User talk:Peacemaker67/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

November 2011

A thread that concerns you has been posted on WP:ANI [1]. Regards :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the heads up Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Chetniks

Thought you might find this informative for the non-Serbs/Formation and ideology discussion: [2]. It's a 7 page excerpt from Marko Attila Hoare's book Genocide and Resistance in Hitler’s Bosnia: The Partisans and the Chetniks, 1941-1943, (Oxford University Press) showing the mentality of the Chetniks regarding non-Serbs and their anti-semitism. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 13:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a head's up...

Peacemaker67, I'm sure your intentions are good, but please take a look at WP:CANVASSING. AFDs are touchy subjects and contacting specific editors in regard to an article you've nominated could be misconstrued as attempting sway the argument one way or another. I'm sure that's not true in this case, but I thought you should be aware, esp. if you're not familiar with the AFD discussions, which are often heated. Best of luck, --Nuujinn (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the heads up. & that certainly wasn't my intention. There appears to be a lot of unsourced rot on many Balkans pages. I shall notify appropriately. Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the balkans are definitely a mess. One approach is to just post a note on the talk page that you're going to do a cleanup pass through the article, then be bold and see if anyone objects to your edits. I haven't looked at this particular article and likely won't, but if there's really no significant coverage in reliable sources for an article and it's not been edited in a long while, you can also label it with a PROD. If no one pulls the PROD template the article will be deleted in a week. Twinkle's a good tool for this kind of thing, it will appropriately notify the author. But a PROD only appropriate if you really think reliable sources are not to be found or the article is otherwise inappropriate for inclusion. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I was just going to continue adding sourced text when I noteced you had already reverted me. I could start crying out loud how you removed sourced text, but I want. I beleave we could/should discuss everything, but if you start changing unilaterally the article without the discussion being completed, this is what we´ll end up having, and I beleave nne of us want it... FkpCascais (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Likewise re: the title of the 'Ethnic Conflict and Terror Tactics' section. We have had consensus from Direktor, Producer, Nuujiin and myself (4 of the 5 editors regularly editing this article, all of whom have brought reliable sources to the table) for the change of title to 'Terror Tactics and Cleansing Actions'. At some point, if you don't bring sources but just argue your opinion, some editor will make the change to that agreed between the other editors who do have reliable sources. You have not initiated any discussion on the talkpage for changing collaboration to 'Relations with' except your opinion. No sources at all for 'Relations with'. My understanding is that you need sources make changes. In this article in particular. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
See my edit and you can see the way I am proosing that we should deal with the sections. For instance, with regard of Germans, there is much we could talk beside collaboration, however the title limits that. If you continue the pharse initiated by direktor how I don´t have sources, I will start using all sourcing on my own. There are plenty of sources indicating that relation between Chetniks and Axis was not at all as simple as collaboration, and we will discuss that, definitelly. FkpCascais (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
PS: Btw, Nuujinn agreed to the title just 20 minutes ago, so I couldn´t guess it back then when I did the edit. FkpCascais (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
PS2: Also, as you called my edit "nonsense", may I ask, what nonsense is your reasoning to add Italy and Germany as allegiance to Chetnik leaders? How is that you don´t need to have a rank? Otherwise, should we add UK to Mihailovic? USSR to Tito? Utter nonsense... FkpCascais (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Nuujiin actually agreed to the title several days ago. Check the thread. We got caught up in the ethnic cleansing stuff in the meantime.
Start the discussion on collaboration then, on the talkpage where it should be given the contoversial nature of this article.
I have given you a source for Djurisic's allegiances. Check the section on Allegiance on the Djurisic talkpage. How many times do I have to say this? I don't need reasoning, I need a reliable published source. I am finding discussions with you very frustrating. I look forward to you bringing sources.
And by the way, I have formed my own view regarding your reliance on argument rather than sources. I have formed this impression very quickly. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History introduction

