded to you on my talk page instead of here to keep the continuity of the conversation. --ddima (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Giovanni Cernogoraz[edit]

I wouldn't say the information you removed is of "no importance" - I did not add it to prove a particular point, but to provide additional background on his employment situation, especially given the fact that the article will become a DYK entry, and the hook is precisely about his job.

By the same criterion, it could be said that the information you entered is also of no importance, and in fact it was removed, and then restored. I have no problem with it, so let's not split hairs, I like the article the way it was, with both of these facts inside for the benefit of the reader. GregorB (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement[edit]

There is new thread on arbitration enforcement forum that might be interesting to you - Nemambrata (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Italianization". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 3 December 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Silvio1973. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 23:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


Please see activities of editor IvanOS at articles of cities and municipalities in Istria where he removes from infobox labels in Italian language (Buje, Labin, Novigrad, Istria County...). It all started after my comment WP Croatia#Minority languages where I raised question about double standards towards different minority languages in Croatia-all in hope to improve position of all other minority languages. However, editors IvanOS and Sokac121 (they usually support Croatian nationalist POV), decided to insist that there should not be a minority languages in infoboxes and then this incident happened. It would be good if you can contribute on debate and maybe even invite other interested editors from other projects? I think that these two editors no longer represent major attitude at WP Croatia but interest of third parties who have experience with this issues may be useful just in case debate draws huge interest at WP Croatia. With their knowledge they can make a strong arguments and keep discussion civilized (I speak from previous experience with this topic). You can also warn editor IvanOS on inappropriateness of his actions so that there stay a trace because he already has inappropriate activities in case of other languages as you can see on his talk page.--MirkoS18 (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


Greetings. Here is a possible book/academic expert who can deal with linguistic issues around Romance/Slavic language naming and usage in the Adriatic area. Good luck.

A state of deference : Ragusa/Dubrovnik in the medieval centuries

Stuard, Susan Mosher Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press, c1992 Tapered (talk) 10:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Healthcare in Croatia[edit]

Once a PROD has been removed you cannot re-add it, please take to WP:AFD. GiantSnowman 17:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Re the esodo..[edit]

Hello Sig. Silvio, just posting to remind you of my respectful request that you provide a brief quote or two in support of your edits on Istrian Exodus (in light of previous misunderstandings re the explicit position of the relevant sources). The quote you did provide - cuts off right where it might have had something to say on the issue at hand. The quote need not be extensive in any way, but please make sure its relevant. As things are, experience warns me not to take the matter as sourced.. Ciao & regards -- Director (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Istrian exodus". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 19:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for your additions to this article. Would you please give a source for these additions or they may be removed? Regards, Ericoides (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


In casi simili è meglio se mi mandi una mail direttamente (la trovi su meta) piuttosto che via Wikipedia, c'è il rischio che come ora finisca per non vederla affatto! --Vituzzu (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply from IJA[edit]

I've not insulted you, I don't think I've said anything to you before. I fully support your right to join in and participate in any discussion on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia which anyone can edit therefore you're more than welcome and edit any page and participate in any discussion. Regards IJA (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

De Facto and Indirect Recognitions[edit]

Thanks Silvio1973 for your suggestion. I tried to rephrase as follows:
In July 2013, ECtHR stated that a de facto recognition of the acts of Northern Cyprus may be rendered necessary for practical purposes thereby the adoption of civil, administrative or criminal law measures, and their application by its authorities or enforcement within that territory, may be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention".(ref1) The beginning of direct flights to Northern Cyprus by the other states is regarded as indirect recognition of Northern Cyprus as an independent state.(ref2)

ref1: ECHR Decision]02.07.2013, App. nos. 9130/09 and 9143/09; Pavlides v. Turkey; Georgakis v. Turkey
ref2: Stefan Talmon (Assoc. Prof., Oxford)]"Air Traffic with Non-Recognised States: the Case of Northern Cyprus", p.30Alexyflemming (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Silvio, but I just saw this message. This discussion should take place at the article talkpage not on your talk, but I will reply here at this stage and then we should move this discussion where it properly belongs, i.e. the article talkpage. In any case, the proposed edits are unacceptable. The first source is WP:PRIMARY and it does not say that the de facto recognition has happened but rather that it may be rendered necessary to be de facto recognised. Therefore it has not happened yet and it is not official. It is just speculation at this point. Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:PRIMARY it is an unacceptable addition. The second paper covering the flights is not published in a peer-reviewed journal and it is not a reliable source. It is just the opinion of the author which may or may not be valid. Therefore these are not "De Facto and Indirect Recognitions [sic]" but mere speculation about "De Facto and Indirect Recognitions [sic]" and should not be included in the article. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

