User talk:Director/Archive 9

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Ante Pavelić

Hi!

Can you please stop playing with the infobox. I'm kind of working on the article. Infobox should contain only basic infos so it should not draw attention from the article. And he was wounded in an assassination attempt, not assassinated. You are making a bad joke on the article.

Regards, --Wusten fuchs 19:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Classic WP:OWN. Please stop with the nonsense edits. What in the world gives you the right to remove accurate information from the infobox? I don't really care that you find them "distracting" (for some strange reason), and I must say I'm not at all concerned whether you are editing the article or not. Infobox lines are there to be filled-out. (And do not restore the copy-pasted "(1941-43)" brackets, they have no place in an office entry which lasted only for a few months in 1941. They are added only when the other office was not held for the whole period.)

Also when someone gets shot by an assassin, and then dies from being shot - he just got successfully assassinated. Definition. Had JFK gotten shot in Dallas, then flew to Timbuktu for treatment before dying of the wounds, he would still have been "assassinated". There was no "attempt", the assassination was successful. But never mind, have it your way, just use English ("Department of State Security", not "UDBA"). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for my intervention, but I think that the name UDBA can be used in bracketts, like ...Department of State Security (UDBA)... I mean, UDBA was a known security agency worldwide, and a renown name in the diplomatic sphere during that period, and we wouldn´t be loosing anything by reminding it here. I mean, not only reminding it, but correctly using it. What you guys think? When going trough the article, I also founded a need to further explain the simplt UDBA mentioning, but the combination of both would seem just perfect. Don´t you guys forget we are editing worldwide encyclopedia, so any short additions that would help exactly identify/explain some movements or organisations are allways welcome. Resumingly what I am saying is that using simply UDBA is not much informative (unless you actually go to the link), but either way, using simply Department of State Security we´ll be missing then the common name given to the agency. Just similarly to one recomendation about wheather a minor explaining adition to the "Bar Association" or "Pašić" was usefull as Wustenfuchs well solved, those tipes of minor additions are very usefull to provide without much effort a bit more information. We could perfectly have something like "...the Department of State Security named UDBA was... The first (as now in articles title) is the translation of the official naming, but everybody knew it as UDBA around the world. FkpCascais (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes yes, all right. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Look DIREKTOR, kenedy died because of bullent in his head, Pavelić died year and half later after this "assassination" of yours... :/ My God.

As for infobox:

“When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content.”

(Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes))

--Wusten fuchs 13:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"What in the world gives you the right to remove accurate information from the infobox?"

(User:DIREKTOR)

Two points: 1) You're not in charge of the article and don't get to "decide" when the infobox is overcrowded. The AP infobox is a LOT shorter than most. 3) You misunderstand the point of that quote. E.g. "Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." In other words: fill in the infobox fields, but do so in the briefest way possible. That's what's meant. Trust me Fox, if my years on Wiki have made me good at something, its infoboxes. They're my "speciality", I suggest you leave it to me.

Re: assassination. According to you, the target has to die immediately in order to be assassinated? :) Such utter nonsense, assassination can take years. One of the most popular historic forms of assassination, arsenic poisoning, has been known to take a decade or more(!). I suggest you leave this alone, you've had your way. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Year an' half is long period... and we will rarely use term "assassineted" if victim died of arsenic poisonong, we'll rather say Mirko was poisoned by Slavko, isn't it? And I don't know how long are you here on Wiki, but I also have some experience. Reason why we should add his kids to the article is if his kids are notable, and since they aren't... And you had no problems with that in earlier edit war of ours... or I'm wrong?--Wusten fuchs 16:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes all right I understand your point of view and I said have no problem with your version, shall we not go into this?

His kids are not notable, granted, but he is. Information regarding his personal life certainly fits into the article's (and the infobox's) scope. Edit wars are not "mine", and I cannot notice everything. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine, fine, I'll listen to you, and leave infobox to you. --Wusten fuchs 18:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

block for edit-warring on Croats

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, a week ago you were involved in a long discussion on Stepinac. You left the discussion saying were too busy at the time to deal with the detailed points on sourcing and so on raised there and would come back to it later. However, shortly thereafter you were involved in a budding edit war on Pavelic. Then a full blown edit war on Croats. I appreciate all of these Balkan articles are the subject not only of endless dispute but also random POV attacks, but there does seem to be a pattern of various ediotrs carrying on the same Balkans wars from one article to another with very little constructive editing or real attempts to reach consensus. The prime example was perhaps that argument about the translation of the title on the Yugoslav Front article on which agreement was reached yet nobody actually added the translation. Everybody had gone off to argue about something else by then. I appreciate this is not just you but perhaps you might like to consider these points.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed you are right. Let me try to explain. The Balkans articles have just one main problem: they're open for editing to the general public in the Balkans :). There was bitter war here just 15 years ago. And with war comes wartime propaganda, or to be more accurate, a wartime mentality of extreme nationalism is created (out of necessity, basically). With this, a large number of "glorious national myths" are grounded firmly in the public's mind. People generally believe one thing, while the facts are demonstrably opposite - and it does not matter whether you can "prove" the falsehood of the myths and demonstrate the facts: the myths MUST be true. Its something like challenging one's religious beliefs. Like a fundamentalist Muslim and a creationist Christian debating, in such a discussion the actual facts are of the least importance.

To address your point, you must understand that it is virtually impossible in such an atmosphere to actually do some real editing. You are "not allowed" to display virtually any facts since, if they agree with one side, they will surely offend the other. You will simply be reverted. In fact, the only way to actually bring about a serious article expansion is to aggressively establish the facts. Political correctness or "middle-grounds" has no place here. At least one side is nearly always dead wrong in these things, and 99% of the time its the members of the nationality to whom the myth belongs. Therefore one side, or sometimes both, eventually need to be be "broken" (no sense using euphemisms) one way or the other into giving-up (99% of the time), or acknowledging he/they are wrong (rare), so that the actual facts can be displayed and that at least some editors can edit without being molested. As you saw in the Chetniks article, often one is forced to "establish" the sources and the facts over and over and over again. All this is a full-time job: to edit an article with an unresolved issue you have to "fight" your way through a "battle" to be "allowed" to do anything. This is in essence why you see more conflict than editing.

See for example the Croats article. I tried to do some editing because the page looked abandoned and I thought I might not have to "fight" my way through. I invested serious effort: I found a nice format, I thought of a nice concept, a historical procession of notable Croats. I found the appropriate images of Croats, I carefully cropped them, checked the licensing, uploaded them, wrote all that-up - and now its gone. Plus I just actually got laughed at and insulted on the takpage, with numerous personal attacks (if you'd care to note). I did the research and edited the Stepinac article. I simply looked-up the facts and wrote them up - they're gone now. Sourced scholarly info. Gone. Now, am I stupid to waste hours of my swamped schedule like that again? I'm just a student over there, not even an intern, I hardly have a moment's peace. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I do know what you mean about POVs like religious beliefs, having battled in pseudosciences myself. However, there is a danger of getting into the habit of acting as if every editor who appears is merely yet another nationalist mythologist and that every proposed change, however anodyne has a hidden motive. If I can give examples, on the Stepinac page, whilst I would agree that various RC tomes on lives of saints are unlikely to provide a fair summary of the more controversial aspects of Stepinacs life, why flog yourself to death and make sweeping statements about the likes of Ramet? She hardly gives him a free pass. But then she hardly gives Tito a free pass either - or Mihailovic. There is a danger also in being more than merely firm in holding the WP policy line. The fervent nationalists are not going to go away. However, the aggressive and insulting tone of much of the discourse on these pages will assuredly drive off the more moderate and thoughtful editors. Your edit on the talkpage, in response to a carefully set out analysis of source issues, which said To paraphrase your troll edit summaries: Alojzije Stepinac was a collaborator, get over it. It really is high-time this abhorrant, fascistoid, Ustaše-praising article is rewritten in accordance with (proper) sources. instantly personalises all the issues and everything gets derailed. Less involved editors then can't make head or tail of the issue without back-tracking through pages of TLDR insults, accusations and circular arguments. I would hope that with a little policing, sensible editors with a genuine interest in history may be induced to take part.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well.. I'm not saying I don't go overboard in the "nationalists everywhere!" department from time to time but I do think I'm not wrong most of the time. The fact that I'm trying to relate is that most normal, ordinary people in Croatia would say Stepinac was not guilty - yet his activities under any interpretation of law constitute "mild" collaboration (corresponding with his "mild" five-year jail term). The same goes for Mihailović: most normal, ordinary folks in Serbia would say the guy was a "hero". E.g. I certainly don't think the guys at Aloysius Stepinac are "hell-bent zealots", they're perfectly normal people - from around here. They grew-up thinking Stepinac was a "martyr" for dying of polycythemia in his bed in a country estate (in which case I can see "martyrs" every day in the hospital :)), and they think I'm here trying to destroy the reputation of a "great Croat". (As far as this recent thing with User:Timbouctou is concerned, he's certainly no "nationalist fanatic", imo he's just annoyed his vote didn't work out and the article remained the same.)

Concerning Ramet. I think we have a misunderstanding there. Ramet is an excellent author. However, so is Bernd Jürgen Fischer. Now, I've read most of Ramet's stuff and when you brought her up I checked out the statement you quoted. It has no direct backing. Fischer, however, does. He bases his statements on the work of Alexander and her research into Stepinac's activities in April 1941 (the month Yugoslavia was occupied). Not to go into details, but his activities at the time do constitute treason under any Yugoslav law (collaboration with the occupying forces). On the other hand, I can't find anything Ramet uses to back her statement up, let alone anything that addresses the evidence otehr sources quote. I'm not saying she's "pro-nationalist", no way, I've used her myself, all I'm saying is that this is an obscure issue and that she is contradicted by research quoted by other historians - she may be simply wrong (and frankly, Fischer is a historian of high repute, whereas S. P. Ramet is a political scientist). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose one of the points I was trying to make is that the very controversy makes the Stepinac's and Mihailovic's more interesting. As in - are the British noble defenders of democracy and freedom or are they evil imperialist fascist bastards - or are the two necessarily mutually exclusive. On Ramet - I would think we are entitled to assume she did her research before writing her conclusions. You don't expect little blue numbers attached to all her sentences. I don't think it's an obscure issue and she devotes quite a chunk to it. If there is genuine controversy (not as in Intelligent Design I mean) then that ongoing controversy is part of the subject matter of the article, particularly when it is still such a live issue in ex-yugo.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring at Fausto Veranzio

Please stop immediately the edit-warring (1, 2) at Fausto Veranzio. There has been a clear consensus in the Talk:Fausto Veranzio#Requested move redux from June 2010 that he was a Venetian from the Venetian Republic. I think you'll still be very much aware of this discussion given that you were found canvassing then other users. It was enough of an editwar then, so please not again the same stuff reloaded. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there DIREKTOR, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:DIREKTOR. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of files removed today here.

Shut off the bot here.

Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Croat Info Box

DIREKTOR - do you just not realise how rude you are? Look at your post about Timbouctou on the info box dispute. I started a fresh discussion to see if people could agree at least some of the names and then discuss the rest. Timbouctou made a perfectly civil contribution. Your response was a litany of personal insults. Do you simply not realise you are doing that? Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

So far as I can see: he started it. See his first post in the topic, personal attacks one next to another - completely unprovoked. And he just called me "arrogant" 2 mins ago. As for the MASSIVE posts, Tim has a bad habit of writing those and frankly its annoying. I had previously told him several times, very politely, apologizing all the way, that I can't be made to write for 30 minutes every time he posts some essay like that, and completely unnecessary to boot. People just ignore his essays 90% of the time anyway, and respond partially (if at all). As opposed to simply ignoring him, I'm trying to get the guy to be more concise so we can actually discuss instead of write letters to each-other.

I'm not a polite guy, I know. When someone starts something I'm not going to post any outright personal attacks, certainly, but I am not exactly going to be courteous with the guy. His previous vote is no way to go. And it failed, anyway. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What, "Please Sir - he started it!". Just look at some of what you wrote. random list Timbouctou is suggesting for some strange reason, objective arguments and judgement overrule "mob sentiment": , This is just nonsense, that ridiculous "voting" affair from months ago turned out to be a useless farce, and User:Timbouctou wants to make sure all his futile efforts therein were not in vain.. Now - I don't object to calling nonsense "nonsense". But do you see how your remarks are not just saying the proposals are nonsense, but grossly personalising matters against Timbouctou? Many of your posts are like this. You say Tims posts are TLDR, but what about the effect of each talkpage being covered with the sort of intensly personal rants such as these from you? Any sensible person with genuine historical interests is just going to run a mile - and who can blame them.

Further more, the discussion which brought this forth was not, for example a POV campaign to call Tito a surrogate Nazi in the pay of Hitler, or an attempt to remove any reference to catholics as anything other than the devils spawn, but a discussion over the pictures of 16 famous Croats for goodness sake! Lighten up. Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Serbs of Croatia

Hello DIREKTOR,

I added and excluded few images on the infobox at the page. I followed the statistics, how much an article about some person was viewed so persons with most views were added or remained, whatever. I saw your activity ther on talk page, so, you agree with it? I saw that you had "problem" with Rade Končar, can we sort this out? --Wusten fuchs 16:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

ok

ok, direktor, noted ;)

thx for help on pics in Serbs of Croatia infobox. --Wusten fuchs 12:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Faust

Is that right? As I can see only Italians voted "support". The problem are english books wich don't refer him as Vrančić, we'll see how long it will take. I'll see what I can do...--Wusten fuchs 18:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, do what you need to do. Discredited my self? I don't bealive so...

Regards. --Wusten fuchs 18:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no energy for discussion, they reverted my edit very fast... maybe later.--Wusten fuchs 13:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Prelog

You can resize his imgage, so he don't have big head...--Wusten fuchs 17:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No amount of resizing will shrink that tremendous noggin :). No seriously, sou just can't. His head takes-up his whole portrait, and the portrait has to be of the same proportions as other portraits. But its not so bad.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Egghead. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

An orderly debate

On the mediation talk page you recently made the following statement: "... this mediation has been mismanaged in numerous ways and beyond repair." My concern, at the moment is not whether the mediation was mismanaged (I've made many mistakes in my life and I'm not worried about admitting mistakes in a mediation - I make 'em all the time). Although, the judgement "mismanaged" seems harsh and overstated. My main concern is the "beyond repair" comment. If things are beyond repair, then we should just close it. But are they?

I know that we had a discussion back in November on this subject. Your last comment was the following: "To be clearer, imho we need to one 1) start an orderly, structured, impersonal debate on the main issue, and 2) we need you as the impartial, objective mediator to step in when you assess that this or that fact under discussion has been established in accordance with Wikipedia requirements and policy. That is basically all I'm saying." There are various reasons why we did not do that (i.e., have an orderly, structured, impersonal debate) back in November. Let me just summarize them by saying that IMO the main participants were not able to do that, then. However, I always did plan to get to that in the context of the "Legacy" section. Why the "Legacy" section? Because the discussion (dispute) that emerged on that topic was precisely the kind of discussion that would benefit from an orderly, structured debate. However, I judged that it was not possible at that moment to have that debate.

I made the call based on the circumstances at the time. I may have been mistaken in my judgement. While I doubt that, I do not see it as being detrimental to a resolution now. I'm saying that I think that the circumstances are different now and am offering to have that orderly, structured, impersonal debate (see mediation talk page). Would you be willing to participate in that discussion now? Sunray (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Sunray, had I been in your shoes, the first thing I would have done almost a year ago would have been to ask the involved users to present their sources (quotations and/or page references). I would then have attempted to move the debate forward by helping the participants establish this or that relevant fact as a sourced fact (based entirely on WP:V). If sources contradict we would compare their strength on the basis (or bare existence) of any quoted primary sources, if they're arguably equal in strength - we would quote them both. Thus we would move forward. Once we've answered by this method the actual question that caused the conflict, only then would it possible to move on to an (inevitably brief) discussion on the exact wording we would use to represent the facts. And again, if an unlikely problem still arose there (in spite of having arrived at a conclusion concerning the main issue), I would advise the conflicted parties to follow the sources as closely as possible.

This is not my method or invention - this is essentially the "scientific" course of action. I may be still an undergraduate, but we do know how to address conflicting claims (though usually all we have to do is check out what Cochrane has to say :)). This is also how I formed my position on the issue in question.

What you are doing is simply telling us (and by "us" I mean good old Nuujin) to write away. Not only is this virtually impossible (with more people than Nuujin actually writing) because the main issue is not solved, but even if somehow this prolonged, gruelling business, where we debate each word separately instead of the issue itself, is brought to an end - we would still only have a superficial solution, after immense effort, with the underlying main conflict still alive and kicking. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear with what I was proposing. But first, I will comment on the method you propose in your first paragraph. What you propose is fine as long as everyone realizes that sources must support text. Disputes often break out (in academia, in Wikipedia) over interpretations of text. Sometimes it is necessary to quote the text verbatim so that there is no misunderstanding. The art and science of collaborative editing is to find a way for editors to be able to discuss and when there is a dispute to be able to reach agreement. That would be the ultimate aim of a mediation. We came to a block in the mediation because we were not able to find a way to do that. Then.

What I've proposed is that we sort through the differences between you and Fkp - with reference to sources and text. I don't mean that one is going to win and the other lose. I mean win/win. That is not easy. But when I talk about looking at the Legacy section, I mean looking at any fundamental differences between the two of you that surfaced during the discussion of that section and finding the way to resolve them. I chose the Legacy section, it was during the review of that section that the dispute came to a head. Is that clear? Sunray (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What you're saying is that people wouldn't "accept" sources? I.e. that they would not accept what sources have to say? Well if that problem is not solved, then the dispute can't be solved at all in the first place. I for one am confident, however, that if User:Sunray were to say "this is sourced" the acceptance would follow very shortly. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is almost always bias in sources. Editors have to write a balanced article. Still, if there are a preponderance of sources all saying one thing, the article must reflect that as the dominant point of view. Would you be willing to answer to my question on the mediation page now? Sunray (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No. No, there isn't. There isn't any bias in the sources we used for this. The only reason you think there is "bias" in the relevant sources is that User:FpkCascias claims there is "bias" in sources. Which he does because they contradict him directly. Peer reviews say otherwise. And besides, statements can easily be verified by their support in primary sources.

For example:

"On November 20 1944 the Germans intercepted a radio message from Mihailović to Vojvoda ["duke"] Đujić, his commander in northern Dalmatia, instructing him to cooperate with the German forces. He himself, he says, "cannot go along because of public opinion". Microcopy No. T-311, Roll 196, Frame 225. This refusal to have any personal dealings with the enemy is a policy that Mihailović departed from only on five occasions: the Divci conference in mid-November 1941, two conferences with Envoy Neuerbach's representative [Hermann Neubacher, chief envoy of Nazi Germany in the Balkans], Rudolf Stärker, in the autumn of 1944, and again with Stärker on Vučjak Mountain in 1945."
— Tomasevich, The Chetniks (p. 329)

Notice the carefully listed primary source from the OKW archives. And here are the peer reviews:

"This is a magnificent work of superb scholarship. No other book in any language so clearly presents and analyzes the aims and policies of the Axis in occupied Yugoslavia, as well as those of the various collaborators. . . . The need for such a book is greater than ever, as controversies over the past rage in the post-Yugoslav states."
-Ivo Banac, Yale University

"There is plenty of significance in this truly monumental work of scholarship. Tomasevich's exhaustive mining of German and Italian government documents opens a fascinating window on the wartime exploitation of Yugoslavia’s economic and human resources."
-Choice Magazine

"The present work is the long-awaited sequel to [Tomasevich's] equally monumental War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: The Chetniks. . . . War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration aims at an academic audience, but it would be valuable to anyone interested in understanding the Yugoslav past and present. It is a must for any college library and desirable for larger public ones."
-History: Reviews of New Books

"All the distinguishing features Tomasevich showed in writing the first volume are also expressed in this book, which describes how the occupying forces ruled some parts of Yugoslavia, and how their collaborators adapted under such circumstances. . . . This book, together with its predecessor, is an invaluable foundation that no new research into World War II on the territory of former Yugoslavia will be able to bypass. It promises to remain for a long time to come."
-American Historical Review

"War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945 will almost certainly be considered the definitive work on the . . . .controversial topic of occupation and collaboration regimes in wartime Yugoslavia . . . .Tomasevich covered in meticulous and awe-inspiring detail the activities and experiences of those parts of Yugoslavia occupied by or in active collaboration with the various axis regimes during te Second World War . . . .What Tomasevich has done is certainly deserving of our highest praise. This volume, like his first, is an indispensable addition in the library of every serious scholar of Yugoslavia or the Second World War."
-Canadian Slavonic Papers

"The scholarly standard achieved by Jozo Tomasevich in his two volumes of 'War and Revolution in Yugoslavia' and the thought of what he would have made of volume three of the series make his death a tragedy keenly felt even by those who never knew him."
-Klaus Schmider, Royal Military Academy Sandhurst

"There is much to praise about Tomasevich's contribution. His ability to make exhaustive use of the military and diplomatic archives of the major forces involved in this region is no small feat, considering the variety of languages required and the way in which these archives have been dispersed and destroyed. He offers the fullest and most objective account available of the activities of the occupiers and collaborators, together with an extensive account of the economic consequences of the occupation..."
-Eric Gordy, Clark University

"Tomasevich succeeds again, in his final major work, in making solidly supported and reasonable claims in an environment that has long been defined by the instrumentalization and manipulation of historical claims. He restores faith in the enterprise of history by reviving a long-absent figure—the modest professional researcher hard at work."
-Eric Gordy, Clark University

"One cannot fail to be impressed by the remarkable command of research materials demonstrated throughout this study. . . . Tomasevich never shirks the need to tackle honestly the most sensitive and contentious areas of historical debate, and in this respect he has done a particular service to scholarship through his meticulous and balanced attempts to marshal the available evidence concerning Yugoslavia’s losses between 1941 and 1945."
-Slavic Review

But no, lets just assume the source is "biased" because Wikipedia User:FkpCascias claims that it is biased over and over and over again. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems that you assumed that I was referring to a particular source and suggesting it was biased. That was not my intent. I made a general statement that all sources have a bias. We are talking about different things. Your argument is essentially about the reliability of a particular source. In that regard, I believe that your arguments are correct. Bias and reliability are two very different things. Reliability is a policy requirement. Balance is another. Editors must weigh both in deciding which sources to include and their weight in the article. Can we move on to the question on the talk page, now?. Sunray (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well no, I did not assume that. I was just demonstrating how there are unbiased sources, and that they CAN be used to solve this conflict quickly and to the point. The example source is

1) reliable - because it is a scholarly peer-reviewed publication by Stanford University (WP:SOURCES: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science."), and it is very well referenced by primary sources.

2) unbiased. Because not only is there no peer review that even hints at any bias there, but there are many positive peer reviews that actually praise the objectivity of the work.

"Tomasevich succeeds again, in his final major work, in making solidly supported and reasonable claims in an environment that has long been defined by the instrumentalization and manipulation of historical claims. He restores faith in the enterprise of history by reviving a long-absent figure—the modest professional researcher hard at work."
-Eric Gordy, Clark University

This source alone, an intercepted radio communication used as a primary source in a university publication, where Draža mihailović in his own words first orders his subordinate to collaborate, and then explaisn how he needs to keep his own hands clean, should be enough in any reasonable circumstances to end the "debate" right then and there. Especially in light of virtually NO contradicting sources presented by the other side. That however, is not what I think is going to happen over in the mediation.

This was just an example of what I mean when I say that sources should be used to end the main debate. I however, simply do not have the willpower to waste even MORE energy in nonsense debating with football fans that have no understanding of this war. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems evident that I was speaking in general terms and you were talking about a specific set of sources. We were talking about different things. When I realized that, I told you that I agreed with your point and said that I did not think it invalidated what I was saying.

