User talk:AlasdairGreen27/Archive 1

Bluetongue disease

Thanks Alaister. The article I added about bluetongue also being known as The Dancing disease came from a BBC News article, so would have been OK. Take care , KP

Dalmatian Italians

Please, do not erase the Italian tag, because the article is related even to the historical state of the Kingdom of Italy and its culture (and most living Dalmatian Italians, who were born in Dalmatia and are closely related to the few hundreds of them still living in Zara and Croatia, reside actually in Italy mainly in the "Quartiere Dalmato" of Rome). Read the tag description in detail. Please, read even in detail Delete Discussion and Rename Discussion. Tom

Why?

hello, i hope u re doing good, i just want to find out why my article For Uche Ume is being redirected. pls kindly send me details or reasons for such redirection. Thanks.

---

THE EDITOR FROM HELL FOR SPOOF WRITERS !!!!

---

Thanks mate. I feel you could be an inspiration for a new kind of Super hero .

" Is it a Bird, Is it a plane, No it's the Editor from Wikipedia ". Out to save the word from 'fallacious entries'. [ If I were Frankie Howard I would turn to the audience now and say 'Oooh eeer Missus "]. But I'm not. I'm Kent Pete.

www.petermusgrove.com

P.S. Just to warn you, I'm going flat out to get myself on Wikipedia next Year.

Take care

Pete

thanks!

I've made the proper adjustment. It must have slipped when i wrote the articles. Thanks for the warning.Mario1987 (talk)

Dictionary Tower

You have nominated an article I did on dictionary towers for deletion, and asked me to refer to the article's discussion to see why you had done so

Unfortunately it was deleted before i got chance to look at it because i was on vacation - can you please let me know why you deleted it, i didnt feel it was a bad article, but welcome constructive criticism

(A Lewis (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC))

Ashley Hermitage

Are there rules against including students on this page, even if they happen to be published? Wiley distributes it's works world-wide and has one of the largest readership for travel-guides... Is there any way the article can be modified to suit your requirements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thom davies (talk • contribs) 16:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Bleiburg

Good idea. There's more to Slovenian mass graves than Bleiburg, I agree completely. Excellent work on silencing Tolstoyboy, I don't think I ever congradulated you on that.

And, yes, you should have looked me up. Where are you from, anyway? Somewhere in ex-Yu I presume? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. As a suggestion, why don't you fix up your Userpage a bit? At least so it ain't red, you shouldn't look like a newcomer (or something). DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"Lj"? Ljubljana? I suppose you go south for the summer? :) DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: :)

:D Thanx. Besides Split, at one time or another I spent a lot of time in Milan, LA, Zagreb and Riva del Garda, so I think I can safely say I don't have any excessively irrational infatuations concerning my birthplace, but while most of those places (sans Zagreb, I fear :) were much more beautiful, Split really does have a uniquely attractive culture and mentality. This is (mostly) because of the combination of the Slavic and Mediterranean (Italian) culture.

Anyway, be sure to drop by if you're in town. :) DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Istrian exodus

Giove/LEO is back. He's reverting/editing much of the Istrian exodus article again. Could you give this your attention once more? As you've probably heard, Giovanni and I are restricted so I can't revert him, and he can't revert another edit. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Istria

Well, I can't really. The thing is Giove/LEO's been editing in the meantime and if I return my changes it may be interpreted as a restriction breach by Giove and he may report me. The only way to return the changes is if you revert him...
(Giove and myself are restricted to one revert per week, per article, with discussion.)
DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

About your userpage

You need to fix it up a bit. User:The Transhumanist has some really good stuff. Best, --Gp75motorsports (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

WWI frontline

The primoska begin in Koper/Capodistria until the Croatian boders. Right? If yes, it was never touched by the war, that was foguht in the "Carso". --Giovanni Giove (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked "Right". I thought that prim. means "coastline". Anyway I think is really un important. Anyway do not do personal attack agains my "knowledge" anymore!!!!! BTW I've seen that there are a lot of uncorrect claims in the article, many of them were written by you, so..--Giovanni Giove (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

To write ""you obviously lack the necessary knowledge to edit accurately", because I do not know the Slovenian geography IS accutally a personal attack. You did worst errors, but I do not claim that you "you obviously lack the necessary knowledge to edit accurately". Som PLEASE, calm down. Tx.--Giovanni Giove (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Your personal attack

I've seen that you suggest me to go in the "evening school". I will not do it, and this is another "personal attack". I do not care of Slovenian regions at all, and I do not need to justify such a minor error (really minor if compared to your owns). Please stop to bother me, I do not want to discuss anymore about this silly problem. Do not insult me anymore. Decent discussion will be welcomed. Regards.--Giovanni Giove (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That is, quite briefly, NOT a personal attack. That is a legitemate suggestion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Istrian exodus talks

Concerning talks with Giovanni Giove and LEO in the Istrian exodus article... Firstly I want you to know that I am certainly not against discussion, nor am I trying to biase you against anyone, but trying to talk to Giovanni is most certainly an empty pursuit. I've been dealing with the guy for months now, all he ever does is make around 30 reverts and edits every day, while his discussions are extremely brief, incomprehensible (the guy writes very bad English), and, most importantly, uncompromising.
"LEO" is suspected to be Giovanni's sockpuppet, but if he's not, he's even worse than Giove (providing that's even possible). In any case, he displays identical views, with identical fervour and bad English. It would appear that "both" of them are decendants of Italian "esuli" (It: "exiles") from Istria or Dalmatia. In either case, they are rabid Italian (Venetian) nationalists. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The Holy WikiWar of Dalmatia

have you been involved in this before? If not, then I don't advise getting involved now. That is, unless you want to be called a fascist and a vandal. It's no fun, I'm telling you. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I wish I could just block the guy, but I'm not an admin. Also, watch your main page, I've seen to it that you've got a suprise coming your way...--Gp75motorsports (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

By now, you probably already know that I'm going to redesign your userpage. What kind of style would you prefer? --Gp75motorsports (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm

Might be a browser issue... the image was appearing off to the side when I looked at it. I just added 2 breaks to space it below your userboxes. Anyway... feel absolutely free to revert if you wish. --Isotope23 ^talk 20:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You ok?

After you made this edit, I'm not sure it's really you on the other end of the line. Giove hasn't hijacked your IP, you don't think? If you hav to, go create another account and respond on my talk. Best, --Gp75motorsports (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I know someone (a certain Italian user that you've dealt with before) who talks just like that. as you can see, I thought he hijacked you. Thank gods he didn't. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

EXACTLY! w00t! --Gp75motorsports (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: User page

LoL, I don't know why I changed that... it just sounded good I guess.

As for Giove, I was there the second it happened :D, but we will have to be on the lookout for sockpuppets. I don't think this is the last of him, he's just like Afrika paprika... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about the misunderstanding in the Yugoslav Partisans article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Giove IPs

I've posted a sockpuppeteering report about all this, here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (4th). Any help in the way of additional evidence or support would be appreciated. This guy simply must be stopped already! --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

D Thanx, I could also use help with making my case in the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (4th) report. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Translation, please. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, right after I clicked the save button. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to let me know...

Thanks;)Ceha (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

... and to let you know

See [1]. You've been mentioned. Kubura (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know about him accusing you being my sockpuppet.
You know the saying: "Tko o čemu,...".
It's a pity that noone (except Croatian users), at the time, believed us what kind of problem Giove was/is.
Otherwise, the sockpuppets or stringpuppets like RomanoDD or London321 'd be disguised much earlier. No money and no person on this world can convince me, that these aren't sockpuppets. How come that the first one appeared just in time for someone to evade the 3RR rule, and later never appeared... or when the second one, appeared as silent sockpuppet. Out of all games, but pushing the propagandism. Kubura (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

John Labus

Thanks for the source. I'm pretty surprised that he wasn't a hoax to be honest. Someone took the liberty of cleaning up the article, and I really don't feel that he's notable, so I'm going to keep the deletion discussion open. Thanks for pointing out that he was a real person though! Cheers, CP 21:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on Denis P. Cohen

It is my belief that the AFD debates should stick to the topic at hand and not degrade into a personal comment on the articles original author and their other original articles. The reason I took exception to your comments is that you didn't bother to have any opinions on the 3 articles that were up for deletion, and instead poked fun of the author when he wasn't there to justify or defend his articles. I would define that as a cheap shot and not conducive to settling what is a valid debate. Also, the articles were not junk. Yes, they need lots of work and proper citations like most articles on Wikipedia, but they were not junk vanity pieces with links to homepage, instead being fairly well stated but under cited pieces. You could have voted to delete and refered to the previous articles he had written as a possible conflict of interest, and I wouldn't have given it a second thought.

As to my own grammar and your pointed comments about it, well, I wasn't an English major. As you may have read on my page that you quoted from, I have already admitted my spelling and grammar are subpar, and honestly, I focus more on the meaning of what I say rather than perfect grammar. Hopefully the message behind the poor grammar isn't lost. Pharmboy (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on AtHomeNet Page:

I am new to this process on wikipedia. I already edited my user page so that it wasn't the same as AHN's, I really have no idea how that happened....and although another editor has suggested it could be advertising or COI, I have already levied reasonable arguments to show that I am not in violation of these policies. The article is from a neutral point of view, and has no elements of advertising to it. The sources I have added on the advise of other editors are legitimate, and I am trying to find a copy of one more mianstream article to post a link to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edenrage (talk • contribs) 22:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Cooper (American journalist)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Matthew Cooper (American journalist), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Matthew Cooper. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You copied the contents of Matthew Cooper and pasted it into Matthew Cooper (American journalist). This is what we call a "cut and paste move," and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming articles is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. --Oxymoron⁸³ 17:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Dalmatia

Unbelievable! what is going on here? I think this is job for an administrator. Zenanarh (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Look which articles they use to propagate Italian toponyms for places in other countries: List_of_social_nudity_places_in_Europe. Kubura (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The Season of good will !!!!

Could you not just leave one of my spoof links on. It could catapault my writing career into exciting new areas. After all, is it Christmas !!!.

p.s. At least you take it in good spirit. Take Care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent Pete (talk • contribs) 17:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A report

Na dobro ti došlo mlodo lito, Alasdaire!
Now, to work.
I've reported that unregistered vandal 121.45.181.31 [2].
This'll be and RFCU case. Question is only, who's sockpuppet is this one, Giove's or Cherso's?
Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 3 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marie-Charles David de Mayréna, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 08:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

IP

Since it's shared, I would wait until there's a chain of edits and then block again. bibliomaniac15 21:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Amico

Ciao amico, valid sources support my edits in every kind of articles.--PIO (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Potential vandal alert

Hey, Alasdair. Been a long time since we last talked, I know. Anyway, I've found another potential troll. He is User:NikhtaSt and he already has three vandalism warnings on his page. That's bad considering he's only been here a little while (the abscence of a userpage signifies a new user). Let's watch this guy. I don't like the way it's looking. (loads M4 Carbine) Here's some ammo. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 18:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 9 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Winston's Hiccup, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV: "Gregorij Rožman; Ljenko Urbančič; Domobranci"

Hi. Unfortunately, I have little time right now to edit the articles; I'm planning to do it after next week. In the meantime, I think is correct to put a NPOV notice for people who might read those articles. I'm strongly convinced they are not balanced enough. I've carefully read through all three articles (as well as the one on Leon Rupnik, which I find OK) - especially the sources. There are a lot of newspaper articles, references to web forums, clearly biased journals like Mladina etc., but I noticed a complete lack of relevant historical bibliography (save from some articles from the Yugoslav times - and I guess you know that in those times there used to be a strict rule what you can and what you can't write down). The essential and commonly accepted book on the matter is Boris Mlakar's Slovensko domobranstvo, then works by Tone and Mitja Ferenc, Bojan Godeša, Jerca Vodušek Starič, to name just a few. What do I find most problematic in the article on SD as it is? To put it generally, things are not put into perspective, there is little written about the genesis of the SD, the groups that composed it, the internal currents (I guess you know there was a pro-British current, represented by the Lieutenant Peterlin, deported by the Nazis to Dachau in 1944) and struggles. Rupnik’s anti-Semitic and proto-Fascist current was just one of many (of course, it is clear why the Nazis put him in charge). Secondly: the mention of the “prominent members” is completely arbitrary. Thirdly: the claim that the SD as such was anti-Semitic is exaggerated. Shortly: it seems that the whole thing is more of an accusation rather than an encyclopedic article. That's why I tagged it with NPOV.

As for Rožman’s article: I believe it’s highly incorrect to start from the assertion that he was a collaborator, an anti-Semite and a friend of Ante Pavelić and Roesener (the last two claims are unreferenced; which is logic, since they are false). The whole article doesn’t follow the standard format for an article: he was first of all a theologian, bishop of Ljubljana, and then you can go on saying that he is a controversial figure for this and this reason. The whole stuff on Nazi gold can of course be mentioned, but not as a matter of fact, but as a theory or accusation. And, just for the record, Rožman did do other things in his life other than collaborate with the Germans during WWII (although the term "collaboration" is much more problematic here than with the SD). And of course, contrary views have to be integrated.

Urbančič: the claim that he was a war criminal is a strong one. The only reference is an obituary from a journal. Too little. Reference on his life previous to 1941 is poor; the claim that he was sent to Gonars because he tried to organize a pro-German guard is very unlikely to be true - again, no reference. In this case, too, I have decided to put the NPOV sign (rather than the the warning on possible factual inacurrance), because the whole article looks like anti-Urbančič propaganda. Now, I don't want to defend him: but wp is not a denounciation site.