HR 5171[edit]

Hello Silvio. It looks like you started a new article at HR 5171. Since a requested move has just closed, that page has been replaced with the former contents of V766 Centauri. If you still have the material you added previously, you might try to insert it in HR 5171 if you believe it is relevant. You can see your old material at this link if you need to copy it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

To add a bit...[edit]

The things you said to Direktor are unacceptable. The undertones may be difficult for an outsider to fully appreciate, but they are still obvious. Editing in areas like the Balkans is risky, as admin are given extra leeway to deal with problems. You need to step back a little bit, maybe edit less controversial topics for a bit. These controversial topics are easy to get caught up in, to edit war, to say things you shouldn't say, and to get blocked. From what I see, your English is respectable but not perfect, so you must learn to give the benefit of the doubt to others, or you will find yourself in the wrong and upset for no reason. What I fear is that if you don't pull back a little, be less aggressive and more patient, you will get blocked. You may yet, I hold no special authority to decide the outcome of that discussion, I can only give my opinion. The community is free to ignore it.

If you find your blood pressure rising, your emotions rising, then you need to walk away from that article for a day. Go edit something else. Ice cream, Polar bear, whatever, just something else that doesn't make your emotions get the best of you. We all have opinions, we all get frustrated, but you have to learn when to walk away and cool down. Otherwise, you will end up getting blocked over and over. I'm not asking you to change your opinions, just the way you deal with frustration. The article was there yesterday, it will be there tomorrow. Nothing is so urgent that you can't walk away for a day when you need to. Dennis Brown |  | WER 20:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. There's nothing to add. However, I have just posted a modification on another article on dispute. I am going to revert it and wait for things to boil down. I appreciate your advice and consider it very valuable. --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
No problem. As a bonus, when people perceive you as calm and reasonable, they will consider your point of view above those that are not. Seriously, it is to your own advantage to be more patient and learn ways to help keep from spouting off comments. Trust me, I get just as frustrated as you do over some things, I just have learned ways to deal with it. Dennis Brown |  | WER 20:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Good luck with editing, some tips[edit]

I saw you first time on ANI when Direktor had brought you. I didn't knew that you have good knowledge about numerous world affairs and politics. I was just saying that you should avoid conflict as much as you can, I understand that sometimes edit conflicts is completely out of control. About your english, I would advise that you to read more than you write, for some weeks or months. Here[1] you forgot to close the bracket in your comment, be careful about them, and good luck with your editing. Thanks for your contributions. OccultZone (Talk) 09:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear OccultZone thank you for your valuable advise. I will exercise more care when writing and definitely avoid conflicts. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

International Pacts and Treaties[edit]

Hi Silvio: The abridgment on Russia looked reasonable, and my edit is restoring the news on the Geneva Pact. Wikipedia policy recognizes International Pacts and Treaties as Notable for inclusion. If you have a follow-up then perhaps Talk page first would be useful. Otherwise the abridgment on Russia looked reasonable for Crimea. FelixRosch (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

BRD on Ukraine Page[edit]

To Silvio; Upon request of User:EVergreen, I have initiated a BRD on the issue of the back-and-forth editing on the Ukraine page which you had previously commented upon. Good Editing. FelixRosch (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Nevertheless, I do not remember I actually ever edited the article Ukraine, but only Russia. Silvio1973 (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
It was your comments on the Russia talk page dealing with "Proposals for Russia and Ukraine lead" which I thought were on target. This situation on the Ukraine Talk page would apply to both pages beneficially and your comments would be quite welcome. FelixRosch (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I see, I must confess I feel very uncomfortable writing about the recent issues between Russia and Ukraine. I am mainly observing what is going on but I think that sourcing entirely from news is wrong. There is a big issue of recentism and honestly I am very concerned with it. Silvio1973 (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

My warning (for what it is worth)[edit]