Your response states that you are tired of debating with football fans. I'm unclear how that applies to the mediation. I've asked you if you would agree to a facilitated discussion between you and Fkp with reference to the "Legacy" section. (Note that it could be any other content agreed to by the participants, but there needs to be some content to discuss). I am requesting that you respond with a simple "yes" or "no." If you decide not to proceed with that, I will contact the other participants about how they would like to proceed in wrapping up the mediation (with reference to my note on "Completing mediation"}. So, one last time: Would you be willing to engage in a structured discussion with FkpCascais, facilitated by me? Sunray (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

We are talking about the same thing. As I pointed out several times ("For example"), this is only a specific example I use(d) in our general discussion. You made a general statement that "unfortunately there is almost always bias in sources". I stated I disagree, and listed a specifc example of a source relevant to our issue that is essentially unbiased, and at the same time very significant. Tertiary sources that stick to their secondary sources are not biased, and secondary sources that stick to their primary sources are not biased. There are such sources available to us.

User:FkpCascais is a football (soccer) fan. And spends most of his time on Wiki doing quality edits in such articles. What little he knows about WWII Yugoslavia, however, is not founded on actual sources, but on the deep-rooted beliefs of the general public about their history. The pattern I have seen thus far is 1) Someone lists a source, 2) FkpCascias "denounces" it (he himself denounces a scholar, based on his own claim, outrageous!) with various nonsense claims of "bias" and "selective representation" (a line he picked up from JJG), and we go on "debating". As if the source does not even exist. I mean this kind of stuff is devastating. You don't just ignore it and move on. You accept that you were demonstrably dead wrong.

I found that the mediation has no capacity to solve a situation where User:FkpCascais' simply "refuses" to accept sources, and simply "refuses" to admit he was wrong in his assertion. Over there, world-class scholars completely depend on the "approval" of a (likely teenage) football fan, because the mediation wants us to "agree". Well what if the man simply refuses to agree in perpetuity? Does that mean sources just aren't sources? Facts are not facts? I'm essentially advising you to step in when you see a source like the above, and move the discussion forward by advising the users that this is a reliable source which has succeeded in demonstrating a fact. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I must point out that the quotes you presented, supporting Tomasevich, are not peer reviews. In the publishing trade, they are known as "blurbs." But, I don't want to question the value of Tomasevich as a source.

My comment about bias has to do with the nature of historical narratives. In all of the social sciences there are questions about what and how the researcher choses to study and how that biases the outcome. Many books have been written on the subject and it is way outside the scope of our discussion about this mediation. We will only concern ourselves with policy issues such as verifiable and reliable sources and weight. The issue of acceptance of sources, on the other hand, would be most relevant to our discussion. You have not yet answered my question, so I will pose another: Would you be able to prepare a short (one-paragraph) statement of what you would like to get out of a structured conversation with Fkp and how you would like to proceed? Sunray (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I'm pretty sure I don't have to repeat this, but in your short statement, please stick to content, not the contributor :) Sunray (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing I want to get out of a conversation with Fkp. I don't even want to have a conversation with Fkp. Not because I dislike him (though there is that too), but because there is nothing I could possibly get out of a conversation with Fkp. I cannot change his position, noone can. He's here to defend his Chetniks, and that's what he will do regardless of the sources. That is essentiall the whole entire problem.

Let me repeat:

I found that the mediation has no capacity to solve a situation where User:FkpCascais' simply "refuses" to accept sources, and simply "refuses" to admit he was wrong in his assertion. Sources have absoltely NO EFFECT on the course of the debate. This is why it is standing still - because sources are the only way to solve such disputtes. Over there, world-class scholars completely depend on the "approval" of a (teenage) football fan, because the mediation apparently wants us to "agree". How do you intend to rectify this problem? That is to say, can you rectify this problem in some conceivable way? I've essentially lost faith in such a possibilty in that mediation.

My next step will be to write a detailed, carefully sourced, high quality section on Draža Mihailović's dealings with the Axis. When Fkp removes it, I will post an RfC and will make such a noise so that people might finally notice: "What? He's removin' this? On what grounds? Its sourced.. ??". I am confident Wikipedians are not quite so stupid as to just take someone's word on the alleged bias of acclaimed scholarly publications.

In any case, it cannot be much worse than waiting for someone to say "What? He's opposing this? On what grounds? Its sourced.. ??" over at that mediation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The point of the mediation should be to settle what references will be used and how they will be presented. However, since you are unwilling to enter into a structured discussion, we shall move on. I will approach this another way, and poll the other participants about what they want to do. Sunray (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's all very intersting, however, "the mediation has no capacity to solve a situation where User:FkpCascais simply 'refuses' to accept these same references you are talking about, and simply 'refuses' to admit he was wrong in his assertion(s)". That is exactly why the mediation lasted almost a year instead of two weeks. Whenever we discuss this, Sunray, you simply talk around the critical questions. How do you intend to address this?

If you've decided to actually institute some real changes in how things are done there, then I will return. These are not my "conditions", this is not a "threat", you have to understand I have no reason to think that after all that wasted energy I will not simply waste more. Even now I feel incrdibly stupid to have written all those pages, quoted all those sources, essentially with no effect anywhere.

The ancient mediation is at this stage a "ceasefire" at best and a joke at worst. As I said earlier, as things stand I have no intention at all of abiding by any conclusions drawn in the RfM, regardless of any (essentially unilateral) instant-mix "proclamations" that may be posted in an effort to make it seem a less pointless affair. I am not required to do so, nor could any objective observer possibly blame me, or doubt that a "mediation" that lasts 12 months instead of two weeks has some deep, deep flaws in the thinking behind it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Balkans

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:HOUND

Fainites, are you serious? You'll block me? My edits are being WP:STALKED and I am being provoked here. That is a fact. User:Timbouctou can "deny" it all he wants, but its perfectly obvious from his edits. Not that since the discussion on Talk:Croats was successfully concluded, he has followed my contribs to Talk:Yugoslav Front, Talk:Ante Pavelić, and Talk:Serbs of Croatia, strangely opposing everything I support. A simoultaneous involvement in articles where the discussion was either concluded or was going on for days already. In all instances he has continued to insult me at every opportnity "bullshit", "arrogant", "troll", "psychiatry patient", I mean just look at his posts. This is the very definition of WP:STALK.

I am also asking you to please read through his early posts on Talk:Croats. You will notice I had to put up with his insults and abrsasive behavior from the start.

In his very first recent post there ("Josip Broz Tito" section) he says I'm "blabbering something" in a very abrasive tone [1]. I had not spoken a word to the guy.
I was frankly very much surprised at such a hostile attitude out of the clear blue sky. The tone of the discussion was civil, there was absolutely no bad blood. This is an excerpt from his second post:

"Btw I love the fact how DIREKTOR thinks that his reasoning somehow trumps the consensus gauged by a poll in which 15 editors voted and commented. I love it how he thinks he is the only one who understands wiki policies and I just love it how he loves to be bold, but denies the same right to everyone else. Sure DIREKTOR - the thing you made is a work of genius, all praise to you - but it will be taken down unless you can prove that this article needs images in the infobox at all. Regards. (P.S. - The only reason the whole discussion started last November was over the fact that there were too few women in the picture - and after everything was said and done and after DIREKTOR decided to make this topic his little bitch what we have is one woman out of twelve images - and Savka is not even the woman we voted for - the consensus agreed on Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić, Janica Kostelić and/or Blanka Vlašić. Well done DIREKTOR, you truly are a beacon of democracy around here.)"

In his third post [2], again completely unprovoked I cannot stress that enough, the user calls me 1) "arrogant", he says I'm 2) "blabbering", 3) a "hypocrite", 4) "stubborn", describes a discussion I started as 5) "idiotic", adding "I said it, sue me"
Fourth post: "Until you learn to participate in discussions your edits will be reverted without warning." [3]
Fifth post, "bully", "troll" [4].

This stuff goes on and on.. I invite you to have a quick read and compare personal comments, e.g. "Lol, your arrogance never ceases to amaze me" [5] followed by my post:

"Look you hate me or whatever, and I'm sory for that, but I'm not "arrogant". Did I not tell you just back there that the very reason I introduced this format is its flexibility? If you want to add/remove someone in particular to the infobox it can now actually be done more easily. Do you have any actual changes to propose? Lets discuss. Or do you just "hate me" and want to be insulting and start edit wars?"

Even when I got blocked because of his uncompromising, hostile attitude, I still remained calm for the most part and was good sprited. And then after I agreed to all his proposed changes and implemented them myself, he accused me of "playing dumb" with his Brlić-Mažuranić photo, and the he "expects" to see it included. I kinda lost it after that and told him to please leave me alone after this Talk:Croats affair. Almost INSTANTLY I see his posts on the two other talkpages I am involved at, followed by a third shortly after. Insulting me all the way, and opposing even without any reasonable argument. I should have simply reported his behavior as soon as it started. Now you are about to treat us "equally".. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Croats infobox

By wich order you added photos? Is it by year of birth? Because if so, then Ivo Andrić and Vladimir Prelog should change places.--Wusten fuchs 12:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes date of birth was the idea, but I did not really check. So I got all but one right? Not bad :). As far as I'm concerned, feel free to tumble them around. Just be careful not to touch the space for the non-existent Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić photo or else thou couldst invoke the wrath of User:Timbouctou. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Really scared :) , well, it seams Tito is also older then Andrić, but I fixed it all. Now it's all right.--Wusten fuchs 20:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems you should be scared. :) The man has succeeded where many have failed: he managed to insult my pants off, stalk me all over the project, and then get me essentially blocked for one month for getting upset because of it. [6] --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You got one month? I don't know what his plans were, but to say the truth, he wasn't very fair, neither is he innocent, but what can you do...--Wusten fuchs 21:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI

DIREKTOR - I have made a proposal about you at you ANI complaint about Timbouctou. I have come to the conclusion that your WP:OWN and WP:DISRUPT tendancies have reached unmanageable proportions. It can't go on like this. I am proposing a one month topic ban. Sorry. The topic ban will relate to all yuogoslav/balkan articles, broadly construed. I am entering it on the record at the Arbcom page.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, could you be so kind as to point me to where I can contest this? I assume I shall have to go to ARBCOM? I'm sorry, but the fact that the first posts by User:Timbouctou are, as has been demonstrated, incredibly aggressive and riddled with a plethora of provocations and personal attacks (as opposed to my own) is hard evidence of my having been provoked. His simoultaneous activities on other talkpages are also the very definition of WP:HOUNDING. These facts will not be glossed-over, certainly not if I am to be topic-banned. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes you have to go to Arbcom.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a specific place for the review request? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Here you are. You have a choice. As for ANI, you can continue with you complaint against Timbouctou if you wish. However, as I was about to take this step in any event it seemed appropriate to raise it there. In any event, all complaints by Balkan editors against each other are frequently pretty much ignored. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

We shall see. If this report is ignored I will post it again and try personally contacting a few people I know. One does not "bullshit" others and get away with it. But, on the whole, I do not think it is necessary for you to explain various aspects of Balkans-related Wikipedia editing to me. In fact, I will go as far as to say you should probably topic-ban the vast majority of Balkans editors under these criteria. I just seem to have been rather unfortunate to have met your acquaintance.

With your above post in mind, and considering the fact that the ANI thread in question is about the behavior of another editor and not myself, could you explain why exactly you posted my topic-ban and its elaboration over there? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Fainites..? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I did think about it. My proposed topic ban of you seemed to me to be germaine to the issue. Whilst i would agree that Timbouctou has been pretty blunt, it has been in no way the one sided affair you portray there. As I have said before - I do not know whether you really don't understand quite how offensive you are being or whether this is a front. In the circumstances it seemed appropriate to complete the picture. ANI is not a court of law. It is usual for admins to look into the whole picture and WP:BOOMERANG is a not infrequent result. I am not suggesting that policy applies in your case. I did not make my decision as a consequence of your complaint there. But I did think that admins ought to be aware of the larger picture. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello yourself. A comment on the larger picture (as you see it) has a place there, but that is not what I'm talking about. As for my being "offensive", what I fear you do not quite comprehend is that (in the words of another admin) the Balkans are of Wikipedia is a "rather rough, unfriendly place," and (whatever you may think) more aggressive debating is commonplace. By your standards that you applies to me you might as well block or topic ban FkpCascais right now (not that I would want him blocked), certainly User:Timbouctou (the "bullshit", "idiot", "bitch"-man), to list the few you do know, and just about half of all editors that edit Balkans articles. In this context, I fully reject what I consider your own personal, rash view on my behavior.

I will add that I have been an editor, and a very productive editor, for the past four and a half years. I've had the plesure of making your acquaintance less than a month ago (if I recall correctly). You have displayed an ability to draw very rash judgement, not only about myself, whom you dismissed as "avoiding sources discussion" based on one talkpage encounter at Stepinac, but also about the entire nature of editing in ex-Yugoslavia articles. I frankly found it strange that you would label the entire topic of Wiki, with hundreds of editors, as unporductive by your personal standards, but I can see it fits the general picture very well.

In short, you have not been around the Balkans long enough to gain a good feel of the place. This is not to say I should be excused for behaving inappropriately, but 1) the fact that I was provoked and goaded should be taken into consideration, 2) I was stalked and harrassed, and 3) unlike other users, I do not consider myself to have overtly insulted anyone. In spite of your unexplained denial, I have clearly demonstrated, with diffs, that User:Timbouctou was the one who incited the conflict with overt, unprovoked insults for which he hopes to esape sanction.

Reagrdless of all that, in all objectivity you have quite obviously topic-banned the less offensive of the two conflicting parties. This much can easily be demonstrated with diffs to any impartial observer. Since you have involved yourself in the conflict by sanctioning me, I must ask what you intend to do about the other party? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You wil note that I have not banned or blocked anybody for breach of WP:CIV orWP:NPA. One could indeed block large numbers of Balkan editors under these heads but I am fully aware that editing these pages is not for the sensitive or faint-hearted. I have not blocked people for losing their tempers and using naughty words, nor for accusing each other of various POVs. I have been around since early January 2011. What concerns me is the overall disruptive effect of your editing style and your ownership tendancies. I think your past success in seeing off nationalist vandalism has given you a false understanding of how things work. You may think you have not overtly insulted anyone but in fact virtually the whole tone of your discourse is dismissive, sneering, bullying and owning. If you really cannot see this I suggest you spend some time re-reading the last few months talkpage discussions. You may rest assured however, that I shall also deal with editors who think they can take advantage of your absence to do anything similar.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

So.. you don't sanction people who in addition to an aggressive tone also use overt insults and slander (who provoked conflict), but you do sanction editors because of their aggressive tone (who were provoked into conflict)? And yes, I feel I have shown that it was not me who "started it", as it were. Seems to me almost like I should have been insulting Tim as well. Here's this guy who is not a nationalist, but arrives on Talk:Croats breaching WP:NPA left and right calling me a blabbermouth, my posts idiotic, etc, etc. (you saw the diffs) and yet according to you I'm being overly confrontational because I'm a nationalist vandal "war veteran" getting flashbacks? And why was I insulted? Why the slander? The man had a vote, nothing at all came of it for months, and all I did was dare to fix-up "his" infobox - so I'm the one with the WP:OWN issues?

I know exactly how things work. I didn't arrive yesterday. Admins have noted in the past that I should have been an admin myself by now if I wasn't the guy who "polices the slums", as it were. Like I said, these are the Balkans, and I just had the misfortune of having an admin basically follow me around for a month or so and scrutinizing my editing style in his head. Had half the editors here had such an "honor", they would be sanctioned by you even faster - because you would/could form the same opinion. "Wow, this guy fights whenever he discusses, could this be because these are the Balkans? No, it must be him, because I've been following him and the others I'm not so sure about. And after all, are not three or so discussions sufficient to form an opinion about anyone's editing style?"

You also seem to think that nationalist vandalism is a thing of the past? Not to exaggerate my "importance" or anything, but there'll be quite the party once its known I'm taking a vacation. As User:FkpCascais noted, there is a "We Hate DIREKTOR" Club of folks who would like to push their edits into articles in contradiction with actual facts and sources. Right now, FkpCascias and old Timmy-"Bull***t" are patting each-other on the back for succeding in provoking my famous temper and getting rid of me. And if you think somone can possibly edit here with those kind of people with the kind of kid-gloves you would be satisfied with, you still have not gotten the feel of the place. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this exchange is becoming unproductive. Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Be that as it may, note that word seems to travel rather fast. Already the rather famous 151.95.. IP of the banned User:Ragusino is pushing his personal ideas on the Ethnic cleansing article, on the National Memorial Day of the Exiles and Foibe, and the Foibe killings article, of course, sourced in full by some Italian guy's diary. And all today, for some reason. We can expect to see more of that. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi direktor, listen, honestly I think this is working just fine. This way you do what you most like (policing and patrolling articles) with admins filtering your actions. You say what you want and admins check if they are right or not, and only do the right ones. Hey, this way you seem like some mafioso or something, working behind the scenes... You still need to learn not to directly insult other editors on your talk page, good mafiosos have others doing that instead, and with more charm. You still can edit every other issues around wiki. I have football for exemple, it´s nice to refresh one itself from time to time. Oh, but I forgot, you hate football... Try womans synchronised swimming or Greco-Roman wrestling, oh, the last one better not, you´ll actually find polemics between Grecos and Romans, better stay with syncho. Well, if you came until here, you should know that is time to delete my comment, just remember, don´t be mad at me, after all I didn´t do anything to put you in this situation. Nice synch! FkpCascais (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Should I remind you this? You trolled me troughout my actual dialogue with the admin after even I specifically asked you 3 times not to post comments on my talk page! You can do it as well, just ask me to, at least I´ll respect it. Anyway, I did this comment because I asked you about the Timmy-"Bull***t" that you wrote just up, a total disrespect towards another editor, and you instead of deleting your comment, you delete mine? OK, whatever, have a nice time. FkpCascais (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You know you're always welcome on my talkpage, Fkp. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You do, of course, realize that should you and your friends decide to try and take advantage of my current sanction in order to avoid reaching a consensus on Draža Mihailović and Chetniks article, I will simply return after a month to restore the long-standing version on the disputed sections of text. That is, if you manage to sneak such edits past Fainites in the first place. Opportunist POV-pushing, has not in the past, and will never be a tool to actually enter permanent changes into Wikipedia articles. That is to say, do not assume you will under any circumstances be able to pass your preferred version as any sort of "stable consensus" or what not, this I can tell you a month in advance.

In hopes that you will not waste your energy in the article (and inded much more so on the talkpage) to enter edits you know full well are opposed by sources, I urge you to wait. That is all. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to help the girlfriend practice synchronised swimming. I may yet come to enjoy this "vacation" of sorts.. ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

But why you insist on this? (you already posted this identical comment on my talk page, and now here) Did I ever took advantage when you were blocked? And, what friends? P.S.: Haven´t you abandoned ship? FkpCascais (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I've moved this here because you removed it from your talkpage. As for the mediation, I am now, for one month, not allowed to participate whether I want to or not (to my understanding?), or at least, I can see no logical difference between my being involved in Balkans matters on an article talkpage or on the mediation talkpage?

But to be honest.. I don't really see the point. You and I are never going to agree simply by talking, or editing article sections. The only thing that has ever solved disputes on Wikipedia, one way or the other, were sources. The only way to solve the dispute, and I've told Sunray this, is to enforce WP:V policy. That is to say, we both must accept and follow the statements of the sources. The main two ways to challenge a scholarly (secondary) source, not only in Wikipedia but almost everywhere, have always been 1) negative peer reviews, and 2) contradicting sources. In addition, if a source has its statement supported by primary sources, it supersedes a contradicting statement from a source that does not. This is only logical. And unless this level of common sense finds its way into this discussion, whether by force or editor agreement, the dispute may as well last another 10 years. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to drop in like this and I promise I don't plan to make a habit of it - but you don't seem to understand WP:V and WP:PRIMARY. The statement that "If a source has its statement supported by primary sources, it supersedes a contradicting statement from a source that does not." is dead-wrong. Primary sources are generally considered as less reliable and we are supposed to rely on them with great caution and as little as possible. Secondary sources are the ones which Wikipedia is built on. You also seem never to have heard of WP:UNDUE which supersedes your idea of fact-checking. Primary source could easily be factually wrong and misused for a great many number of reasons and the main criteria for deciding what to include in cases of conflicting secondary sources is not how well one of them fits the likely compromised primary source but how widely accepted each one of their statements are, e.g. WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is not an investigative organization and we are not here to play detectives. So using your logic if you had a German scholarly source published in 1942 saying that "no Jews were ever killed in Germany" and an American journal from 1945 which says "millions were killed" you would check which one is more right by comparing them to a court testimony from a Nazi concentration camp officer who said that "I never saw any Jews killed" and reject the American journal? That's plain crazy. Timbouctou (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I really don't want to participate in this discussion, but there are eyes here, and I would suggest that everyone take care to focus on content issues even here--some accusation above could be construed as personal attacks on editors. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, are we gonna discuss things where they belong, or not? Why you haven´t said nothing on the mediation when Sunray asked? FkpCascais (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais, Sunray said he would poll other editors about proceeding along suggested lines, and so far, Sunray hasn't polled me. I'm sure that Sunray will do so in good time. I'll reiterate, however, since I think you missed my point, so I will be more specific--personal attacks do not belong on WP, and you and Direktor have a long history of contention. Whatever your or his intent, I would suggest that you consider the value in being very careful in characterizations of others involved in these discussions, as one might find oneself misunderstood. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Come on Nuujinn, Sunray has called us long time now at mediation page. Anyway, we could and should really finish it. I think Direktor is missing my entire point about what I want with the article, but I hope you aren´t. I even said to use the separate "Collaboration" section before we even talked about it, remember? I honestly don´t know what the idea behind direktor about participating, or not, is, but he has been making problems instead of saying, lets finish this. Anyway, he played some strange poker with Sunray and I really think he went off limits. Sunray offered himself to facilitate things between us several times, and he allways refused in a childish "either my way, or not!" (say this is PA, but this is what happend in other words). Now, I´m not sure what is gonna happend, and Direktor already said no, and Sunray transmited that on the mediation page, anyway, the decision is not mine. However, I´m basically just there to try to obligate people to find balance between the good things and the bad ones. I´m not there, as direktor says, to glorify him, or anything. Because direktor exaerates, he makes discussions rather difficult, and since you acknolledge perfecrly direktors POV on this, I´ll rather discuss this with you and others, possibly without direktor to do his tricks. I mean, direktor is well capable of shooting his own feet, but that is also not my point, if you actually see what I pretend. We basically have the draft, and we only have some minor details to fix and agree. I would like us at least to agree with Sunray on begining to work on it, I mean, if you want, of course. FkpCascais (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In small I restored part of my comment that direktor unilateraly removed. FkpCascais (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I can't participate now for a month even if I wanted to, can I? The point is that I will particpate (when I may) if I can be assured that the discussion will be based on sources. That is not so say "my sources", but SOURCES (secondary, of course). Why do I (so arrogantly) insist on this? Because the fact that the discussion was never based on sources is the only reason why the mediation is so unproductive. And because far too much effort was essentially wasted because of this.

DIREKTOR: "Here's a source."
Fkp: "Oh I don't agree with that. The published scholar, with excellent peer reviews listing detailed primary references, is lying because I say so."
DIREKTOR: "Here's another source."
Fkp: "You are selectively representing sources (JJG taught me to say that)."
DIREKTOR (annoyed): "Here's another.. oh never mind.."

This kind of drama has not and will not solve anything. The fact that Nuujin wrote an entire article there can only be applauded as excellent editing, but the core conflict still remains. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

First thing, why direktor, why you changed my post? ([7]) I said to Nuujinn as well how I prefer to discuss without you doing your tricks and I said that you could probably shoot your own feet, so even I was undecided on what is better for me (you to participate, or not).

Second, the issue is not you present a source and we don´t biblically repeat the words you present, the issue is the waight and the exact meaning of them, beside their place in the article (lead, section, anywhere?), so it´s not that I´m not accepting sources, as you say, but is you that actually claim the sources say something they actually don´t, and your only interess is to highlight them in the lead, because that is all you see, in a very complex person in a universe of complex events that happend.