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing

Hello Peacemaker. I noteced you´ve been using vojska.net for sourcing, as in 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) at sections dedicated to several Operations (diff). The website may be intersting to look at, as it lists numerous operations, military divisions, etc. I even mentioned it in a discussion at Chetniks article for showing how local websites translate the homeland/fatherland issue, remember? However, I never used it as source, as it is after all a video games dedicated website, and it doesn´t cite its sources. FkpCascais (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it is a really high quality source (it's not from a uni or anything), but it is both a videogame and military history website. It is one of few sources for this level of operation available on the web, and it actually does provide references for a number of matters see http://www.vojska.net/eng/world-war-2/bibliography/, http://www.vojska.net/eng/world-war-2/germany/ and http://www.vojska.net/eng/world-war-2/yugoslavia/statistics/partisans/ (which is used in the Partisans article, no less) among others. Frankly, it's not ideal, but this section had virtually no referencing at all when I started, and I've seen far more marginal stuff used on other Yugoslav Front articles. My initial inclination was to tag the whole section, wait a week and blank the lot and replace it with Keegan's assessment of the value of the division as quoted above (which is from a reliable published source on the subject and differs quite a bit from the overall impression given by the material in the section before I started. I may still do that if I can't find anything else to back the material up with. I don't have a copy of Lopre, and whoever used it doesn't appear to have bothered to reference some of the stuff which I assume is from it. If I was to blank the unreferenced material, maybe that would be enough for someone with a copy to put some citations in. We'll see. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Of course I wan´t take you wrong. I didn´t said anything until now at Yugoslav Partisans article because there are many issues to be worked out there, this one being only one of them, and I will have more time next week to discuss it all properly there. I allways said that the undiscussed changes you (plural) made there were just temporary.
About the website, it lists the bibliography but it looks more like a simple compiltion of books, as fails to indicate which information is sourced by which authors. I beleave we already discussed it in the past (some time ago, it was much before you started editing here), and we agreed that fails as reliable source.
About Lopre, you should try to get User:Jean-Jacques Georges back to our discussions, as he was the one who brought most of it. Contrary to what DIREKTOR says, he is not anyhow remotelly connected to events in Yugoslavia in WWI neither anyones simpatizer, but a Frenchman passionate about WWII history. As he opposed to some of direktor´s edits, direktor was quite harsh on him and JJG gived-up because he had no patience for incivility (his own words). If you honestly have a desire to expand these articles in a NPOV manner, you could try to get him back into the discussions, as he is quite a productive and good editor. FkpCascais (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes this is all part of what I explained on WP:AE. User:FkpCascais depends, not on sources, but on a numerical advantage on the talkpage, and continuously strives to achieve it. User:Jean-Jacques Georges is an extremely pro-Chetnik user (I speculate it is because the Free French were one of the few WWII supporters of the Chetniks), and thus, FkpCascais can surely count on him to support whatever excuse he chooses next to avoid sources (as was exactly the case in many previous discussions). That way, sources and sourced additions to the articles can be excluded, as FkpCascais can claim (incorrectly) that they are "non-consensus".
@FkpCascais, this is not the first time you attempted to falsely point to some "pre-existing consensus". I believe last time you claimed that we "agreed" not to use sources written by people from ex-Yugoslavia? I understand that you depend on "consensuses" like that, but please, if vojska.net points to a respectable source, then that the reliability of that source is what is at issue, not that of vojska.net. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 04:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I repeat, all I am interested in doing is expand the articles in a NPOV manner (using reliable published sources). As far as JJG is concerned, it's not my job to recruit people to the article. If you want JJG on board, ask them. NB Just heard back from a mate who can lend me Lepre for a bit, so I'll fatten up the sources on Handschar then. In the meantime I've used axishistory.com where possible to improve the references, as it has much better sourcing. I have noticed that some of the Handschar article is a direct lift from the Handschar page on axishistory.com, so I'll have to deal with that. I even found some Tomasevich refs for some of it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
@DIREKTOR, I really tried to have a nice calm conversation with Peacemaker, please don´t ruin it. You are wrong about JJG, I had as much discussions with him as you did, only that you made your discussions a huge drama and you acted as the owner of the trouth attacking him immediatelly with all sort of accusations, while all that he did was questioning all extreme views not agreed by all sources and favouring a final text that would be consensual. Your claims that everyone opposing you is clearly a Chetnik supporter is just a tactic you use to discredit other editors. Peacemaker can see the discussions and can make his own conclusions. Please don´t follow me around and ruin every normal conversation I have with other users, as if you were affraid of loosing arguments, or something... be cool.
@Peacemaker, OK, no problem about JJG, that is why I told you that "you could" (open option), prepared to respect any decition of yours. You´ve been doing some good sourcing too, I noteced. Anyway, despite some of our disagreements on certain articles, I really wish you happy Hollydays. FkpCascais (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"Yugoslav Front"?

There is one issue I would like to turn your attention to, Peacemaker, and that is the name of the Yugoslav WWII conflict. Wikipedia of course proscribes that the most common name in English sources be used as the title of an article. The current title of the article on the war in Yugoslavia is "Yugoslav Front". For the life of me, though, I cannot find a single source that uses the term "Yugoslav Front". To be sure, the conflict can be left without a name in sources altogether, however, when it is named (and we of course need a title for the article) it is named with a translation of the Yugoslav term ("Narodnooslobodilački rat") which can be translated as both the "National Liberation War" (which is more common) and "People's Liberation War" (which is less common). Both names, in contrast to "Yugoslav Front", are used in English-language sources and in great number (approximately 7,800 sources). The most common name is always determined through researching the Google Books archive, or other archives of published material, and then comparing the number of hits in English-language publications.

Here is a link to the previous Wikipedia:Requested move (a request to rename the aryicle) I posted upon carefully researching sources usage. It was of course opposed by FkpCascais who, guarding the image of the Chetnik movement, does not like the name "National Liberation War" as it was instituted by the Partisans. His excuse is that, in his venerable opinion, the term "National Liberation War" does not cover some unspecified aspect of the conflict. Not only does he refuse to specify which aspect is purportedly not included in the term, but as you may guess he bases his assertions in the first place on absolutely nothing whatsoever. He used to make the claim that Chetnik activities were not included in the term, however, he must have realized that one would have no problem sourcing that term in relation to the Chetniks' activities so he switched to simply not saying which aspect he thinks is not included. I mean its a farcical affair altogether.