This edit [2] is outright canvassing of potentially sympathetic editors, as are your direct communications with User:USchick, who has their own issues here. Let me say up front that I do not condone some of the behaviour Director has displayed in a range of fora over two and a half years I have been on en WP, but I am quite sympathetic towards the principle of defence against POV-warriors regarding a whole range of issues on en WP, particularly when editing in areas regarding the former Yugoslavia. It is a "target-rich environment" in my experience. I remember you from quite some time ago, so your bleatings of "not really understanding procedures" per this is in my view duplicitous. In my view you should be site banned for at least three months for each instance of obvious canvassing, you have been here way long enough to know better. No doubt others will be more lenient, but you can take from this that you have failed a basic integrity test as far as I am concerned, so don't be surprised if I take the side of those that think you should not be given the privilege of editing en WP because of your poor behaviour. There are a lot of editors who display poor behaviour on en WP, but targeting Director in this case is just an example of "sinking the slipper" when someone is on the ground after the "Jews and Communism" drama. Where I come from, that usually results in a head butt to the bridge of the nose from someone that considers that is a pretty low act. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have been suggested by an experienced user to find people endorsing my RfC/U and I have am also contacting people usually defending Director. Indeed I am trying to contact all the users that were involved in our disputes. if you think I forget someone tell me. This is an RfC/U not an AN/I and perhaps I am the one being wrong. The only thing I know is that I am sick to death to be insulted. If the WP community believe that Director did not insult me, this is fine for me, it means that I am too sensitive. But mind well that insulting someone is not a solution, even if it was demonstrated that I do not listen enough what the other say (and dear PM67, Director is not the good example). There are RfC, 3O and ANI to treat such problems. Director is a user or rare competence, the only issue is the he believe he is ALWAYS right and ends insulting everyone opposing to him. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You are WP:CANVASING. You are specifically targeting Director and contacted all the "opposing editors" first in the hope of getting them to get stuck in to him. NOW, you are contacting others. Either way, it is pure canvassing. I will take you to ANI if you don't stop. That is your last warning. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Listen I am contacting and had contacted everyone. There is no order, the RfC is pending 48 hours from posting, so wait tomorrow 9am to accuse. however this morning 8am I contacted Antidiskriminator and before your first post Tomobe03 and Evergreen, who many times opposed my arguments. I tell you more. I should contact in principle only people who actually mediate but I will try to contact everyone. Said that, please realise that I do not pretend to be the good guy but I am pissed off of being qualified of fascist and extremist. I have nothing against FYR and I have everything against the Fascism (and you don't know my history as an individual). But for God's sake I am not asking the moon. I want Director to be more polite. If you guys think I am disruptive or just a bad editor go for ANI or RfC/U but stop insulting. But stop insulting. Director makes reference continously (and negatively) to my nationality. He did for almost two years. I do not even know how I managed not to react. However if you want to bring me to ANI go ahead, but if the objective is to gey rid of the "enemies" of former FYR I think you should change target. I am not one of those people. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Not clear[edit]

According to policy you can post all kinds of ridiculous maps. I had a very long edit war about maps and now several people hate me. lol, I think we should both go do something a lot more useful and less controversial. USchick (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Silvio, another thing you have to keep in mind is that, as indicated by the collapsing of Izak's comment, those of us who were not involved in your particular dispute with Director are limited in terms of participation. Yes, I do feel that Director engaged in improper conduct in the past. But even if those diffs were available, they are apparently not pertinent to your particular dispute, as far as I can see. Coretheapple (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I understood that a RfC/U has pertinence about the conduct of a user across different events. In this sense is different from a ANI. Is there anyone who can clarify?? Otherwise ANI and RfC/U would coincide.Silvio1973 (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Then why was Izak's comment collapsed? Again, I am no expert on RfC/Us. Coretheapple (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The RfC/U is not an Artificial Intelligence. The comment collapsed because it was requested to do so. However I am tired of this crap. After this RfC/U I take a long break from conflictual areas. Sure, Director will be free to do what he wants. Silvio1973 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Italian art in Dalmatia[edit]

Hello, I reverted your edits about the contribution of Istrian and Dalmatian art in Renaissance, since this is a general article about Italy, with limited space about this topic, and citing them there, you give undue weight (this is the meaning of UNDUE) to them with respect to other regions/artists which are not cited. The fact that now these regions do not belong to the Italian Republic is not sufficent reason to cite them, since Laurana is neither bramante nor Michelangelo. Of course, in another context, like an article about venetian art, they must stay there. Alex2006 (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I fully disagree, sculptors like Niccolò di Giovanni Fiorentino and Giorgio da Sebenico worked on what is currently an UNESCO heritage site. More than relevant to be cited. Please refer to talk page. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic HERE. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion decline[edit]