I said that you manipulated and selectively used sources rom the beggining (go to owr first discussion and see by yourself). It´s actually nice that you remember us all how JJG also agrees with that. FkpCascais (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Is that so? Well I challenge your statement. I think you are not being truthful. I believe you are just saying that, and that you do not, in fact, accept sources. On Talk:Serbs of Croatia, for example, you never responded to the source:

On November 20 1944 the Germans intercepted a radio message from Mihailović to Vojvoda ["duke"] Đujić, his commander in northern Dalmatia, instructing him to cooperate with the German forces. He himself, he says, "cannot go along because of public opinion". Microcopy No. T-311, Roll 196, Frame 225. This refusal to have any personal dealings with the enemy is a policy that Mihailović departed from only on five occasions: the Divci conference in mid-November 1941, two conferences with Envoy Neuerbach's representative [Hermann Neubacher, chief envoy of Nazi Germany in the Balkans], Rudolf Stärker, in the autumn of 1944, and again with Stärker on Vučjak Mountain in 1945.
Tomasevich, The Chetniks (p. 329)

So, just for example, do you "accept" that Mihailović ordered his subordinate Đujić to collaborate with the German military? I.e. that the Germans have him on record stating this? Or is the published scholar, with excellent peer reviews listing detailed primary references, "lying because you say so". (This is a published secondary source I am quoting, Timbouctou, not a primary one.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I´ll answer to you this (I promise) only if you restore my previous post, as I wrote it, without you selectively removing my words from it, thus changing its sense and what I really meant to say back there (similarly as you actually did with some sources. I´m not refering concretely to this one, don´t warry, this one you´ll have answered) FkpCascais (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You mean that part where you insult me on my own talkpage by commenting that I am likely to "shoot my own feet"? I probably did you a favor by erasing that. Weren't you warned by admins not to post such things just yesterday? Instead of restoring your personal attack I should report you, also to demonstrate (once more) how empty your apologies tend to be.

But you are changing the subject. Again. You do not really have to "answer", as I said numerous, numerous times: when faced with a source you most often simply ignore it. Recently you have done so at Talk:Serbs of Croatia, and, unless reverse psychology grants us a reprieve from this policy, you will do so now as well. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

About the post, well, you are not doing me a favour, and you either remove the entire comment, or ask me to, but you removing the parts you dislike and leaving the others (including half sentences) doesn´t sound right. And btw, you shot your feet already a couple of times, so did I, so it´s not such a drama.

About the source, I still think you´re missing the point of the discussion: the point is what you wanna do with it? There is the difference. And btw, I don´t understand you at all, you rejected talking all this at the mediation ("officially" and with Sunray´s help) but you follow me around with this sources and espect me to discuss them with you? It´s like not wanting to play in the championship, but you wanna play several hard friendlies? FkpCascais (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you wanna play a number of friendlies just to see where are you standing, and if it is worth playing the championship... Come on Direktor, don´t you see I´m provoking you to participate? I don´t want you to afterwords say, well "that´s because I wasn´t there." FkpCascais (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

What would you do with this source? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Use it for the collaboration section. FkpCascais (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The entire article needs to be represented in the lead. How would you represent the collaboration section in the lead? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is something we need to work out, right? To be honest, I still don´t know, but all I know is that "your" lead from the article is not apropriate. FkpCascais (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This is Ramet The Three Yugoslavias (pp. 145-146) [8].

"Both the Chetniks political program and the extent of their collaboration have been amply, even voluminously, documented; it is more than a bit disappointing, thus, that people can still be found who believe that the Chetniks were doing anything besides attempting to realize a vision of an ethnically homogenous Greater Serbian state, which they intended to advance, in the short run, by a policy of collaboration with the Axis forces. The Chetniks collaborated extensively and systematically with the Italian occupation forces until the Italian capitulation in September 1943, and beginning in 1944, portions of teh Chetnik movement of Draža Mihailović collaborated openly with the Germans and Ustaša forces in Serbia and Croatia. Moreover, as already mentioned, the Chetniks loyal to Kosta Pećanac collaborated with the Germans from early in the war. (...) For the Chetniks the war provided an excellent opportunity to put their program into effect, and between autumn 1942 and spring 1943 the Chetniks carried out slaughters of Croatian [and Muslim] civilians in a wave of teror (...) Roatta [General Mario Roatta], commander of the second army, protested these 'massive slaughters' and threatened to cut off Italian supplies and money if Chetnik depradations against noncombatant civilians did not end.."

Would you use the word "collaboration" in the lead? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Jesus Christ Direktor, you still don´t get it. I´m not gonna play friendlies here. No point. And Ramet, yeah, right... :P Btw, every sentence of your Ramet quote can easily be demostrated as nonsence and wrong... Italians feeling sorry for Croats (who they were most disagreing), etc. Is this your n10 Maradona? FkpCascais (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"Play friendlies"? What does that mean? :) So what you are saying is...

User:FkpCascais: "Oh I don't agree with that. The published scholar, with excellent peer reviews listing detailed primary references, is lying because I say so."

This is what I wanted to hear, Fkp, to prove my point. Her statements are, incidentally, IRON-CLAD and supported by primary references. I will add that you have NO sources that contradict Ramet and/or Tomasevich in this, or any other assertion you have challenged, for that matter. I will not enter any discussion where you are allowed to ignore sources and Wikipedia policy in this way. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Basically, and please don´t take me wrong for it, this is all I have to say. FkpCascais (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, ok, I shouldn´t be so hard on you. Try this one, or maybe this. I just hope we don´t finish like this, OK? FkpCascais (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No you're right, this is "the end" of the discussion. I've proven my point. All you do here is ignore sources and contradict them with your esteemed personal opinion. Quite the farce. This is what I mean, and this is what must be solved in the mediation - otherwise it is useless. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah! Seems like time to party! FkpCascais (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

Do you want to take part in the mediation DIREKTOR? You remain a party to the mediation. Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The mediation is to resolve a dispute on Draža Mihailović, a Balkans article. The broadly construed topic ban does not apply? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It would apply unless you are given dispensation to take part in the mediation. Do you want to take part in the mediation?Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said, the mediation lasted for a year now.. And you can see above that discussing with Fkp and his pals might as well last for another five years for all the progress we will make. When a source is quoted to him he responds with nonsense like "Every sentence of your Ramet quote can easily be demostrated as nonsence and wrong... Italians feeling sorry for Croats (who they were most disagreing), etc. Is this your n10 Maradona?". What do I say to this, you tell me? Do I copy paste the source again? I can't do anything more. I must have posted dozens of quotes like the above, wasted hours, days, months of effort - to what end?

I would like Sunray's assurance that the discussion will be based on sources this time. I.e. that sources will not be simply "ignored". I can easily support my position as it is based on scholarly publications. What I cannot do is respond to arguments such as the above. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem Sunray has is he is a mediator not an arbitrator. Mediators endeavour to find agreement between the parties. They can't decide. However, whether to go back into mediation is your choice. You are one of the parties. You can't say "I will only come back on condition.....". Fkps inability to produce sources shouldn't need hours and hours of re-posting. Once is enough. There are other participants though and a draft article I understand.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, I´m sorry, but I´m not gonna discuss, neither seriously respond to direktor, neither present sources, here, neither on any other page, but at mediation. Direktor was the one escaping from mediation for months at beggining, and he is the one escaping now again. And all I can say is that it is his (direktors) version protected in the meantime on the articles, so guess who wins with its lenght? FkpCascais (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

To get back to the point. Do you want to take part in the mediation? Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as how the whole thing depends on Fkp's "good will"... I don't know. What would you do? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

S'not up to me. 'S up to you. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

ha! You're an admin and you said "snot".

Butt seriously, the main issue is what can be done here? I'm sort of like the "extreeeme" and "radical" member of the debate over there, for saying the exact same thing Ramet wrote. Verbatim. Its kind of weird over there. To put it in melodramatic terms, Wikipedia seems powerless to account for a situation where one side simply refuses to accept the sources and continues as though they do not even exist. To put it in cynical terms, noone cares enough to tell Fkp he can not dismiss sources at will (like he did just above, "and Ramet.. yeah right :P"). Seriously, you're the admin, what can be done? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There are others involved aren't there? I thought you were all writing up a draft. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The draft is an excellent piece of work, mostly a product of Nuujin's efforts. However, it is supposed to serve to "create an atmosphere of cooperation", and any points of contention that have anything to do with the issue that actually caused the conflict and is the subject of the mediation - were explicitly to be avoided. The draft will do a lot of good to the article, but it does not and will not solve anything. It all boils down to a simple issue: did Draža Mihailović collaborate, or did he not collaborate. This is the subject of the mediation, and it has not even come close to being setlled. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You've been involved in the mediation for a long time. You ought to know whether you want to carry on or not. All I'm saying is - if that's what you want to do, then I can lift the ban for that sole purpose. I can't advise you on the mediation though. I'm not part of the mediation. I don't mean to be unhelpful but mediation is a good faith enterprise and is not for outsiders to mess with.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes yes I get it you don't want to get involved you just want to know about my involvement.. The Ancient Mediation (yes its Capitalized now) and I are like a married couple. I constantly believe she will change but she disapponits me time and again. Do I file for divorce or give it one more try?

Ok, I will participate. However, a disclaimer (not for you but in general): I will only participate in debating Draža Mihailović's (and the Chetniks') collaboration. I will only post wahta the sources say... again, and demand accordingly that the statement "Draža Mihailović engaged in collaboration" is entered ino the text. I will post what the sources have to say, its all I can do. Fkp will start "dismissing" them, of course, but that kind of nonsense I will not debate. As I said to Sunray above, these are not my "conditions", I am not being arrogant, I am simply sick of wasting my energy. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Better go and talk to Sunray then. All the best. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This is Ramet on p.8: "Draža Mihailović entered into open collaboration with fascist Italy and cooperated with the Germans on certain occaisions as well. Mihailović was quite open about the fact that he regarded the anti-Axis Partisans, rather than the Axis occupation forces, as his principal foe."
All these sources, the above, the ones you've seen, and plenty more, were apparently "insufficient" to support the single statement that "Draža Mihailović collaborated with the Axis". The irony is that they were all listed in the article in support of that statement the day Fkp first arrived and started removing them repeatedly, one year ago. The best case scenario from this mess is that they and the text they support will be restored to the article after a year of "dismissal". In my view, this is extreme disruption, an enormous waste of editor energy highly detrimental to the project, and should be sanctioned as such. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources

Sorry to drop in like this and I promise I don't plan to make a habit of it - but you don't seem to understand WP:V and WP:PRIMARY. The statement that "If a source has its statement supported by primary sources, it supersedes a contradicting statement from a source that does not." is dead-wrong. Primary sources are generally considered as less reliable and we are supposed to rely on them with great caution and as little as possible. Secondary sources are the ones which Wikipedia is built on. You also seem never to have heard of WP:UNDUE which supersedes your idea of fact-checking. Primary source could easily be factually wrong and misused for a great many number of reasons and the main criteria for deciding what to include in cases of conflicting secondary sources is not how well one of them fits the likely compromised primary source but how widely accepted each one of their statements are, e.g. WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is not an investigative organization and we are not here to play detectives. So using your logic if you had a German scholarly source published in 1942 saying that "no Jews were ever killed in Germany" and an American journal from 1945 which says "millions were killed" you would check which one is more right by comparing them to a court testimony from a Nazi concentration camp officer who said that "I never saw any Jews killed" and reject the American journal? That's plain crazy. Timbouctou (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

@Timbouctou, you do not understand Wikipedia policy, nor do you understand how sources function in the real world in general. I have never ever used primary sources as references, nor did I ever suggest that they should be used as such.

Now please read carefully. We are not allowed to use primary sources, that is naturally true, because to base anything upon them is original research. "Original" research is perfectly fine in the real world, of course, but in order for it to be verified, you essentially need to have it published somehwere. Upon publication, the research becomes a secondary source. Secondary sources are the best possible sources, and are naturally based on primary sources, which they have to list as references in the published work. We are ideally supposed to use secondary sources in articles, ideally with their statements properly referenced.

We cannot study and compare primary sources themselves, but we are free to favor one secondary source over another based on whether the statement in question is refernced or not. An unreferenced statement in a secondary source is a statement of (professional) opinion, valuable on its own, but not to be compared with a referenced statement.

I have not stated that we should use primary sources. What I have been saying is that if two secondary sources conflict upon a certain claim, and if one of those secondary sources is directly supported in its claim by a referenced primary source (while the other is not) - then the secondary source with the primary source should be followed in this instance. The unsupported secondary source, which is essentially the author's unsupported opinion, can debateably be mentioned regardless - but with attribution, e.g. "Professor X states this and that", if the author is an acclaimed expert for example. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

A news article you might like

Hello,

Just stumbled upon this article in Vreme, which you will probably like. Since it is an op-ed, it won't qualify as a source; still, I hope it will provide you some enjoyable pastime during your topic ban. I'm a bit inclined to say "I told you so", though it would be severely assholish so I won't. :P No such user (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup, that's it. It's good to see not everyone in Serbia is incapable of picking up a book on this. Around here that is the impression. I mean you could probably fill a swimming pool with sources and primary evidence explaining in no ambiguous terms that Draza was an axis collaborator. Which is the blunt historic fact. I'm basically dealing with folks who grew up (very recently ;) on the myth the author talks about. Indeed, in the words of Sabrina Ramet, it is more than a little disapointing that these folklore-village myths endure in spite of the historiography. In the end though, they'll suffer the Wikifate of creationist bull.

P.S. You do realize you just said "I told you so", right? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't resist a paralipsis. :) No such user (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Serbs of Croatia

Hello DIREKTOR

About Serbs of Croatia infobox, I don't have attention to promote Chetnik, not at all. What I do here is I wish to add persons who are notable, no matter are they Chetniks, Ustaše, Partisans or what ever they can be, or are they convinced criminals or just accused to be criminals, or are they good chaps, I don't care about that, I care only about their notability. I told same thing ther at Croats, any you are familiar with that. As you could see I also added Rade Končar, because I thought he is one of the 8 notable persons for the infobox, but ther was Momčilo Đujić who is more notbale and more mentioned at Google Books and he has more views. This is my oppinion, nobody needs to agree with it. For me, fascist, communist, democrat, all the same (for infobox only ofcourse :D ). And also I need to mention, Đujić is one of the so-called "collaborationist fraction" of the Chetniks, they don't like him... :/ Never mind,

Regards, --Wusten fuchs 17:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's just avoid war criminals then shall we? Apart from that I do support impersonal inclusion criteria. You may also want to note that there was in fact no collaborationist faction in the Chetnik movement. Collaboration is demonstrably a policy of the entire movement as a whole. It is easily demonstrated that dujic collaborated on orders from Draza Mihailovic himself. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

(WP:TALKSTALK) Citing: "Let's just avoid war criminals then shall we? Apart from that I do support impersonal inclusion criteria".::A trouth diamond of POV. You do understand that calling Đujić "war criminal" is the most personalization possible? FkpCascais (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I have already shown that Dujic collaborated with the Axis. He is also responsible for mass ethnic cleansing campaigns in Dalmatia. You, of course, "disagree" with sources. We have nothing to discuss, Fkp, there really isn't anything more I can do than post published scholarly sources. I don't know what more to tell you, and as for me, I am not interested in the opinion of some random Balkans guy on the Internet. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

"Balkans guy", who is that? Now, do you have a source claiming Đujić is a war criminal? FkpCascais (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

We are both random Balkans guys on the Internet. The difference is that I do not push my opinion. I never say anything if I had not previously read about it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. What about the source? FkpCascais (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

War criminal or not... that's not the subject. DIREKTOR, I know ther weren't factions in Chetniks, but that terminology is used by their supporters, you know that. I know basic things about Đujić, he was Dinara Division commander, and his talks about killing all Croats and return os "Serbian lands" an' all, and yes, he was subordinated to D. Mihailović. Well, he isn't a saint, we all know about his doings in 1990s, but still.--Wusten fuchs 00:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As for images, don't worry about quality. You just post whomever you want and I'll fix up and crop the photos, when I can of course. If someone is older than 100 years, you can easily find other quality photos on the net and upload them. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Real Life

Good luck with the finals by the way. From memory, medical students can't wing it like the others do. They have to know it all. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It helps to give up on any dream of having a social life in your twenties.. But hey, who needs their youth right? :D --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, a two-part series by Prof. Tomasevich

I intend to fully expand a number of articles, in particular Battle of the Neretva and relevant sections of Chetniks, Yugoslav Partisans and Draža Mihailović in accordance with these sources as soon as I am able. I will post relevant pieces of text on my talkpage prior to their inclusion in a few weeks. First, though, i think it is necessary to post the reviews. My intention is to establish these publications as first-rate, reliable sources, (in fact the best available) and to use them as the primary basis for future expansion on WWII Yugoslavia articles. Please be careful NOT to post comments in this thread (that means you Fkp), but in the "Discussion" sub-thread.

War and Revolution in Yugoslavia. The two-part series is widely lauded as the best source ever published on the subject of World War II Yugoslavia, and its first volume specifically as the best and notably impartial work available on the Chetnik movement in particular, even decades later.
- Tomasevich, Prof. Jozo (1975). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia 1941-1945, Volume I: the Chetniks. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0804708576
- Tomasevich, Prof. Jozo (2001). War and revolution in Yugoslavia 1941-1945, Volume II: occupation and collaboration. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0804736154

The late Jozo Tomasevich was Professor Emeritus at San Francisco State University. It should be noted that the author emigrated from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to the US under a Rockafeller scholarship in 1938, i.e. that he spent the war in the US and never lived in the post-war socialist Yugoslavia. The author frequently criticizes the Yugoslav authorities for their unscientific treatment of the period, and complains for being denied access to relevant documents in the Yugoslav archives. The books were published in San Francisco, in English. The author unfortunately died before the third volume, The Partisans, was written.

Source

Re Fall Weiss (1943)

There were two operations named "Fall Weiss" ("Case White") during WWII. One was the German invasion of Poland in 1939, the other was the combined Axis offensive against the Yugoslav Partisans conducted in 1943. The second "Fall Weiss" is also known as the "Fourth Enemy Offensive" in some sources, based on Allied Yugoslav terminology. The final phase of this offensive is known universally as the "Battle of the Neretva", after the river Neretva.

excerpts, Volume I: The Chetniks, p.232-233

pp.232-233,

The high point of Chetnik collaboration with the Axis powers was reached during the Battle of the Neretva in the winter of 1943, which was the final phase of Fall Weiss or, in Yugoslav terminology, the Fouth Enemy Offensive. The battle of the Neretva River had a long and complicated background on the Chetnik and Axis side and, for the Chetniks, a fateful aftermath. During the first six months of 1942 the Partisans suffered freat losses... owing to the successful Chetnik subversion of many Partisan detachments and to some serious mistakes of the Communist leaders, especially the so called "left deviation"... At the same time the Chetniks in these areas have been building-up their strength partly by subverting Partisan detachments, and partly by collaborating with the Italians, and in certain areas to some extent with the Croatian quisling forces, and thus indirectly with the Germans.

Since September [1942] they [the Chetniks] had been trying to persuade the Italians to undertake "a large operation" against the Partisans in their domain [western areas of Bosnia] - knowing that unaided they were incapable of defeating them. Vojvoda [Chetnik leader] Trifunović-Birčanin met with General Roatta on September 10 and 21 to urge him to undertake "as soon as possible" a large operation to chase the Partisans from the Prozor-Livno area offering 7,500 Chetniks as aid on the condition they were furnished with the necessary arms and supplies. He was successful in obtaining some arms and promises of action.

Early in October the Italians launched an operation called Alfa... in which about 3,000 Herzegovinian and southeast-Bosnian Chetniks under the leadership of Lt. Colonel Baćović and Vojvoda Jevđević participated. In this operation the town of Prozor and some smaller towns in the same area were taken. But the Chetnik forces, acting on their own, burned villages and carried-out mass killings of the civilian Moslem and Croatian population. Their behavior quite naturally aroused the anger of the Croatian quisling govenment, and teh Italians had to order the Chetniks to withdraw. Some Chetniks were discharged altogether, while others were sent later to northern Dalmatia to aid the forces of Vojvoda Đujić.

excerpts, Volume I: The Chetniks, p.236

p.236,

For the execution of Operation Weiss the Germans employed from the beginning the 717th and 718th divisions, parts of the 714th division, the 7th SS Divison Prinz Eugen, the 187th Infantry Reserve Division, several Croatian quisling brigades, as well as about ninety German and Croatian aircraft, and from February 27 on, the 369th Infantry Division (Croatian Legionnaries). The Italians used the Lombardia, Re, and Sassari divisions from the beginning, as well as about 6,000 Chetnik auxiliaries from Lika and northern Dalmatia. Later they used also parts of the Bergamo, Marche, and Murge divisions. In the final phase, the Battle of the Neretva River, the total number of Chetnik auxiliaries and other Chetnik formations closely working together with the Italians was between 12,000 and 15,000 men.

excerpts, Volume I: The Chetniks, p.239

...Konjic proved to be another matter. This town was jointly held by Italians and Chetniks, and in the course of the battle for its control it was reinforced by some German and Croatian and additional Chetnik troops.

excerpts, Volume I: The Chetniks, p.241

Apparently to make sure that the crucial operation on the Neretva would be carried out successfully, and also to be present at the scene of the kill, Mihailović himself moved from Montenegro to Kalinovik where he joined Ostojić, who had up to this point been in command of operations in Herzegovina. On March 9 Mihailović wrote to Colonel Stanišić:
"I manage the whole operation through Branko [i.e. Ostojić, Mihailović's Chief of Operations]. No action is ordered without my approval. Branko is keeeping me informed of even the smallest details. All his proposals are reviewed, studied, approved or corrected..."
Note 122: But at his trial Mihailović stated that "there the operations were led by Ostojić, because I had no time to occupy myself withthese matters, since I had really come to visit my troops and get acquainted with teh real state of affairs."

Re Partisan contacts with the Axis

excerpt, Volume I: The Chetniks, pp.243-246
I intend to use the following lengthy and detailed account of Partisan negotiations with the Germans to compile a section with the subject for the Yugoslav Front and Yugoslav Partisans articles. The Partisan contacts with Nazi German authorities will be covered in full detail.

The special gambit [on the part of the Partisan Supreme Headquarters] was to engage in negotiations with the Germans on the vital issue of mutual application of the rules of international law of war, primarily in regard to the treatment of prisoners, exchange of some prisoners, and a series of other questions. These "other questions" has still not been completely cleared up. It is a subject that Yugoslav writers avoid, and outside Yugoslavia it has not been satisfactorily covered. A brief discussion here is appropriate in that it bears some relation to the subject of collaboration not only by the Chetniks but also by the Partisans.
Before Operation Weiss bean, the Partisans and the germans had carried on lengthy negotiations and on September 5 and November 17, 1942, had exchanged some prisoners. On November 17 the Partisan representatives delivered a letter directed to General Glaise, the German Plenipotentiary General in Croatia, in which they apparently explained that the Army of National Liberation of Yugoslavia was an independent armed force with military discipline and not an agglomeration of bands, and proposed mutual application of the rules of international law of war, especially in regard to prisoners and wounded, a regular exchange of prisoners, and a sort of armistice between the two sides. Not only Glaise but also Kasche, the German Envoy in Zagreb, and the representatives of the German economic agencies tehre favored this contact and exchange of prisoners as a way of deriving some useful intelligence, and they also wanted a modus vivendi with the Partisans because in the areas tehy had liberated there there were some important mining facilities [boxite mines, I think]... But Hitler and von Ribbentrop were much opposed to any modus vivendi, fearing that any formal agreement with the Partisans would give them the status of a regular belligerent. Their opinion of course prevailed, and the Partisan proposals remained unanswered.
Sometime in late February or early March [note: this is now during the Battle of the River Neretva] the Partisans captured German Major Strecker and about 25 soldiers; they already had about 100 Croatian army personnel and 15 Italian officers and some 600 NCOs and privates as POWs. Since the Partisans were now in extreme peril and desperately needed additional time to effect their crossing of teh Neretva, they decided to use Major Strecker to initiate new negotiations with the Germans. These negotiations took place at Gornji Vakuf on March 11. Teh importance that the Partisans attached to them is indicated by the rank of their delegates: Koča Popović, the commander of the 1st Proletarian Divisiom, Milovan Đilas (posing as "Miloš Marković"), a member of the Supreme Headquarters of the Yugoslav Army of National Liberation and the Polibureau of the CPY [Communist Party of Yugoslavia]; and Dr. Vladimir Velebit (posing as "Dr. Vladimir Petrović"), a Zagreb lawyer, one of Tito's confidants...
[the quite lengthy account of the Partisans' "points" that folows essentially amounts to Point 1. a proposal for their prisoners to be granted a POW status, Point 2. essentially a proposal to institute an exchange of prisoners and, Points 3 and 4, a proposal for an armistice, and Point 5, a statement that both sides would need to ratify their agreements wit their respective high commands.]