What I would like to ask you to do, is review the arguments for-and-against on the previous requested move (here's the link again), bearing in mind the WP:COMMONNAME policy. I would be interested to hear your opinion on this rather important issue. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 04:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is actually pretty straightforward. This is what I think, having had a look at the arguments and policies. Firstly, the central premise should be that whatever name is used should cover all of the conflict that occurred in Yugoslavia during the period 1941-1945. In my view this means it has to include two major campaigns and a multi-faceted civil war. The two campaigns are the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia (the so-called April War), and the National Liberation War against the Axis aimed at liberating the country and placing it under communist rule. Both are important, despite the brevity of the first, particularly as the circumstances of the first set many of the conditions for the success of the second. The civil war is also relevant, and includes all the various regionalised conflicts between Chetnik and Partisan, Ustaŝe and the Serbs, Slovene Alliance and Partisans, Serbs and Muslims, how many permutations are there? All need to be covered by an umbrella term. I'm afraid National Liberation War is a subset of all that I have just described. WP:COMMONNAME is of course relevant, but that would only be the case if we were only talking about what the National Liberation War refers to. It may be consistently and commonly used to refer to the actions of the Yugoslav Communist Party and Partisans to liberate Yugoslavia from the Axis and therefore meets WP:COMMONNAME in relation to that part of the conflicts in Yugoslavia, but it does not relate at all to the other closely related and significant campaign involved (the April War), and only relates to some aspects of the civil war. I consider National Liberation War lacks the naturalness and sufficient precision identified under WP:NAMINGCRITERIA to be used as the title of a group of articles relating to all these conflicts between 1941-1945. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes I would agree if the subject of the article included the Axis invasion, however, the Invasion of Yugoslavia article covers the events of April 1941, while the Yugoslav Front article concerns the rest. The (post-April) 1941-45 conflict in Yugoslavia is complex and multi-faceted, no question, however that does not empower us to create or even choose (that which we perceive as) an appropriately complex and multi-faceted name. We are obliged by policy to use the most common name that the sources use, however "simplistic" we may think it is. I am gravely concerned that the term "Yugoslav Front" is an entirely Wikipedia-invented term with virtually no backing in sources, whether we choose to use it also for the invasion or not (and the invasion is simply not the subject of the Yugoslav Front article, its merely mentioned as the background). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 05:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, the first para doesn't say that. It says: The Yugoslav Front started in April 1941 when the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was quickly overrun by Axis forces and partitioned between Germany, Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria and client regimes in Croatia and Serbia. It doesn't say 'after', it says 'when'. Then it has a section on the invasion. The whole thing looks like a dog's breakfast to me. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
also, the Yugoslav Front infobox at the bottom clearly includes the coup and the invasion. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps that sentence is not sufficiently precise, but it does make it clear that the conflict started when Yugoslavia was overrun, which is correct (though vague, the article needs a ton of work). The conflict the article covers takes place after Yugoslavia has been invaded. The section on the invasion and partition (which I wrote a really long time ago) is intended as the significant background to the events, and is not to suggest that the Invasion is the article's subject. One can hardly write an article about the Partisan/Chetnik/Occupation war without mentioning the lightning invasion and the partition of Yugoslavia as the background events.
The infobox of the article (which is one of its few consensus-based parts) does not suggest in any way that the coup or the invasion are its part (how did you conclude that?), quite the contrary. The Invasion of Yugoslavia is listed as part of the Balkans Campaign of World War II, and is included in the Campaignbox World War II as such. I can only assure you that it is not covered as part of the Yugoslav Front article, other than being briefly elaborated-upon as the relevant background (which is simply unavoidable).
But either way, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA states that

"Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by. There will often be several possible alternative titles for any given article; the choice between them is made by consensus."

That is just my point and the gist of the problem: there really are no alternative titles used in sources. "Yugoslav Front" is not an alternative title at all - since it is not used by reliable English-language sources to refer to the article's subject, even if the latter happened to include the invasion (which it really does not). The sources never refer to the "Yugoslav Front" (capitalized), but at best merely to a front in Yugoslavia, i.e. the term "Yugoslav Front" is not used as the name for the conflict (or any conflict whatsoever). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Eh? I just looked at the infobox at the bottom, and it has a left column that is titled overview, and there is the coup and the invasion... Maybe I'm calling it the wrong thing? Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
We're probably not talking about the same thing, the "infobox" is the large box to the right at the top which depicts the subject of the article, and which notably does not contain the Kingdom of Yugoslavia as a belligerent. As I said, this is because the Invasion of Yugoslavia, while it is the cause and the background to the later conflict, it is really quite a separate event inextricably linked to the rest of the german Balkans Campaign. The invasion and the coup were only recently added [3] to the "campaignbox" at the bottom of the article, and I emphasize without any sort of discussion or consensus (I will be fixing that forthwith). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry about that. Got to get my terminology right. Definitely on trainer wheels when it comes to campaign boxes... Well, on the basis that the coup and invasion are not part of it, the Invasion becomes Background and the main body of the article sticks to things that happened after the NLW began following Barbarossa, I would support a 'move' if that's what it's called, to 'NLW'. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Its just Wikipedia nonsense.. :) Its not so much that I especially prefer "NLW" to some other title, its that there really is no other sourced title, even if we hypothetically included the invasion into the article's scope (which I would not support). Whenever I search for "Yugoslav Front", sources do come-up, but even when they use the "Yugoslav front" properly (and not, for example, as part of a term like "British-Yugoslav front" or things like that) they still do not capitalize the "f", as in "Eastern Front" e.g., and do not use the phrase as a name for the conflict, but rather as a reference to a military front currently in existence in Yugoslavia (such as a commentator on the Polish–Soviet War might us the phrase "Soviet general XY was sent to the Polish front"). And there's another problem: even if they did they would still be far outnumbered by "NLW". It really does bother me that the main article dealing with this conflict has an imaginary name which is basically only there because it suits one user and his perceptions. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The obvious problem with DIREKTOR's argument is that although the phrase NLW/PLW itself can be proved to be used in English-language sources, it is not used when authors are merely referring to the conflict or any of its facets. That exact wording was used in the text of the communist Yugoslav constitution, as part of the phrase "People's Liberation War and Socialist Revolution" (Narodnooslobodilački rat i socijalistička revolucija) and as such was widely disseminated in post-war Yugoslavia. As a result, all English-language hits found via Google come from texts which contain either direct translations of the constitution, or discuss ideological indoctrination in the post-war period (according to what was then the officially accepted historical narrative, the term was originally invented by Josip Broz Tito in a letter he wrote and was subsequently quoted in the communist party's official newspaper Borba). There are no professional historians who actually use the term as synonymous with what the Yugoslav Front article is talking about. Not only do Anglophone scholars avoid it, it is not even used by local historians as interchangeable with WWII in Yugoslavia, which means it is not even an accepted local name for it (unlike for example the "Great Patriotic War" used in Russia for the Eastern Front). Timbouctou (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I must say I've always been taken with 'War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-45'. The title of Tomasevich's books. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
In my personal opinion "World War II in Yugoslavia" would probably be best. "Yugoslav Front" was originally chosen as analogous with "Eastern Front", but it does not seem convenient to describe what was for the most part a guerilla campaign. Scholars writing about Yugoslavia usually stick with descriptive terms, just like Tomasevich did. Timbouctou (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Peacemaker, the important thing to note is while "NLW" may not be perfect, it is the only title for the war that is used in sources. The alternative is to sit down and invent a name we ourselves fancy. If I had my way, for example, I would prefer "Yugoslav War" as a simple and descriptive title. The conflict in Yugoslavia was not simply World War II occurring in that geographical context, it was also in many ways the Yugoslav Civil War. But again these are all irrelevant considerations since a name used in sources exists. There are over 7,000 English-language sources that use it, and the claim, voiced in the previous Requested Move, that somehow none of them are "really" referring to the war - is imho hard believe. -- Director (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Moves