As you see, there are a lot of things to debate and, I think, to change in the articles. I hope we'll manage to do this in a civilized way. About your allegation: I haven't put the NPOV warning because I'm pro-domobranci or anything, but because I believe the article is in fact biased. Honi soit qui mal y pense. Viator slovenicus (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, if you accuse somebody of being a war criminal based on an obituary in a newspaper and start from there, that's biased. (Urbančič) In Rožman's case: it is stated that he was a friend of Pavelić and Roesener. In the very beginning of the article. No reference. Now what do you want me to do? To quote you a source saying that he was not a friend of Pavelić or Roesener? The allegation on the Nazi Gold: dubious reference (journalist articles, not an accepted historical work); again, should I find a source that demonstrates he wasn't involved with this malversations? I'm afraid it doesn't work like this. If there is an accusation on an individual based on no source or poor source, and this accusations are put in the very beginning of the article and put togeher with phrases such as "he was a fervent anti-Communist" (again, at the very beginning of the article, before even the reader gets to know where the guy was born), then I think I have all the right to tag it with NPOV. As for the SD article I gave you a source: Boris Mlakar, Slovensko domobranstvo (Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 2003), published by a renowned historian and a renowned publishing house and which goes basically against everything written in the wp article as it is now. Viator slovenicus (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, in the SD article I'll be more precise and will tag only what is problematic. And just to let you know: a lot of the stuff isn't sourced: newspaper articles are not sources. As of the Rožman's article, I can't but leave the NPOV on the whole article. You can see by yourself that most of the allegation aren't sourced ("friend with Pavelić", "Nazi Gold", etc. - again, ahat you quote there are accusations, not proofs). As of the nice confeti metaphor: I've been here for more than a year now and as far as I remember this is the first time I've NPOV-ed sth. Viator slovenicus (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, check out the Dutch and Slovenian article on Slovensko domobranstvo: that I think is how a neutral article should look like (and no, I haven't contributed to either of them). Viator slovenicus (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your last comment says it all. In short: the articles have to be rectified; until then, the readers have to know that their neutrality is disputed, so they can be careful with the data they're getting. That's all. We can debate on this when I start making some modifications in the articles, but until then I'll have to persist that the warning stays. Viator slovenicus (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not reverting the changes, I'm repeating my claims: the warning has to stay, in my opinion, for the following reasons:

1.) SD-article:

The assesment on who the leading figures were is arbitrary and clearly aiming to give an interpretation of the SD as a Fascist Anti-Semite organization. This interpretation is in my opinion incorrect (see the above source Mlakar, cit.) and misleading. The pro-British elements are not considered and the actual stucture of the SD with all its internal divisions is forgotten (see the articles in the Slovenian and Dutch wp). How couls have Urbančič been a "leading figure" of the SD? He was a kid at the time!

There is no doubt that there were anti-Semitic elements in the SD; the claim, however, that the whole SD was anti-Semitic or even that it was its predominant feature is false (again, see Mlakar or the late Mladen Aleksander Švarc, ex president of the Jewish Community of Slovenia, in his articles: "Ni monopola na antifašizem" (Slovenec, 12.IX.1992), "Judje kot objekt teoretičnega izživljanja" (Razgledi, 14.X.1998) - these are of course personal recollections, but I believe they have some relevance coming from the president of the Jewish Comunity: he says basically the same as Mlakar - there was anti-Semitism in the SD, but several members of the Liberation Front were anti-Semites, too, and during the war both hatred as help for the Jews came from both directions).

2.) Rožman's article:

I don't know where to start. From the very beginning, there are dubious claims ("close to Pavelić"), very little mention of his life previous to wwii, no mention at all of his help to Jews and anti-Fascists (as you may know, the mother of the Communist hero France Tomšič was not allowed to testify in Rožman's trial that the bishop tried to help her son; cf. Tamara G. Pečar&F. Dolinar, Rožmanov proces, Ljubljana: Družina 1996). Several dubious and certainly non-neutral claims, such as that he was a leading figure of the SD - this is highly disputed even among historians that are very far from Catholic sympathies (see Janko Pleterski, "Ob knjigi "Rožmanov proces: Človek, ki je aneksijo "vzel na znanje", Delo 4.I.1997).

3) Urbančič's article: the claims that he was a war criminal, ex-member of the ZBOR (although this might be true, it's not sourced), that he was imprisoned by the Italians for being too pro-German (also not sourced). The claim the he was known as "Ljubljana's little Goebbles" is sourced by an Australian political speech! How neutral is that? I don't say that all the data in the article are wrong. I'm saying they're poorly sourced and arranged in such a way to make the whole article non-neutral. That's why it needs to be tagged until it gets put a little bit in order.

That's all. No need to take it personally. If you want to get a "conflict manager", that's fine with me. The discussion it's here, everybody can check it out. I'll submit to an outside decision. But I'm gonna revert back if you try to cancel the NPOV tag. Sorry, but I think I've explain why I think so. Viator slovenicus (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

New sig?

AlasdairGreen27

done by typing

'''[[User:AlasdairGreen27|<span style="color:black;">Alasdair</span>]]'''<font color=green>'''''[[User talk:AlasdairGreen27|Green]]'''''</font>'''[[Special:Contributions/AlasdairGreen27|<span style="color:black;">27</span>]]'''

If you want it, just copypaste the above tevt into your "Nickname" box in "My preferences". Don't forget to check the raw sig box. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 01:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

IP?

Last I checked, it was a name. Funny. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 01:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply

I have just posted my reply on my talk page, bellow your message. Cheers. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 19:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 16 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Directa Decretal, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

revision

well i tried to go to the article but it says 404-Page not found.--THUGCHILDz 08:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that's all the reason it was undone but if there's working link go ahead.--THUGCHILDz 08:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

my fault, i didn't copy the link all the way. I'm sorry.--THUGCHILDz 08:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

go ahead and add both the links.--THUGCHILDz 08:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Tolstoy

Alastair Horne is of course entitled to his opinion, but it is only that - his opinion. A great many others (with education equally as good as Horne), including myself, do not share that view. I thought just adding that little bit of mud-slinging was rather unfair. Unless you are biased against Tolstoy you could have the common decency to add the the article some of the first rate reviews of his book when it came out. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your message is unnecessarily and inappropriately blunt. It is not mud-slinging, nor is it unfair, to draw attention to the fact that the Minister and the Massacres was sternly criticised by somebody as eminent as Horne. "A great many others ... including myself, do not share that view". Well, I'm afraid that your views have no relevance as far as articles in Wikipedia are concerned. Nor do mine. Should you wish to bring the "first rate reviews" to the table, I'm sure they would do nothing but add context to the article, which, by the way, was all that I sought to do in adding that link. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that I'm unlikely to remove what I added today, probably the best way to defend your man is to actually defend him, rather than waste time writing to me... isn't it? -- AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Odgovor

Pozdravljen. Ne, nisem iz Vipavske doline, ampak iz Nove Gorice. Sicer pa, glede "najine" teme: prijatelj mi je prinesel iz Slovenije knjigo zgodovinarja Bojana Godeše "Kdor ni z nami, je proti nam: Slovenski izobraženci med okupatorji, OF in protirevolucionarnim taborom" (Cankarjeva založba, 1995). Izredna knjiga. Če te zanima tema, ti jo priporočam v branje. Kakorkoli: izpisal sem si reference iz te knjige in ko bom imel čas, bom vnesel v članek o Rožmanu in domobrancih. Verjetno pa vsaj še naslednji teden ne. Članek o domobrancih nameravam tudi malo razširiti in vključiti poglavje o nastanku protikomunističnih milic (MVAC, "bela garda") pred septembrom 1943, kakor tudi poglavje o strukturi domobranstva (Slovenska zaveza, Rupnikov krog, Peterlin-Mačkovšek-Uršičev krog, itd.). Glede Urbančiča nisem našel še ničesar; mislim pa, da bo zaenkrat dovolj, če se članek malo obrne, doda malo več biografije, še en ali dva "nasprotna" vira in se malo distancira od virov. lp. Viator slovenicus (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

A mediation case in which you have been mentioned has opened here Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-19 Australian rules football. Comments are welcome at the article talk page. MBisanz ^talk 06:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

dictionary towers

Hi there

you recently nominated an article i did on dictionary towers for deletion.

You referred me to the articles discussion page where you explain why you have done this

Unfortunately the artickle was deleted before i got chance to look ( i was vactation)

Cajn you tell me why you thought it ought to be deleted

I thought it was an ok article but always open to constructive criticism

Thanks

(A Lewis (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)) A Lewis

Re your reply to the dictyionary tower

Hi thanks for coming back to me. I appreciate what you are saying regarding dictionary towers. The term isn't in general use, however I did make a link to the Capenhurst Tower in the article which was discovered to be a dictionary tower used to spy on communications between the UK and Ireland.The capenhurst tower article has plenty of links and reference associated with it to verify its accuracy and thtas why i was suprised my article was removed especially as it had been in existence so long.

regards

(A Lewis (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC))

Open your mind on Dalmatia

You wrote: "I understand your POV, but logically and historically you are opening up a big hole for yourself. If you want to put Dalmatia related articles into WikiItaly projects on the basis that Dalmatia was once occupied by Italy, then I will put every Italy-history related article into the Spain, France and Austria Wikiprojects on exactly the same basis. Those three empires occupied Italy for hundreds of years longer than Italy controlled Dalmatia. Big Spanish, French and Austrian flags at the top of every article related to the history of Italy. Hmmm. Think about it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)"

My answer: DO IT! I don't see anything wrong on a french tag in an article on the napeoleonic Kingdom of Italy, for example! The problem is that you Slovenian-Croatians cannot open your mind about Dalmatian Italians and so you keep on and on with your ethnic hate and your Balkan wars. A simple tag makes you behave like you were in a war, instead of understanding that the future lies in the MUTUAL COOPERATION between the different ethnic components of a united Europe: it is similar to what the Croat government has done about a simple post stamp with Fiume (your Rijeka). Open your minds!!!!

I cannot speak for anybody else, but I have a very open mind. The drawback in what you have just written is that if I added the tags as you suggest, so that pre-unification Italian history articles had big flags of Spain, Austria and France at the top, well, I think you can imagine what the reaction would be. And I can't really speak for Slovenian-Croatians, as I am neither, but evidently I can see what is afoot here, which is naked Italian irredentism. And that, in a nutshell, is the problem. Do, please, leave the eastern side of the Adriatic alone. It is not your concern. I think that your "understanding that the future lies in the MUTUAL COOPERATION between the different ethnic components of a united Europe" means specifically an Italian imperialist agenda as regards territories in the Adriatic that you covet. I think that there are enough problems in the territories that you do currently control without adding any areas to them. Perhaps turning your mind to solving the waste disposal issue in and around Naples would be a useful start? I've seen it on TV, and it looks terrible. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You are totally wrong, my dear Slovenian-Croatian. Put a french tag on the napoleonic Kingdom of Italy and you'll see that nobody will erase it. Because it is History, based on real facts, do you understand? And nobody will write that the french tag is "french irredentism" and write "please, live the eastern side of the Alps alone". Because everything related to Napoleon is concern of the french people, do you understand? BTW, only a Slovenian-Croat can write of "Italian imperialist agenda as regards territories in the Adriatic that you covet". So please, open your mind to a real MUTUAL COOPERATION between european different ethnic groups and end your dependance on your Balkan mentality, full of ethnic hate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.207.226 (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Like Il Cuore nel Pozzo was opening everyone's minds to "a real MUTUAL COOPERATION between european different ethnic groups". ROFL. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That was Tv "soap opera"....open your mind and get rid of your Balkan mentality! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.164.50.249 (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN/I comments

Hi there. Regarding your comment on WP:AN/I, I certainly didn't mean to suggest that it was "best" that Adam Cuerden leave. I feel quite strongly that his loss is a loss for Wikipedia, and that his case was badly mishandled. What I meant was that at this particular juncture, Adam appears to have made up his mind to leave, per his on-wiki and off-wiki comments. Given his decision, I thought it best to let him delete the relevant pages without a technical discussion, and without turning his departure announcement into a free-for-all or general airing of grievances which, as you may have seen, are fairly widespread.