...During the negotiations the Partisan delegates made it clear that their proposals did not constitute an offer of capitultion, that the Army of Liberation "would also take up combat against the English, if the latter were to land" - something the Chetniks would not do because they were only waiting for this to happen - and that they had slanted their propaganda toward Moscow only because they did not want to have any relations with London.
[note: as the author points out elsewhere, at this time the UK was extensively supplying and supporting the Chetniks is spite of accurate intelligence depicting the extent of their collaboration, within six months, however, Winston Churchill was to become the loudest advocate for the Partisans' cause among the Allied leaders].
A few days after this meeting, on March 17, Envoy Kasche addressed a report to the [German] Foreign Ministry in which he repeated the Partisan offer and urged the continuation of discussions, and asked for instructions. In the meantime Đilas and Velebit had been brought to Zagreb where they continued negotiations with General Glaise and Kasche's representatives apparently on the entire agenda of the March 11 meeting. Kasche had two additional exchanges with Berlin, in one of which he supported the negotiations and some arrangement with the Partisans on the ground that complete victory over them could not be reached by military and police measures alone and therefore political means should also be used. In the end the instructions from Berlin were in the negative and the discussions with the Partisans on the "other questions" came to nothing. by the end of March, however, a new group of prisoners was exchanged, and later on a program of almost regular exchange was inaugurated.
Since no evidence on the "other questions" has been forthcoming from Yugoslavia, one cannot be certain precisely what motivated Tito in these negotiations. Were they only an excuse to gain time to execute the crossing of teh Neretva, or did the Partisans seriously seek some modus vivendi with the Germans? Had they arrived at a modus vivendi, would this not have knocked out the Partisans' chief propaganda line against the Chetniks - namely that they were collaborating with the enemy? Finally, why has the subject been taboo in Yugoslavia for so many years [22 years at the time :)]? The last question is the easiest to answer: obviously, if the systematically nurtured legend that the Partisans never had dealings with the Axis forces beyond the periodic exchanges of prisoners is to be maintained, there can be no public mention of of incidents from which it appears that the Partisans, like the Chetniks, were prepared in certain periods of time to make arrangements with the enemy if by doing so they could stiffen their fight against their main domestic enemy, the Chetniks.
On the other hand, the record of German-Partisan relations from 1941 to 1945 taken as a whole proves that the Partisans could never have reached with the Germans an arrangement going much beyond the exchange of priosners. It ought therefore to be evident that the attempt of March 11 1943 (if not the one of November 17 1942), to reach some agreement, was made under extreme circumstances when the Partisan main focres, their leadership, and some 4,000 sick and wounded, were facing almost certain and complete destruction, and that it cannot be put in the same category as the systematic and enduring Chetnik collaboration described in this study, although that collaboration was not based on ideological affinity and was not without reservations either.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

"Discussion"? Who you are discussing with? Looks like a monologue to me. FkpCascais (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Not anymore... to me. ;-) Hello both of you. --Biblbroks (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Biblbroks. Long time, no see. No problem on this, it´s just that this matter is under mediation, so all parallel discussions are actually "unofficial"... Direktor is not wanting to participate there any more (at least he said so), but insists in opening alternative debates all over wiki. That is why I said that, but, of course, a blocked user needs to discuss somewhere, so feel free to discuss with him. I already pointed out several times what´s the problem, but direktor ignores it and opens the debate somewhere else. I´ll keep an eye here on my free time to see if some new argument doesn´t pop-up. Best regards Biblbroks! :) FkpCascais (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said (several times) I will return to the mediation once my topic ban has expired. I'm actually on something of a Wikibreak because of my exams, and the tb just adds to the arguments for it. If I can't edit, and my exams are coming up, I'm going to take the opportunity for a break. The ancient mediation will not suffer overmuch if its duration is extended from 53 to 56 weeks.

This is not really a dicussion I am opening here, Fkp. I am merely posting relevant pieces of text from the (quote) "best source available" on this issue, so that folks can read the whole thing when I edit on its basis. Also, I posted this section to blow clean out of the water your demonstrably baseless claims of bias. Now, any admin and user in general can briefly read all available peer reviews of the source in one place (please post more if you can find any, I could not). I posted a "Discussion" subsection mainly for you, since (as we can see above) you feel the irresistible urge to comment on anything I do on my talkpage, and I did not want you posting just anywhere.

Finally, even if I "is not wanting" to participate in the mediation (and I do want to participate), the RfM itself does not actually have the power to "forbid" people from editing the article. Nor can anyone be required to participate therein in any way. As a general statement, be aware that I shall edit as I please on this our "free" encyclopedia, and that you may rest assured my edits shall be completely based on first-rate sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

First, from what I understood, it is not you that want, or not, to participate. Fainites asked you if you wanted, but one thing is you wanting, another is Sunray actually acepting you back after having lost so much time with you. As my secret agents told me, you haven´t even requested returning to it, however, if you do, he may acept you back (or maybe not). Second, yes, I have fun by seing what you do in meantime... and you know me, mi lajk koment, mi smartes. Third, yes, mediation will not actuall forbit people from editing the article, but, it will put some limits and archive some conclusions, and obviously every editing that will go against the agreed there will be considered disruptive, specially by old editors that were aware of it, and will know the outcome. Hey, when Anglisized, shouldn´t Tomašević become Tomashevich instead of Tomasevich? They misspelled the translation... btw... FkpCascais (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again you have no idea what you are talking about. The man's name is Jozo Tomasevich. He anglicized his name when he emigrated to the US at an early age, and lived in the US for the vast majority of his life. The fact that you know how to spell in Serbo-Croatian is not very impressive.

The sad thing is you have no idea about mediation as well. This is not MEDCOM. The mediation is there to solve a dispute between users, it is not here to dictate Wikipedia content. Wikipedia content is, as always, based on sources. And no, people will not be automatically considered "disruptive" or get blocked if they go against what the mediation concludes xD, that is simply your hope and fantasy. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

So, he was Tomasević instead of Tomašević? FkpCascais (talk) 10:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, though I expect the man's name was Tomašević, but instead of "Tomashevich" he anglicized it to (the more simple) "Tomasevich" for some reason when he moved to San Francisco under a Rockafeller scholarship in 1938. Who cares? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Me, just as curiosity. You don´t need to attack me strait away because of it (you know nothing, etc.), we are just talking. We can talk, right? And btw, if you decide to restore your version after mediation, that (if) proves to be POV, that will be considered disruptive. We will weight all sources, we will debate things, and who ever ignores the concluded will be on the bad side. If not, what´s the point of it? FkpCascais (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You will consider it "disruptive", sure. xD But don't worry, the text will not be returned to the original version: by now there is far, far more information on Draža Mihailović's collaboration with the Axis, enough for one HUGE section and lead paragraph.

And, once again, you do not understand what this mediation is. Read policy. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Will see. Good luck! FkpCascais (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I see that the mediation has come down to having to spoonfeed sources these days... :P -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Participation in Mihalovic mediation

Hi Direktor, I'm not sure whether you saw my request here to sign the Groundrules when you wish to return to the mediation. You posted some discussion to the mediation talk page. I have moved it here. I'm happy to discuss the points you raise when you are back in the mediation. Please do not post on the mediation talk page in the meantime. Sunray (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Your recent postings to the mediation talk page

I am archiving your recent messages on the mediation talk page. My reason for this is that I want to offer a clean slate to participants. You have chosen not to participate in the mediation right now and your invective against the mediation is off topic. I am requesting constructive discussion. When you are ready to provide that please contact me on my talk page to request to rejoin the mediation. Sunray (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That is not going to happen, as you know full well. I gave the whole thing one last try against my better judgement. You misquoted WP:UNDUE and (though you did say a lot of things) did not explain yourself in any way relevant to that policy. This much would be blatantly obvious to any objective observer. And since that incident is simply the last in a long, long line of nonsensical "arguments" that avoid following the sources and treating the matter as a factual dispute, it has become abundantly clear there is really nothing more I can add to that farcical year-long grind.

I do not doubt you shall try to bring the matter to a close, effectively forcing through some one-sided "conclusion", primarily in an effort to (inadequately) mask the futility of the entire enterpirse. In any event this will be an empty gesture: you will not have achieved consensus among the main conflicting parties. Also, as I have said numerous times, only sources will determine article content - directly, not filtered by laymen through some sluggish form of twisted demagoguery.

As to the "archiving" of unpleasant pieces of text, I do not recognize your right to "archive" text at will. Your actions (altering other users' talkpage posts) are as you know, a breach of policy. As such I demand once more that you either demonstrate the policy/guideline that empowers you to do so on an RfM, or that you restore the thread where it was posted by other Wikipedians. Should no justification be posted I intend to report the edit. Not least because I hold it was (re)moved for personal reasons. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is much point in me responding to you, since you have not demonstrated (at least not to me) much willingness to read, and take seriously, what I have said in the past. I'm also not sure where you get the impression that I misquoted WP:UNDUE. I used that section of policy to indicate that we (editors) need to consider weight in an article. As I explained previously, we cannot rely on one source exclusively and are charged with the task of using sources so that an article "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." This seems uncontroversial to me and I think you may have misunderstood what I was getting at.

My primary intent was not to archive "unpleasant pieces of text." Once I had determined that you were no longer a participant in the mediation, I archived some off-topic posts by you. I would be happy to restore statements by you that pertain to the mediation, where appropriate. For example you made a presentation on Tomasevich that I intend to discuss with other participants to ensure that they give due weight to War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, which (as I have said) I consider to be an important source for the former Yugoslavia.

As to your opinions about the mediation. These are clearly off-topic. You are entitled to your opinions and participants who are interested in them can consult the Archive, as I have made clear on the mediation talk page. You are welcome to find the right forum for them. The mediation talk page is not it. As mediator, I am responsible for determining whether discussion is productive in dealing with the "issues to be mediated." I don't find your opinions about the mediation process relevant. Sunray (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The policy is called "undue weight". In order for you to explain your position to me you merely have to answer the question: what other sources are there that directly "counterbalance" the weight of Tomasevich, that might hypothetically justify you quoting WP:UNDUE (as opposed to misquoting). And yes, the "weight" of this one source alone is perfectly suffcient with no sources against it ("counterbalancing" it), indeed I dare say most facts on Wikipedia are sourced by one single source. This is without even discussing the fact that the publication is hailed by critics as probably the best source of any available.

Undue weight is correctly quoted when an exceptional point of view, in contradiction with the vast majority of publications, is being given inappropriate attention. To quote WP:UNDUE against a source that represents, not the minority point of view, not even the major point of view, but the only point of view in scholarly literature - is a phenomenon that implies much about this affair.

I have NOT suggested, however (and I'm repeating myself in this for the fifth time), that we use "one source". In fact in the very post you "archived" some time ago I posted another, and yet another high quality source (e.g. Ramet) in perfect agreement with Tomasevich, and indeed even more eplicit than he. In fact I must have posted over a dozen different sources to that same effect over the past 15 months - with no contradicting sources on the other side. Which is why I say: this should have been concluded after 15 days instead of 15 months.

I refer to your tampering with other user's posts. I must request that you point out exactly where in Wikipedia policy or guidelines I may find a sentence that you interepret as allowing you to do so. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to what I have previously said. Sunray (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

@"As mediator, I am responsible for determining whether discussion is productive in dealing with the "issues to be mediated." I don't find your opinions about the mediation process relevant."

Tampering with or posts by other users is usually strictly forbidden, as we all know. You claim that as the mediator you are allowed to tamper with (move) user posts in the mediation that you personally judge to be "unproductive". Very well, I admit it's possible, but please allow me the right of not taking your word for it. Where can I find that clarified in Wikipedia policy? Note that this is another simple, very justified question. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Complete Topic Ban

This post is completely unacceptable. You were invited to take part in the ongoing mediation despite your topic ban and declined to do so. Your posts have already been removed by the mediator from the mediation talkpage since then. Nevertheless you have yet again posted on the page, being offensive to a participant with whom you do not agree and generally writing in an aggressive and owning tone. I am now placing you under a complete topic ban until the expiry of your ban. This means you may not discuss Balkans related articles/topics at all on wikipedia.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This is too much. I have not insulted anyone and I refuse to be under such rigorous, arbitrary scrutiny. To say to someone he/she is not knowledgable in some obscure Balkans subject is NOT a personal affront. I will not be subjected to special standards and sanctioned for no reason whatosoever, such as using an "owning tone" (whatever that is). I never insult anyone blatantly, I am a dilligent contributor, but I am simply not a "polite" person. I will not be forced to adhere to your own personal standards of conduct, this is admin abuse. If the post..

"You do not understand the history of the country and are not equipped to write about it. This you have blatantly demonstrated on several occasions. What knowlege you do posess was acquired through bias-tinged spectacles. Consequently you may expect my full attention in any of your edits."

..warrants sanctions in the form of a "full topic ban", then you should get to work blocking and banning virtually every single editor on the Balkans articles, and beyond, from this minute onward. And you can probably start with User:Jean-Jacques Georges, one of the most impolite and abrasive characters this side of Talk:Kosovo, who has attacked me regularly and repeatedly in every encounter. You continuosly suffer from a lack of background information. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

maj deseti

I'd like to wish you a happy May 10th. On this day in 1893 the US supreme court ruled that the Tomato is a vegetable. (LAz17 (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)).

'tis a glorious day indeed! --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

They was a givin' me some lip tonight, at this place, The Wieners Circle (LAz17 (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)). Could you make a page called the Brotherhood and Unity Relay [18] - can you find more info on it? I can't, and figured that you might have some sources that I don't. :( (LAz17 (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)).

Hi

Hi DIREKTOR! When are you returning back to Wiki? --Kebeta (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure yet, depends on a lot of things (unrelated to Wiki). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You forgot one thing

Secularism is NOT a bad thing, even Catholics should objectively accept this (but then they should also "objectively" accept that there is no more evidence that God exists than there is for Jupiter, or Set, or this Amazing Invisible Pink Elephant standing right behind me :). Tito could've massacred every single christian in Yugoslavia, removing religious indoctri...er education from state-run schools would still be a good thing. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

zaboravio si spomenuti kada si govorio o 'religious indoctrination', da se u jugi predavao (čitaj indoktrinirao) sat marksizma pogledaj se u ogledalo kada tako voliš srati po svojim katoličkim korijenima kao da si još u pubertetu... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.80.103 (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not a communist or marxist, far from it in fact - communism is nonsense. I do not defend any kind of indoctrination. I just think Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks and Montenegrins should live in the same country. Now please leave troll. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Useless debates all over

Direktor, you refused to engage in a overviewed debate over Chetniks and Mihailovic issues at the Mediation where this two precise subjects are mediated. I am a mediation participant, and I wan´t engage in parallel discussions all over wp over this with non mediation participants. My previous experience tells me that it is uselles to debate issues where people clearly have objectives and goals and where they don´t have a neutral approach. I will only accept discussing this issues (for 50th time) if there is going to be an overview of the debate and if participants agree to accept the outcome (as in mediation). Otherwise, I wan´t fall into the tramp again of discussing with people that don´t change their rethoric whatever presented to them. The articles will be replaced soon, and will follow the outcome of the mediation, so you can choose what you prefer to do in the meantime. PS: The behavior of yours is being disruptive again. Beside all agressiveness against me, you flood all my discussions making them impossible for any third party to follow or to be included. You are doing this purpously so your version stays protected. I can conclude that I am being ganged-up, and that all my attempts of discussion are being blocked by your flooding of same already discussed texts. You failed to archive your point at the mediation, so now you´re trying to archive it by force in talk pages. However, it is interesting to see how you slightly change your rethoric by acknolledging certain facts now, however, you don´t change any concrete editing style, despite having already been prooved as wrong and biased at mediation itself. FkpCascais (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not change my "rhetoric" at any point, I've always acknowledged Mihailović was at his core anti-German, but simply wanted to get rid of the Partisans. And I also always knew exactly how much anti-Axis activity the Chetniks did.

I've also had it with the RfM, which recently once again proved its complete uselessness while I was away from Wiki. As I stated several times, the absurd RfM does not have the "power" to freeze the article and prevent editing, nor the authority to enforce its position. The article has already been already completely altered and massacred regardless of the mediation - and towards your POV I might add. Now I shall start editing, if you do not wish to contest my edits, I certainly have no problem with that. Rest assured: even if the RfM actually ends in our lifetime, I will not accept its useless one-sided "findings" - and I will not be required to do so in any way. The mediation will not help your position in any way, and is the single most disgusting and useless period we've both spent on Wiki.

Fkp, we've known each-other for a long time. I'm not a bad guy, and neither are you. I don't "hate" you or think you are inherently "evil", and I know you don't think I am either. You certainly won't believe me, and I expect you'll laugh, but according to Mensa I do actually have a genius-level IQ :D. As such, believe me, give-up on the mediation and finish the main issue with me: the issue of the Mihailović collaboration paragraph in the lead. We can find some sort of middle ground in two days' discussion and END THIS ONCE AND FOR ALL. I am NOT "plotting" against you, I just want to END THIS! I have a life, studies, and work, I want to conslude the last major issue on Balkans' Wiki. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, whatever our level of IQ is, we do need to have a supervision of the discussion and someone enforcing the decitions afterwords. For instance, I have an extremely low IQ, however, it is just about enough (lucky me!) to know that any tedious long discussion between us would not result in anything. You have your strong POV, and I actually don´t have much of a POV on this, but I am sure your POV is wrong, so the starting point is already condemned. I´ll think of some possible solution and let you know, ok? Otherwise, I do intend to get this trough mediation, so... why not there? FkpCascais (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"Enforce the decision afterwards"? As I said, the RfM does not have the "power" to enforce its decisions. As for "supervision", the only thing Sunray did was doing was changing the subject and going away from the main issue. What is this about? This is about collabration in the lead of the article. And if we can figure out how to present in the lead what the sources say in an acceptable manner we would finish the dispute!

Furthermore, even if you do not completely approve of my point, you must see I am obviously not inventing this stuff! Draža himself siad he was commanding the Chetniks in the German Fall Weiss attack, he himself ordered Đujić to "cooperate", etc. - he did do these things. The fact that he also fought the axis is a seperate matter. Should we ignore all of this? Forget it? WP:LEAD explicity demands that it be mentioned in the lead as well. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello DIREKTOR,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 02:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)

More of same

Despite the fact that you often failed to notify me in the distant and recent past (when I find myself with time, I´ll actually count the times you did that, just for evidence), I allways notified you of every single complain I did about you, and they were many. Here → [19]. FkpCascais (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Josip Broz Tito

I received your message and have made a request to the user. Could you point me towards the place where this source was previously discussed? Thanks, JodyB_talk 13:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ugh.. it was quite a while ago. The author was being edit-warred over I think by (the now banned) User:AP1929 (a user named, incidentally, after the Balkans fascist dictator Ante Pavelić and the year of the formation of his party). AlasdairGreen27 pointed out that the author, Tomislav Sunić, is a neo-fascist associate of the KKK and David Duke and essentially blew him out of the water as any kind of credible source simply by mentioning his reviews. There is really no question that the author is very far from anything like a scholarly, reliable source. If it is really necessary to find the old thread, I've gotta ask: is there an efficient way to search the archves of Talk:Josip Broz Tito, I really don't feel like rummaging through it all :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any idea of when, maybe within a two or three month period? I'd love to have the discussion if possible. JodyB_talk 15:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've done some searching and will try to do more later. No luck yet. JodyB_talk 15:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say about a year ago or older. I know because AP1929 threatened to sue me for calling Sunić a "Nazi fuck" :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This is probably what you're looking for (took me approx. 2 minutes to find it). For the record, I think Sunic's opinion could be included in the article, as long as the opinion is preceded or followed with a description of who he is, thus indicating the relevance of it. According to Google Books he published articles for the Institute for Historical Review, which says a lot. Timbouctou (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that is probably it. My suggestion is to bring to the talk page again in this context. If it is included it must not be given undue weight in the article. My preference would be to exclude it altogether because his views are so outside the mainstream. Nevertheless some may insist. It should certainly be very minor. JodyB_talk 17:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sticking to content, not the contributor

On the Draža Mihailović talk page, you made this post. Calling another user a "POV-pusher of the most obvious sort..." is not in keeping with WP:NPA. Would you be able to remove or modify the statement now, please? Sunray (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Why certainly, Sunray. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Sunray (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

RE

I know only you are a genius according to Mensa IQ!--Tiblocco (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

note

Hi, so you can respond - if one is required. ANI thread - regards. Off2riorob (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Tampering with photos

Hello, please revert your edits to the following images:

These files should not have been adjusted from their previous versions, which were more or less the originals. Please stop adjusting an original. The originals (or once-touched originals) were just fine, and the changing of tone distorts the original prints that we have and is akin to revising history. Thanks.Hoops gza (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I get your point, but, "revising history"? The change is barely visible.. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The Himmler one at least is an official portrait, if not both. I'm sure that the lighting and tone were meant to be in the given ways, which may be obsolete by modern photographic standards, but was the desired way of the time. So yes, it is akin to revising history. The change is quite noticeable to me, particularly in the Himmler photo. I did not have to view the edit history to tell that they were altered. So please do me the service of reverting your edits.Hoops gza (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your edits. If you alter photographs of some of the most notable people in history without first discussing it again, I will report you.Hoops gza (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Who are you going to report him to? The Retouching Police? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

oh noes! not the RP! My revisionist plans have been foiled! Now everyone will know the truth: Hitler's face was slightly less bright..

The tone repairs are so barely visible I can only stand in awe at the powers of perception displayed here. Even though all I did was add lighting that was lost to distance by the primitive flash used at that time, actually enhancing the fidelity of the photo. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hoops acts as if these photos were taken with a digital camera. As far as I know, there were very few digital cameras around in Hitler's time. Probably none, in fact. My guess would be they were taken with a film camera or possibly even a camera that used "plates", and then were digitally scanned much later. So they were already "altered" by the scanning process. However, if you take an existing image that someone else uploaded, and tinker with it, it's best to upload it under a different name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

We might want to codify that--I know I don't watch images directly, and changing the image under the same name won't trigger an entry into a watchlist for the articles in which the image loads. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit I'd feel pretty stupid uploading a 99.9% identical image.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's also good to keep in mind that the previous images are also kept in the history. And I don't think this happens often enough to warrant codifying it. But I would have uploaded under a different version if I had downloade it and ~~messed with~~ improved it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point about the history. Yes, IME disk is cheap enough that storing everything is cheaper than sorting it out, so I just keep everything. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Bleiburg

Why do you insist upon "lethal agenda"? Is there anything wrong with just "agenda"? Does the word "lethal" honestly add something new when you read the full sentence? Is there anything wrong with course of action which is exactly what it was? Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I second Evlekis' comment. The sentence reads like something out of a propagandist newsreel ("The Axis-appointed Ustaše government in Zagreb headed the Nazi puppet state the Independent State of Croatia and had its own lethal agenda for Serbs, Jews, Roma and anti-fascist Croats.") One can easily imagine an enthusiastic narrator reading these words in a film theatre some time in the late 1940s, perhaps adding in descriptions such as "bloodthirsty" or "criminal". Notice the inflation of unnecessary adjectives - "Axis-appointed" government headed the "Nazi puppet state" (as opposed to other non-Nazi puppet states?) and had a "lethal agenda" (as opposed to non-lethal ones?). Moreover, it is simply unnecessary as the very next section talks about Jasenovac and about atrocities committed by the Ustaše. As if the reader would not otherwise realise that concentration camps have a tendency to be lethal for most of its occupants. Such redundancy should be avoided. Timbouctou (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I would remove "Axis-appointed" and replace "own leathal agenda" with "state policy of genocide". That much is undeniably factual and can be easily sourced (e.g. Budak's statements). Its strong wording, but how else does one describe a policy of wholesale massacre of hundreds of thousands of people? The rest I'd leave pretty much as is. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I favour anything you suggest as long as it takes the punch out of the comment, the whole reason I removed the original piece about Germany being horrified was to neutralise the facts. I can't help but to infer that this comment was more an affectation than actual information: the victor states of WWII including the German post-Hitler governments paint a bleak picture of the 1933-45 Germany and for this "wicked regime to find its own self shocked by how bad others can be" can only play into the hands of those whose position was to attack the Axis in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I am not an apologist for the Axis and my own relatives mainly fought as Partizans. I just say - as Timboucout mentioned - that adjectives for all logical reasons need to be used sparingly on Wikipedia just as in any decent, reliable and worthy report. In the first place they expand sections when not offering new information, in the second, they often present a POV on the part of the editor. Our job here is to present the facts and in as few words as possible. Every one of us has our own political ideas and preferences, governments we support or oppose, etc. but when reporting facts, even from bitter wars, we need to be tactful and concentrate on what it was that took place. The reader can make his own mind up. This was the purpose of my editing, it was never to produce mitigating circumstances for the perpetrator. Evlekis (Евлекис) 10:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Lummee...