Ok first of all I don't want to see you sanctioned so I really suggest you let Calapone have his way for the time being. This would, in my opinion, be a good time to back down. WP:EDIT WARS are one thing, and usually WP:3RR is the rule, but WP:PAGE MOVE WARS are far less acceptable since they really create a lot of disruption. As such, the status quo is really very important with article titles. The rule is usually: move once, and if reverted post an RfM. Though I would add: move once, and if reverted discuss to gauge the situation and maybe form some sort of preliminary consensus, and then post an RfM. RfMs last for days and, in my experience, can be real ordeals if they're not discussed beforehand.

Sources are, as you know, extremely important on Wiki, and you can enter article changes at will if you have good sources like Tomasevich, but titles are a rather more complex issue. They're not really content disputes, they concern mostly user consensus and Wikipedia policy.. Its really a shoddy system but there you have it. It usually works, though.

Regarding the Croatian Home Guard article, I have to say I don't understand why you're moving it to "Army of the Independent State of Croatia"? The actual name of that organization was indeed "Croatian Home Guard", and it is used very commonly in sources. The only problem I see with the previous title ("Croatian Home Guard (Independent State of Croatia)") is that the brackets used for disambiguation "(Independent State of Croatia)" are unnecessary, and the title should be simply "Croatian Home Guard". -- Director (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

as I said, I will engage in discussion on the relevant talk page. I must say I find it frustrating that the rules for article titles do not appear to have to follow sources. In my view, your suggestion re: Home Guard does not follow the sources I have, and Google Books is a pretty blunt instrument. I have quoted what Tomasevich says the decree was called, and it uses the terms Army and Navy. Why would Tomasevich, who was fluent in Serbo-Croat, translate it as Army and Navy instead of Home Guard? Home Guard just seems to be a hokey term that suits some people's preferences for whatever reason, connection to the previous state, national agenda or whatever. I agree it needs more research and I am not going to touch either article until I am back at home on a real computer and can refer to pages etc.
However, my understanding of Tomasevich is that a decree was issued to create an Army and Navy, then another one which created the Ustasha militia. Following this legal development, I would have thought there should be an overarching article on the Armed Forces of the NDH covering it's development from the beginning, and supporting articles on the Ustasha militia, perhaps merging the stub Black Legion article into that one, etc. My point regarding the title of the current Home Guard article is that there was a Home Guard post 1991 which will need to be addressed in decisions about disabiguation in the titles.Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, here is the gist of the problem I think. Correct me if I'm wrong somewhere. You brought-up the term "Armed Forces of the Independent State of Croatia" as a potential title for an article that should cover all military organizations of the NDH? Where this becomes confusing is the mix-up between that term and the term "Croatian Armed Forces" which was the name of the unified military organization instituted in December 1944. As far as I can tell, "Croatian Armed Forces" was a not a term used in the NDH prior to Demeber 1944. If you wish to have a title for an over-arching article I suggest "Military of the Independent State of Croatia" as a version more in-line with policy.
Another problem is the Croatian Home Guard. The name is a translation from "Hrvatsko domobranstvo". I can assure you, it is not a hokey term, and it is very common in sources. The Croatian Home Guard was the full official name of the regular army of the Independent State of Croatia (a mass of starved conscripts, really). Therefore it is not a mistake to refer to them as the "Croatian army", Tomasevich, I suspect, is simply not using their full official name. On the other hand, "Croatian army" could also have been used by Tomasevih as an over-arching umbrella term for the entire military of the NDH, that is to say, it could be referring to both the Croatian Home Guard and the Ustase Militia. Its really Tomasevich's fault for not being specific and accurate in this case. This specific case of him using the loosely-defined term "Croatian army" is one of the few objections one could raise against his work.
Regarding the Air Force, I know it was part of the Croatian Home Guard. As for the Navy, it itself is not something to devote much of our attention to: the NDH navy was microscopically small and later abolished due to Italian pressure. -- Director (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


Raid at St Lorenzen

Hello there. I read the book of Ralph Churches, both English and Slovene verisons and also Franc Črešnar who was also a participant on the partisan side, was actually some distant relative of my step-father. I had no idea about these events. Later I made a little bike trip to find that memorial plaque. I don't mind the page being called "Raid at Lorenzen", as long as the correct "Lovrenc" is meant. Places are now called "Ožbalt" and "Lovrenc", and they lie 7-8 kms from each other on the road, and over the hill as partisans went, even less. There are 2 places called Lovrenc in Slovenia, so usually additional description is addded, so there "Lovrenc na Pohorju" (Lovrenc on Pohorje hills) which is also the official name.