That said, I agree with your general points about Wikipedia needing to be more serious about becoming a respectable reference work. I hate to see good editors like Adam leave. If you're having problems with disruptive editors and drive-by tagging, then let me know and I'll be happy to take a look. I hope that clarifies where I'm coming from. MastCell ^Talk 04:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Mentoring, guidance, coaching

Cool. Help is always welcome. You can check my contributions any time and if you have any suggestions, feel free to use my talk page. My last substantial contribution was on the article France Prešeren. You can start from there. Take care, Viator slovenicus (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

rugby

Well yeah, I already know about the difference of rugby league and union but the thing is sevens is still a form of union just like 20/20 is a form a cricket.--THUGCHILDz 07:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Contributo

Ciao amico, comunicando in italiano forse ci capiamo meglio quindi puoi dare un contributo in questa discussione in qualità di mediatore tra me e THUGCHILDz. Nella tua pagina di utente aggiungo che puoi contribuire in lingua italiana. Amichevoli saluti.--PIO (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You can vote in mediation. Ciao,--PIO (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Slovenian links

Hi, Alasdair.
If you have any Slovenian links that deal with Italian irredentism (especially from recent times), that'll be welcomed. Reactions from Slovenian officials would be a bingo.
Article Italia irredenta began having romanticized lines, it needed corrections. Greetings, Kubura (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Do not make VANDALISM in my own introductory user page! It is against Wikipedia rules: next time authorities will be notified.--Cherso (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that these Cherso's edits weren't made in good faith:
19:48, 17 February 2008, Cherso wrote: [3] 'Today (february 17, 2008) for the first time since WWII a piece of Yugoslavia breaks away from the Slav control!! KOSOVO IS INDEPENDENT ! I hope soon other parts of ex-Yugoslavia will follow....may be even my CHERSO, or Istria or Zara....who knows" ??????? On his userpage.
20:11, 17 February 2008, Cherso wrote: [4]. Comment "Independence of Kosovo...... what a beautiful day for the non-slav (and even Italian) Irredentism!)". ????? On the article Italia irredenta.
20:24, 17 February 2008, Cherso wrote: [5]. "! BTW, "Enjoy" the independence of Kosovo! Finally, the Slavs have lost some territories in ex-Yugoslavia since WWII and withdraw from Albanian Kosovo.....As you can see, the legacy of your Tito (with his ethnic cleansing) is starting to disappear...""??? On my talkpage. He probably tried to taunt me. That's inflammatory behaviour.
These are the inflammatory edits. I think this is for ANI. Do you agree? Kubura (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the answers to the ANI of the fanatic Kubura:

If you're opposed to people abusing their Wikipedia user pages to make divisive political statements that have nothing whatever to do with Wikipedia, then why does your own user page say "This user is against the joining of Croatia to the EU" ? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Because this is how nationalist conflicts work on Wikipedia. You continue to call the kettle black, hoping that someone will grab the bait and block the opposite party of the dispute. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My favorite is always when I end up having to block the original poster because they were the one initiating things. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Open your mind...I am sure Croatians and Slovenians and Italians will be together in the European Union soon or later. Ciao--Cherso (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rožman, Slovensko domobranstvo, Lyenko Urbanchich - last time

I believe the articles are not neutral (which is by the way quite obvious), that's why I have tagged them: I have explained my arguments very clearly, extensively and with a great degree of tollerance. Please restrain from vandalist behaviour, otherwise I will have to report you. And I will not tollerate your disrespectful speech: you have no right to tell me to shut up. I will however not anwser to your provocations any more, unless you come up with new arguments. Until then, I have nothing to add. Viator slovenicus (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Confuso

Amico sei alquanto confuso: togliendo la frase da te proposta!!!! Ma che vuoi argomentare con Undid revision 193601034 by Aitias (talk)Guy0307 was putting in the consensus, plus PIO's version is a grammatical nonsense se la frase Australians have a vast range of sporting interests and as such there is no "one" national sport. Australian rules football, rugby league and cricket are all claimed to be the national sport by various people è tua e ha il mio consenso nella mediazione: la mia versione insensata non c'è perchè questa è la tua versione!!!! Io ho votato la tua versione che ha il consenso di altri nella mediazione!!!! Ma prima di redigere articoli bevi forse troppa birra o vino???? Riguardo la popolarità del cricket certo si può affermare che il cricket sia seguìto ma non è popolare come il footy, rugby a 13, rugby a 15 e tennis!!!! Quindi se quel californiano continuerà a inserire l'Australia nella lista del cricket aumenterà il livello di guerra editoriale!!!! Evidentemente pure quel californiano beve troppa birra o vino!!!! Il soccer è molto popolare ma non è il gioco più popolare del mondo: puoi leggere questo commento--PIO (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

AlasdairGreen27 mind if I get in this one. All the 3 sports are claimed to be popular. And that's why all 3 are explained in the info. Saying the same thing twice in a paragraph is too much. Say if it was an essay then you could have put the short version in the intro and explained in a different paragraph with the long version. But here there's no need for the short one because the longer explains it to a pretty acceptable level. Even thought from what I got from other members using the TV rating one is a bit skewed but that will do till new ratings come in I guess. Now all that is explained in the info section. Ok now I had removed "summer" because the source doesn't say anything about it being only a national summer sport. Also the 2nd source doesn't say anything about cricket so to be saying generally greater than cricket would be wrong. Then PIO puts it under AFL but that isn't correct because it's only the most popular in some state but not on a nationwide level and the same goes with rl. Also PIO stop making personal attacks against me, this is your last warning. What evidence do you have that I drink too much? FYI (for your information) I don't drink at all.--THUGCHILDz 17:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Be my guest THUGCHILDz. PIO, the point about my revert was that in pursuit of your POV you had managed to insert that "Cricket is often described as the national summer sport" and that the "popularity of the dominant football codes are generally greater than cricket", neither of which statements are true. Nor is it true as you claim that cricket is not as popular as ARL, RL, RU and tennis. It is arguable (although I'm not arguing it) that all three dominant football codes should be disqualified from mention as national sports as they are not popular enough across the nation. And regarding your endeavours elsewhere to assert that football is not the most populat sport in the world, PIO, please just listen. Football is the most popular sport in the world. That's just something that everyone knows. Period. End of story. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

AlasdairGreen27, la tua azione non è costruttiva e dimostri di non conoscere lo sviluppo di quella frase: cricket is often described as the national summer sport....popularity of the dominant football codes are generally greater than cricket sono parole di redattori australiani!!!! Il californiano continua nella guerra editoriale e qualcuno deve bloccarlo!!!! Il soccer non è considerato il gioco più popolare del mondo da molti esperti: puoi leggere il mio parere. Chi afferma che il soccer è.... dimostra semplicemente ignoranza e malafede!!!! Tu, amico sloveno-australiano, affermi che il soccer è.... solo perchè molti ignoranti ti hanno influenzato ma, poichè sei intelligente, presto constaterai la situazione della realtà.--PIO (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Closed

After trying at this for over a month, I am of the opinion that we have exhausted all possible options. Every conceivable wording has been put forward, and still there is dissent over which version should be used on the various pages. Therefore, I am declaring this mediation at an impasse and have closed it. Parties should continue to discuss it and may seek out other forms of dispute resolution. I would advise all parties involved to remain civil and to follow proper policies in handling the matter further. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 05:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks Alasdair. Yes I know how PIO is. Is there anything we can do to make him understand or stop him?--THUGCHILDz 23:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Mate, I don't think so. We can only persevere. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Mate, I posted this comment--PIO (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User:Cherso. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. delldot talk 02:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm back (for good this time ;)

I'm DONE! :) What a couple of months I've had(!), but I'm done with my work for at least a month or so, wich means I can finally really get to work around here. How's everything on Wiki? (Don't tell me the Italian radicals are still active?) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Re

The exams? I'm still on therapy trying to overcome the trauma ;), but I passed most of them and that's what counts I suppose... I was also on vacation in Italy for a period so its been a pretty busy period for me. Anyway, Giove is back? His unique style ought to be instantly recognizable if that's true. While Serbs are pretty riled up with the secession and all (I have to say I sympathize), I can't imagine this would translate to the Italian conflict... Zen a nationalist? That's a laugh, I think I ought to get involved so they can find some other more believable target for that favorite accusation ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

PIO checkuser

In case you didn't notice, the Checkuser declined to run an IP check on PIO, since it was so obvious that it was him evading the block. Another user has blocked the IP for the remainder of PIO's block. Good find. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I did notice, but many thanks for the heads up anyway. I think the admin could've perhaps been a little clearer than "Declined. Obvious", as PIO has now taken this to mean that the case was dismissed without consideration, judging by what he's written on his talk page [6]. I've been reading the various comments there, but choosing not to get involved. Although if he persists in referring to me as a vandal I may change my mind. I find it frustrating that standards such as WP:CIV, WP:EQ and WP:AGF apply to good editors, but not always to bad or disruptive ones. Anyway, thanks once again. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

AlasdairGreen27, tu fai azioni distruttive su certi articoli e non sei collaborativo poi proponesti una frase citando 3 sport nazionali australiani che io accettai ma in national sport hai rimosso questa frase e la caratteristica n. 1 della definizione iniziale: lasciamo decidere agli amministratori se sei vandalo o no! Mettere al bando questa o quella utenza è inutile ma se ti diverti a cercare IP, continua pure: perdi il tuo tempo come vuoi, sei proprio bravo!!!!--PIO (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Always you with Direktor and Kubura keep canvassing against me, Cherso, MaryGiove and your IP request was declined because useless!!!! Almost all my edits are not reverted but there are many POV warriors like as THUGCHILDz and you!!!! Some admins blocked me wrongly!!!! Only I have tried to encourage you to communicate and participate in dialogue but it's not in your nature to do so!!!!--PIO (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin blocked me wrongly? Hi, Alasdair: look this (I hope that you understand Italian). --Leoman3000 (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And this User_talk:PIO#March_2008 hopefully concludes the drama. As a newer user, I hope that user didn't turn you off to wikipedia. We tend to give any user a chance to prove they contribute, and it seems that eventually, given enough rope, PIO proved he wasn't able to constructively contribute. Since he's now indef blocked, if he were to re-appear as a SOCK, it would be permissible for me to block him. So if you ever need any help with that or any other issue, my talk page is always open. MBisanz ^talk 07:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO Bingo, he's been blocked again and I saw him hitting hte autoblocker within 5 minutes of the block. That should give us a day or two till he figures out how to register another account. MBisanz ^talk 04:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Anyone with National sport on their watchlist will spot him as soon as he comes back, and I agree with you - it won't be long. I thought the denials yesterday were amusing. It all kept me entertained while I should've been working anyway... :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah I did and what's sad is instead of wasting so much of our and his/her own time, he/she could have been doing productive to help the project.--THUGCHILDz 23:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, PIO's back again? The guy's a special breed, I remember him threatening to come over to Split and beat me up :D if I didn't leave him alone to do what he wanted. Talk about fanatical... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I got a threat for him to come over to NY to settle things face to face from him on Meta. Now he's Meta banned. I've protected and blanked Jxy's talk page. I am not privy to Arbcom's doings, but they will make their decision quite clear if they decide to do anything. Odds are they'll decline to unblock and we'll just keep hammering socks. Any blocked user can edit their own talk page, unless its protected. Also, we are working on a global banning system, that if implemented, would ban him from all Wikimedia wikis, so far I've tracked him to half a dozen other projects causing trouble. MBisanz ^talk 07:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Future

No problem, Alasdair.
I've cooperated with that admin, and, my experiences are, that I've managed to find mutual understanding with him. I'm telling you this, because I've got serious warning by him once (few months ago), but he hasn't put his attitude into concrete. He wasn't behaving according to prejudices or first impressions - in fact, later, he considered all my complaints and reports. He made me no problems. Kubura (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Rab concentration camp

Hello Alasdair, through the discussion about User:Gennarous on the admin noteboard [7] I got to see the Rab concentration camp article. I just wanted to say that I am going to support you in keeping the article neutral and denying any revisionist POV (as the recent edits by User:Gennarous were, in my opinion). Best Regards, lomis (talk) 11:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Rab concentration camp

Do you think this website RS in the article Rab concentration camp? The website has no editorial board or anything, no mention about author, from where they collected the source. It is not RS. Can you please consider changing the source. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The King ;)

Perhaps you'd be interested in the discussion concerning the kingship of Aimone, the 4th Duke of Aosta? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 21 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rab battalion, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder...

how long is the Aimone rename supposed to go on, anyway? Its been almost a week now and the poll is 5:3 (+ 1 weak oppose, Rjecina wanted a different rename) in favor of the rename. Are there any rules that say when its over?! --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

btw, since User:Imbris is openly canvassing for support, you wouldn't happen to know someone that would be interested in the matter? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So should we inform somebody to close the discussion? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is completely wrong. Who among the participants read the books Kisić-Kolanović, Nada : NDH i Italija, Zagreb : Naklada Ljevak, 2001. and Matković, Hrvoje, Designirani hrvatski kralj Tomislav II., vojvoda od Spoleta: povijest hrvatsko-talijanskih odnosa u prvoj polovici XX. stoljeća, Naklada Pavičić, Zagreb 2007. ISBN 978-953-6308-73-6. -- Imbris (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose no one's gonna come along to close it, I wonder if Elonka might want to do the honors? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Siegfried Kasche

Hi. I've nominated Siegfried Kasche, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on April 18, where you can improve it if you see fit. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As I read through the articles linked from the 4-5 DYK notices on this talk page, I couldn't help but smile at this article; the myth surrounding the name is fairly outlandish, yet still within the realm of possibility, which only serves to pique one's interest. :)

Have you considered bringing it to the attention of WikiProject WikiWorld (they feature a single article each week in the Signpost)? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow - thank you for the kind words (though I shudder to think that the internal processes of Wikipedia could someday approximate the internal politics of the United States -- or any country, for that matter). :) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 24 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Siegfried Kasche, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bobet 13:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

oh boy...