Have you seen the first entry for "On this day..." on the main page today? Batten down the hatches...! LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I dare to hope the POV-pushers on that subject have been sufficiently "beaten-down" by this point.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Concern

On the Draza Mihailovic talk page, you recently made the following statement: "It is not for you to decide whether the term is too vague or whether it applies to the events in question."[20] I've made no decision. I did make a suggestion, and asked some questions, which, in my role as moderator, I deemed would best focus the discussion. I asked for evidence of war crimes. If you wish to make some sort of counter argument, please be sure to present evidence and sources. Sunray (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sunray, you're playing word games. You did not "decide" anything, you suggested that we have the right to decide whether a term is accurate or not for a set of historical events. We do not. If the sources use the term "ethnic cleansing" then there is no reason to falsely represent them. And I am not sure when the participants agreed on you serving as "moderator" there. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR it was raised as a perfectly legitimate subject for discussion and you have no more right to make decisions than Sunray, nor imply that sources would be "falsly" represented. Please just concentrate on producing sources rather than having a go at Sunray. Those involved in the mediation seem perfectly willing for Sunray to help moderate the page so some progress can be made and your continued sniping at Sunray is merely disruptive.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, all I have been doing here is producing sources. Only to see the discussion proceed as if nothing was produced, time and again. I am not "having a go" at anyone, I am simply saying that we should use the terms that the sources use. That is all. I did not mean to imply anything on a personal level. What I meant was that we all of us as Wikipedians should not presume to decide which term is correct or well defined enough for any set of events. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Beyond this particular issue, I am concerned that you seem to be challenging everything that I do or say on the article talk page. If you wish to challenge anything that another participant, or I, say, please bear in mind that your opinion is not enough. According to the terms of discussion, you must also support what you are saying with evidence (sources). Sunray (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I am fully aware that our opinions are of no relevance and frankly I am puzzled as to why you feel the need to point that out to me, particularly since I am the one who kept repeating that for months and months. Indeed, even in this particular issue, I am defending our adherence to sources.

I assure you, the impression I am opposing some of your propositions because they're yours is purely subjective and quite inaccurate. Note for example, that I agreed to your proposed plan of action. I have only two policies, and given the huge length of this issue I am quite passionate about them: 1) I oppose any and all propositions that delay the resolution of the central user edit dispute, in other words, I wish to avoid the transfer of the mistakes of the mediation to the talkpage; and 2) I support strict adherence to the sources (another policy that may help us avoid the inane babble of the mediation). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. I am relieved to hear you say that you are not counter-suggestible to me. I agree that you were an early advocate of focusing on sources and I have always agreed with you on that. I wish to point out that your statement of "mistakes of the mediation" is your own, entirely subjective, view. I do not share it, nor do others (including neutral observers) who have looked at the mediation. So let's move on. Sunray (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR you are still making personal remarks and conducting personalised discussions on the talkpage and here. I know you think I am picking on you -but I am trying to save you from yourself! I don't wish to patronise you but please read your posts before you click "save" and ask yourself- is this a post dealing only with content, or is this a post which either; a) makes personal remarks about another editor, b) impliedly or directly criticises another editor, or c) makes underlying assumptions about another editors motives/intelligence/behaviour etc etc. Take a look at PRODUCER. He appears to have similar views to yours on the substance but manages to be an effective and forceful editor in a difficult area without getting involved in these personalised exchanges. Take a look above. You may think the mediation was inane babble but it must be obvious to you by now that other people don't take that view. That's life. Different people see things differently. But the point is - by saying "inane babble", you are implying that everybody except you is an inane babbler. It concerns me that you don't seem to have any idea how habitually offensive you are and the propensity this has for sending discussions of the rails. Fortunately the current editors are no shrinking violets but this sort of thing does clutter up the page. A perfectly straightforward issue raised about the term "ethnic cleansing" need only have resulted in a brief setting out of views and a bunch of sources which everybody could then look at. Instead it is in danger of becoming another TLDR bad tempered mess of the sort which discourages other editors, before everybody has even finished hunting down their sources.Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, I just read the the New Terms of Discussion. Do you think it's right that, after we painstakingly agreed on the terms, another set turns up containing such ideas as a post number limit, which have been explicitly opposed?

I don't see why saying "inane babble of the mediation" should exempt me from the same criticism? It does not. Is it possible you're attributing more aggression to my posts than is due? Knowing that the sources use a term, I opposed it's exclusion on the basis of what amounts to personal, article-specific standards of one user. Apart from pointing out repeatedly that such conclusions for this specific historical case constitute one's own WP:OR, I did not make a single personal comment. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anybody else saw Sunray as excluding anything - merely raising a concern and a source to support that concern. It worries me that you can't see that your reponses thereafter are in fact both inappropriately aggressive and personal whereas the appropriate response was to produce relevent sources - as others have done. Everybody has been very clear that assertions should be supported by reference to sources in order to avoid well-trodden arguments. Personally I think the use of the term "ethnic-cleansing" is an interesting point. It always sounds euphemistic to me - as if perpetrators of genocide were denying responsibility for what happens to people after they bundle them off into oblivion. However - I can also see it's use where people are rounded up and shovelled over borders rather than exterminated in various ways. The issue however is whether it is an established term in scholarly works describing the activities of various groups in the Balkans in WWII. Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sunray did unquestionably propose we exclude a term on the basis of those concerns that he raised. That much is just plain obvious. It is also in my view quite obvious that I did not make specific claims of any sort, but merely supported the use of whatever term the sources might use. Or in your own words, I support the use of the established term in scholarly works describing these activities of various groups in WWII Yugoslavia. Why would I need sources for that? Do I need sources that support my position of following the sources? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Government of Nedić's National Salvation of Serbia

OK, let's talk. What's going on? You cannot just revert, man, you have been blocked numerous times in the past because of that. Lets talk openly. Please, respond here, i will check the page every day.

I see it like this.

You participated in the talk, and you do know that we agreed that country's name was Serbia, as article's name now is Nedić's Serbia. Nevertheless, you created map with the name that is pov. OK, its your POV, no problems. But then you added your map in 7 articles, without anyone's agreement. When we asked sources for that, you presented nothing! Neither one. When we revert, you reverted several times, while your argument is "The fact is, I know quite a lot about this subject, certainly more than the two of you good fellows." You should also know that the "fact" : "I know more then you" means less then nothing on wikipedia. And now this. You presented map that was not agreed, you asked no one about it, and you just reverted it, without anyone's agreement. Unless you explain me something that i apparently don't know, it looks like to me that you are not editing in the right way. Please, lets talk, as i really eagerly want to understand what is going on here. :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 21:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you want to talk WhiteWriter :), I will explain myself but please bear with me. I'm sure PANONIAN must have told you all sorts of stuff about me, but the fact is that various Croatian/Ustaše POV-pushers have been trying to say for years that Serbia and Croatia were both Nazi puppets during WWII ("Serbs were Nazi collaborators too!"). Imagine my surprise when Serbian people arrived and started proudly defending the idea that the Nazi puppet government established in Serbia - was "Serbia" in itself :P.

Fact is, to discuss this complex issue one needs a thorough understanding of the extremely complex WWII Yugoslav history. According to the American Historical Association, and many other peer reviews of very high repute, the (quote) "best source" on this period is Jozo Tomasevich, and I reccomend you have a read through Chapter 5 (p.175) of his book Occupation and Collaboration that deals specifically with various collaborationist administrations established in our country.

What a political map has to show is the actual official name of a state. That is to say, not the most common name, as might be required for an article title, not the name used most frequently in sources, but the official name of the state (with the possible exception of any prefixes such as "Republic of France" = "France", though a serious political map includes even thouse). That is something PANONIAN seems unable or purposely unwilling to understand/acknowledge: he continuously lists sources which refer to Serbia as a geographic region, in the same way Bosnia or Slovenia or Macedonia are referred to very frequesntly in the WWII context.

The actual facts on the ground (and anyone who has read a book on WWII Yugoslavia knows this already), is that the geographic territory of Serbia was partitioned and carved-up, parts were occupied by Hungary, parts by Italian Albania, parts by Bulgaria, parts by the Nazi-puppet NDH, and the rest was kept under direct German military administration. In order to more easily manage the civil aspects of their occupation zone in Serbia, the German military established, first the Aćimović, and then the Nedić government.

The Government of National Salvation did NOT administer a country named "Serbia", no country was established by that name during WWII, it was an occupation zone administered by the German military, with a civil government installed.

Since this is already turning into a long boring post, let me get to the gist of it: you good fellas need sources which state, clear as day, that the official name of this political entity, administered by the German military, with a civil government in existence also, - was Serbia. Sometimes the term Serbia is used colloquially for the state, sometimes "Serbia" simply means the geographic area of Serbia (and then includes Hungarian, NDH, and other occupation zones), but I am talking about the official name. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand you. Please, be patient, i cannot respond you now, as i have some Rl obligations. Thanks for understanding. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 20:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It's meee! :) Sorry, i had some obligations.. Well, thanks, now i do understand you. The thing is this. Yes, you are right, i really agree that no country was established by the name Serbia during WWII. But, there was one de facto entity, Militärverwaltung in Serbien. In disambiguation, here, we can see the names of other Military Administration during those time. None is called by its government. I therefor proposed something on talk page, abd you are welcome to participate, and at the end, all of us will agree. :) Thanks for your honesty, and not worry, i dont listen anyone. PANONIAN didn't even talked to me, so dont worry. I know you from before! :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 15:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Mare nostrum

This article, the merger of which you were involved in, has been re-constituted here. There is currently a new merger discussion here; your comments are invited. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

of utmost importance

Bro, I feel their pain. [21] Howabout you?? (LAz17 (talk) 05:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)).

I thought you might find it funny. No? :( LAz17 (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC).

Over limit posts

You have exceeded the limit of three posts per day, as agreed in the Terms of Discussion for the Draža Mihailović talk page. Please refrain from further discussion for today. Sunray (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not agree to the editing restriction, Sunray. You instituted it without regard to my having stated my objections. As I have already stated, I have absolutely no intention of limiting myself to three posts a day for no good reason. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You did agree on June 19 here. Even if you are rescinding your agreement, it was still a valid consensus decision. Consensus is not necessarily unanimity. You will be expected to abide by this decision. Sunray (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I agreed to the rules nuujin originally proposed, which did not contain a post limit (see above the post you quoted). When he re-posted them in the thread you cite, I had not noticed he added the limit, and repeated that I agree. I would never agree to anything of the sort as it slows down discussion.

You may rest assured that I will not limit my number of posts at any time or under any circumstances. It will simply never happen. If you have any sanctions in mind, you may as well implement them now. I would like to see the verbal acrobatics required to justify sanctions against a user for not following your own mini-policies. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You agreed in this discussion. The same discussion where you also said the only issue was collaboration in the lead. Perhaps if you didn't make so many argumentative posts you would have a better memory of previous statements. Everybody else has moved on, on the basis it was agreed. Your constant filibustering in becoming increasingly disruptive. Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

To that end, let us stop talking about this. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Both limitations were in Nujinn's original proposal,contrary to your assertion. You expressed you agreement twice. Here towards the bottom. Then you agree again here in this discussion just below. The same discussion where you also said the only issue was collaboration in the lead. Perhaps if you didn't make so many argumentative posts you would have a better memory of previous statements. Everybody else has moved on, on the basis it was agreed. Your constant filibustering in becoming increasingly disruptive. It is not acceptable to argue for pages and pages against proposed discussion rules, agree them,and then a week later re-start the same argument. A straight question. Do you agree to abide by those terms of discussion? Yes or no? Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing more to add. I will not limit myself to three posts, the rest of the pointless "rules" I will abide by. I did not notice the limitation, and I apologize for the inconsistency. I shall not write another post on any subject apart from the dispute itself. I am sick and tired of the one and the same people consistently ruining this exeedingly simple and straightforward discussion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I shall hold you to your statement above that I shall not write another post on any subject apart from the dispute itself.. That is what the rules were trying to achieve. Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That's all I am trying to achieve myself. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hooray!Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

sjdfljsglhsjkfhghjflajfldshgslkajg

Sretan ti dan borca buraz! LAz17 (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

WP Croatia in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Croatia for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires
Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack

Nuujinn has requested that you remove recent personal attacks.

I am concerned about the tone of this post (third paragraph), and this, which I regard as a personal attack directed at Nuujinn. You also state: "And should you proceed with it regardless I reserve the right to list all historians I can find that make no mention of Karchmar's theories." This kind of threat is contrary to our terms of discussion and both it and the attack demonstrably violate WP:ARBMAC. Consider this a warning. I suggest that you remove the paragraph in question, apologize to Nuujinn and move on. The discussion had been proceeding well until this, I hope that you will continue in a more positive and constructive vein. Sunray (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed these remarks as I regard them as a violation of the Terms of Discussion (#3 & #6). Sunray (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Director. You have new messages at WhiteWriter's talk page.
Message added 15:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Director. You have new messages at WhiteWriter's talk page.
Message added 15:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Director. You have new messages at WhiteWriter's talk page.
Message added 16:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Warning

I view your continued dispute of use of Karchmar as a source here, despite requests by other editors and myself to support your claims, and my subsequent request to cease the discussion, as disruptive and a violation of WP:ARBMAC. Consider this a warning. If you believe I am mistaken and wish to continue with this assertion about Karchmar, you may, in accordance with the "terms of discussion" (#6) on the talk page, present your case at WP:RSN. Sunray (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite simply, I am not disputing the use of Karchmar as a source - and that is blatantly obvious from every single one of my posts.

Sunray, your liberal interpretation of what constitutes "disruption" may not be shared by other people. Especially since it now apparently extends to discussing, on a Wikipedia talkpage, the possibility of attributing an author to a disputed theory. With that in mind, Sunray, a question (and please do not be evasive): does a mediator require the consent of the discussion participants to assume that role? Or can an admin simply arrive at a talkpage and proclaim himself the mediator (after 15 months of previous mediation on the same issue without resolution of any sort)? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I note that you are continuing to discuss Karchmar, despite my request to cease. You are also continuing to side track the discussion by going on about "arguments from ignorance" (which you have repeated three times). You have exceeded the three posts per day limit (Terms of Discussion). Please stop now. No more posts today. When you come back, please find another topic besides Karchmar. Stick to content. Sunray (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I was not going to write any more posts today Sunray, but I suggest you seriously reevaluate whether you have the authority to forbid users to discuss this or that (content-related) subject on Wikipedia talkpages, under threats of sanctions no less. ARBMAC does not stretch so far. I think you are taking this mediator thing too far and too personally.

The current discussion is on the best way to include a particular claim by Karchmar which is disputed in other sources. I shall not stop discussing this on your "orders", as you are not authorized to give any, even were you recognized in your role as self-proclaimed "mediator". And you are not. I find your most recent threats and orders, completely detached from any Wikipedia policy, quite assuming and offensive indeed. I have not done anything. And you may rest assured I will not take any sanction sitting down. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR everybody - including you - agreed to a set of rules about discussions in order to avoid the long, unsourced, pointless and repetitive arguments that characterize these Balkans articles. (The new draft was not unlocked until this was done). You made a series of extreme, unsourced statements about the reliability of a source (Karchmar) for which, despite repeated requests, you have failed to provide any supporting evidence. The ensuing "discussion" took up pages and pages of text and included you repeatedly ignoring requests for sources and making offensive personal remarks about other editors which impugned their integrity and basic understanding. Other editors have wasted time and effort hunting evidence relevant to these supposedly well known views on Karchmar. The net result is that you do not appear to stand by those rather extreme claims. Why were they made? Why have we all had to waste this time and effort on this? Your method of laying down the law in repetitive, patronising and aggressive statements in which you claim you are backed by sources which you then fail to produce (a procedure you are also currently following on the Nedic's Serbia naming issue) is not acceptable and isn't going to work any more. That is why the discussion on the Mihailovic page is taking place under agreed rules and that is why people keep reminding you of ARBMAC sanctions. Please start taking these issues seriously if you wish to continue editing articles on this topic.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, you simply did not bother to read my posts in any detail. And neither did Sunray, considering the fact that he thought I was lobbying for Karchmar's removal. I made it clear, continuously and repeatedly, that my position is NOT to exclude Karchmar, and that my request to have this particular claim of his attributed to him in the text is based on objective data from peer review and other sources - not my own opinion. The fact that he's known in general as a pro-Chetnik source, is something I wanted to let all of you know. But I am an educated person, Fainites, and I certainly don't expect anyone to take my word or his "reputation" as a reason to disregard him as a source. If you want confirmation of Karchmar's reputation, here's a response to Wikipedia's Draža Mihailović article from the Srebrenica genocide blog. He does have that reputation, and I wanted to inform other participants of it - I did not and do not consider that grounds for his removal.

As for the above, I am not disputing the rules themselves, I don't know why you're going on about that. I do, however, refuse flat out to stop discussing the best way to address the disagreement between Karchmar and other sources. Sunray quite unambiguously "ordered" me to stop discussing any subject related to Karchmar on pain of sanctions - for no good reason and without any connection to either Wiki policy or The Ground Rules - on grounds that he will consider such discussion as "disruptive". How can you defend that, honestly? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR I think you need to read your posts in detail. Your explanation here does not hold water. The most important rule is that pertaining to sources. Please make an effort to avoid factual statements that are unsourced. It's a huge waste of everybody's time and efforts. Please also avoid insulting editors who dare to disagree with you. It won't wash. Enough.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh for.. I did not insult anyone. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR we have had this discussion before where other people see insults where you claim there are none. Has it occured to you that you might be missing something? I thought characterising Nuujiins position as "teaching the controversy" insulting - largely because that was obviously nonsense. Also - the PA that Sunray removed where you accused Nuujinn of "bias" and hand-picking Tomasevich and then you linked the word "logic" to argument from ignorance. There is a pattern of making extreme allegedly factual claims, denigrating sources produced by others and then personalising the discussion when asked to back up your assertions. This isn't about breaches of WP:CIV or all that stuff. It's about disruption by derailing discussions. Another recent example is when Pannonian produced 4 perfectly straightforward sources referring to a puppet (or similar) state to then be repeatedly accused by you of "quote fishing" and "quote mining". Had he referenced a bunch of nationalist blogs you would have had a point. You cannot simply attack and bully off everyone who disagrees with you as if they were all nationalist SPI's or IPs. People are using serious sources and their arguments deserve serious consideration. Aside from which, your general tone is extremely patronising.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, regarding your comment about my "authority" as a moderator: Mediators and moderators have limited authority over participants. They can make observations and they can make requests--both of which I have done frequently in your case. As to sanctioning someone with ARBMAC: That wouldn't be the role of a moderator (which is not to say that the appropriate authority won't do that). Sunray (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, I have been around for a while. I was referring to your authority as an admin, i.e. whether you as an admin have the authority to forbid the discussion of a particular topic - under threat of declaring it "disruptive". I am also more than aware of a moderators very limited, shall we say "powers", a fact that might lend context to my stance in several issues. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I try to call them as I see them. I'm not infallible in that, but I do work at it. Sunray (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read my posts, Sunray. I may be annoying and abrasive (granted), but I'm not all that unreasonable and I generally do base my position on something verifiable or other. It doesn't make me feel good when the both of you just assume these sort of things. Only Nuujinn understands me.. :D --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I do read your posts (and you will note that I do address issues raised by you in my responses). I often wonder if you read and think about what others are saying to you, though. I note that you frequently repeat yourself. Is that not simply the restatement of a point of view? You don't need to answer, but I do suggest that you think about it. A different approach would be to address what others are saying in response to you (rather than merely restating your point). Sunray (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-productive remarks

In recent discussions at Talk:Draža_Mihailović/ethnic_conflict_drafts, participants have been making comments on the two proposals. In several cases, when another participant has made a comment that is contrary to your point of view, you make dismissive or disparaging remarks about them (examples [22], [23], [24]). This approach is unproductive and, frankly, unlikely to convince anyone to your case. Would you please cease from making such personal comments? Sunray (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Sunray, but I'm a grown boy and I am capable of judging the "productiveness" of my own posts. You calling for a "vote" is the silliest thing I've seen yet: even if this were some sort of popularity contest, everyone (including you) knows in advance what each user will say. I was merely pointing that out. Similarly, if I were to notify some Bosniak users of what's going on as opposed to Serbian or of Serbian descent, I can also tell you in advance what they will say. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, just a remark. I am not sure about the nationality of BoDu, but I know for sure JJG is not Serbian neither Serbian descent, JJG is just a WWII passionate. Resumingly, only I am Serb. However, you and PRODUCER are Croats, so I don´t see how you claim some "ethnic" inferiority for your case. Where are those Serbs that you claim that have been opposing you? FkpCascais (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Direktor: My only further observation is that you take no responsibility for your behaviour. That is, IMHO, unfortunate. Sunray (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

ARBMAC

DIREKTOR this has gone on too long. Your recent activities on Draza Mihailovic (including the draft page), Serbia under German occupation and Chetniks can no longer be tolerated. I am imposing a topic ban on all Balkans articles and talkpages, broadly construed, under ARBMAC. This is for WP:DISRUPT, WP:TEND, WP:OWN and WP:POV. There are also constant breaches of WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Thse latter two alone are not the prime reason for this action although your constant scornful, insulting and arrogant mode of discourse undoubtedly contributes to the disruptive effect.

Primarily the behaviours consist of;

making extreme assertions about other editors sources yet repeatedly failing to support these assertions. (Recent examples, Karchmar, Serbia under German occupation. Older example on Stepinac).
making extreme and definite statements, argued and repeated at great length, whilst failing to provide supporting sources despite repeated requests. (Recent example, Serbia as puppet or rump state.)
repeatedly misrepresenting other editors positions and then arguing at great, disruptive, TLDR length against straw man positions. (recent example, Panonian. Older example, FkpCascais and collaboration).
attacking and insulting other editors who ask for explanations of your dismissal of sources, sources or call into question your activities or edits.(Recent example, Panonians map, Serbia under german occupation).
assuming and claiming that any editors who disagree with you either simply do not understand your point (which is then repeatedly "explained") or are deliberately misinterpreting sources or otherwise acting in bad faith.
claiming that other editors are only editing in accordance with their ethnicity, even when that ethnicity is neither apparent or known.(Recent example, Mihailovic conflict drafts issue).
Aggressive reverting to enforce your POV, plus threats to revert - report - if other editors disgaree with your edits.
Misrepresentation of sources and sourcing issues, frequently followed by aggressive and insulting posts if your version is not accepted (Recent examples, Panonians map, Cohen on Chetniks, Karchmar)
arguing the same issues over and over again, regardless of consensus or the lack of any further source or information.