The Raid page is now good, but the main page Yugoslav Partisans still mentions some Austrian place Sankt Lorenzen ob Eibiswald, which is completely different "Lovrenc", and has no conection with this raid. Žarišče (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

g'day, I recently found a copy of Church's book, but as it is a primary source we gave to be quite careful with using it. However, it is very clear that the 'raid' was at the railway and the Partisans took them to the village now called 'Lovrenc'. I am planning to do some work on this article and the section of the Partisans article soon. Cheers. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing without consensus

It is not against the rules to remove the material that was added without consensus. That's what I have done. BoDu (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding? So we can just remove any piece of information on Wikipedia that isn't directly backed by some agreement of several people? Utter nonsense. It is against the rules to go around wantonly deleting content and then edit-warring without a word of discussion. And don't try to turn this around - its you who's editing without consensus, or even any discussion.
And discuss on your own talkpage. -- Director (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


Jeez.. another Serbian crusader for the Chetniks. Now he's edit-warring to delete all mention of the Chetniks from the Yugoslav Axis collaborationism template [4]. Long-standing information which is besides which sourced, and in spite of opposition from two users on the talkpage. I guess its been a long time. -- Director (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

DIREKTOR is another communist crusader. BoDu (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
That's an insult in my book. -- Director (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
guess what, chief? I'm no communist crusader. Produce your sources & stop edit warring. I am not interested, in the first instance at least, with your activities on the DM article, but if you think you can remove properly and exhaustively sourced info on the Chetniks article, dream on. The talk page is where you need to discuss this. In any case, get off my talk page. If you want to discuss a particular article, use its talk page, not mine. Warmest regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
You posted your comment on my talk page, and then you said that I must not comment on your talk page. From now on, I prohibit you to discuss on my talk page. BoDu (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No sense reasoning with this person, he's invented for himself a set of "rules" that "allow" him to remove anything he does not like. He's refused flat out to come to any agreement. Can I ask you to briefly join-in on Template talk:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism, so that we three may form a consensus. It would be interesting to see how this latest POV-pusher will switch arguments. -- Director (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism

Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. BoDu (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

E-mail

Peacemaker, is it possible to contact you by e-mail? -- Director (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Um.. Peacemaker? If you do not wish to be contacted in that manner please be sure to say so. -- Director (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry Direktor, I prefer to keep it on here. Cheers. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
No problem, could've just said so right away and spared me the trouble :D, for a while there I thought something was wrong with my computer -- Director (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Chetniks

Hello,

FYI, I find nothing satisfying or consensual about the current lede. It should be taken down. When I have more time, I intend to do some rewriting on the article. It shall not be a majorrewrite, as they do not deserve a shrine, but the article definitely needs a makeover. However, I'd like to make clear to you that, no matter how Direktor may have been exhausting other users on the talk pages, I disagree with the current lede. No offense meant. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

none taken, but if you make changes without even attempting to achieve consensus, given you have already been reverted, don't be surprised if you get reverted. As I say, bring sources because you will need them. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I have several sources, which I have read, and this allows me to see that the current lede is seriously lacking on every aspect. Not that the Chetniks as a whole do not deserve censure IMHO, but the lede is simply misleading about the subject and does not present it as it should be. In some weeks, when I have time, I'll try to work on the article using the Pawlovitch, Roberts and Lampe books, plus some others. However, I want to make it clear that I have no intention of wasting weeks discussing about every single paragraph before editing - though I have no problem discussing after. Also please take note that I have provided a lot of the sourced information that is now on the Draza Mihailovic page, so I am not entirely new to the subject (nor am I a Mihailovic admirer, or - even worse - a fan of the Chetniks). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
well, I am open to changes, just be aware that I have copies of all those texts, plus Tomasevich x2, Milazzo and others. They are all reliable. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Jean-Jacques Georges is not so much "pro-Chetnik" at base as he is "anti-me" (probably perceiving me as some sort of communist propagandist). Unfortunately that amounts to little de facto difference. Since he sees me as some sort of "anti-Chetnik" fanatic, that requires him to assume the diametrically opposite position - that of a "pro-Chetnik" advocate. In short, JJG hates me with a condescending passion, and mostly mirrors the positions of FkpCascais. -- Director (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the guidance DIREKTOR. I'll drawn my own conclusions, thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Right. "We really don't like each-other" is what I was trying to say :). -- Director (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Slovenia

Welcome, Peacemaker67, to the WikiProject Slovenia! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on Slovenia-related topics, please list them at our announcement page and tag their talk page with our project template {{WikiProject Slovenia}}. A few features that you might find helpful:

  • The project's Navigation box points to most of the pages in the project that might be of use to you.
  • Most of the important discussions related to the project take place on the project's main talk page; you may find it useful to watchlist it.

Here are some tasks you can do (watch):

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any of the more experienced members of the project, and we'll be very happy to help you. Again, welcome, and thank you for joining this project! --Eleassar my talk 16:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Opinion?