Here we go again, where do all these guys come from, anyway -> [8]
--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Blame me. He's a contributor on Ante Pavelic and has been arguing against the use of the term puppet state there for months. I pointed out how many times it was used in regards to the NDH in other places, and told him he might want to work on getting it changed there before trying to get it changed on the Pavelic's article. Sorry. Be warned, he's absolutely steadfast in his beliefs. Hopefully exposure to other users than me and Kirker will convince him that this is a battle not worth fighting. AniMate 00:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think so :( But I suppose we have to confront him one way or another, damage on Ante Pavelić is equal to damage on the NDH article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Answers Re: Ustasa Movement

Since you have already told me that you can read Croatian, I would like you to take a look at the foundations of the Ustasa Movement here : http://hr.wikisource.org/wiki/Na%C4%8Dela_Hrvatskog_usta%C5%A1kog_pokreta and tell me what you think is so wrong about that. It's not THAT hard to 'find the other side', and to be honest, it's much stronger than you think - most Croats sympathize with the Ustasa movement then reject it - reminder to you, the majority of Croats have Ustase or domobrani in their immediate families (grandparents etc), however, the majority of Croats live outside of Croatia, and the majority of Croats don't even bother trying to explain anything to people like DIREKTOR, because he is set on Yugoslavia as much as I am set on Croatia. There is no changing that. The Croatian diaspora is almost homogeneously pro-Ustasa, and that is why even the President of Croatia Stipe Mesic was "doing the Ustasa dance" in Australia years ago - see youtube : Mesic 1990 Ustasa. My grandparents were Ustase, not Nazis or Fascists - if you as my grandfather what a fascist is, he'll say an Italian. Those men fought for a free Croatia, and as a Croatian, I respect their efforts and them, because without them, and without the Croatian political emigration - there would not be a Croatia today. "Ustastvo" is the purest Croatian nationalism, and it's not as black and white as people from the outside see it. Ustase created the first Croatian state after 800 years of foreign rule, and not only that, they created it in Croatia's historic and ethnic boundaries, unlike today. Now what's attractive about Poglavnik ? Well, he devoted his entire life to Croatian freedom. He was imprisoned 3 times prior to NDH for basically being "too Croatian" in a Serbian dominated "Kingdom" - he was the one that got the ball rolling in terms of one of the most epic Croatian revolutions ever. After it, he established HOP (Croatian Liberation Movement) in the diaspora - which was the FIRST democratic Croatian organization, even though that is so hard for haters to swallow. Poglavnik was not a fascist or anti-semite, he was just someone willing to create an independent Croatia by any means. Thanks to his organization - many spawned off from it, including HNO (Croatian Peoples Resistance or Hrvatski Narodni Otpor) lead by Vjekoslav Maks Luburic. HNO is what coined the term "Hrvatsko Pomirenje" - the idea that the sons of both Ustase and Partizani create a unified Croatian national front to free Croatia from Yugoslavia's monster grip - this principle was later adopted by the late president Tudman - and was a crucial part in establishing present day Croatia. If I understand correctly, you are Slovenian - and I know that most Slovenians liked Yugoslavia - but Croats did not, so it is hard not to sympathize with people who were anti-Yugoslav. As for you calling people like DIREKTOR 'anti-fascist' - big misunderstanding. Slovenians can be considered anti-fascists, so could Croatian Istrians who fought the Italians under Tito's star - however, the partizans who were fighting the Croatian state, people, and were FOR actual communism and Yugoslavia - aren't anti-fascists, they just hide behind that title today because it's 'not cool' to be a communist. Am I pro-Hitler, no. Am I pro Mussolini - definitely not. If you have read DOZIVLJAJI by Dr. Ante Pavelic you can see that he wasn't either, he just used the oppourtunity at hand - he used them as our vehicle to independence because there was no other choice - Britain, France etc were allies of Yugoslavia plain and simple. If you have anymore questions feel free to ask. Unfortunately I can not contribute to the articles or talk pages because I have been banned for 6 months for giving "the other side".AP1929 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh and for the record - it's grammatically correct to say UstasA movement, not UstasE movement.AP1929 (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As for your bit of sarcasm about me having "all this time" - I think you need to re-look how important it is for Croatian nationalists to prove that Croats are NOT Slavs - thus I make time for my own research and analysis as it is a key point. Croats never wanted Yugoslavia, and the idea that Croats and Serbs are the same people with different religions is absurd. As for historians etc - Not their fault, most of that research was conducted prior to the 90s, and therefor it had to come from somewhere - YUGOSLAVIA. AP1929 (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(You don't mind if I join in on the discussion, do you Alasdair? I'm afraid I share some of your fascination.)

You misunderstand me, AP1929, you talk as if I'm not a Croat and a patriot at that! In fact, my beliefs, that you so criticize, are based on the desire for my country to be as prosperous and as significant as possible. I firmly believe that Croatia would be far more successful, as a nation, in a union with other similar peoples. You of course, believe otherwise, but that is most certainly your right.

The fundamental differences in our points of view are as follows:

1) You consider Croatian national pride and independence far more important than I, and are concerned about the Croatian national identity. I, on the other hand, do not place much stock in nationalism and its benefits. Rather I believe that economic prosperity alone determines the overall happiness of the people in the modern age.

2) You understate the autonomy and significance of the SR Croatia in the Yugoslav union of peoples. 5 out of 9 Prime Ministers of the Federal Government were Croats, and Croatia surpassed Serbia to such a degree that discontent appeared among the Serbs, finally manifesting itself in the Yugoslav Wars.

Now, my belief that Croatia was economically more prosperous in Yugoslavia is not unfounded at all, you would do well to note the simple mathematical fact: the economy of the Republic of Croatia does not surpass that of the of the Socialist Republic of Croatia in any measurable way, 20 years after the secession. By this I mean: GDP, employment rates, trade deficit, industrial and economic growth, tourism, and especially income inequality. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am answering questions which were directed toward me, this doesn't really involve you. I don't misunderstand people like you, I know exactly what you think and want, to me you are not Croats, you are Yugoslavs, your pan-Slavic views par up to the likes of Macek, who was a Yugoslav and a coward. I don't understand what YOU don't 'get' about the fact that both Yugoslavia's were a prison and slaughterhouse of Croats. Those 'utopian' ideas are fine and dandy in the land of gum drops and lollipops, but the fact of the matter is, I would never go into another union with the same people that have massacred my people, and have tried over and over again to erase the Croatian identity. You try to make it seem as though the war was started because of serbian discontent which is certainly not the case. The majority of Croats (wherever they may have been) wanted a free Croatia - far prior to 1990, eventually it happened. We left the "union" as you call it, and then the Serbs went for the entire 9 yards by simply trying to recapture "Yugoslavia" under it's real name (Greater Serbia). Comparing RH to SRH is absurd - it hasn't been 20 years, and we had a huge war, with tons of damages, pure disaster. Compare SRH in 1958 to Croatia now, and then you can talk. You are far to general on the matter, and the problem with Croatia today isn't because of people like me, it is because of communists like you. "Missing money" "Corruption" is all thanks to the people that were playing on Tito's tennis courts 20+ years ago. They were raised as communists, and hide behind some anti-fascist title today, but continue on doing things 'the old way'. Tudman, communist, Manolic (don't even get me started), all the way up to Mesic today. Those are the people, who will not let Croatia prosper, those are the people along with you, who think that Croatia should be someones colony - which has proved time and again (litterally hundreds of times) that THAT IS A BAD IDEA which eventually leads to WAR. People need to work for CROATIA not for any kind of foreign union or a government in serbia. Croatia will be a very prosperous place one day, when there is not a single person that ever saw a Yugoslavia alive - when the people who are in charge are children of Croatian heros, kids who saw what war really is, kids who never knew anything but free Croatia - that is when Croatia will be a true prosperous state. AP1929 (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I find it highly offensive and politically incorrect to title the Domovinski Rat as "The Yugoslav Wars" - that makes it sound like a civil conflict, which it was not. There is no such thing as a Yugoslav, Croatia including BiH were not part of Yugoslavia while they were 'up in smoke and covered in blood'. Croatian Homeland War, and Bosnian War - sure, "Yugoslav War" nope, sorry. No such thing. I have many people in my family who died fighting against people who were definitely not "Yugoslavian" - and they themselves never considered themselves as "Yugoslavs".AP1929 (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you say you'd "hang yourself" or something the day I know something that you don't? The Domivinski rat or the Croatian Homeland War is only one of several Yugoslav Wars.

I don't care what you consider me, that's not the point.

1) "...I would never go into another union with the same people that have massacred my people..."

But we have massacred their people more than vice versa, and anyway France and Germany massacred each other throughout the last 200 years and they are now in a very prosperous and harmonious union. Even Canadians killed Americans. According to your logic, nations that engaged in war against each other at one time during their history should remain bitter enemies forever, and not enter into any unions.

2) "...that both Yugoslavia's were a prison and slaughterhouse of Croats."

Indeed, and much more so was the so-called "Independent State of Croatia". Or should I suppose you do not consider citizens of Jewish or Orthodox faith worthy of the exulted title "Croats". The first Yugoslavia was very hegemonic, and that led in part to its downfall. But the second Yugoslavia actually included in its constitution means of preventing Serbs gaining predominance. I'm talking about Tito's 1974 constitution that caused Serbian nationalism to resurface in the late 1980s. The fact of the matter is, Tito took special steps to prevent Serbs from taking an overly-powerful role in SFR Yugoslavia (simply because he did not want it to dissolve).

3) "Those are the people, who will not let Croatia prosper..."

Now here is where your irrational view really takes form. You think ex-communists deliberately tried to stop the development of their country, supposedly simply because they are ex-communists and therefore must be eevil. Officially, there was a LOT less corruption (and generally criminal activity) in the SFR Yugoslavia than now (there are UN agencies that keep track of this, you know).

You do not, interestingly, blame the weakness of Croatian economy on the fact that it is a (relatively) tiny and economically insignificant state, which is mostly considered as a market for European goods and banking services. You do not stop to consider that 90% of the Croatian economy was built during the SFR Yugoslavia, and carefully designed to function integrally with other federal units (in order to allow for greater prosperity of the whole).

4) "...those are the people along with you, who think that Croatia should be someones colony..."

SR Croatia was economically more advanced than SR Serbia which faced serious problems with undeveloped hinterlands. Zagreb held more industry than Belgrade, SR Croatia was for a time at the very top of world shipbuilding industry, and Croats had an equal vote on the presidency as well as more than proportionate representation in the ruling bodies. How is this colonism?

All in all, please listen to me when I tell you this: try to be more objective in forming your opinions. Your chief problem is that you have an opinion (the TRUTH) and then bend the world to its needs. If I were you I'd forget my bias and past opinion and start a fresh study of the real conditions Croatia faced throughout this century. Most of all, be more flexible (please do not interpret this as patronization in any form).

break

I love how you communists twist words and forget so quickly - I said that I would join the partija if you ever knew more about NDH than I.

Point 1 - "Balkanci" have long memories. I don't suppose you can give me examples of when Germans and French used rape warfare and gouged eyes / tortured etc.

Point 2 - Jews are Jews before anything. Most Jews, regardless of where they live are Jewish before anything else. The Orthodox citizens of NDH were predominately Serb Orthodox and could not stand even the thought of living in a Croatian state, and were the first to rebel against it.

Point 3 - Ex-communists are the ones causing corruption and civil unrest with their communist banter. Period.

Point 4 - The entire Yugoslav idea is suppression of Croatian identity; a trick in order to create a greater serbia with the help of the other "Yugoslavs" - as for 'voting' in communist countries - you can buy it, I don't. Now, since you were so nice as to bring up some statistics, I'll give you some :

Through foreign exchange, Croatia loses 650 billion Yugoslav dinars annually (7 million Yugoslav dinars are required for one job). In 1973 the remittance of the guest-workers abroad yielded in 711 million dollars to Yugoslavia, 48.5 milion from the emigrants and 271.2 million for tourism. Yugoslav Exports in 1971 : SR Croatia produces 40 % of Yugoslavia's exports; Belgrade's exporting companies 86.3%; SR Croatia's exporting companies 5.8%.

Foreign exchange : SR Croatia gives50 % of foreign exchange revenues; SR Croatia gives Belgrade 82 %; 11.4% remains in Croatia - Source: Hrvatska u Jugoslaviji, Zagreb, 1981. Dr. Franjo Tudman.

Other interesting facts about Yugoslavia:

Structure of Federal Administration in 1969 - Serbians in Federal administration in 1969: 73%, Croatians - 8.6 % -

Structure of Yugoslav Army (JNA) in 1978 Seniority according to Dusan Dragosavac, member of the SFRJ presidency : 47% Serbians + 19% Montenegrins - Croatians 15 %.

Structure of Yugoslav diplomacy according to Salih Zvizdic START, Zagreb, no. 409, Sept 22 1984 : 44 Serbians, 17 Croatians.

Distribution of Croatia's revenues 1970 - of 100 percent of Croatia's revenues, 63 percent goes off as a contribution to Federation (Belgrade) and 37 % remains in Croatia.

Emigration from Yugoslavia By Nationality according to 1961 Statistics - Source Veceslav Holjevac, Hrvati Izvan Domovine, Matica Hrvatska Zagreb 1967. --> Croats 71.5 % --> Slovenians 16 % ---> Serbnians 9.3 % --> Macedonians 2.2%

If you are talking about wars that took place post 1990 they can not be referred to as "Yugoslav" wars because "Yugoslavs" didn't exist and neither did Yugoslavia.AP1929 (talk) 07:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In 1991 when Croatia was bleeding and vying for international support, the serb propaganda machine was quick to equate Croatian independence with 'nazism, genocide and a crime'. That is why Tudman played his cards carefully and fashioned the constitution the way he did. But we all know the reality is no matter how much those would like to minimize the NDH, those soldiers/liberators of Croatia had the memory of NDH and checkerboards arms on their berets and continued the fight left off in the field of Bleiburg in 1945, and did not fight for the legacy and memory of ZAVNOH and the red star which did nothing but put us into that political prison called yugoslavia.

Yugoslavia was a artificial multiethnic political pawn in the cold war geopolitics not founded on the will of its citizens. Nestled between the schism of communism and the democratic west, tito skillfully played of both for his own survival. With the cooling of the cold war , this role as a buffer state was not necessary, the outside funds stopped and this artificial state imploded. The neutralization of Croatian self determinism was in vain. Regimes held by force, die by force. Regardles of its shortcomings NDH was a historical fact and a CROATIAN STATE, not a yugoslav one which ZAVNOH created. Jugo-slavism in itself was a naive and utopian view of brotherhood between neighboring nations. 1918,1929,1945, and 1991 have proved this idea un viable.AP1929 (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

:D LoL, LoL, and LoL. You're too far gone, man, too far gone. This has to be childhood indoctrination, nothing less. The stuff you're saying... I've never met anyone in Croatia that's so uncompromisingly indoctrinated (and believe me, I've met my share of those Ustaše freaks), you have to be a Canadian Croat, no other explanation for your childish view on reality. bye "Ante" :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

AP, I didn't expect you to be so frank in your enthusiastic support for what by anyone's standards was one of the most savage, bloodthirsty, downright evil regimes of the 20th century. What makes your abhorrent views so laughable is that you choose not to live in the country you love so much. You don't even have the tools on your keyboard to write Pavelić or Ustaše properly. Thank God you are topic banned. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just one more question and I'm done: are the Freemasons responsible for the creation of Yugoslavia? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding entry of Small Army

Hi. I'm writing on behalf of the Wikipedia entry for Small Army. It is an ad agency in Boston, MA. There are other entries of Boston Ad agencies that live on Wikipedia (Modernista, Boathouse Group and Mullen for example) and I don't understand why Small Army Advertising is not able to have a non-biased entry as to its existence.