You have often been asked to strike remarks insulting or impugning the integrity of other editors but rarely do so, refusing to accept that such remarks could ever be a personal attack. Another example of an entirely ad hominem approach is on the Serbia under German occupation page. This tendency to relentlessly pursue an ad hominem approach when challenged sours and derails discussions and is extremely disruptive. You are now, on the Mihailovic draft page resorting to accusing another editor of "deliberate misrepresentation" over the interpretation of a source and implying that all other editors involved prefer another editors draft to yours because they are all Serbs.

DIREKTOR, you simply do not seem to be able to cope with disagreement or challenge in any way. Apart from the rare recent example over the meaning of "puppet state", (kudos for that) your normal modus operandi is to assume that any one who disagrees with you is either too stupid to understand, and they then becomes the subject of repeated scornful and patronising explanations, or has an ulterior motive and is presumably acting in bad faith. If neither of these approaches convinces everybody you become aggressive and threatening and edit war. Many attempts have been made to discuss these issues with you to little or no effect. In the circumstances, your continuing to edit in this difficult area has become untenable until such time as you can demonstrate an understanding of collaborative editing.

I am therefore imposing a topic ban on all Balkans articles and talkpages, broadly construed, for 6 months. No doubt you will wish to appeal this which you may do to me, the administrators noticeboard or ArbMac, as before.Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You are personally involved in this discussion and are blocking me because I still oppose the position of you and your friends there, never mind the eloquent, fake excuses above. Not to mention that you personally dislike me (by your own admission) and would like to get rid of me. And I hope you will note give me any of that "oh I'm a mediator there". You're not. I'm sick and tired of being hounded by you on every issue of every discussion I get into, Fainites, and I won't stand for this. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Bozidar Puric left.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bozidar Puric left.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan
Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Mate Boban

Hello DIREKTOR, sorry for bothering you. I was just thinking that you might know some good literature about Mate Boban and his misdeeds during the Bosnian War, especially crimes, I need this.

Enjoy your vacation. --Wusten fuchs 00:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I solved the problem now... --Wusten fuchs 20:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Result of your arbitration enforcement appeal

Your topic ban under ARBMAC is lifted per the result of this AE thread. I recommend caution since the finding is only procedural based on who issued the ban. The question of whether your behavior violates the guidance in the WP:ARBMAC decision is still outstanding and can be reconsidered if anyone files a new AE request. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yugoslavs

Hello DIREKTOR, are you an administrator? Some days ago I created the articles Yugoslavs in Croatia, Yugoslavs in Serbia, Yugoslavs in Montenegro and currently there is a discussion going on on the talk page of Yugoslavs in Croatia. I invite you to contribute with your opinion. All the best Habel (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

PPIUB

Pozdrav Direktore, - oprostite sto nisam mogao naci bolji nacin da vas kontaktiram, pa samo ukratko da vas obavjestim da je u toku formiranje grupe intelektualaca, koja ima za cilj okupljanje svih jugoslavenski orijentiranih pojedinaca - intelektualaca sa ciljem rada na ponovnog povezivanja Jugoslavenskih naroda i moguce uspostave nove jugoslavenske integracije. Za sve ostale informacije, molio bih vas da se obratite na email: yugoslavpro@gmail.com gdje ce vas uputiti za sve detalje ove grupe. Pozdrav; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.147.64 (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Battle of France

Hello DIREKTOR!

Thank you for showing goodwill to contribute to the article Battle of France. Another discussion about the lead image is on-going and we would appreciate if you give us your point of view about a proposition of collage including the current photo and three others. You can read the thread here.

Best regards. Mouloud47 (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Pa dobro bre, čovek, zašto me maltretitraš?

Možeš li mi objasniti zašto ponovo zamenjuješ moje mape kad sam se na prepravljenim verzijama potrudio da koristim boje i opise slične tvojim? Znači izašao sam ti u susret, a ti namerno radiš to što radiš samo da mi napakostiš. Ako smo imali nesuglasica oko sadržaja jednog članka, to ne znači da treba da sprovodiš ličnu kampanju protiv mene i protiv mog rada. Možemo li lepo raspraviti ovde pitanje tih mapa? Šta još smatraš spornim na mojim verzijama mapa? PANONIAN 07:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ma čekaj, ko koga maltretira? Sjećaš se kad sam ti se iz dna duše izvinio zbog modificiranja tvoje slike i pozvao te da se dogovorimo i nekako spojimo mape? Ti si me tako otpuvao da to nije istina. I šta sad ja mogu? Meni se NAJISKRENIJE čini da ti imaš nešto protiv mene. Zar nisam ja stavio one dvoje mape na sve one članke? Pa ste mi ih ti i WhiteWriter zamijenili vašom verzijom? Zar nije onaj čovjek stavio moju mapu u infobox NDH članka, da bi ja sada vidio da si ti napravio jednu specijalno da makneš moju?

U svakom slučaju, drago mi je da hoćeš da pričaš o ovome pa da riješimo ovo jednom za svagda - do sada mi je izgledalo da ti nisi uopće za ikakav razgovor o ovome. Nemogu ostati ovako dvije grupe slika.

Sad, nemoj ovo gledat kao da ja tebi govorim šta "nevalja" u "tvojim" mapama a šta je "dobro" u "mojim" - to su tvoje mape čovječe! Nego gledaj kao prijedloge za poboljšati mape i općenito Wikipediju

Evo, meni se objektivno čini da nam ne trebaju kazala na mapi: sve se može opisati na samoj mapi ili u opisu slike. Bez kazala, i bez okvira u samoj mapi (koji se podupla kad ga stavimo kao thumbnail u članku), mape zauzimaju puno manje mjesta i vide se bolje u članku, te izgledaju elegantnije.
Igleda mi kao da je ovaj font sa Photoshopa CS5 koji sam koristio bolje kvalitete jer ima anti-aliasing.
Šta se tiče boja.. pa tu je stvarno sve stvar subjektivnog dojma i nema "bolje" i "lošije". Zbog toga sam ja sam išao za tim da koristim nacionalne boje za države, a za okupirane teritorije blijeđu boju države čija vojska vlada tim teritorijem. Tako se i bolje vidi kako su Italija i Njemačka u stvari podijelile našu državu uzduž na dva dijela, pogotovo sada kada si genijalno dodao demarkacionu liniju. Osim toga meni nekako izgleda bolje kada su ostale države u bijeloj boji jer tako se slažu sa okružjem kada ih se stavi u članak.

Daj mi ti molimte reci u čemu ti vidiš problem sa mojim preinakama, koje sam, kunem se, napravio u dobroj vjeri. Radio sam zaista mnogo prezentacija do sad, i dobio sam dojam da estetika stvarno puno znači: ako se mapa svidi ljudima više će je pronositi po drugim projektima i člancima. U to vrijeme si ti imao tu jednu mapu i mi smo bili gadno posvađani pa sam znao da nećeš nikada pustiti da ja stavim svoje preinake preko tvoga originala: na kraju je ispalo kao da ja tebi želim "ukrasti" mapu, a samo sam je htio poboljšati koliko mogu.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Pre svega, ne postoje "tvoje mape" ovde. Ako ti zaista nacrtaš sopstvene mape na potpuno praznom lejeru u fotošopu neću se uopšte buniti da ih staviš u članke umesto mojih. Ono što me stvarno iritira jeste to što ti moje mape zamenjuješ prepravljenim verzijama mojih mapa i time pokazuješ totalno nepoštovanje prema meni kao autoru i prema mom radu. Ne razumem kako možeš nešto što si prepravio od tuđe slike smatrati "svojom" slikom? Kao što vidiš, nisam uopšte vratio u članke moje originalne mape, već sam verzije koje je ubacio WhiteWriter prepravio da budu neka vrsta kompromisa (a kompromis znači da ne možemo i ti i ja baš sve što hoćemo da implementiramo tamo). Znači, koristio sam neke tvoje boje i opise, ali sam zadržao legendu (jer je ona bitna za ljude koji mapu skinu u svoj računar) i okvir (jer ga stavljam na sve svoje mape i to je nešto što daje identitet mom radu), a i font koji koristim je standard za sve moje mape. U svakom slučaju, sada ispada da mojim verzijama mapa prigovaraš samo zbog estetike a ne zbog sadržaja? OK, da li postoji onda neka mogućnost da napravimo neki kompromis i da podelimo u kom ćemo članku koristiti koju mapu? Recimo da moje verzije mapa stoje u člancima "Serbia under German occupation" i "Kingdom of Yugoslavia", a tvoje u člancima "Independent State of Croatia", "Invasion of Yugoslavia" i "Yugoslav Front". Mislim da je ovo fer predlog sa 3:2 u tvoju korist. Slažeš se? PANONIAN 09:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

(Izvini šta nisam odgovorio do sad, posao.) Ok u redu ne postoje "moje mape", dobro, kako sam ih trebao nazvati bez da te na neki način uvredim? Rekao sam ti da sam ove mape napravio kako bi TVOJU mapu poboljšao, ali smo bili posvađani i činilo mi se da nećeš htjeti razgovarati. Već sam se dva puta izvinio, koliko još trebam puta da prestanemo sa svađanjem? PANONIAN, nisam tako "bezobrazan" kao šta misliš da jesam, stvarno samo hoću poboljšat proklete slike da izgledaju šta bolje u člancima.

Vidi, ok, tvoj prijedlog je u redu, i prihvaćam, ali ja bih razriješio ove nesuglasice tako da više nemamo dva odvojena seta mapa - to meni nema smisla. To su iste mape. Šta se tiče okvira i legende, ja mislim da su nepotrebni za korištenje u člancima. Okvir, jer imamo dupli okvir, a legenda nije potrebna niti ljudima koji skinu na svoj kompjuter - jer ionako gotovo SVE piše na samoj mapi, čak i status Banata. Sad vidi, ako ti hoćeš okvir i legendu za ljude koji skinu to na kompjuter - u redu, ajmo napraviti dvije verzije, jednu za doma, jednu koja bolje izgleda na članku? Ipak prvo moramo gledat kako članak izgleda ja mislim? Jedino oko čega se možemo neslagati su boje, a to su totalne gluposti.

Pa da, uglavnom estetika. Radio sam na tim mapama prvenstveno da bi bolje izgledale. Iako ima i jedan sadržajni problem: natpisi na teritorijama su malo neprecizniji na "tvojim" mapama (više neznam kako da ih zovem bez da te uvredim, sve su tvoje). Govorim o natpisu "Serbia (under German military administration)", na koji smo se dogovorili, i na teritorije anektirane albaniji: "Annexed to Albania (Italian protectorate)", spominje to da je albanija bila protektorat Italije, a to je bio i status tih teritorija. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Vidi, možeš zvati mape kako hoćeš, nije u tome poenta. Ja pojam autorstva shvatam ozbiljno i sve mape radim na potpuno praznom lejeru, odnosno napravim mapu od ničega. Znači, niti prepravljam tuđe mape niti volim da mape koje sam ja radio neko prepravlja. Ako ti promeniš moju mapu na način sa kojim se ja ne slažem to je kao da si mi uzeo tanjir supe, pljunuo u njega i onda mi ga vratio da jedem. Ja svoje mape uvek sam prepravim ukoliko mi neko ukaže da na njima postoji neka greška u vezi sadržaja. Što se estetike tiče, to je već subjektivno pitanje - ja smatram da sam na mojim mapama postigao dobar estetski kvalitet i glupo je da se u fajlu menja boja svaki put kada neko pomisli da bi drugačije boje bile "bolje". Nemoj misliti da sutra neće doći drugi korisnik da menja boju na onim fajlovima na ostavi na kojima si je ti menjao. U svakom slučaju, ti smatraš da su tvoje verzije tih mapa estetski bolje, a ja smatram da su bolje moje verzije i oko toga se nikad nećemo složiti. Po meni postoje samo dva moguća rešenja ovoga, a to je ili da u nekim člancima koristimo moje verzije mapa a u nekim tvoje ili da u svim člancima budu obe verzije (a svakako mislim da je prvo rešenje bolje). Dakle, smatram da je okvir mape estetski bolje rešenje i da je legenda potrebna, a što se tiče toga kako mapa izgleda u thumbnail verziji, to je po meni potpuno nebitno, jer čitaoci moraju na tu mapu kliknuti bar dva puta da bi je dobili u punoj veličini - thumbnail je samo link do mape i ništa više. Što se tiče naziva, mi smo se dogovorili o nazivu članka "Serbia under German occcupation" a ne "Serbia under German military administration", što znači da moje verzije mapa tačnije reflektuju dogovoreni naziv članka. Što se tiče Albanije, status Albanije je bolje opisati samo na prostoru Albanije - ne vidim zašto bismo ga opisivali i kod anektiranih teritorija, jer tako može da izgleda da su te teritorije bile neki zasebni protektorati anektirani od Albanije a ne delovi protektorata Albanija. PANONIAN 16:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ali zašto se ne bi dogovorili i spojili mape? Ok tebi se sviđa jedna boja, meni druga - ajmo naći treću pa spojiti mape? (Neće se to puno mijenjati ne brini, nema puno luđaka perfekcionista kao šta sam ja :P)

Legenda. Da, korisnik mora ionako kliknuti da bi vidio i natpise i legendu - ali legenda najvećim dijelom samo ponavlja ono šta ionako piše u natpisisma. Nije potrebna, objektivno. Na mapama se legenda koristi za one stvari koje ne pišu u samoj mapi. Ima nekih sitnica tu još kao što je značenje razlike u boji granica, ali stvarno, pa i budala vidi da su ovo unutrašnje a ono vanjske granice jer je sve van naše države u drugoj boji.
Okvir. Ok to je sada stvar kako slika izgleda u thumbnailu, istina, ali ako se slažemo (nadam se) da u članku nije potreban dupli okvir, to možemo lako riješiti tako da imamo jednu verziju mape sa okvirom i jednu bez, takvih mapa ima koliko hoćeš.
Natpisi. Kažem, koristio sam anti-aliasing za svoje natpise pa mi se čini da bolje izgledaju. Zašto ne koristiti anti-aliasing?
- Ja se jako dobro sijećam da smo rekli "Serbia (under German military administration)", gdje si našao da smo rekli "Serbia (under German occupation)"?? Pa to je bilo i prije.
- Šta se tiče Albanije, gledaj: ako već imamo natpis posebno za teritorije anektirane Albaniji, zašto ne bi tu jednostavno rekli da su te teritorije bile (kao i Crna Gora) protektorat Italije?

P.S. Šta kažeš da mi pustiš da modificiram tvoju mapu za NDH infobox, pa da izbrišem moju? Ja ću tu malo pročačkati a ti reci šta ti se ne sviđa kod mojih promijena. Hajdemo tu prvo probati naći neki kompromis i spojiti mape. Evo vidi: before, after. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Vidi, ne želim da spajam mape, jer ako neko drugi promeni nešto u mojim mapama to više ne smatram svojim radom i uopšte me više ne zanima kako će to izgledati. Ako smo se dogovorili da podelimo u kom će članku stojati koja mapa, onda nema više razloga da pričamo šta se kome od nas na kojoj mapi ne sviđa - a imao bih i ja da prigovorim mnogo estetici tvojih verzija mapa. Znači, preuređuj svoje verzije mapa kako god želiš, to me uopšte ne zanima, ali ostavi moje verzije u ona dva članka i gotova priča. I ne slažem se da menjaš moju mapu NDH - možeš slobodno koristiti svoju u tom članku i kao što rekoh uopšte me ne zanima kako će ona izgledati. PANONIAN 19:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Kažem ti da bismo se zajedno dogovorili o bojama i detaljima.. Koja kombinacija, tvrdoglavi Srbin i umišljeni Hrvat, kao iz priče.. :)

U svakom slučaju ima još ona stvar sa Serbia under German occupation člankom. Ne slažem se da stoji mapa koja koristi natpis na koji se nismo dogovorili. Nemogu pristat na "Serbia". Hoćeš se mijenjati Invasion of Yugoslavia za taj članak? Daj da budemo gotovi sa tom trakavicom.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Neću da "menjam" članke jer mi je članak o Srbiji koja je uključivala deo Vojvodine izuzetno važan sa stanovišta regionalne istorije. Da li ja tebi diram članke o Dalmaciji i pišem da Dalmacija nije bila deo Hrvatske? Odgovor je ne. Zato te molim da se i ti ne ponašaš tako. PANONIAN 19:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ma šta ima veze odakle smo?? Radimo na enciklopediji, meni bi bilo vrlo drago kada bi ti radio na člancima o Dalmaciji, ne smatram ih svojim vlasništvom (uostalom sve je to naša Juga :D). Nemoj misliti da mi nije drago šta konačno razgovaramo kao ljudi, ali nemogu da pristanem na mapu koja ne koristi natpis na koji smo se dogovorili. Shvati, previše sam vremena i truda potrošio na rejšavanje to pitanja. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Pa problem je što ti "radiš" na člancima vezanim za Vojvodinu sa negativnog aspekta. Ako ne prestaneš sa propagiranjem ideje da ta teritorija nije bila Srbija potrošićemo obojica još više vremena na to pitanje. Hoćeš li mi konačno reći zašto to radiš kad i sam znaš da nije istina to što zagovaraš. PANONIAN 19:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ma kakvi, šta ti je?! Šta ja imam protiv Srbije ili Vojvodine, dapače!? Meni se čini da TI radiš sa negativnog aspekta, majke mi. Jasno mi je da se to tebi tako ne čini, i stvarno ne razumijem tvoj način razmišljanja u ovom pitanju, ali zaista vjeruj mi da bi više očekivao od nekog našeg hercegovačkog ustaše da propagira (faktički netočnu!) ideju o marionetskoj "Srbiji" sa namjerom da izjednači krivnju. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ne radi se tu ni o kavoj "krivnji". Osetljiv sam na pitanja kada neko negira političku pripadnost Vojvodine (ili njenih delova) Srbiji a ovde se upravo o tome radi. Svi izvori koje sam video govore da je postojala teritorija sa nazivom Srbija koja je uključivala Banat i minimum kompromisa koji mogu prihvatiti je da se to reflektuje u članku. A da li će Srbija biti opisana kao država ili okupirana teritorija je potpuno nebitno. PANONIAN 20:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

MOLIM?? JA da negiram političku pripadnost Vojvodine Srbiji? Ja koji sam, da prostiš, krv propišao na Talk:Kosovo da se ne negira politička pripadnost Kosova Srbiji! A kamoli Vojvodine! Ma nema ovo veze sa pripadnošću Vojvodine, i naravno da je Banat bio dio teritorija i spadao pod autoritet Nedićeve vlade. Ako hoćeš možemo to eksplicite naglasiti u članku.

Ta teritorija, Panonac, ta njemačka okupaciona zona, je imala formalno ime Militärverwaltung in Serbien, a neformalno su je zvali "Srbija" ("Serbien"). Unutar te teritorije, pod paskom njemačke vlasti i u njenom sklopu, funkcionirala je Nedićeva mala nemoćna vlada. To je cijela priča. Nije mi ni na kraj pameti sugerirati da dio Vojvodine, tj. Banat, nije nekako spadao u sklop Militärverwaltung in Serbien. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Pa i sa tvojim "propišavanjem krvi" na Talk:Kosovo se baš ne bih složio jer dobro znam da je nezavisno Kosovo uslov za mir u regionu, a ti sad tu zagovaraš da Srbi i Albanci treba opet da ratuju ili šta već. Što se tiče formalnog imena Srbije, odakle ti ideja da je formalno ime teritorije bilo Militärverwaltung in Serbien? Dakle koji izvor tvrdi da je to bilo ime teritorije a ne samo ime vojne vlasti na teritoriji pod nazivom Srbija? PANONIAN 20:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Naravno da NE. Jao prestani "assume bad faith". Da, slažem se da je nezavisno Kosovo uvijet za mir, ali nije nezavisno bez formalnog pristanka Srbije samo zato šta to kažu Amerikanci. I ne, ne želim da ratujete protiv Albanaca (niti bi uopće mogli bez da vas NATO sastavi sa zemljom).

Tražiš nemoguće dokaze. Dokaži ti meni da "Amerika" nije samo ime za državu nego i za "sam teritorij". To je takav isti zahtjev; nijedan izvor neće napisati "da, 'Amerika' se također odnosi na teritorij". Njemačka je okupirani teritorij podijelila na zone, kako ih je dobivala. Svaki je teritorij imao svoj glavni autoritet i zvao se po njemu, nisu izmišljali posebno ime za teritorij koji su oformili, i posebno za autoritet, razumiješ? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Pa čekaj, ne mogu dokazi biti nemogući. Ja sam ti dole citirao izvore iz kojih se može zaključiti da je Militärverwaltung in Serbien bilo ime za režim a ne za teritoriju. Dakle, možeš li ti citirati one iz kojih si zaključio da je to bilo ime za teritoriju? PANONIAN 21:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ma nemislim da su dokazi "nemogući" nego da se teritoriji zovu po državama, tj. političkim entitetima. Ime za teritorij Francuske, tj. Francuske države, je "Francuska". Shvaćaš? Neće nijedan izvor explicitno naglasiti da je ime političkog entiteta također ime i države, nije moguće naći takav izvor. Ja apeliram na tvoj zdrav razum da shvatiš da Njemci nisu nazvali sam teritorij "Srbija", a politički entitet nekako drugačije. ne vidim zašto ti je to toliki problem, pa kako itko može nekako sugerirati da Vojvodina ili Banat nisu dio Srbije time da inzistira da su bili dio Militärverwaltung in Serbien. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Čekaj malo, sporno je pitanje šta je to "politički entitet". "Francuska" je politički entitet a njom upravlja "vlada Francuske", dok je "Srbija" politički entitet kojim je upravljala "vojna uprava". Zar ti stvarno ne razumeš razliku između teritorije i uprave ili se samo praviš da ne razumeš? I nije ovo pitanje Vojvodine, već nametanja besmislenih formulacija. Kako teritorija i njena uprava mogu biti jedno isto? PANONIAN 21:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ma ne, ti ne razumiješ: očito teritorija i politička uprava (entitet) tom teritorijom nisu jedno te isto, ali se ne razlikuju po imenovanju. Ne postoje posebna imena za teritorije i države, razumiješ? To je osnovni "kamen pomutnje" ovde. "Bugarska", na primjer, je ime i za teritorij i za državu - nema dva imena, i tako je uvijek. Imaš li ti neki primjer gdje se teritorij, sam teritorij, zove nekako drugačije od političkog entiteta koji njime upravlja? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ja uopšte ne razumem o čemu pričaš sada. Kakva teritorija i država? Hoćeš da kažeš da država Bugarska upravlja teritorijom Bugarske? Pa to je potpuno besmisleno - države su geografski pojmovi i država je jedno isto sa svojom geografskom teritorijom a državom (kao teritorijom) upravlja vlada države. Isto tako, Srbijom kao okupiranom teritorijom (što je politički pojam) upravlja vojna uprava. PANONIAN 22:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Pa u tome je vjerovatno problem.. Gledaj, politički entitet (bilo da je republika ili vojna uprava ili šogunat, svejedno) nije isto šta i teritorij. Tako je, to si i sam rekao. Međutim: politički entitet i teritorij se uvjek zovu isto. Drugim riječima, da se poslužim još jednim primjerom, Srbija upravlja teritorijem koji također naravno zovemo "Srbija". Kad neko danas kaže "Srbija", on se time odnosi i na politički entitet i na teritorij, nema posebnog imena za sam teritorij. Isto tako, Militärverwaltung in Serbien se odnosi i na sam teritorij i na sam politički entitet. Problem je samo u tome što je u ovom slučaju ime neuobičajenog formata pa stvara pomutnju.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ako ne pokažeš neki izvor koji tvrdi da se "Militärverwaltung in Serbien" odnosi i na teritoriju nemamo o čemu pričati. Ja nisam papagaj da se ponavljam non stop. PANONIAN 07:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine
Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Srbija