There is one dispute I was engaged in besides the Chetniks issue that you may be interested in. The issue of how to handle the Axis entity in Serbia during World War II. Currently there's a sort of exhaustion-induced compromise in the form of the Serbia under German occupation article. Without trying to influence your opinion (provided you're interested in this nonsense at all), I'll try to explain the extremely complicated issue as best I can.

Its a very sticky problem. Firstly, what is "Serbia" in a WWII context? Serbia ceased to exist entirely as any kind of defined political entity after Yugoslavia was formed in 1918. Before that, there was the Kingdom of Serbia, but it does not correspond well with what the term generally means since 1945 (it included the Republic of Macedonia, for instance, and did not include Vojvodina). "Serbia" cannot be easily defined on ethnic grounds either, since ethnic Serbs lived, and live, in a significantly wider area (much of Bosnia and Croatia, for example).

Of course in 1943 the Partisan "parliament", the AVNOJ, proclaimed a Federal State of Serbia - essentially with the borders it holds up to the present day (the issue of Kosovo's controversial secession notwithstanding). The main issue is whether or not the Germans officially created a state or country called "Serbia" in 1941 when Yugoslavia was broken up.

One's immediate impulse is to just go to the sources, see what they say, and solve the issue. The sources, however, just seem to end-up confusing the matter further. They the use the term "Serbia" alright, but often in the same way as they use the term "Bosnia" or "Slovenia". They use such names in a WWII context as geographic terms, most often corresponding with the federal states of SFR Yugoslavia. There was no "Bosnia" between 1918-43, and there was never a "Slovenia" or "Macedonia" (in the modern context of course) until 1943/45.

What was the official status and situation with the territory in question? What we know is that once all the Axis members had their pick of the "Yugoslav carcass", there remained a rump territory which comprised of a part of what corresponds with the pre-1918 Kingdom of Serbia, plus a few parts of Vojvodina, which was not part of the pre-1918 Kingdom of Serbia (these parts of Vojvodina are called Banat, and were organized as a sort of autonomous region, Banat (1941–1944), somehow associated with the remainder of this territory, and administered by the Yugoslav German minority).

We agree that there was a Military Administration in Serbia, a Militärverwaltung in Serbien, one of many German Militärverwaltungs. This was a Wehrmacht governing entity, that we agree-upon, but it is disputed whether that was also the official name for the territory itself - as was the case with other Militärverwaltungs. Based on the name of the Militärverwaltung, we also agree that the territory in question was colloquially called "Serbia" at the time.

In addition, we agree that there was established a Government of National Salvation (subordinate to the Militärverwaltung), headed by General Milan Nedic, established to assist in the governing of this territory. Where we differ is on the issue of whether the Government of National Salvation was a government of a some kind of state which was called "Serbia". As if all that was not enough, we know General Nedic tried his best to push for just that, his own state on the model of Vichy France - which, as I keep pointing out, he never achieved.

To top all this off, the territory itself, the bare area, was unofficially called "Serbia" (both then and now), and in the post-war period the term "Nedic's Serbia" as a sort of umbrella term for the whole mess was invented by the Yugoslav state historians ("Nediceva Srbija"). But regardless of what the area itself was unofficially called, the problem comes-up when someone tries to cover this territory. Do we cover it as a historical country, like the NDH? Or like a German occupation zone? Another Militärverwaltung? And what of the Government of National Salvation? Where should it go?

Its an important issue since it raises many questions. Did "Serbia" exist during during WWII? Was "Serbia", like Croatia, a Nazi puppet state or was it just occupied? The core of the problem is that this territory, administered by the Militärverwaltung in Serbien (with a subordinate Government of National Salvation of General Milan Nedic) was often colloquially referred to as "Serbia", but having an article that calls the thing "Serbia" - inescapably implies the existence of a Nazi puppet Serbia (a "Vichy Serbia"). I will add that I would like to see the thing covered the heading Military Administration in Serbia, just like all the other similar territories in WWII (that were blessed with a lack of confusing colloquial terms). -- Director (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Funny you should bring this up, I've just finished sharpening up the Serbian State Guard article, and this is related. I'm interested in it from an academic perspective, and my initial reflex is to reach for Tomasevich 2001. As far as I am concerned, his definition of the NDH as an 'Italian-German quasi-protectorate' nails it from an (albeit Western) international law perspective. My reading of Tomasevich is that he considered 'Serbia under German occupation' either 'The Puppet Government of Serbia' or a 'military government of occupation' in Serbia. Both are direct quotes from Chap 5, the first one being the title of the chapter. There is no way on earth it was a historical country, it wasn't even recognised as a state within the Axis (which the NDH was to some extent). It had no ambassadors, never had a minister or commissioner for foreign affairs, never signed any treaties, etc. It had no international standing at all. Do you have any suggestions as to an alternative article title? Given Tomasevich's views, I'm fairly happy with the current 'Serbia under German occupation', but I'm open to other suggestions. 'German Military Administration in Serbia' would work for me. The Government of Commissars (I & II), Government of National Salvation (I & II) and Committee of State Administration for Serbia were all instruments of the military administration, and that should be made clear. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
@"There is no way on earth it was a historical country." Yes, well, try telling that to PANONIAN. Frankly, I don't know what his current views are, or whether he's stopped pushing that recently, but I know I've been trying to hammer that point for months over there. For some reason, I honestly cannot fathom why, he's attached to presenting General Nedic's Government of National Salvation as a WWII Serbian state (see this version, for example).
Tomasevich and Ramet, as I recall, are both very clear on the issue:

"But Nedić’s competence remained strictly circumscribed; indeed, his government had a largely "formal character", being for the most part restricted to ratifying decisions made previously by German authorities. The German military administration in Serbia was formidable, with a staff of 700 officers."
Ramet p.130

"Nedić thus headed a government whose powers were strictly limited, one that had no international standing even with the Axis powers. Like its predecessor [the Aćimović Commissary Government], it was no more than a subsidiary organ of the German occupation authorities, doing part of the work of administering the country and helping to keep it pacified so that the Germans could exploit it with a minimum of effort, and bearing some of the blame for the harshness of the rule. As time went on, Nedić's powers, instead of being increased as a reward for his loyal service to the Germans (which was repeatedly noted by most high German commanders and officials in Serbia), were whittled away. His situation was always difficult and frustrating and the minutes of his conferences with and his letters and memoranda to succeeding military commanders in Serbia amply show that it became more and more degrading to him personally."
Tomasevich 2001, p.182

@"Do you have any suggestions as to an alternative article title?" There's the problem. Notice the wording of the current "compromise title": Serbia under German occupation. What "Serbia" was it that was under occupation? As I said above, there was no "Serbia" since 1918, and the Federal State of Serbia was only de facto established after the liberation of the territory in question (with the establishment of the ASNOS on 12 November 1944 in newly-liberated Belgrade). It does not even geographically correspond with post-war Serbia (as it is significantly smaller).
The whole situation over there is a mess born out of compromise. We essentially have only two organizations in the area: the Military Administration in Serbia, and its subordinate Government of National Salvation. As far as I'm concerned, its perfectly fine whether we decide to cover them as one article (entitled "Military Administration in Serbia"), or if the Government of National Salvation gets its own article. What we do not need is this weird article entitled as if it covers an entirely imaginary occupied country. The point is that the official, real name of the territory was "Military Administration in Serbia". A situation perfectly analogous with all the other five Military Administrations.
As I said, the situation is confused by the fact that "Serbia" is apparently the nickname for the "Military Administration in Serbia" (i.e. the territory known under that occupation "designation"). Look at Tomasevich. He says "the Puppet Government of Serbia", suggesting (to a person who did not actually read the text) that this "Serbia" was some sort of puppet country. Even though it is perfectly obvious, as you say, that there was no such historical country. Enter PANONIAN, proclaiming that Tomasevich supports him in the claim that there was a country called "Serbia", and that the Government of National Salvation was only the government thereof. And then here comes General Nedic with some coins he issued with the name "Serbia", and presto - a new historical country. -- Director (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
So all this is basically the whole months-long dispute (or at least my own point of view on it) condensed in two TLDR posts :). -- Director (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
My first question is why are we even specifying Serbia. It seems to me that we should have an article called something like 'Axis occupation of Yugoslavia in WW2' or similar, with everything else subordinated to it, annexations, puppet states, military administrations, etc.Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Well we could have something like that, but it wouldn't solve the problem at hand. How to characterize this particular part of the occupation? I think there would be little question that it warrants at least one separate article. To be clear, I have no problem with using the word "Serbia", just as long as its used in the proper context: "Military Administration in Serbia". Extracting "Serbia" out of its contemporary context and placing it somewhere else would be very misleading where we should be very careful not to be misleading at all. Obviously this is due to the fact that "Serbia" is a country, but the term itself was used by Germans in the name for their Militärverwaltung - which is not a country.
So we have to be careful or else we will imply the existence of a country which did not exist, whether it be the implication that "Serbia" existed before the war and was occupied by the Axis ("Serbia under German occupation"), or the implication that it was some kind of German puppet state ("Vichy Serbia"), which was the case with previous titles. -- Director (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
My view is that we shouldn't have a 'Serbia under German occupation' article at all, because that title implies that there was a Serbia to be occupied. All we should have is an article for the Military Administration in Serbia (subordinated to an 'Axis occupation of Yugoslavia in WW2' article). The Military Administration in Serbia article should only concern itself with the area of Yugoslavia that fell under the governance of what was called the Military Administration in Serbia. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
That is precisely my position as well (and in my personal opinion the logical one). The article Serbia under German occupation is practically written as the Military Administration in Serbia article. One would only need to change the title and a few details in the main text.
However there is one more problem with the whole mess. As I recall, at one point during the dispute, User:PANONIAN created a seperate Government of National Salvation (Serbia) article. He did so primarily to help his argument at some point (he kept changing his position so I can't even remember what he was arguing at that particular time). Do you think it should be separate or covered as a section within the Military Administration in Serbia article? -- Director (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I can see why we wouldn't retain it as the main article for the Nedic puppet administration, but have a sizeable section in the Military Administration in Serbia article covering all the main points briefly. The Nedic administration had quite a lot of complexity, not only in its relationships with DM, but in its various armed groups, etc, so it probably justifies a separate article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The final issue is that of the Commissary Government (of Acimovic). What of it? Separate? Part of the Government of National Salvation article? Or part of the Military Administration in Serbia article?
If I had it my way, we would have a single Military Administration in Serbia article, with a sizable section entitled "Puppet governments" with two subsections on the Acimovic and Nedic governments. And that would be it. Why have three relatively tiny articles when we could have one decent one? Mind you Acimovic's Commissary Government is really a rather unimportant subject, a brief three-month government with virtually no power whatsoever. -- Director (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that. I agree with you regarding Military Administration in Serbia article covering the Commissary Government, and of course there is the even more short-lived 'Committee of State Administration for Serbia' (led by Petkovic) who were left with the can when Nedic legged it in October 1944. However, I think the Government of National Salvation article could be a good sized article in itself, with a main article link and brief summary of the main points in a subsection within a 'puppet governments' section. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Heh.. he did "leg it" didn't he? :) Yes, as I said up there, I'd be perfectly fine with that solution. The two-article option is fine as far as I'm concerned. I would, however, still like to see the Nedic government as a (small) section in the Military Administration in Serbia article - with a "Main article:" wikilink to the Government of National Salvation article.
So basically, what we would need to do at some point is move the "Serbia under German occupation" article to "Military Administration in Serbia", and then merge the Commissary Government article into it. From experience I expect we shall encounter "verbose" resistance from User:PANONIAN. -- Director (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, just to tell you that, having in mind similarity of edits of these two accounts, I might ask for official checkuser investigation of sockpuppetry if notable disruption related to this issue starts. PANONIAN 19:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I second that, PANONIAN.... --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
you guys go right ahead, you'll find many diffs to show we often disagree. Never mind WP:AGF. You'll find I'm a dozen time zones away from the Balkans. And btw, if you want to communicate with DIREKTOR, please show some respect and please do it on his talk page! Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is beyond insulting, Panonian. I've come to expect nonsense like that, but Peacemaker is a newcomer. You should note that your pal FkpCascais' has already gone down the road of bothering people and WP:FORUMSHOPPING instead of providing sources.
P.s. It also seems from the above link that User:FkpCascais himself has not decided to modify his behavior in the slightest due to his topic ban, and holds others responsible for getting himself sanctioned. It seems more than likely his behavior will continue in the exact same manner as before. He's made that clear many times thus far, and it should probably be brought to the attention of the community. -- Director (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I hope you might now see what I mean when I say a reorganization, however logical and/or sourced, will be resisted [5]. Nobody even said anything on the talkpage. -- Director (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been a bit surprised by the response, given that no attempt has even been made to edit the article along the lines we discussed. Looks a bit like WP:OWN to me, but maybe I'm judging too harshly, and should take my own advice re: WP:AFD... Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
right DIREKTOR, I want you to talk to me about this: [[6]] Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Um.. well those look like 171 worthless hits. Sentence fragments. Real sources usage of the phrase would be very difficult to research since one would have to isolate sources that actually use it as the preferred term for the territory. The bottom line is that there was no political entity in existence called "Serbia" since 1918. There were only two political organizations in the area, the Militärverwaltung in Serbien and the Government of National Salvation. -- Director (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Huh? We are not talking about the political orgs. I thought the issue was about whether the sources support that phrase as the "name" of the territory? It appears that some do. Look at the context of the Tomasevich, Norris, Gutman and Kerenji hits, they are referring to it as a de facto name, not in the sense of "Serbia, under German occupation, was ... Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I mentioned above that the term "Serbia" is used to denote the geographic territory? Much in the same way as "Bosnia" (very frequently used) or "Slovenia" or "Macedonia". None of those territories were defined at all until 1943 or '45 (depending on your legal perspective). In my experience usually what the sources mean is roughly the territory defined by the post-war borders of the federal republics, i.e. "Bosnia" or "Serbia" as they were defined at the time the work in question was published (of course, these terms basically retain the same meaning up to the present, but they are changing even as we speak: "is Kosovo Serbia"?).
But as I said, the bottom line is that the title should be the official name of the territory, not a very misleading abbreviation some sources use (at times). I think you're starting to see how the rather "loose" terminology of the sources can complicate what should be a straightforward issue :). -- Director (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