Looking further into the list of ad agencies, there are hundreds of them. JWT, BBDO, Crispin Porter+Bodowski, etc... It is not fair that you single Small Army out for deletion. Please explain the reasons for doing so.

thanks in advance,

Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolander1 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

re

Yeah, I know... as a matter of fact I think I've got his IPs memorized by now LoL. I asked Future Perfect at Sunrise to semi-protect the articles. I wonder if Brunodam will get blocked for his socks.
Me? I've been slowly gearing up to start studying again, there's another huge exam in two months(,three days, 14 hours,... ;) so I'll probably have to take a lengthy break in 2 weeks or so. How was your holiday? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Pio

No problem. I changed the semi-protection to match the time period of the other pages and left a note in your report. Cheers! Hiberniantears (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Independent State of Croatia

The article needs some major work. I'm beyond swamped in real life and don't really foresee that changing until August at the earliest. I've got major commitments that are pretty much leaving me as smart as a potato when it comes to anything else. Anyway, the section Tomislav II? is barely coherent, and that's being generous. Could you look through it and do some copyediting? Thanks, AniMate 01:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look and clean it up. Thanks for the heads up. :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Nemesisman

Yes, send to WP:AIV, or if you have the rights, block 'em. I am out of touch, on a public computer.... Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe it

I've been offline for a few days and there are no apparent "hot spots", weird! How's the whole thing with Brunodam's socks? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Re

Well I'm just glad there are no endless discussions that need my attention (though I must say I was fascinated by the one with AP;), so I was able to get to some real work today. See you around.... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Belgrade Offensive

Can you take a look at this: [9], the guy is bent on forbidding the use of the adjective "Soviet", LoL. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not bent on forbidding the use of the word "Soviet", only its misuse in the context you try to use it in. If you are going to misrepresent what I said, the least you can do is be a bit more ingenious.

"Soviet" refers to a state, the Soviet Union. However, when referring to the formations and units of the state's army, it is the name of that organisation that is applicable. We do not say British/UK 120 Squadron, but the RAF Squadron 120. In a reference work we do not say American 3rd Division, but the 3rd Division of the US Army. This is because they are constituent sub-organisational units of the greater whole. In its turn the US Army is not American, but a part of the US Department of Defence. So too, the 57th Army is not Soviet, but the Red Army formation. Soviet Army did not come into existence until 1946. That is why in the jargon of the Cold War the reference was changed from "Reds" to "Soviets". Capish DIREKTOR? I se Alasdair knows Italian so he will translate.

I am FULLY aware of the difference between "Soviet Army" and "Red Army", even though you are not familiar with the difference between and "Yugoslav Army". Tell me, is the Red Army the Army of the Soviet Union, i.e. Soviet "Red Army"? A unit of the Red Army is also a unit of the Soviet Union, i.e. a "Soviet" unit. This is completely obvious to anyone. Using the adjective "Soviet" to describe the country of origin of a Red Army unit is perfectly correct and normal, I've heard it and read it a million times. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me to the document that officially named the Yugoslav Army as "Yugoslav Partisans"?

No, just because the Red Army is a part of Soviet Union, it is not "Soviet". And, just because you have seen it elsewhere a million times, does not mean that it reflected the correct usage. There is a historical context for any given name. Until 1946 the ground forces of the Soviet Union were known as the Red Army. In a reference work this is important. This is why its a reference work. After 1946 the ground forces became known as the Soviet Army, but this is sadly not reflected in the name of the appropriate article. If you call the 57th Army as the Soviet 57th Army before 1946 and after 1946 the change in the name of the Army is not reflected. Therefore, before 1946 it is called the Red Army's 57th Army.

There is a similar case in the change of names with the US Army Air Force. It was Air Force before 1947 and after, but no one calls it US Air Force during the Second World War. Do you agree with this?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

1) "Soviet" means "of the Soviet Union". The Red Army is the army "of the Soviet Union", i.e. it is "Soviet". The units of the Red Army are also "of the Soviet Union", i.e. they are Soviet units. They are not units of the Soviet Army, but they are "Soviet". To deny this is simply ludicrous.
2) I don't know how to explain this to you: the Yugoslav Army is not the Yugoslav Partisans, the Yugoslav Partisans are not the Yugoslav Army. There is no official document simply because that was not their name official name, it is their name per WP:COMMONNAME, and the name they are generally known under. Their official name is also not "Yugoslav Army", but "People's Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Yugoslavia". You may compare this to the Red Army name: the official name of the Red Army was the "Workers' and Peasants' Red Army", but per WP:COMMONNAME we all use "Red Army". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for helping out with the sorting. I'm inept when it comes to this red tape stuff. I see you've had bouts with this guy as well. It was truly amazing how quickly the swarm congregated when I was threatening his domain, and in a talk page that hardly anyone visits. And the funny thing is that I wasn't suggesting removing these articles, only to organize them under a different heading! Dionix (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your support on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dionix. This guy is truly amazing! Dionix (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just confronted this guy- seems like another sock. Dionix (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC) I take that back, this user is likely a notorious blocked user. Dionix (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Italian Mare Nostrum by Brunodam

I proposed the deletion of Italian Mare Nostrum, here: [10]. Thought you might want to know in case you desire to get involved. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

re

Thanks m8, didn't notice, will do. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

good idea --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Agazio and Luigi 28

I got someone to run a CU, and Luigi uses a different ISP to Agazio and PIO. It wouldn't surprise me if they were the same person, though. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be inclined to wait until we see Luigi's edit pattern before taking action. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My name is Luigi. I can send to you my real name, my address and my telephone number. I don't know who is that PIO!--Luigi 28 (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I'm not Pio. I don't know mr. Pio. My REAL name is Luigi, like my nickname. I'm Venetian. I repeat: if you want, I can send to you my telephone number, so you can hear my voice. I haven't the same IP as PIO, because I'm not that PIO! Take it easy. 2. I wrote about Istria and Dalmatia many, many time in my life. My name in the Italian Wiki is the same (Luigi 28). I have more than 350 books about Istria, Fiume (Rijeka) and Dalmatia. My grand-grandfather was from Lussino (Losinj), my father-in-law came from Fiume (Rijeka), where he's born in 1918. His family was authocthonous in Fiume (Rijeka), from XVIIth century. 3. Do you have a SINGLE source about this fact: <<Alleanza Nazionale has often claimed that Italy paid too much for her defeat in WWII, repeating that "Dalmatia was stolen to Italy">>? I'm Italian and I'm sure that I've NEVER read that "Dalmatia was stolen to Italy". NEVER! But I'm waiting for your source. Than, if you (or everyone else) don't have a source, maybe (MAYBE!) this fact can be erased, right? 4. My census data is completely correct. I have here three books regarding the Austrian, Italian and Yugoslav censa: G.Perselli, I censimenti della popolazione dell‘Istria, con Fiume e Trieste, e di alcune città della Dalmazia tra il 1850 e il 1936, Unione Italiana Fiume - Università Popolare di Trieste, Trieste-Rovigno, 1993; O.Mileta Mattiuz, Popolazioni dell‘Istria, Fiume, Zara e Dalmazia (1850-2002). Ipotesi di quantificazione demografica, ADES, Trieste 2005; La Comunità Nazionale Italiana nei censimenti jugoslavi 1945-1991, Unione Italiana di Fiume - Università Popolare di Trieste, Trieste-Rovigno, 2001. What are YOUR sources about censa?--Luigi 28 (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

PIO sock

What are we going to do about PIO? He's a real fanatic, this one. The longer we wait, the more damage we have to undo on his usual articles... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Fanatic? My name is Luigi Vianelli. I'm living in Venice/Italy. You can read in Internet something about me, inclused some historic articles. YOU are fanatic, my friend...--Luigi 28 (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I said User:PIO is a (total) fanatic, why did you take it so personally ;). You say you're name is "Luigi", What does that mean!? For all I know, you're telling the truth and "PIO" and "LEO" are just some of your many web names. Then again, you might simply be lying. In either case, I know you, I know your edits, your articles, your style of writing, mistakes etc... there's no dilemma here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

MY WEB NAMES???? I KNOW who I am! YOU TAKE IT SO PERSONALLY! I wrote a simple list of the City Mayors of Rijeka (Fiume) and you erased it twice, without any kind of right! Direktor: you are CRAZY! I want here an administrator!!!--Luigi 28 (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(LoL) No, seriously Alasdair, do you think his pattern is obvious enough by now? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Herr DIREKTOR! You have some problems with ANOTHER ONE! And the REAL QUESTION is: Why do you erased twice a simple list of the City Mayors of Rijeka (Fiume)? EVERY name of a Mayor before 1948 has one or TWO sources, also CROATIAN SOURCES!!!--Luigi 28 (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: personal info

a. My Italian POV aren't POV. I have my ideas about Istria and Dalmatia, but all my edits are sourced. Well sourced, and this is a fact. b. I haven't nothing to do with this DIREKTOR: he reverted all my edits, so the thruth is: HE has intense animosity towards Luigi 28. c. My version of Wikipedia are like the versions of thousands of Wikipedians. d. The battleground is yours (you and mr DIREKTOR) against me, without any kind of explanation except: "You are banned". Boys: here in Italy the controversies are very different: you must prove your ideas with other ideas! e. I don't know anything about IP, because I like only read and write, but I wish that the truth comes out with this checkuser: I'm not the banned user PIO, and this is another fact!--Luigi 28 (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Harassment

I read: Posting another person's personal information (...) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. I have read the name of User:DIREKTOR on his personal page. Have you obliged User:DIREKTOR to write his name or he wrote voluntarily?--Luigi 28 (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok Man. I've seen that he removed also the template This user is highly intelligent.
But frankly, do you continue to think that I and this PIO are the same person? In-cre-di-ble!--Luigi 28 (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yo man, you're the bomb! take it easy. (rotflmao!) "Frankly", I do still think you're PIO, man. What you've got there is not actually my full name, so use it all you want. As for the intelligence userbox, well, you may or may not believe me ("frankly" I don't care), but I did get a Mensa International IQ evaluation of 139 just under three years ago. This probably sounds like I'm bragging, though I'm pleased you took the time to get to know me better. See you in Split (Spalato)  ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Sure you changed name in the last few months, because you got the Mensa International of 139. Your IQ evaluation is just a little bit less of Bobby Czyz, who "has lost his driver's license for the next 20 years after his fourth drunken driving offense in six years"[11]. Frankly, I don't care of you: I am concerned for the poor and very highly intelligent Bobby. However, my wife has a cousin in Spalato, so Ivan...--Luigi 28 (talk) 06:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What are you trying to say, man? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Boy, I'm trying to say that I am concerned for the poor and very highly intelligent Bobby Czyz, and my wife has a cousin in Spalato, near the Riva... sorry: the Obala hrvatskog narodnog preporoda. But his name is not Ivan. Frankly.--Luigi 28 (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, that's not my full name (and its spelled in English pronunciation). What the hell does Czyz have to do with anything, who is he?! Your wife has a cousin that lives on the Riva? (Riva is chakavian Croatian for "main city seashore") You're lying. period. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Boy, didn't you know the very intelligent Bobby Czyz, with his Mensa International degree? Read the link!

Riva is chakavian Croatian? Riva is the old Venetian name of the Obala hrvatskog narodnog preporoda, because riva is a Venetian/Italian word[12], my little boy: it comes from the Latin word "ripa, rip-ae"[13]. Do you know the Riva degli Schiavoni here in Venice, maybe? And when you Spalatini signed the petition for the Fontana Bajamonti, the cousin was one of the first to sign. Frankly.--Luigi 28 (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The local dialect of the Croatian language got the word from the various Dalmatian language dialects that were spoken in Dalmatia, while the Dalmatian language naturally got it from Latin. It was spoken far before the 14th and 15th century, as Split writer Marko Marulić used it. The venetians and Italians in general also got the word from Latin, so I can't see how you can call it "venetian", unless of course, the venetians invented Latin? Your cousin cannot live on the riva, because noone lives on the riva, its all shops and businesses, you're quite obviously lying. "Obala Narodnog Preporoda" is, naturally, just the "street" adress, the place is called "Splitska Riva". As for Bajamonti's fountain, the abomination is so offensive to the beholder, that it just might fit with the rest of the terrible place. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You make some confusion about Venetian, Latin, Italian, Dalmatian and Chakavian. The word riva comes directly from Latin, and this is simple a fact. I wrote: my wife has a cousin in Spalato, near the Riva. So, you made two usually mistakes: he is the cousin of my wife, and he lives near the Riva. Do you understand now, my little boy?--Luigi 28 (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

...I forgot: frankly.--Luigi 28 (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You appear not have understood: its a Latin word, not a Venetian one, and it was used here a long time before the Venetians occupied the region. It is not "Venetian" originally, nor does its present form come from the Venetian dialect. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well. You stated that "riva" isn't a chakavian Croatian name. That's all.--Luigi 28 (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I also find it hard to believe your cousin lives near the Riva as well. The immediate city center houses only a very tiny population, a small fraction of the city's inhabitants (its very uncomfortable to live in medieval real estate). More likely you just said he/she lives near the Riva because its the only City landmark you know. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

-.- Don't take this the wrong way, but you are a strange, strange person... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear boy, so you don't like the street names of Spalato. Let'me say another one thing: here I'm the only one who said only the truth about myself and about the phantom called PIO. It's very simply: I'm not PIO and stop.--Luigi 28 (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That's it, I won't clutter up Alasdair's page with this comical nonsense. Byie PIO. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not PIO. This is a fact--Luigi 28 (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Istrian Exodus: English sources

Boys, the voice Istrian exodus today has 23 notes:

1. In Italian

2. In Italian and in Slovene

3/17. In English

18. Not found

19. In English

20. It's a map

21. In English

22. In Italian

23. In Italian

24. In Italian

25. In Croatian

26. In Italian (my source: the Treaty of Osimo)

27. In Italian (my source: a legal expertise about properties in ex Jugoslavia)

28/31. In English

32. In English (my source)

If you go in the talk page, you can find the explanation and translation of my sources (26, 27 and 32) in English[14].