I dobro, kada ćeš prestati da uništavaš članak o Srbiji u Drugom svwtskom ratu? Zašto to radiš i šta pokušavaš tim da postigneš? Kakve političke ciljeve propagiraš? Ako svaka opština ima svoj infobox zašto ne može Srbija? Hoćeš mi iskreno odgovoriti na to pitanje? PANONIAN

MAJKE MI, NEMAM POLITIČKIH CILJEVA. NIKAKVIH. Kakve bi uopće mogao da imam? Gledaj, ja sam samo zaista dugo i u velike detalje proučavao Drugi rat u Jugoslaviji. Znam koji je status bio Nedićeve vlade, i općenito poznajem Njemačke okupacione sisteme. Postoji VELIKA razlika između okupirane teritorije i marionete kao šta je bila NDH. Ti stavljaš Srbiju, svoju vlastitu državu :P, na par sa NDH, dok je u stvarnosti ZAISTA bila okupirani teritorij. Mene izrazito zbunjuje koga vraga jedan Srbin želi prikazati svoju naciju kao nacističku marionetsku državu, za razliku od njemačkog neprijatelja kojeg su morali držati pod direktnom vojnom okupacijom (što je i bilo). Stvarno neznam koji su tvoji motivi tu, to sam se zapitao nebrojeno puta. Stvarno ne shvaćam kako možeš da staviš "Serbia" sa "Nazi Germany" i "NDH" u člancima, pogotovo kad to nema veze sa stvarnošću. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ma mene NDH i Nazi Germany ne interesuju uopšte. Dakle, ja se slažem da je Srbija bila okupirana teritorija, ali okupirane teritorije jesu politički entiteti i kao takve treba da imaju infobox. U čemu je tu problem? Ako misliš da je "infobox former country" neprikladan onda stavi neki drugi za teritoriju (ili čak za naselje ako hoćeš), samo neka reflektuje naslov članka. PANONIAN 20:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Da, članci o njemačkim okupiranim teritorijama se na Wikipediji zovu nijhovim njemačkim imenom: "Military Administration" za vojne okupacije, i "Reichskomessariat" za civilne okupacije - i imaju infobox koji koristi to ime (sa njemačkom zastavom). Ima primjera koliko hoćeš. Povijesni članci koji se baziraju na povijest neke države kroz period Drugog rata nemaju infobox. Ali kada smo već tu spojili sve u jedno, ne možemo opet izmisliti zato i neki spojni politički entitet. Trebaju nam ili dva infoboxa: jedan za sam teritorij (Military Administration in Serbia) i jedan za Nedićevu vladu - ili nijedan. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Pa ja se ne slažem sa tim primerima - pogrešno je koristiti nemačku zastavu ako neku teritoriju nije anektirala Nemačka. Uostalom, promenio sam infobox i više se ne zove "former country" ako ti je to bio problem. Ajde sada da razgovaramo o pojmu političkog entiteta. Na osnovu čega tvrdiš da Srbija nije bila politički entitet? Ako je imala definisane granice i administraciju onda je definisana i kao politički entitet, isto kao svaka županija ili opština. Šta je tu problem? Drugo, na osnovu čega tvrdiš da je "Military Administration in Serbia" naziv za teritoriju? Na osnovu svih izvora koje sam video naziv za teritoriju je "Srbija", dok je "Military Administration in Serbia" samo naziv uprave teritorije (nešto kao "vojna vlast"). I kako objašnjavaš činjenicu da naziv te vojne uprave ima deo "u Srbiji"? Šta je onda po tebi ta Srbija? PANONIAN 20:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Evo pogledaj i neke izvore:

ovde je "vojna uprava u Srbiji" opisana kao "režim"
ovde kaže "adopted by the military administration in Serbia" - ne može se pojam "adopted" koristiti u vezi sa teritorijom, samo sa upravom teritorije
ovde kaže "complicated matters for the German military administration in Serbia" - dakle ista stvar, ne mogu se "svari zakomlikovati" teritoriji već režimu
ovde kaže "the military administration in Serbia could have made this arrangement" - može li teritorija da pravi "arrangement"?
ovde kaže "the administrative staff of the German military administration in Serbia" - dakle opet nešto karakteristično za upravu, a ne za teritoriju

Kako, dakle, tumačiš ove izvore? PANONIAN 21:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Evo još izvora:

[25] - "nemačka vojna uprava u Srbiji odlučila je da raspusti komesarsku upravu Milana Aćimovića"
[26] - "Njemačka vojna uprava u Srbiji tražila je da zbog praktičnih razloga Zemun, odnosno dijelovi istočnog Srijema ostanu pod njezinom upravom"
[27] - "Nemačka vojna uprava u Srbiji poznavala je u svom delo- vanju samo jedan zakon — a to je zakon sile"
[http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t451748/] - "a i radi potežkoća smještaja i prehrane, na koje je naišla njemačka vojna uprava u Srbiji"
[28] - "saglasnost i odobrenje vojne uprave u Srbiji i Gestapoa"

Mislim da je iz svih ovih izvora jasno da je "Military Administration in Serbia" bio naziv za režim a ne za teritoriju i da bi svaki korisnik Vikipedije koji edituje sa "good faith" prihvatio podatke iz ovih izvora. PANONIAN 21:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A pročitaj i ovaj citat: [29] - "Nemačka vojna uprava odlučila da područje Srbije izdvoji i da na istom vaspostavi srpsku upravu pod svojim vrhovnim rukovođenjem". Dakle očigledno je da postoji "područje Srbije" kao teritorija koja je različita od pojma "vojne uprave". PANONIAN 21:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ne vidim u čemu se to kosi sa onim šta govorim? Ja se slažem i mogao bih tim riječima i ja da opišem događaje. Švabe su ocrtale crtu i napravile jedan teritorij, koji su stavili pod autoritet Militärverwaltung in Serbien. Formalno ime te teritorije u njemačkoj hijerarhiji okupiranih teritorija je Militärverwaltung in Serbien, neformalno samo "Srbija". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Koji od ovih izvora podržava tvrdnju da je "Formalno ime te teritorije Militärverwaltung in Serbien"? Ili, koji izvor uopšte podržava takvu tvrdnju? PANONIAN 22:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Nevjerovatno.. pa evo reći ću ti opet, nemogu jednostavnije. Sama teritorija nema neko odvojeno, drugačije ime. Nigdje i nikada. Mislim to jednostavno nema smisla, koje ime SAMO za teritorij? Šta ti je to? Zbog čega ti misliš, molimte, da su švabe izmislile drugačije ime za sam teritorij?? Ja moram posebno dokazivat tebi ime teritorija? Pa to je kao da zahtijevaš da ti posebno dokažem ime za teritorij Srbije: "Država se zove Srbija, ali sama teritorija! aha! imaš li ti dokaza za ime same teritorije!?" Gdje bi ja tada mogao naći nekog ludoga akademika koji piše eksplicite ono šta znaju ptice na grani. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Izvini, ali ja stvarno imam utisak da ti mene malo zajebavaš. Mislim, ti možeš malom detetu nešto ponavljati dok to ne prihvati zdravo za gotovo, ali ponašati se tako pprema odraslim ljudima je primer vređanja nečije inteligencije. Ako hoćeš da razgovaramo inteligentno onda jedino možemo analizirati izvore i uporediti šta koji izvor kaže o imenu teritorije. To što ti kažeš a ne potkrepiš izvorima možeš okačiti mačku o rep. Prema mom istraživanju, svi izvori pominju teritoriju pod imenom "Srbija", dok "vojnu upravu u Srbiju" pominju kao "upravu teritorije" i ništa drugo. Nisam video ni jedan izvor da tvrdi suprotno, a stvari koje nisu potkrepljene izvorima se ne mogu ubacivati na vikipediju. PANONIAN 07:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ne zajebajem te, Panonac, imam ja pametnijeg posla u životu vjeruj mi. Kako sada stoje stvari, ti tvrdiš da su Nijemci odredili granice jedne teritorije i nazvali je "Srbija". Dobro, molimte potkrijepi to pravim izvorima koji to eksplicite tvrde (bez tvojih "interpretacija"). Još to svakako nisi napravio. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Pogledaj ovaj spisak literature: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia_under_German_occupation#Further_reading - nekoliko knjiga sa te liste sam ja dodao i imam ih u svom stanu. Da li su ti citati iz tih knjiga validan izvor? Evo na primer citat iz knjige "Milan Nedić - majka ili maćeha"; radi se o spisku zahteva koji je Milan Nedić predao generalu Hajnriku Dankelmanu uoči formiranja vlade Nacionalnog spasa, a jedan od zahteva doslovno kaže ovako: "s obzirom da je nemačka vojna sila uspostavila Srbiju, potrebno je dozvoliti državne i nacionalne ambleme". - Ovo je dakle prepis iz originalnog dokumenta koji tvrdi da ja "uspostavljena Srbija" - ako hoćeš poslaću ti skeniranu stranu iz te knjige na mail. PANONIAN 10:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

To šta ti citiraš je primary source, a tvoj vlastiti zaključak baziran na primarnom izvoru je WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Wikipedija ne priznaje primarne izvore, a taj citat je jako dobar primjer zašto. Sekundarne izvore traži. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Svi sekundarni izvori potvđuju ovaj primarni izvor i evo ih ovde: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02 A ako ti ne priznaješ dokument koji je napisao Milan Nedić onda nemamo o čemu razgovarati, jer onda ispada da te izvori i tačnost članaka uopšte ne zanimaju već dolaziš ovamo samo da bi se svađao i maltretirao druge korisnike. PANONIAN 11:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Totalno si me zbunio sada sa nekakvim novim nebulozama. Ajde mi molimte reci, na šta ti misliš da se termin "Srbija" odnosi? Na "sami teritorij"? Na "politički entitet"? Ako je nekakav politički entitet, jeli to nešto treće, ili nekakav drugi naziv za Nedićevu vladu ili za Njemačku administraciju?

Ma daj, budi normalan čovječe. Pogledaj svoje vlastite izvore. Niti jedan jedini link tu ne kaže da je Srbija bila politički entitet. Niti da je Srbija bilo posebno ime za "samu teritoriju". Ti samo "interpretiraš" izvore prema svom osobnom dojmu, u stilu "iz ovoga se baš vidi da on to u stvari govori", to je WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH ništa drugo. Ja te sada izazivam da mi ti tu staviš, od sve te tvoje horde navodnih "izvora" samo jedan jedini koji zaista eksplicitno tvrdi da je "Srbija politički entitet" ili da su Njemci imali ime "Srbija" za "sam teritorij".
Shvati uostalom da si prema WP:V ovo zapravo dužan napraviti i napisati barem točnu stranicu citata iz sekundarnog izvora na zahtjev korisnika koje tvoje tvrdnje dovode u pitanje. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Pa zar ti moram sve crtati? Otvoriš ovu stranicu i lepo pogledaš linkove jedan po jedan: Mapa na kojoj se teritorija zove Srbija, google knjiga gde se pominje nedićev režim u Srbiji, marka iz tog doba sa nazivom srbija, pečat na marki iz tog doba sa nazivom Serbien, Nedićev dinar gde ćirilicom piše Srbija, film iz tog vremena gde ćirilicom piše nova Srbija, itd. Dakle, ne možeš ignorisati sve izvore i ukloniti naziv "Srbija" samo na osnovu sopstvenog mišljenja. PANONIAN 12:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I naravno, Srbija jeste nešto treće u odnosu na nemačku i Nedićevu upravu. Politički entiteti obično imaju jednu upravu, ali Srbija je politički entitet koji je imao dve uprave, ili ako hoćeš dva paralelna administrativna tela. PANONIAN 12:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Evo napraviću ti i tabelu da ti bude jasnije šta je šta: PANONIAN 12:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

politički entitet	uprava entiteta
United States of America	US government
Serbia	German Military administration, Serbian puppet government

Sad ćeš, NADAM SE, valjda da shvatiš zašto se stalno kao budala ponavljam i govorim ti da nemaš izvora.
Najlijepše ti kažem, to je čisti WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I to baziran na Nedićevoj proagandi :P. Nemoj mi linkati nekakve Nedićeve marke nego mi daj jedan citat iz sekundarnog izvora koji lijepo kaže crno na bijelo da je Srbija "clearly" bila nekakav "treći" politički entitet sa "dva paralelna administrativna tela". Mislim, naravno da takvog izvora nema, da se razumijemo, jer tvoja "teorija" jednostavno nema smisla, ali daj da vidim. Za početak, eto, Nedić sigurno nije bio "paralelan" sa Njemačkom komandom nego je bio njen podređeni "pomoćni organ" (da ja citiram sekundarni izvor: "a subsidiary organ of the German occupation authorities"). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Podređen, paralelan, kako god, nije to poenta i o kakvoj Nedićevoj propagandi pričaš? Šta je po tebi bila Srbija? Kako bi ti napravio tu tabelu? Ne može postojati vlada ako ne postoji teritorija kojom ona upravlja, to je prosta logika. Čime su po tebi upravljale nemačka vojna uprava i nedićeva vlada ako ne Srbijom? PANONIAN 13:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Dakle, po tebi bi tabela izgledala ovako:

politički entitet	uprava entiteta
United States of America	US government
-	German Military administration, Serbian puppet government

Nemačka vojna uprava i Nedićeva vlada su dakle vladale nad vazduhom, je li? PANONIAN 13:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Politički entitet je Militärverwaltung in Serbien, uprava tog entiteta je bila koncentrirana u uredu vojnog komandanta (da je bila baš republika, to nije jeli :). Cijela ova gužva sada izgleda da je bazirana na tome da su Švabe koristile malo čudna imena za svoje okupacione zone: ti zaključuješ da je postojao neki "Serbien" ako se stvar zove "Militärverwaltung in Serbien" - ali jednostavno nije, boli Švabe k*rac razumiješ?

politički entitet	uprava entiteta
United States of America	US government
Military Administration in Serbia	Ured komandanta vojne uprave

Nedićeva vlada je podređeni pomoćni organ same vojne uprave, i kao takvu nije ju potrebno posebno navoditi. Šta se tiče izvora, nije me posebno briga jeli u pitanju Nedićeva "propaganda" ili ne - to su primarni izvori i mi ih ne smijemo koristiti prema WP:V i WP:OR. Mi nismo povijesničari da izvlačimo zaključke iz primarnih podataka. Ja ti stalno govorim da nemaš izvora upravo zato šta nemaš niti jedan sekundarni izvor koji podržava tvoju tezu da je nekakva "Srbija" morala da bude neki "treći" politički entitet sa "dva paralelna administrativna tela" --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ne može isto ime biti i za ljude koji upravljaju i za teritoriju kojom upravljaju. Ime "Military Administration in Serbia" je korišćeno za upravu entiteta a ne za sam entitet, kao što su potvrdili izvori koje sam pokazao. I nemoj pričati da nemam izvore koji to potvrđuju jer sam ti iste prezentovao, a evo ti jedan od njih ponovo: [30] - ovde je vojna uprava eksplicitno opisana kao režim a ne kao teritorija. Inače, nema svrhe da više razgovoramo o ovoj temi jer si suviše tvrdoglav i ovo shvataš kao sukob u kom ti je važno da pobediš a ne kao projekat na kome je potrebno sarađivati sa drugima. PANONIAN 18:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Evo ti sada gomila citata, pa ih lepo pročitaj: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02#Google_books_quotations_related_to_Serbia_and_Military_Administration_in_Serbia A u tabeli komandant vojne uprave dođe u rang sa predsednikom vlade, pa to izgleda ovako: PANONIAN 18:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

political entity	administration of entity	head of administration
United States of America	Cabinet of the United States	Secretary of State
Serbia (modern)	Government of Serbia	Prime Minister of Serbia
Serbia (1941-1944)	German Military administration, Serbian puppet government	Commander of Military Administration, President of Serbian government

Jao ma ne komandant kao čovjek, nego ne institucija, "ured", kao Ured Predsednika Republike Srbije. Komandant Vojne Uprave, to jest položaj Komandanta Vojne Uprave je bilo vrhovno upravljačko tijelo ovom okupacionom zonom. I sad si opet promijenio pesmu: sad je Srbija "teritorij" a ne politički entitet. Slušaj, izvuci mi ovde stranicu i publikaciju koja kaže da je Srbija bila "treći politički entitet". Ako si promijenio pjesmu opet i sada govoriš da je teritorija, daj mi izvor koji crno na b(ij)elo kaze da je "Srbija" bilo ime za "samu teritoriju". Ti, ne da si tvrdoglav, nego nemaš pojma o Drugom svetskom ratu i još si tvrdoglav. Izmišljaš nepostojeće države političke entitete da bi Vojvodina kao bila u "Srbiji".
Daj izvore, stranicu i publikaciju, kao šta se traži. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Pa sad je očigledno da me zajebavaš - dao sam ti linkove do izvora sa markiranim citatima na stranicama. To što si oterao sa vikipedije administratora koji te je blokirao ne znači da možeš ovde da radiš šta hoćeš. Jednostavno obratiću se administratorima za pomoć pa ti dokaži njima da si u pravu. PANONIAN 19:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Evo, izvoli posetiti ovu stranicu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_of_user_DIREKTOR PANONIAN 20:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I request once more that you present a quotation from a source for your (continuously changing) claims. Do you honestly think you can just post a link to some Wikipedia page of yours that you filled-up with dozens of links and then order people to read it all? Which one is it? As is required by WP:V, please properly indicate your source by providing the name of the publication and a page number. Preferably with a quotation as well. See here for an example [31]. I certainly do not require you to do so for all sources, one or two will do as far as I'm concerned. If you think I'm "fucking with you" by requesting this then you're just assuming bad faith to an impossible degree.

Unless you indicate your source as required and recommended by Wikipedia policy your claim can only be considered unsourced. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Flag images

Why you replacing this image: [32] - "S Flag.svg" is same image as "GNS Flag.svg", it is still attributed to you, it is still your image, and I using this image because I appreciate your work (as much as you appreciate my maps). I really do not understand why you reverting my edits. PANONIAN 20:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Occupation of Trieste (WWI)

Hi DIREKTOR, I'm looking into the issue, it seems that the Italians just occupied the city on 3 November 1918 on their own [33]. it.wiki is down thanks to Italy's new fascist regime, so I can't access any sources on that side. Of course, if you find any online sources on this subject I'd be grateful. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoa whoa.. what?! Aren't Wikipedia servers in Florida? How can the Italian government shut down itWiki just because its in Italian? :P

As for Trieste, yes it looks like its supposed to have been under joint Allied command, but was occupied by the Italian army instead. Virtually every major Austro-Hungarian city on the Adriatic was occupied in this way either openly by Italy (Trieste, Pula & the Istrian peninsula), or by Italian irregulars (Rijeka, Zadar, and Trogir). The only major exception seems to be Split (and perhaps Dubrovnik, way down in the south), hence the trouble I imagine. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

RoC 1990/1991

OK, I'm tired of cleaning up after you - fix Republic of Croatia (1990–1991) and Republic of Croatia (1990-1991) yourself. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok I just noticed you edited the SRoC article while I was editing it :P, I actually thought I forgot to do the edits and re-did them. Apologies, I fixed the redirects. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Social Democratic Party of Croatia. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. v/r - T P 19:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Director (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Quite simply: I did not breach WP:3RR. I'm usually very careful about following that policy. I reverted three times [34]: once, twice, three times. And I had no intention whatsoever of going any further, which can be evidenced by my bringing the issue up at ANI.

I will say further, speaking from years of experience on enWiki, that this is no way to run an encyclopedia. Not because this was a rash block (though it was), but because you can't treat the person pushing new, non-consensus edits with edit-warring and the guy restoring the status quo the same way, simply because they both reverted each-other. You just can't, its incredibly unfair, far too easy - and just plain stupid. Quite simply it validates WP:EDIT-WARRING as a method for pushing new edits. Don't believe me? Just have a look at the article and check whether the new edits are in or not. Saw this about one million times, and it makes no sense. WP:BRD should be policy. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are free to disagree with the edit warring policy, and to endeavor to get it changed to better reflect what you think it should be. But you are not free to ignore it. Stating that you deliberately went just to the brink of 3RR and then stopped is hardly an argument to unblock you. You know what edit warring is, you've been blocked for it many times before. So you must also know that 3RR is just one part of the policy and that even if you didn't violate 3RR you still willfully edit warred. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I won't take-up much more of your time, but Beeblebrox, what is "edit-warring" then? Define it for me pls. I did willfully revert someone, but did I edit-war? 'Cause I just got blocked for three reverts. Is two reverts the limit? One? Whatever the admin feels like? You can't play these games with people. I stopped reverting and brought the issue to ANI, and then got blocked for "violating 3RR" without violating 3RR, you can't beat that. Unless you also take into account that the other guy also just managed to push his non-consensus edits into the article exactly because I was careful not to break 3RR (validating his haughty, uncompromising, dictatorial attitude). Excellent work all: now when the matter starts again he can tell me to go f*ck myself in a much more leisurely and relaxed atmosphere - all he has to do is revert-war. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The thing is, I know you are an experienced user, and that you are not an idiot. So I'm finding it hard to fathom how you could be so unsure about what is and is not edit warring on your eighth block for it, but I'll play along anyway. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is that seems very much on point: " Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." The spirit of the policy is most succinctly summed up as "persistently reverting anything that is not outright vandalism is always the wrong thing to do," 3RR is merely a specific bright-line application of that.

I know you tend to edit articles related to the Balkans, and that such articles are a hotbed of POV pushing and nationalism. I'm sure that is frustrating for a good faith user to deal with for years on end, but at some point you are going to have to accept that edit warring is not the way to deal with it. Personally, I never revert anything more than twice, and on that second revert I always be sure to explicitly explain myself not only in an edit summary, but on either the article talk page or the user talk page of the person I've reverted. If they revert me again, it's time to ask for a third party to step in, either by requesting page protection or using WP:DR. Although I see that you did engage in discussion on the talk page, for whatever reason you went to ANI, which as you know is for asking for someone to get "busted" not to resolve a dispute. I certainly don't approve of how the other editor involved behaved, but he was blocked as well, for just as long as you even though this is only his second block. The message you should both get from that is clear: no matter what you are arguing about, edit warring is never the solution. In the grand scheme of things, is it really such a disaster for an article to not say what you want it to say for a few days while the issue is being discussed? I don't think so. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and what about the fact that, when I was blocked, I had already stopped "edit-warring", let the guy have his way in the article, and brought the issue up on ANI? (I stopped, mind you, not the other fellow.) But honestly I think that when people wrote about WP:GAMING THE SYSTEM with regard to WP:3RR, they were primarily talking about waiting for the 24-hour period to expire and then making your revert. I don't think the idea is to advise admins to block people for 3 or 2 reverts or whatever and calling it "edit-warring". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi, I think I suggested this to you a year ago.. have you considered a voluntary one revert restriction? I had this restriction for a while , six weeks it was and it was a good experience and a good learning for me. (one which I am thinking to also go back to for a couple of months as I have gotten back into the habit of pushing the limit towards the redline) There is a userbox you can add that lets others know that you will make only one revert and then move to discussion on the talkpage. It was beneficial imo to accept the addition (if it was re-added after I removed it) in the article and then to make my case on the talkpage. This manner of operations also in many cases left me in a position of apparent strength in the discussion and many times the other user had to return to the article and remove their alteration after the discussion was resolved, or, if they didn't come to the talkpage to discuss, after a few days you are able to remove the addition by default and if its then replaced they are warring without discussion. I think it would be a good experience and learning process for you and if you were to volunteer yourself to such a revert restriction I am sure an administrator could be convinced to unblock you as per your offer removing the danger of the prior reverting to reoccur. Off2riorob (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your friend

....is still alive here;): http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dalmatian_Italians --Grifter72 (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Truth^TM shall find a way it seems. I suppose the simple Wiki is the appropriate context for stuff like that :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Timbouctou and you

I've closed the ANI thread and left a warning with Timbouctou. I trust you will avail yourself of the opportunity to move on. Should Timbouctou engage you again, please remain civil; your recent reactions were not entirely fault-free. I am sympathetic to your frustration, but remember that responding to incivility with incivility helps nothing. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I know, but in my defense, this is like the sixteenth time Timbouctou jumped on me like that. When someone spends his days searching for ways to attack you and your reputation as an editor - and gets away with it more than once, it becomes hard not to retaliate at least in some measure.