I have removed your submission at WP:3O. After reviewing the linked Talk page, I note that there has not been a thorough discussion there. Please be aware that there must be significant discussion at the Talk page as a prerequisite for requesting a third opinion. If you feel that further discussion at the Talk page currently will not be productive, I would invite you to consider other forms of dispute resolution. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope a discussion will follow. Thank you. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Istrian exodus[edit]

Hello Silvio1973, I appreciate your work on these articles. They are an important part or history and need to be well documented. Please remember that it is always best to work through the talk pages anytime you have an issue. Don't go straight to the article but work it out first on the talk page. The articles around East European history can be very controversial so take extra caution when working here. The art of compromise is important to learn. Articles that have been around for a long time are generally pretty stable and people are resistant to sudden change. Work with them. You can learn much from the editors here but go easy. Thanks! JodyB talk 14:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

JodyB fair comment and point tanken. But in this precise istance the stable version had been changed, I only reinstated it. However, to show good faith, I have accepted the modification made by Director and now I wait him for an alternative formulation. Let's hope this will happen. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Great. I'm just trying to help. Don't think that a stable article cannot be can. Just be cautious. JodyB talk 16:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I have requested the help of a mediator on this disagreement via the DRN. Let´s hope the matter will be sorted out peacefully. I am still sorry for that block. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Obsessed with Tito[edit]

Please Silvio stop with this. Leave the article as it is now, ok? Please just stop threatening everyone. We have reached a consensus before. I will not revert you anymore. I think it is stupid to add more sources to the lead, as it is overflowed with citations (only because of people like you), but ok, it is a consensus. Is that ok? Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not obessed. However there are better ways to discuss than yours. I have posted an RfC to have (hopefully) inputs from other users. Please join the discussion. --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Silvio, I believe the RfC should be formally closed by an uninvolved admin to ensure any consensus is respected. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


Hi, there are non-UN member States recognised by less UN members. So, If my edit will be reverted, I'll add disputed territory to all of them. --Skyfall (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: Tito[edit]

Hello Silvio,

Unfortunately the problem now seems to stem from the way you worded the RfC: it should have been a clear question with a yes or no answer (i.e. Support or Oppose). Now I'm not certain anymore what the RfC was about and everyone has his own interpretation of the outcome. Let me take a closer look at the article, I'll get back to you later. GregorB (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I have not forgotten about the article - but it's been a while, sorry about that...
I'd definitely support mentioning the repression of political opponents in the intro (even if it's with certain reservations, as I've already stated in the RfC). Moreover, my reading of the RfC that this is the majority view of editors who participated. I'm not sure if Tuvixer is aware of (or would agree) with that, however.
Sometimes, when I hear people say "We shouldn't do X because of Y", I ask them: "Does that mean that, if we take care of Y, you have nothing against X?" If they say "yes" - one knows what to do... GregorB (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I will edit the article in this sense but no doubt Tuvixer will revert. --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: Reverts[edit]

Actually, there is a good option left: opening a new RfC, this time with a clearly worded question, as suggested by the previous RfC's closing admin.[3]

The other good option is simply moving on. The existing debate consumed a lot of time, did not produce anything of substance, and even if did, it would have been questionable whether its end result (saying that Tito oppressed his opposition in the article's intro) justified the effort or not.