Now: you wrote your regular false, about my sources. But you have to reverte the 1., 2., 18., 21., 22., 23., 24. and 25 edits!
Now I can respond your question: I'm a man.--Luigi 28 (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Civility

I really appreciate the tone of your last message. Maybe do you wrote the same to your guy User:DIREKTOR? Let me see: mumble, mumble, mumble... no: what a pity!. --Luigi 28 (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC

Voilà: [15]--Luigi 28 (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Report

Alasdair, I was afraid this might happen: he cluttered up the report with irrelevant gibberish and now it looks like some kind of debate/complaints page. Admins generally don't like to get involved in unprofessional stuff like this, I wonder if we'll get a response anytime soon... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Direktor is right, most users don't enjoy having to sift through cluttered arguments. My advice is to not reply to him anymore. You've made your SSP and now you've asked for some eyes on it over at WP:AN. Luigi has raised objections, but don't reply to him. Let an admin sort it out, because that SSP would have still been coherent if the two of you hadn't replied to him over and over and over. Be smart. Both of you. AniMate 22:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks.--AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. I already vowed not to reply to the nonsense anymore, as soon as I realized he's trying to use discussion to forestall a conclusion to this matter. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm still no response... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, I can't believe this! The next time I'm accused of something, I'll write up a million-word defense and I'll get away with murder because noone will want to read through it. He just made another edit this time in an IP that is plainly PIO: 151.70.102.18, but that doesn't matter because he added a million quotes to some reverts and instances when someone called him "PIO"! He just totally messed-up your evidence summary with his standard copy-pasted gibberish.[16] He's either incredibly smart or incredibly stupid. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the wheels of justice turn exceedingly slow. That kind of tactic does work very well at the noticeboards, and unfortunately both of you got drawn in to debating him in the places you went to ask for help. Fortunately, CheckUser requests don't fall by the way side. They may decline it, but some action will be taken eventually. If you want another venue to discuss this, you can always try the brand new Wikipedia:Ethnic_and_cultural_conflicts_noticeboard. As for Luigi 28, he only has 63 actual edits to the mainspace. You guys are keeping him way to busy to do any lasting harm. Don't get worked up, play it cool, and revert when you feel it necessary. If you must talk to him, keep it on article talk pages only. AniMate 20:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Good advice. Thanks AniMate. DIREKTOR buddy, I think the evidence is pretty clear, no matter how much copy-pasting Luigi tries. The CU when it comes out should hopefully be the end of the matter. If the question is 'incredibly smart or incredibly stupid', I'd go for option B, based on the fact that, as we were both amused to read, when the bouncers were dragging 'Agazio' off the dancefloor and towards the exit he started yelling "I'm not Luigi 28" at the top of his voice [17], making everyone think precisely the opposite. Ah well :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Civility

I would ask you to strike through your comment accusing me to be stupid[18]. I would also suggest that it may be better if you toned down the belligerent nature of your posts. Thank you in advance. (PS I never wrote: "I'm not Luigi 28", because I'm not PIO nor Agazio)--Luigi 28 (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I will ask you for the second time to strike out your comment accusing me to be stupid.[19]--Luigi 28 (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Slovenian statistical data

Regarding this[20], when you stated that official data from the Slovenian Statistical Office shows that between 1953 and 1961 the numbers of ethnic Italians living in Slovenia - almost exclusively in Slovenian Istria and along the Italian border - actually increased by nearly 360%, maybe you don't know that in 1953 the Free Territory of Trieste, weren't Slovenian (only from 1954, after the London Memorandum). The Slovenian census of 1953 doesn't registered the Italians of Koper/Capodistria, Piran/Pirano, Izola/Isola, almost all the Italians in the today Slovenia! Tomorrow I'll correct the voice, obviously all my edit will be well sourced!--Luigi 28 (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Luigi

As someone who was invloved with PIO here, I can definitely say Luigi is PIO. I have found more evidence that PIO is using sockpuppets [[21]] (it's quite old). The articles that he eddited, style, using Italian, IP and more could be used as evidence. Guy0307 (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If I may add, there was never really any doubt. The only problem is the remarkably surprising effectiveness of Luigi/PIO's tactic: namely, he completely clutters up the sockpuppetry reports with meaningless counter-accusations, like actually listing every single time I called him "PIO" as a personal attack. This way he makes the whole thing look like a personal squabble, and makes the report itself long and chaotic enough to deter Admins from intervening. We have effectively been "stonewalled". If you want to lend a hand, try to bring this whole thing to the attentions of an Admin (FPaS?). I'd say the guy's editing pattern has definetely materialized by now. Sockpuppetry report: [22] --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

:D

Great work! I asked Moreschi to have a look at the (3rd) report as well, with any luck he'll agree to go through all the PIO-gibberish. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

btw, do you think FPaS would want to take a look at this? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Mary

I wish I were an administrator, so she would give me her phone number. I could call her. We could discuss how Croatia's recent football successes are really the result of past Italian imperialism. It would be so beautiful (Sigh!).
I will fend off Bruno, Burt, Pan, your ring of fanatical Croats (sorry!), Pio, Aga, Mario (my alter ego) and anyone else that stands between us!! And I will win her over, even if I must roam half the United States to find her. :) Dionix (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Judging by the way he hits those caps, we'd better be on alert. Glorious sweep for the blue and red, BTW. Dionix (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Good news! :)

have a look at this: [23] --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. We'll probably lose or draw with the Poles, we Balkaneese never do anything we don't absolutely have to do ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Croatia 1:0 Poland! --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said before: bring him on! I'll be waiting, I've reverted ALL of his edits and added a couple more of his favorite articles to my watchlist. Now he can edit articles about Venetian sewage problems if he does not want to be noticed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL #2

ROFL :D I think our man PIO actually tried to block us by adding the sockpuppetblocked template, maybe he is as stupid as you suggested.... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Simple English

Thanks, I'm not an admin over there, but I think I know some folks who are, so I'll look into the matter. 21:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject:Europe/Slovenia

Hi! I see your first language is Slovene. I invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/Slovenia. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

p

N.13/Kubura/DIREKTOR/Moreschi I like basketball: Italian national team when and where losing? Ciao idiota e VAFFANCULO maniaco, dissociato mentale!!!! Siete meno che merda titoisti slavi criminali!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ustashi (talk • contribs) 14:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Azza mare for you, a? you crasy? you lossa you' mind!? Howa canna yu bea Ustaše when you donna speka the language a?! *slaps him around* (ROTFLMAO!!) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm crying man, its more stupido than justa stupido, musta be some lil papers wit lil pictures in actione... Zenanarh (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Re

I feel stupid really, just had to fill in the common name... :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I am new at this and I will try and be more careful next time. Thanks for the help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolandcrane32 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Red, white & blue

Have I said that Croatia has been the first of any kind. No I have not. I have just reported the fact that could be found in tons of science papers and books (school and otherwise). Croatian flag is based solemnly on the heraldic colours that can be found in the coats of arms of Croatian kingdoms, France has nothing to do with it. -- Imbris (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Magnum Crimen

For me is OK, but I am not sure where we can ask this IP user if it is OK for him ?--Rjecina (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

In my thinking when we speak about Ustaše crimes Croatia is very good in helping Chetnik propaganda. Must of internet users is thinking that this site is site of Jasenovac Museum !! In reality this is Jasenovac museum site. Our "morons" can't even create internet site about extermination camp and they are surprised when children are making photos with Nazi symbols.....

If you look this 2 sites there is no surprise that NPOV people is believing in Greater Serbia propaganda.--Rjecina (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, participate in discussion before reverting

Magnum Crimen - don't you think that you have to participate in discussion before reverting? I've explained already that this is a book review and can be written by someone who read that book. Picking up some disqualifications from the Internet pages does not do anything good. Claiming consensus does not make sense if someone rightfully opposes to this bad edit.--72.75.24.245 (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Could you please participate in a productive discussion? Finding a disqualification of a book is not book review! Get this book and read it before trying edit this article!--72.75.24.245 (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There has been proposition that I start new case and so...You are invited to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Velebit2--Rjecina (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to block him, J. A. Comment and to have many administrators which will know situation for the next time--Rjecina (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

and it is to late to stop this case......--Rjecina (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comment about case ??--Rjecina (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Save Ace Andres

My apologies. I had no Idea I was "Voting". I thought I was providing answers to the individual's concerns. In one instance, I put my response directly under the voter's statement. Please re-evaluate the article as more citations were supplied. I am having trouble coding the reference section though. By the way; Didn't I read in the AFD instructions that sharing your thoughts do not constitute a "vote"? Joey Evans (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sock Puppertry Care Pertaining to User: Romaioi

Hi AlasdairGreen27. I would just like to thank you for your sincerity and apology. It is very much appreciated. I made a comment to this effect (with some additions) over at your buddy's page, but he deleted it, twice. Seams, seeing that he tried to delete my previous comments, he does not want me to say anything. In spite of the good cause he worked for, due to his conduct pertaining to me and his unapologetic stance, I hold him in extremely low regard.

Kind Regards

Romaioi (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

PIO, again

User:Agazio, User:Ciolone, User:Jxy, User:Luigi 28 and User:Ustashi are now only suspected socks, not confirmed. Any ideas why? Guy0307 (talk) 04:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, please!

re Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Outrageous_accusation_by_Baseball_bugs - I think wires got a little crossed here, but it's really not a big deal. I can't force Baseball bugs to apologise for a misunderstanding, and if I did, it wouldn't be sincere. I hope your disillusionment is only temporary. My talk page is open if you would like to discuss this further. Best, Neıl 龱 15:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

AN/I is the kitchen, a hot place, often. Wikipedia, in certain places, is overrun with incivility, both blatant and subtle. I made a response to what happened in AN/I, in the section referenced above, and, since I assume you have experienced the other side of Wikipedia, the helpful editors who cooperate even if they disagree, I'd urge you not to revise your image of Wikipedia because the dark side touched you. If we turn and look at it carefully, we may be able to change it. Neil is correct, we can't force Bugs to apologize. However, failure to apologize, as part of a pattern of behavior (which will include more than that) can eventually lead to blocks. What does around comes around. It simply takes time.

AN/I has become, in my opinion, far too tolerant of editors who distract from its purpose. Bugs has been a part of that in at least one incident I'm aware of, and there may be more, he's been pretty active on AN/I and I've only looked at a small part of it. AN/I was intended for emergency response requiring administrative tools, it is absolutely not the place to discuss content issues, as such. The report should have been almost immediately closed, including advice to the complaining editor as to how to deal with content disputes; however, the complaint was about an alleged threat to edit war. Since edit warring is easily stopped, if it materializes, and easily reversible, as to the edit war complaint, the complaint should have been finished and resolved with a clear judgment that no use of admin tools was required, end of topic and end of debate and the end of filling up AN/I with a torrent of talk about content.

In this case you were the one who introduced the content question, but Bugs jumped into it, and so did others. I'm trying to draw attention to this process, because it is seriously damaging. We might have lost you over it, and that would be a shame. --Abd (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

While I've had disagreements with other editors in the past, never have I come across a situation where an editor deliberately, persistently and provocatively assumes bad faith and refuses to retract an inflammatory remark even after it had been clarified. That is outrageous. And that it happened at AN/I, under the watchful gaze of administrators and experienced editors alike is mindboggling. It's all very well telling me to calm down, but with respect, I was not the cause of the problem. Far simpler and more appropriate to instruct Bugs to retract his remark, to AGF and we could all have gone home happy. If I've learned anything from this regrettable episode (and I am sorry that I exploded, but what can you do?), it is that the bar for what constitutes acceptable behaviour is far lower than I had realised. Perhaps naively, I had read the policies on assuming good faith and civility and believed that they applied to everyone. I know that this weekend he's been cautioned off Wiki about his behaviour in this matter, and that's good. I've noticed another thread at AN/I today about him assuming bad faith about another editor. I seriously question the value to this project of a person who deliberately assumes bad faith about other editors. Regarding AN/I, I'd say it's closer to a school playground than a kitchen, and that's why people like Bugs hang out there - they do it because it's fun. Like any other community, Wikipedia has its fair share of arseholes, and that is a category into which Bugs most definitely falls. Going forward, I don't intend to retire from Wikipedia, as it's an interesting hobby, but I will never interact with Bugs again, and if he comes anywhere near me I will most certainly tell him to fuck off.AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Magnum Crimen

To end edit warring in this article I am calling all editors of this article for vote on talk page--Rjecina (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Smells bad