So Peacemaker, what's your take on this whole issue? Do you feel like participating in a reorganization of the article? Or have you changed your mind? -- Director (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Tomasevich does not give a name for the territory, in my library (and from a quick Google Books search) only one source (Pavlowitch) actually provides the name the Germans called it. He says the Germans called it the 'Serbian Residual State' (p. 49), whereas so far as I can see, none of the references that use the phrase 'Serbia under German occupation' actually state that the Germans called it that, it's just a convenient phrase to describe the territory. It seems to me if we have a WP:RS for the name that the Germans called the territory (and all the other names appear to be phrases of convenience, like 'Serbia under German occupation' or 'Nedic's Serbia'), and given the Germans created it, we should use their name for it, then that is what we should be moving it to. What do you reckon about 'German occupied Serbian Residual State' or something similar? Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Wait up. Here's another one from Pavlowitch, 'Serbia: the history behind the name' p. 141. [[7]] It says that the territory was officially called, 'Territory of the German Military Commander, Serbia'. That is even more official... Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Also Bond and Roy 1975, War and Society: a yearbook of military history, Vol 1. p. 230 states that the German name was Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbien [[8]]. There are several good hits in German for Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbien or Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien.[[9]]. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, excellent research. The way things seem to me now, these territories were apparently administered by an institution called a Militärverwaltung, and were called Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers. This isn't the only such territory. Its important imo whether World War II sources in general refer to these areas by treating them as synonymous with their administrative institution - the Military Administration. Because, looking at sources, it seems to me that "Territory of the Military Commander" isn't the way these occupied areas are generally referred to. -- Director (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

not sure about that. Our essential problem here is that the name of the territory was rendered in German (naturally) and authors in English have just used convenient and shorter terms to identify the territory, ones that English speakers are familiar with, rather than the correct translation of the German name for the territory. Interesting that there are quite a few quality hits for the name in German. The French territory was definitely named the same way, except 'in Frankreich'. I'm a bit limited to mobile WP for the next 48 hours, but I will look at this again. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peacemaker67/Archive_1&oldid=1136154229"