I will indeed cease discussion for now, per your advice. The amazing thing is the person actually seems to agree with me anyway, believe it or not, so there isn't a real content issue to resolve. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Personality conflicts can be odd that way. But now, the ''seventeenth time this happens, which we hope will be never, you're going to not respond, and instead report and reference this discussion here, my warning, and the closed ANI thread, right? :-) KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh you may be sure of that :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

1918–1920 incidents in Split

You participated in a previous discussion regarding the name of the page 1918–1920 incidents in Split. A proposal has been initiated to rename the page. You can participate in the discussion at Talk:1918–1920 incidents in Split. Agricolae (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I've actually noticed it already, but thank you for the notification I appreciate it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Serbs of Croatia

I replied on the discussion page there. Just to remind you, since you are the one who invited me to the discussion. You maybe forgot on this. --Wusten fuchs 13:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry.. Chetniks again [35] [36]. Collaboration with the Nazis has been all-but blanked, and now Draza & Company apparently never committed ethnic cleansing against Croats and others. This group apparently thinks that, just because Serbian users are more likely to participate in the discussion, and therefore constitute a majority in the debate, they are allowed to ignore sources by simply declaring that a "consensus" has been reached. People just went away, I'm practically alone over there. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but can't help you there, topic ban for 6 months. You can countinue discussion on Serbs of Croatia whenever you can, I'll froze my activity there. I wish you all the best with Chetniks. --Wusten fuchs 14:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power
Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Poštovani Direktore, neopravdano uklanjanje primjedbe o maltretiranju tj. uhođenju uz napomenu kako je riječ o troliranju, samo je još jedan primjer osobnog napada. Osobno s vama nisam imala nikakvog sukoba, osim molbi za postavljanjem novih inačica fotografija umjesto običnog presnimavanja što je u skladu s predloženom smjernicom, a zašto vi mijenjate fotografije drugih suradnika i postavljate neke nestvarne inačice, zaista ne znam. Enciklopedijski se sadržaj može poboljšavati na mnoge načine. Jedan od njih je i postavljanje najbolje ilustracije za neki članak, a kako Zoran Milanović na fotografiji koju ste obrezali iz zajedničke fotografije Zorana Milanovića s ostalim čelnicima Kukuriku koalicije gleda u pod i fotografija je niže razlučivosti od drugih dostupnih koje Zorana Milanovića bolje predstavljaju, logično bi bilo staviti bolju ilustraciju. Zašto vi ne želite da članak o Zoranu Milanoviću ima najbolju slobodnu fotografiju i prikazuje osobu u članku o njoj najboljom ilustracijom - ja to ne znam. Isto tako ne znam zašto uklanjate kvalitetniju ilustraciju u roku od jedne minute:
(cur | prev) 11:51, 4 November 2011‎ DIREKTOR (talk | contribs)‎ (8,799 bytes) (Restoring status quo lead image. Once again, please take your proposal to the talkpage, and be assured noone is harassing you.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 11:49, 4 November 2011‎ Roberta F. (talk | contribs)‎ (8,853 bytes) (Wikipedia:Harassment :-() (undo)
(cur | prev) 11:39, 4 November 2011‎ DIREKTOR (talk | contribs)‎ (8,799 bytes) (Rv non-consensus removal of infobox photo. Roberta F, this is malicious editing - take your grievances to the talkpage.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 11:38, 4 November 2011‎ Roberta F. (talk | contribs)‎ (8,712 bytes) (commonscat) (undo)
(cur | prev) 11:12, 4 November 2011‎ DIREKTOR (talk | contribs)‎ (8,756 bytes) (undo)
(cur | prev) 11:11, 4 November 2011‎ Roberta F. (talk | contribs)‎ (8,810 bytes) (image) (undo)
...
te meni predlažete otvaranje rasprave na razgovornoj stranici, umjesto da ste ju sami pokrenuli ako mislite kako je osoba drugim fotografijama prikazana lošijom ilustracijom i da je Zorana Milanovića bolje prikazati ilustracijom na kojoj mu se ne vide oči.
Ovakve doprinose vidim kao agresivne te stvaraju neugodan osjećaj kod suradnika kojima doprinose brzinski uklanjate ili slike presnimavate. Također uklanjate poruke i molbe drugih suradnika uz neodgovarajući komentar (kako na en:wiki, tako i na commonsu). Nažalost nisam jedina suradnica / suradnik kojemu gotovo ulijećete u uređivanja. Wikipedijski duh suradnje vidio bi se kada biste autore fotografija zamolili da sami obrežu fotografije i postave inačice bolje razlučivosti. Time bi projekt u cjelini bio na dobitku bez nepotrebnih rasprava i gaženja tuđega truda. Nadam se da nam je zajednički cilj - bolja Wikipedija. Lijep pozdrav --Roberta F. (talk) 10:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Nazalost moram konstatirati da Vi ocito ne razuimijete sto podrazumijeva WP:HARASSMENT. Naime nekome ukloniti edit svakako ne potpada pod to pravilo, koliko god se vi mozda osijecali "maltretirano" kada se to dogodi. Drugim rijecima, vase neopravdano citiranje tog pravila u stvarnosti ne konstituira nista drugo doli uvrede i provokacije, bilo da vi to shvacate ili ne. Nadalje, cak i kada to ne bi bio slucaj (a jest), svaki korisnik je u potpunosti unutar svojih prava kod uklanjanja doslovno bilo kojeg teksta sa svog talkpage-a. Vase vracanje uvredljivog teksta kojeg sam uklonio sa svog talkpage-a, je dodatna provokacija. Budite sigurni da je situacija zaista takva, nadam se da je samo poslijedica nedostatne upoznatosti sa pravilima enWikipedije, a ne namjerni cin.
Dalje, kao sto mozete procitati na WP:BRD, ukoliko je vasa nova promjena odmah revert-ana, preporuceno je da otvorite diskusiju na talkpage-u clanka (a ne da zapocnete WP:EDIT WAR kako bi pokusali progurati svoj novi edit). To sam vas pozvao da i ucinite, i vi to niste napravili.
I konacno, da budem potpuno iskren, uz sve vec spomenuto, ne mogu pojmiti odakle vam obraza da na takav nacin dodete na jedam clanak i odlucite da ce vasa slika silom biti na njemu. Nakon sto sam primjetio da clanak Zoran Milanovic vec jako dugo vremena ima zastarjelu sliku, niske rezolucije i donekle neprikladnih proporcija, odlucio sam pronaci i pripremiti prikladniju fotografiju. Da bi vi, naknadno, odlucili da je vasa zbog nekog cudnog razloga "bolja" te da "mora" biti u clanku - bez diskusije. I kada vas se revert-a, napadate me na mom talkpage-u sa, iskreno besmislenim optuzbama za harassment, te ih kontinuirano vracate na moj talkpage.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Mihailović: Draft for new section on "Collaboration"

During the Mihailović mediation, we agreed to discuss two additional topics on the article talk page: 1) Ethnic conflict and terror tactics, and, 2) Collaboration. The former was completed some time ago. Nuujinn has now drafted a proposed section on the latter subject. I am contacting mediation participants, and others who commented on the article talk page post mediation, to see if they wish to comment. The draft can be found here. Any comments would be most appreciated. Sunray (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk page protection

I just got my talk page and user page semi-protected indefinitely, and I would like to suggest that you get yours semi-protected too. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well yes thats an option, but to be frank I don't mind having a few words with Brunodam now and again. The gentleman is not an "evil entity", he is an intelligent person who believes very strongly in a cause and, coming from where I do, and being of Dalmatian Italian ancestry myself, I understand both such conviction and the "cause" itself. He just does not understand that Dalmatia is not about being "Italian" or "Slavic", but that those nationalist concepts from the 19th century in effect destroyed most of Dalmatian culture, which was plural since the 9th century AD. I'm sure if he had decided to be more objective and detached he could have gone on to make valuable contributions to more than one Wikipedia project. We all get bitter at times, but in my judgement Sig. D'Ambrosio is far from some sort of a lowly thug. And besides, if I revert him he does not edit-war so I could not really justify protection as such. Thanks for the advice though :)

@Brunodam. I will read the book you recommended, and I've restored your text on Perast and the Gonfalonieri. If your friends have taken an interest in Wikipedia, I advise you to encourage them to participate independently. The only way this nonsense dispute can be resolved is through Wikipedia policy - since it is Wikipedia dispute. You threatened a lot of people, and now you're community banned. Realistically, no matter what you do, you are not very likely to make long-lasting contributions. Sincerest regards, --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a very optimistic opinion you have there. Perhaps I should find again the conversations where Bruno threatened Italian Wiki editors with legal action and then with fascist style beatings, and then mocked their regional accent. He then pretended to be his cousin Luigi, and then his own wife (she made legal threats too) before returning to childish threats. He invited Italian Wiki editors to "talk about it over dinner". In Miami. Not to mention the time when I first came across him when he pretended to be four different people in the space of an hour and then began insulting me and vandalising my talk page when he got found out. According to him Italy colonised America, and he feels very strongly about it. If these are the actions of an intelligent person, it's a very special kind of intelligence. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well... you certainly made me eat my words. :) I admit I never heard of that stuff from itWiki. You're right, it sounds a lot more serious than I thought. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Last but not least allow me to appreciate your addition to Albania veneta, but the article still lacks the section related to WWII (the creation of the "Provincia italiana di Cattaro" in 1941 was due to the former existence of the Albania veneta: the borders are nearly the same, by orders -documented- of the same King of Italy as a special gift to his wife born in Montenegro). B.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.242.79 (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

That does not seem at all relevant to the Ventian province of some 200 years back. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Djathinkimacowboy

Just so you know, you can't ban other editors from communicating with you on you talk page. You can request that a particular editor not comment on your talk page, however such a request is non-binding. Only the Arbitration Committee or community consensus can establish a binding talk page ban. You might consider trying to calmly work the issues out, rather than threatening to "report" editors who disagree with you to a noticeboard. Both of you have been fairly uncivil in communicating with each other, throwing around a number of unfounded statements. The issues can be worked out in a civil manner, though a brief time away from the discussion may be beneficial. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

To my knowledge I am free to remove any post from my talkpage.

There are no issues. We barely talked at all, and we agree on all content matters. But: from the very start this person has been going around talking to admins about what a nuisance I am. And, I had not thrown around any unfounded statements. You simply must be talking about him and his nonsense accusations of "revert warring", "stalking", "harassment", "personal attacks" etc. that he has been posting on various talkpages before we even engaged in any sort of disagreement whatsoever. If I didn't know better I'd think he was some sort of sock, but noone I know would post an edit war warning on the talkpage of a user that has not reverted anyone. He has used overt insults on four occasions, and I do not think I have been "throwing around" anything when I warned him, refraining against my better judgement to simply bring his behavior up immediately. My behavior is incomparable to his, and is merely a response to this hostility, all the more irritating for being unprovoked, which I judge has been precipitated through contact with editors I have had disputes with (its weird, but the wording he uses and the terms he employs are virtually identical to those of User:Timbouctou). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are free to remove comments from your own talk page. However, you can't ban another editor from editing you talk page. Given the fact that the last two users who have commented in this thread have had their comments removed and the current ANI thread, I see no point in trying to make any comments regarding the points above. You don't appear to be willing to even consider the possibility that you were at the very least partly at fault. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Alpha_Quadrant, please be so kind as to review the sequence of events in this weird "dispute". I hardly even talked to this person before he started lobbying for all sorts of admin interventions against me, using words like "troublemaker". Its not the same thing to be hostile for no reason (Dj) and to be incited into hostility by unprovoked abuse (your's truly). So yes, I guess I am at fault for not responding to unprovoked hostility with complete politeness, but no more. What ANI thread are you referring to? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing against you other than your actions to date; I do not know you in any way except from here by your username, and have no designs against you. I put that at the ANI board. I have no intention of trying to do any harm to you. If you have felt insulted by my remarks in the past, I apologise. And regardless of what you reply here or what you report, I am posting nothing further to you or about you anywhere. Djathinkimacowboy 02:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Djathinkimacowboy, apology accepted. All I am asking is that, should you have any concerns regarding my behavior, you bring them up in the proper venue with supporting diffs. If you wish to alert admins to developments on a talkpage, or request informal mediation, ideally you should use the most neutral wording - but at the very least you should not berate other users in the process. Let me assure you, for the record, that I do not think you are anyone's sockpuppet.

Even though you seemed to have gotten that impression, I promise you I never ever engaged in any sort of destabilization of the Nikola Tesla article. Nationalist conflicts between Serbs and Croats are as ridiculous as they are primitive, I always try to defuse them, and as for me, I hardly think there is any significant difference between the two peoples (a view which is the antithesis of nationalist sentiment in the Balkans). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content
Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing
Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Josif Runjanin

Ajde molim te prestani sa nacionalističkim ponašanjem. Uopšte mi je neshvatljiv razlog kroatizovanja imena ovog čoveka koji je bio Srbin i koji je živeo, umro i sahranjen u Novom Sadu u današnjoj Srbiji. PANONIAN 13:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ma molim? "Nacionalisticki"!? Procitaj molimte WP:NAME pa da onda vidimo tko se ponasa "nacionalisticki". Wikipediju boli ona stvar tko je Srbin a tko Hrvat, kao i mene. Jedino sta Wikipediju i mene interesira je koje je ime najcesce u engleskim izvorima. I tacka. Upravo neko ko gura narodno ime usprkos pravilima imenovanja na ovom sajtu se ponasa "nacionalisticki". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ne zanima me tvoje tumačenje onoga što piše u WP:NAME. Ako misliš da si u pravu, onda predloži glasanje o promeni imena članka na stranici za razgovor tog članka, pa ako ubediš većinu drugih korisnika da si u pravu, to će biti druga priča. Očigledno je da pokušavaš stvar da rešiš nasilnim putem i da ovog čoveka pošto-poto kroatizuješ i da sakriješ neke očigledne činjenice. Jedno je ono što ti pričaš o svojim političkim stavovima, a sasvim drugo ono kako se ponašaš, počevši od Nedićeve Srbije pa do ovog članka. PANONIAN 14:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Nema tu nikakvog "tumacenja", WP:NAME je kristalno jasan. I Wikipedia ne donosi odluke na bazi nikakvog "glasanja" (WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). WP:RM je postupak poticanja usera na komentiranje glede ispravnosti naslova u odnosu na WP:NAME. Ovo ne moze biti ocitiji slucaj sta se tice ispravnog Wikipedia naslova. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:NAME govori i o neutralnosti naslova članka. Ne možeš tumačiti samo onaj deo Viki politike koji ti odgovara. PANONIAN 14:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Aha. A po cemu je srpsko ime "neutralno", a hrvatsko "pristrano"? Ne znam sta ti mislis, ali neutralnost se takoder definira izvorima, a ne osobnom preferencijom. I zadrzi sebi te nekakve gluposti o "kroatiziranju", jer cu te prijaviti. Pristojno se obnasaj, molimte. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

U ovom slučaju, srpsko ime je neutralno a hrvatsko pristrasno zbog cele kompleksije istorijskih srpsko-hrvatskih odnosa, velikodržavnih projekata i negiranja etničkih pripadnosti. Da li ja pokušavam da nametnem srpsko ime u članak o bilo kom Hrvatu koji je živeo na području današnje Hrvatske? Takvo ponašanje je stvar potpunog neukusa i ako ti kažem da me takvo ponašanje vređa na nacionalnoj osnovi, onda bi bilo lepo i da to uvažiš. Šta uopšte želiš da postigneš time što ćeš nametnuti hrvatsko ime Srbinu koji je živeo i sahranjen u Novom Sadu? To ne samo da je etnički uvredljivo već i potpuno nekonstruktivno ponašanje. PANONIAN 14:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Loznica (1941)

G'day Direktor, just wanted to bring to your attention that I've proposed the deletion of the subject article due to a complete lack of any sources. All the references have link rot and it is incredibly detailed (and poorly written). I can't find a thing to confirm it even happened, although at least one of the names is of a Chetnik commander who later joined the Partisans. I've already given the major recent editor a week to respond to my concerns. However, if this is the wrong thing to do, I'd be interested in your opinion. If you agree, you might like to second it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

G'day Direktor, just ignore this, I will notify properly as per WP:CANVASSING. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Direktor's page is probably not the right place, but since we're already here...

Something has happened there, but it was possibly overblown by Chetnik sympathizers and yellow press, and then by Wikipedia editors.

S. Pajić (04. 09. 2011.). "Decenijama palio sveću zaboravljenom heroju". Blic. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
"Otkrivena spomen-ploča potpukovniku Misiti". Tanjug. 31. 08. 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

A critical note in Vreme:

Slobodan Kostić (20.09.2001.). "Odlaganje emotivnog prtljaga". Vreme. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Anyway, Misita is mentioned few times in Branko Latas's "Dokumenti o saradnji četnika sa osovinom" [37], which is a collection of primary sources, which I presume Direktor would like, but I didn't look in there.

The event is also mentioned in V. Dedijer's War Diaries [38]: "since the death of Lt. Col. Veselin Misita (I must stress here that the heroic death of V. Misita during the taking of Loznica was a great loss for the entire uprising and especially for the later conflict which arose between us and the Chetniks)"

Thus, the article should probably not be deleted, but it requires sources, and the sources that I found are rather thin. I'll move this to the article, anyway, and deprod it. No such user (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry everyone, I was out yesterday... big exam :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Croatian CoA

I have given a source for my claims, you haven't given for yours. If you don't stop with your vandalizing undoings of my edits, I'm going to report you to administrators.--Calapone (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"baseless insistence" - hardly. You know as well as I that the first flag of the Republic of Croatia had the first white square on the coat of arms. That's the fact which no one can change, not even you. Therefore, your blind undoings of my edits are nothing more but hate-inspired vandalism. And like any vandalism, your edits will be reverted.--Calapone (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Please, explain your reasons for your numerous reverts of my edits in this conversation.--Calapone (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I need advice

Can you please give me an advice. In a recent discussion on page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia#Information at the bottom, I think I was the target of ridicule on ethnicity of user User:Timbouctou when we talking about adding a minority language in articles about settlements in Croatia. "So the next step in the evolution of your thinking is that "all minority languages are historic languages"? Lol. Does that include Hebrew for Jews? Tell me so I can start filling in articles with toponyms in Yiddish and Hebrew. How about the Romani people?" is a quote that I belive is not appropriate. I'm interested in what I could do about it and how, He is a very influential member of the project Croatia (I posted a similar message in article Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination#Advice?). I would not want anyone hurt, but I was really offended by that.--MirkoS18 (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I recommend you bring up your concerns (with links) on the Continued flaming (in spite of warning) thread, as relevant context. Regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--MirkoS18 (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Um... TP, why can't I edit? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Accident. Meant to block Timbouctou and blocked you by mistake. I undid it, can you still not edit? There might be an autoblock.--v/r - T P 01:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed the autoblock.--v/r - T P 01:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, figured it might be an autoblock :). One more thing, would it be permissible for me to remove the "psychopath" post from Talk:Coat of arms of Croatia? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I've redacted it.--v/r - T P 02:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Zanima me

Jesi li rođeni Splićanin? 93.143.47.82 (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do you ask? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Pretpostavljam, ali se ne želim prikloniti predrasudama, pa pitam. 93.143.47.82 (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Um... your question is rather personal. Do I know you? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ne bih rekao. Pitanje je poprilično osobno, ali s obzirom na predstavljeno na suradničkoj stranici, ne bi trebao biti problem odgovoriti. 93.143.47.82 (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Have we met? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Da jesmo, znao bi odgovor. 93.143.47.82 (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Mislim na Wikipediji? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Nismo. 93.143.47.82 (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ne, gledaj, nije mi jasno zasto te interesira? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Nema veze, nije bitno više. 93.143.47.82 (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Haha, interesantno.. Da. Ja sam rodeni Splicanin. Peta generacija. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Zeljko Kerum.jpg

File:Zeljko Kerum.jpg was obviously a copyright violation (see [39] and elsewhere on the web). Can you explain what you were thinking declaring that to be your "own work"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, I didn't declare it my own work. I uploaded it as such, but quickly corrected the licensing to fair use (I'm working on List of mayors of Split and I'm kind of in a hurry, I won't have time to finish later). Why did you delete it? Was the licensing faulty? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Didn't see that second edit. But then, it would never have worked under fair use either, since he's a living person. Please make sure you're familiar with the Non-free content criteria before making further non-free uploads. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Croatian Parliament seats (infobox)

Hi! I noticed you have added a color-coded chart of parliamentary seats in the infobox and the addition looks fine, but please note that the seats are not correctly assigned - first of all the sum of the seats in the infobox is 148 (3 short), there are only 5 independent MPs (three from minorities and two from Grubišić list) and the HNS won an extra seat (14th) from the minorities list.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I know, its still a work in progress :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, that's why I brought it up here - the three missing ones are HDZ seats from diaspora. Also please note that HSPAS and HSS won seats and not the entire lists - I think only the two should be there in the infobox and not the other parties on their lists, which is a similar situation to HDZ/DC/HGS lists. Anyway, the color coded part in the box is a really fine addition.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the Bosnian Democratic Party of Croatia seat won on the minority list is also missing (I presume this got mixed with the independents). --Tomobe03 (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Ty :). How about now? Did I get everything? What's the Bosnian Democratic Party of Croatia? I can't find it on Wiki. Do you mean perhaps the HDZ-BiH? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

We're still missing one damn it.. which one is it? :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It has to be the one from that party you mentioned. Can you provide a link so I can create a metacolor template? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the Sabor article is missing a chart such as this, which you can find almost everywhere. People make these charts in some way I don't know about - they're all virtually same. I have to figure out how its done. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bosnian Dem Party of Cro is listed as winner of that particular minority seat election in the DIP results on pages 42-43. They're not on the wiki, but their web can be found here. Everything else appears to be just right.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what can be done about the chart.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I entered the BDSH (and created a tiny stub about it), the parliamentary seats should correspond with their number now. If you figure out how the chart's done, let me know if you want me to do it. I mean, there's nothing you can't do with Photoshop, but they're all using the same method I don't know about, and I want it to be of the same type as the others. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The seating chart is in - apparently there's a script available to do that. I used meta colours, but other editing options are very limited.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Btw, I have moved the pie chart back to the 7th assembly section, that one should reflect the distribution of seats immediately upon constituting the 7th assembly, while the infobox graph should reflect any changes during the 7th assembly (changes of party affiliations etc). --Tomobe03 (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Great work. There is a problem, though, in that similar shades of blue are used by four parties. Also the Labour Party and the HNS both use a very similar orange color. While the current meta colors are derived directly from their own logos, it may be necessary to change their color shade. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not particularly keen on current meta colours, but it is true that the blues and the oranges are virtually the same. I made the pie chart now found in the 7th assembly subsection using more substantially varying shades of colours used (i.e. all those using blue still use blue, but they are distinguishable and the two orange shades are appreciably different. Unfortunately we have a choice of staying with the meta colours or trying to establish a consensus of colour coding for purposes or this type of charts - in that case something along the lines of colours used in the pie chart may be proposed. In my opinion, the latter solution is better since the former is of limited use. Of course, we could also keep original colours for the largest parties (blue: HDZ, red SDP, green: HSS?, orange: HNS, and assign arbitrary colours to others for this purpose.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Where can I read about the script for the structure chart? I'll modify the meta colours of the minor parties. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, when you do just let me know which are those and I'll update the chart - I've saved the scripting controls locally on my computer, so I only need to replace the colour hex codes to render a new one. Also, the chart uses #dddddd for independents, since white would not be visible without a border - I think meta colour for independent is that one.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

invitation

You are invited to help solve a problem. [40] (LAz17 (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)).