My senses tell me we should keep an eye on this guy. Something tells me he is someone close to our collective heart. Dionix (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I can already feel he's a person of interest. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you a clue. It's the image he's edit warring about at Italia irredenta. First one to post the answer here wins a chocolate. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second, what's the problem with the map anyway?... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No idea. The map seems fine to me on that article. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I didn't intend for you to pounce all over him :(. Maybe the map is the red herring. One could say "this is a typical Tito-era trick" (to quote a damsel in distress). The editing patterns and the timing tell a tale, but I'm not saying it's him (not yet!): just a person of interest. Dionix (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No-one's pouncing, but you're both missing the point about the image. Stop thinking about it as a map. Think of it as an image, or, even better, a file :-) Clearer now? The chocolate is still available to the person with the correct answer. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I love puzzles! Is this on the right track? Dionix (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Definitely. It's a file of his own making, which is why he's edit warring to keep it on Italia irredenta. He uploaded it onto commons in April [24] and has put it on four articles so far [25] [26][27][28]. The thing is, there's nothing wrong with the image. It's a good image. Why bother to use a sock to argue these things? If the IP tries to take it off again, I'll put it back myself. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Alasdair, I came across your new SP case for Bruno. I agree with Popovichi and Cherso; however, I'm not too sure about the Italian IPs. I am sure these [29], [30] edits are by Bruno/ Mary... IPs traced to Atlanta- similar to previous ones used by Mary and, in the distant past, by Bruno. The cycle I've noticed is Broomfield->New Jersey->Atlanta->start over. He may be in Italy now, but we should confirm the dates don't overlap. Quite frankly, I'm of the opinion the Italian IPs are someone else or, at the very least, meatpuppets. For what it's worth, my gut tells me our dear Prof. Bruno may not even be Italian but rather a Venezuelan of Italian descent. Oh, one final thing: you should also be aware of User:Merighi. Cheers, Dionix (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you've done your homework. This clears up a lot and confirms this guy is completely obsessed! Imagine, this is his only mission in life: and editing while travelling, on vacation, in internet cafés, at breakfast- anywhere he can get his hands on an internet connection!! I'm a bit concerned that we're infringing on personal privacy a bit, but it's all out there for anyone to see. Dionix (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Irredentism

Please stop to push unencyclopaedic povs, deleting sources, under the pretest of a "poor grammatic", without discussion and consensus.--78.13.167.236 (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Thank. The only thing I do not agree is that "today" there is an Italian irredentism. This is simply not true. We can write there is a "supposed" Irredentism (that is what I tried to do). All other problems are unimportant. I also know that Croatian journalists are not "mad": I know why they accuse Italy of irredentism (this would be a long speech). But they are wrong: in Italy nobody cares of Dalmatia. If you want to keep the paragraph, you are asked to modify it, to properly describe the allegation of an "irredentism today". --78.13.167.236 (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Italian Mare Nostrum

You said: "Despite the three socks who voted, consensus in the AfD was and still is to redirect thi"

The three socks was:

1. Ravichandar
2. User:Andy Dingley
3. User:Richhoncho
4. User:Peterkingiron
5. User:Coemgenus
6. User:JeremyMcCracken
7. User:ItaliaIrredenta - First sock
8. User:Edward321
9. User:Luigi 28 - Second sock
10. User:Rjecina
11. User:Popovichi - Third sock? Are you sure?

They voted keep.

Delete, Merge or Redirect:

1. User:DIREKTOR
2. User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick
3. User:AlasdairGreen27
4. User:Xyl 54
5. User:Zenanarh

Please, show me the consensus to redirect. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.28.126.85 (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Popovichi is a sock of User:Brunodam. The result of the AfD discussion was "The result was keep. Few if any problems have been asserted with respect to this article that cannot be addressed through rewriting, merging or redirecting it [my emphasis]. These actions do not require deletion". Explicit consensus to merge or redirect. That's all. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Popovichi is a sock of User:Brunodam"... where is the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets (WP:SSP), please? The result of the AfD discussion was: "The result was keep [my emphasis]. 8 vs. 5. That's all.--87.28.126.85 (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Re

Thanks. :) Exams? Actually I'm still waiting for the results, I just came home a few hours ago, and I'm on hold until the computer does its work. As you may imagine. I'm nervous as hell, I'll never get used to this... :( --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, rakia will probably do. That way I can completely relax :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(Heh, I passed :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah, the party's tomorrow (everybody needs to get their results). I anticipate an evening of light editing with a touch of Call of Duty 4 ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"doctor", me? lol no this isn't graduation, its just the yearly final exams. Med school simply does not end. Its not happy unless it consumes half your lifetime, and yes, I do consider it a living entity. :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Srbosjek

Reasons for deleting are on talk page [31]. If it is OK you can start deleting demand.--Rjecina (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Your english is better so can you look comment on talk:Croatia and answer user because I do not know what to answer (reason is my bad english)--Rjecina (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Pio again

I don't want to write nothing in en.Wiki, but I'll delete EVERY SOCK notice regarding myself. PIO IPs are 151.67... My IPs are 151.48... I don't reverte the PIO's sock notice. I'll write something ONLY in Italian Wiki. That's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.48.8.208 (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I forgot: my name in Italian Wiki is Presbite.

Hi Presbite. I've read your messages on it.wiki where you say you are Luigi 28 but not PIO. Intriguing. I've also read your dialogues with PIO. Just a few questions, if I may. If you are not PIO, how come you've heard of No: 13 and Afrika Paprika? I'd never heard of them until PIO started saying that I was them/him/whoever. If you are not PIO, how come you started at en.wiki by restoring his reverted edits, and got so confused about your 151.67/151.70 IP? Are you aware that Jr. is my dear friend Bruno? I trust you've read my message to Nickel Chromo, as I certainly read yours [32], as I'm sure you already know. If, as you say, I'm anti-Italian, how come it was me that wrote the article on Mario Roatta, a fine example of a neutral piece about a WWII Italian fascist who many people might have been more critical of? I await your replies with breathless enthusiasm. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL, heeeere's PIO! I told Moreschi it was only a matter of time... Alasdair, can you give me a link to where our good friend "User:Presbite" says he's User:Luigi 28? I wanna get this one over with quickly. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm your old friend Luigi 28, but don't worry: I don't want to wrote NOTHING in en.Wiki: I don't want to spend my time here. If you read my talk page in it.Wiki, you can see a discussion between me and mr. Pio. I'm very surprised how you and others friends been able to propose in some articles your neutral but partial point of view. I only advised one guy to pay attention to what he does, because in danger of being eliminated even him.

1. I don't know nothing about No: 13 and Afrika Paprika.
2. I started by restoring ONE reverted Pio's edit, but without knowing that it was Pio
3. I was confused about my 151.67/151.70 (I don't remember the numbers) simply because... I WAS CONFUSED!!! I don't knew NOTHING about IPs and so on. Believe or not, this is the thruth.
4. I haven't read the article on Mario Roatta. However, I think that Roatta was a real war criminal
5. Yes, I know that Jr. is Bruno

Now I'll try to explain in few words what I think about your (you and other guys) anti-Italianism.

1. Despite the fact that you have read the Slovenian sources, in the article Istrian Exodus is written that the Italians in Slovenia increased from 1951 onwards. This is a FAKE.
2. Between the last 50 edits of Direktor, maybe 20 are ONLY the reversion or elimination of Italian names!

Why?
Mr Direktor is only a young guy, but he and you don't know nothing about Italian study regarding Istria, Dalmatia and so on. For you ALL is irredentistic stuff. Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.48.8.208 (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, you are right, it was Nickel Chromo, not you, that said I was No. 13/Afrika Paprika. I'm profoundly sorry for my mistake. Regarding the reversion of Italian names, well, Wikipedia has conventions about that. See WP:NCGN. Yes, I have read your conversations with both Bruno and PIO at it.wiki. Perhaps you could read my article on Mario Roatta if you think I am anti-Italian. Lastly, if you say you are not PIO, well, I'll take your words as being the truth (actually, I suspected as much after reading your conversation with him on your talk page). Yours in good faith, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In good faith, of course... And what about the article Istrian Exodus and the fake increase of Italian between 1953 and 1961? You read the Slovenian source... but are you still in good faith?--151.48.8.208 (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine, Luigi. Look, as ridiculous this may seem to you, I really am NOT anti-Italian. My honest intention really is to try and keep a realistic balance. However, if you really aren't PIO, you should know that I've had a long experience with all sorts of Users with an extremely nationalistic and offensive stance on Dalmatia. These Users may have "polarized" my views more than I should have allowed. I am NOT a nationalist Croat, I really am not, and it is plainly visible from my non-Dalmatia related edits. In fact, I'm often verbally attacked by "real" Croatian nationalists (see my talk for just one example). The reason I opposed your edits was primarily due to the fact that I believe you are one of those banned editors, and are trying to return by first making moderate edits. Goodness knows that if you search the talk pages of all sorts of disputed articles that you will find records of dozens of my (ignored) attempts at discussion and compromise. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes: it seems to me ridiculous. Your view of history of Istria and Dalmatia is only one-side related. I HATE the nationalistic/irredentistic point of view. It was a real nonsense and a CATASTROPHE for my Country. But I spend every year more than one month in Istria and Fiume (Rijeka), I read EVERY DAY the Croatian newspaper (Glas-Istre and so on), and let me say that your view of Italy is like the old view of Austria for the Italians. I'm sorry, but it's very difficult to have a NEUTRAL point of view about Fiume and Dalmatia, because there aren't books about Istria, Fiume and Dalmazia in Croatia: only Croatian Istra, Croatian Rijeka and Croatian Dalmacija (except VERY FEW sources). This was the historic point of view from Grga Novak, Maja Novak, Zvane Crnjak, Petar Stok until today, except some few recent studies of Margetic, Goldstein and Raukar. But tell me the name of ONE Dalmatian writer, sculptor, woodcarver, painter from 700 to 1800 that for you MAYBE can be Italian rather than Croatian, except Niccolò Tommaseo, and show me the article here in en.Wiki. I would like to say more, but I speak a terrible English and I'm sorry for this.--151.48.8.208 (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I know the history of Dalmatia, and I do NOT deny the influence of Italians here and in Rijeka and Istria. In fact, I wrote most of the article on Dalmatian Italians, the minority I draw my roots from. In fact, I wrote so much stuff the whole thing had to be shortened :P. Your analogy with Austria is correct, but Slavs, being less culturally advanced than northern Italians (no "Viva VERDI!" and so on...), were far more assimilated than the latter, and were even viewed in foreign countries almost as Italians. The fact remains that, despite the cultural influence, Slavs were the ethnic majority in these territories for almost 14 centuries, and this is an enormously significant fact that cannot be ignored. A compromise in all things must be achieved, and this is my goal.

However, as I said, I've had a LOT of bad experiences with individuals supporting the view you stated you hate: the irredentist view. The uncompromising attitude of these people has embittered me and polarized my views. Dalmatia is for me a unique region on the cultural level, not wholly Venetian or Italian, and not wholly Slavic. Both extremes are in my view wrong. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Your name came up in AN/I

You may be interested in this. -- Donald Albury 13:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Re

Like I said to Rjecina, "beyond reasonable doubt". The sources are being listed and vouched for by relatively serious editors, and I did a little research of my own. It would appear that the majority Jasenovac victims did not die by poison gas, but are mostly as victims of a cutthroat knife. The Ustaše are generally famous for being literally "cutthroats" (koljači) themselves, as they preferred to conserve ammunition. It is quite possible that they ordered a quantity of specially designed knives for this purpose. There really are a large number of references to this knife, myth or no, and it deserves an article. You know I rarely change my mind ;) but I think I'm going to distance myself from this article for the time being. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Zadar and User:Ragusino

Take a look please. I've put a little note on Direktor's talk page. Zenanarh (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alasdair, no problem - thanks for letting me know. I hope the dispute works out. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alasdair. Zenanarh (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure :-). Hopefully this'll stop the silliness. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Negev Bedouins

I didn't know who to ask this, so I'd be really happy if you could help me (seeing you have some experience dealing with POV). The article has an anti Israeli POV. While it has references, they clearly come from unreliable sources. Unrecognized villages also has the same problem. I added the template {{prod}}, however two editors (including the main one contributiong to the articles) removed it. I'm thinking about taking it to medcab. Thanks! Guy0307 (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Mate, not sure I want to get involved in Israel-Palestine stuff. I'll have a look though. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally understand you. I took it over to WP:Medcab but there are a lot of cases waiting for a mediator, I dought there will be one soon. Any ideas? Guy0307 (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The Two Ronnies 1987 Christmas Special

Hi, I created this page as I felt it has some historical relevance as it was the last (complete) show that Mr. Corbett and Mr. Barker ever produced together. It is also fondly remembered by fans of the show as being one of their best Christmas shows. As a lot of other TV episodes have their own Wikipedia page, I felt that this episode should at least have its own entry.

Thanks. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of wether this convinces you or not, I still feel that for such an historical episode, it does indeed require its own page. As for your point about the 1984 Christmas Special, I agree that it was right for that one to be deleted. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

One more thing

Excellent, Alasdair. One more thing has to be done.
I'll copy the explanation from Talk:Italianization to Talk:Fascist Italianization, to explain your redirect and to avoid any further edit-redirect wars with any newcomer that never reads history of edits before doing anything in sensible topics, as well as avoiding any misunderstanding from the side of previously uninvolved admins. The admins that worked on the case of troll that created that contentfork, are currently away.
Greetings, Kubura (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Another small step forward. It was an obvious content fork and I can't see anyone having any grounds to object. See you around :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, nice work. I didn't even notice the Spalato thing right under my nose... :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer

Hey, is Brunodam banned for sockpuppeteering or not? If so, shouldn't we make that clear on his userpage? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, he's not. He got blocked for a week a couple of months back for socking User_talk:Brunodam#Sockpuppetry_case. He certainly risks being blocked again for a while with the latest three being busted, but I haven't seen any proposal to do so. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, are you saying that with the verdict in about three sockpuppets of his there has to be another special report to get him reprimanded? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NCGN Pt. 2

Thanks, I actually had it in mind but I keep forgetting! Unfortunately, I've only used common sense so far. Alas, the Balkans is a nasty, nasty place when it comes to inserting "Their" name for "Our" place(s). 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Your friend erased...