The decision is on you. Should you decide to open a new RfC, please consult me about the wording before it's submitted. GregorB (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I actually opened a new RfC. Unfortunately I got your reply, when I had already opened the RfC. I hope now it is clearly worded. And you are actually right, it might not be worth the effort. The issue is not the modification itself, but more the issue of WP:OWN we have on this article. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. Regarding the RfC, you might want to add the exact wording of the sentence you wish to add. This will make the issue clearer to the respondents. Supply the sources with it too. GregorB (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Done. But I doubt the issue is the format of the RfC. We face an issue of WP:OWN on this article by a small "posse" of users. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Format of the RfC is not the issue, of course - it's just that it needs to be successful in order to resolve the situation. GregorB (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@GregorB:, I know that the RfC is not the issue. Indeed, it's not working to resolve the situation. The fact is that it is simply impossible to edit the article. Also can I understand why I cannot edit the article, but Tuvixer can post unsourced edit? I just took the "freedom" to {{cn} tag his last edit (mind well I did not remove it and the edit is actually unsourced) but even this is not possible. Outrageous... --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Which statement has been cn-ed, do you have a diff? Please have in mind that it is difficult to follow all these edits in real time... GregorB (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Sure @GregorB:, this is the diff: [[4]]. The source in question is not accessible (and however to write "Reforms encouraged private enterprise and greatly relaxed restrictions on freedom of speech and religious expression" more sourcing than just a magazine is necessary). Honestly, editing this article seems to follow double standards. Silvio1973 (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Please be careful with such edits: having an offline source is not the same as having no source at all, so one cannot say it's unsourced. I'd say it's a reliable source. (Not only TIME is a reputable magazine, but one cannot reasonably claim it is biased in favor of a communist government.) Normally, WP:AGF applies in such cases. Still, if a reasonable doubt exists about the exact wording, then whoever added this ref must be able to show that it indeed supports the article text. My suggestion would be to leave the ref as it is, and use {{Request quotation}} to challenge it (if that was actually your intention). GregorB (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair point @GregorB:. I was unaware of this technicality. Thank you for telling me. However, I start to lose faith that anything can be changed. There is something egregiously unfair going on this article. With the support of only source it is claimed in the lead that "Tito was considered by most a benevolent dictator" (and mind well that there is no reference to anything like this in the body of the article). Following the double standard imposed by just two users, it has become impossible to write about the repression of political opposition, whatever is the amount of sources provided. Silvio1973 (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, who can tell: it's 2-0 at the moment in favor, 3-0 if we count the IP user, and 4-0 if we count your own position (of course, you are required to formulate the RfC question in a neutral way, but you're also free to officially support; still, it is fair to wait for a while before stating your preference so as not to unduly influence the respondents). GregorB (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@GregorB: I don't know. It seems Tuvixer can do what we wants. He reverted the edit and removed the [need quotation to verify] tag without giving any explanation. Silvio1973 (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, he did provide the quotation, didn't he?[5] That was the point of adding the template. GregorB (talk) 08:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Surely he did, but does the quotation corresponds to the edit? Silvio1973 (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Not fully: religious freedom and private enterprise are mentioned, while freedom of speech isn't. You might want to use {{cn}} (better yet: {{cns}}) on the freedom of speech bit. GregorB (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
At least, dealing with this issue I am learning something useful. Let's take the good side of it. However, Tuvixer will certainly revert it.Silvio1973 (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@GregorB:, if you want my advice I think Tuvixer has a serious problem. I have moved to an independent section the discussion on the freedom an speech but he reverted it. Indeed, he reverts everything whatever I do. Look here: [[6]]. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello @GregorB:, what the policy says about a user pushing unsourced material, who refuses to justify the rationale of his insertion and reverts the cn tagging of the contested edit? Do we leave things as they are? Silvio1973 (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
It seems that the strategy is to wear you down. If you try to force anything, you'll be branded an edit warrior, and if to try to discuss, you'll get bogged down. Tuvixer attacks your position, but conveniently refuses to defend his - he simply ignores the questions. That's sabotage, I know it when I see it. I don't think I'll be involved in this much longer. GregorB (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:PBB[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:PBB. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Josip Broz Tito shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Josip Broz Tito. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. --Tuvixer (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tuvixer:, you must have a problem. I have just reorganized the Talk page because two discussions are having place on the same section and you reverted it. What's wrong with this? Silvio1973 (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) This must be where Tuvixer is told not to template the regulars Face-wink.svg Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 11:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1 metre[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1 metre. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Croat sentiment[edit]

It would appear all your edits have been undone by User:Stariradio, clearly against consensus. 23 editor (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, he should have not. Honestly, I don't know if I want start a quarrel for such a crappy article. The think is that this article should even not exist. To my eyes it is just a collection of garbage. --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I apologize for not looking at the talk page. But 23 editor 's claim that I simply undid everything is not entirely true. Most of the edits address your request for sources as they weren't there or outdated. I brought in the sources. As for the list I am not sure what is to be done with it. It contains examples of Anti-Croat sentiment, but does looks improper as a list. As for the article being "garbage" it is a heavy work in progress. If the article shouldn't exist, then why should any other, where is the end point? I have found other anti-blank sentiment articles on here that also seem to be a laundry list of events yet exist as their own. Stariradio (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)