Your buddy is hiding the evidence: [33][34][35] so I'm continuing here. This was my answer for you:

First: for your WP:NCGN have a look here [36] and here[37], and here[38][39]: this is wonderful, and your "It matters not one iota whether a place is, as you claim, bilingual or not" is only your traditional, nationalistic, extreme POV point of view. Second: regarding the Istrian names, you can learn something here:[40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50]. The Istrian-Dalmatian articles in the en-Wiki are all in your hands: I'm surprised as you have transformed everything in a indistinguishable molasses of dull nationalism. I'm sure that I know Istria much better than you, my dear friends: a wonderful place, and I think that Istria absolutely doesn't come back to Italy. Kind regards to you, read more and please correct the most stupid mistakes of the various articles: under Italian irredentism - wich you dominated - is written that Italy after the First World War had the island of Korcula: you are so committed to diligently remove all Italian names, and leave enormity like these!--151.48.4.77 (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NCGN

[51] - which specific guideline of the conventions page you mention in the edit summary for the addition of "relevant" foreign-language equivalents do your reverts refer to? Would e.g. modern Italian (≠ Venetian!) Cittavecchia di Lesina be:

• archaic name
• relevant foreign language names used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place
• relevant historic name for a specific historical context ?

So would it be valid for me to add in the lead section of Belgrade article it's name in Ottoman Turkish in Arabic script proper? ^_^ I don't think that edit would last much..

What do you think about the idea of making a template that would route these, by modern usage totally irrelevant, alternative-language names to Wiktionary translation tables, which have no number-of-languages or obscure-script limitations, with the appropriate message "see names in other languages blah-blah.." ? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The answer is that if there are other names in other languages they should be mentioned but just once, and with caution, as the policy says, so no need to worry about archaic names. You make good points, and I like your suggestion about templates, but I think (and have a look at my reply to Jesuislafete above) simply that we need to put a stop to the perennial edit warring over names. That means we should apply WP:NCGN and mention non-English names once, only once, in the intro, whether they be Italian, German, Albanian, Venetian, whatever. Then we are done with it. The problem we face is fanatics that want to say e.g. Zadar/Zara all the way through every article so that there is equal status to the Italian name. Overcoming this problem is the central aim. If we could apply the kind of template that you suggest that'd be great, but it'd need to be a Wiki-wide solution. I think standardisation is the answer so that all articles are the same. Right now, our best chance of that is to apply WP:NCGN consistently. If that means mentioning archaic Venetian names just once I don't have a problem with it. Perhaps the ultimate solution may be a Dalmatia-Istria version of Names of European cities in different languages. I know there are already toponym lists of Italian names, but they were POV created. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

if there are other names in other languages they should be mentioned but just once - Err, where exactly does the policy page says that? Every Croatian island has a name in thousands of world's languages, but I highly doubt that the fact that it just does is enough for it to merit inclusion in the leading section, regardless of the historical significance. Why would English reader care about the name of Stari Grad in Italian, Mandarin or Inuktut? ^_^ Those 0.001% interested can actually click the interwiki link to other Wikipedias..

Massive lists such as French exonyms are IMHO totally non-encyclopaedic and ought to be transwikied to Wiktionary and merged to Wiktionary translation tables. There they could be looked up much more easily, and the problem of big lists would vanish (since each translation appears in its own article).

I've already seen that some articles of topics of multilingual importance (like Old Church Slavonic) have the section which lists names in languages in which the term has some relevance, or have in the leading section message "see names in othe languages" which links to the bottom of the article. I was thinking, why not just route all those to Wiktionary translation tables?

I understand the concerns for Italian irredentists, but think that loosely defined criteria that you mention (foreign-language name named can be mentioned just because there is one), and that I myself still cannot make out inside the WP:NCGN, are just beneficial to them and legitimize their edits that are motivated by pure pro-Italian POV. For they don't care about Venetian or Dalmatian language names of the Istrian & Dalmatian exonyms, they're just concerned with modern Italian ones, which themselves have very, very little historical justification (brief period fascist occupation of Dalmatia is but a blink of an eye in 3 millenia long history of Stari Grad). All those disputable and edit-warring-prone alternative language names should be a priori treated as acts of vandalisms, especially if added by IP addresses, unless the contributor provides reasonable argumentation that justify historical significance of modern Italian name (or that in any other language), unless that justification is obvious, as it is certainly not an "alternative name" neither in English, nor in Croatian. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ivan. My comment on User talk:DIREKTOR [52] is of the same kind.

One example Šolta (Italian: Solta)?! Historically, Solta is not Italian! Maybe it is Italian in the present moment, but it's irrelevant for the article. What should be written in that lead is: Greek: Olynthia or Nesos Olyntha, Greek "y" was pronounced "u" so with Latinization of Dalmatia there was Latin: Soluta, Old Croatian: Sulent or Sulet, when Venatians came to Dalmatia they found Latin graphic "Soluta", since Latin "u" was written "v" it became both Venetian and Croatian: Solta and finally with standardization (diacritics!) of Croatian in 19th century Croatian: Šolta. This island was a part of Italy just from 1940-43. This is how the lead sections must be edited in my opinion. Relevant names attached to the geo. places by its rulers and settlers, not any name in any language.

I don't think that we must be hostages of Italian irredentism in an encyclopedia! Zenanarh (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with Alasdair, lets not push this. The fact is that Šolta (for example) was known internationally as "Solta" for a very long period, and the Italian names are still used sometimes even in modern context. Whether we like it or not, Italian names have been used quite widely for a long period of time and deserve at least to be mentioned in the lead. The lead brackets shouldn't bother you guys so much. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You agree with Alasdair on what point exactly? His misinterpretation of WP:NCGN that totally irrelevant foreign-language names should be mentioned in the lead, even though there's absolutely no justification (either historical, or of > 10% usage in relevant English literature) to do so? Please.. Don't trivialize this matter as if it's "just the lead section", because there's much more to it than that; casual English-speaking reader might even be deluded that the mentioning of an "alternative name" in Italian has something to do with the supposed overwhelmingly present Italian population in the area which is nowadays Croatia, bilinguality of the population or some general cultural significance of modern Italian language upon it - all of which there is none. We are not discussing here some cenuries-old historical Venetian or Dalmatian names, loosely written in incosistent orthographies, but the modern Italian ones, addedd by Italian irredentists hidden behind IP addresses, even on exonyms upon which there is historically virtually none Venetian/Italian influence exerted. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I support the addition of Italian names in the lead of articles on cities or regions who's Italian (not Venetian) name was widely used as early back as 50 years ago, and is still used sometimes (though admittedly rarely) in a modern context. Your description of them as "totally irrelevant" is thus not so correct. Also, removing even the lead names may be interpreted, because of this fact, as POV-pushing on our part, and might lead to future edit-wars. Lets not be uncompromising in this, what a "casual English reader" might draw from that one name is speculation, and frankly I find your assumption as something of a long-shot. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

DIREKTOR you've misunderstood what I've written. I'm not against Italian names in the lead if it's relevant. In this particular case (Šolta) I've shown how it should look like and it's completely encyclopedic. So it appears that you support:

Šolta (Italian: Solta)

instead of

Šolta (Greek: Olynthia, Nesos Olyntha; Latin: Soluta; Old Slavic: Sulent, Sulet; Venetian/Croatian: Solta)

What is more encyclopedic? Keep in mind that modern standardized Italian language developed from Tuscan dialect, not Venetian. Since a large part of Dalmatia was in Republic of Venice in period 15th - 18th century, Venetian toponyms from Dalmatia were transfered to Italian. Also Venetian pronounciation often influenced the native one. It's clearly shown in this case. Venetian "S" was softly pronounced which resulted with "Š" (Sh) in Croatian instead of clean "S". Šolta (for example) was known internationally as "Solta" for a very long period - yes it's true, but it's not Italian name. It's both Venetian and Croatian, but definitely of Venetian origin, not "Italian". Solta (without diacritics) is ten times more Croatian than Italian. In the local church documents from 17th cent. in Croatian it was Solta (diacritics didn't exist). We should think about accuracy and quality, not about irredentist funny claims. If the lead section is accurately edited noone will have problems. Take a look at Zadar's lead section. I've edited it a half year ago, noone ever tried to change it, neither an anon fellow tried to do it recently. That is what I've thought of as relevant. It's historically accurate and it shows origins of every particular "other name". Zenanarh (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, lets get one thing clear, the so-called "Venetian language" is a dialect of Italian, not something else (no matter what the Venetian nationalists may say). But this is besides the point, why? Because the Italian names are derived directly from the Venetian names, i.e. they are identical or extremely similar.
Now to the misunderstanding: I am not saying that we should add (only) the Italian names because they were official 200 years ago, I am saying we should add (only) the Italian names because they were widely used internationally and are still used in rare cases even in a modern context (though not for the interior, for towns like Sinj). The other names are ancient and irrelevant for an article about a modern city/town, so they shouldn't be included. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case you should remove everything except Spalato in Split (Greek: Ασπάλαθος, Aspálathos; Latin: Spalatum; Italian: Spalato). Get it? In my thinking you should do something else: a little research of Spalato. Is it Italian or Venetian? If it's Venetian then Venetian: Spalato, just because its origin of the name. Why? Well, Zadar in Tuscan was Giarra, not Zara. Zara was Venetian. Simple as that, nothing specially. I don't think it's some problem. Zenanarh (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(Hehe, I edited Split before you posted the above ;) Once again, what I meant is that Italian names = Venetian names in modern, 20th century, use. We are talking about modern use, not ancient or medieval names. As for the Latin and Ancient Greek names, I've often heard from uninvolved users that they do not understand why they're there. Have a look at London (Londinium) or Paris (Lutetia). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Think about it, Zen: if we standardize the use of these names we will finally get rid of all this nonsense. We will have a moderate "template" that we can collectively apply and protect against vandals when necessary. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Now, I'm completely confused about the lead sections. In London there are no "other names" it's true. Not even Welsh: Llundein! And Wales is a part of UK!? So Llundein is not "other name", although in usage by some citizens of UK? How come Split has Italian name as the "other name" then? Per Wiki policy you can't say it's modern English. And you know very well it's not used in Croatia. It was historical name of Split in some period same as Ancient Greek or Latin ones. In that case we must discuss what "other name" means in WP:NCGN? Don't misunderstand me please, my motivation is same as yours: to standardize the use of these names so we will finally get rid of all this nonsense. Nothing more and nothing less. Zenanarh (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Copy/pasted from WP:NCGN:

1. The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses: {name1, name2, name3, etc.}.
   • Any archaic names in the list (including names used before the standardization of English orthography) should be clearly marked as such, i.e., (archaic: name1).
   • Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e., (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3). As an exception to alphabetical order, the local official name should be listed before other alternate names if it differs from a widely accepted English name.
   • Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves.
     • In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced by a link to the section phrased, for example: "(known also by several [[#Names|alternative names]])". When there are several significant alternate names, the case for mentioning the names prominently is at least as strong as with two.
       
     • Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead "(Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)". Zenanarh (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

According to this policy, it appears that:

1) Split's lead (Greek: Ασπάλαθος, Aspálathos; Latin: Spalatum; Italian: Spalato) is correctly edited, with a lack of "Old Croatian: Spljet". Historical names are mentioned in "Antiquity" history section, but not in separate "Name" section. According to recommendation it should be done here, because there are at least three alternate names, then all names in the lead should be deleted.

2) Zadar' lead (Liburnian: Iadera?, Ancient Greek: Ίδασσα (Idassa), Ιαδειρα (Iàdeira), Latin: Iader, Dalmatian: Jadra, Jadera, Italian: Zara) is uncorrect, since there is well edited "Name" section. All names should be deleted from its lead.

3) Šolta's lead is uncorrect since Solta is not Italian historical name - it's Venetian origin or Croatian historical usage rather than any later Italian, also Solta is not name used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place as long as it's noted as Italian since that island was never inhabitted by the Italians, except Italian soldiers 1940-43. It seems that Šolta case is identical to a lot of those edited recently by an anon. Zenanarh (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, so let's decide to either go with the Split format (in parentheses in the lead sentence) or the (to be corrected) Zadar format (a separate 'names' subsection, but no names in the lead sentence). Decide which one of those two methods we are going to use and then change every article to that way of dealing with it. I'm happy with either one. Basically, I think it's up to us to choose, as NCGN gives us these options. We just need to be consistent, then it's job done as far as I'm concerned. Thoughts? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously we can use both methods, depending on how many different names can be mentioned. There is no use of "Name" if nothing can be written there. So it appears that Split deserves "Name", while Zadar doesn't need a huge "lead". I really think that historical names are quality for the places so rich with history and with so many changes. In Šolta case there is also a space for the "Name", but then all article (very poor now) should be expanded, it would be funny if "Name" is larger than the rest of the article. It can be done simultaneously. Too many such articles are too poor. Before it's done there could be "lead" method used. The only real problem that I can find here is Venetian=Italian overlap. But we can resolve it this way: if historical name was Venetian for the place not inhabitted by Italians later, then Venetian - or Venetian/Croatian - Solta in Šolta - this case is additionally specific since Venetian and the native were identical in the same period; if historical name was Venetian for the place inhabitted by Italians later then Italian - Traù in Trogir (IP's will change it to Italian for surely and it does have some sense). Zenanarh (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and now we're back to the issue of whether or not articles like Hvar or Šolta need to have Italian names in the "lead". I'd say that we need to find out somehow whether "10% of sources in the English language" use Italian names in a contemporary context. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's almost impossible to count, if a number of the Google hits is 10,000 or similar. Let's leave it to the zealots to prove >10%. Honestly I really doubt that there is >10% in a contemporary context. Why there would be so much of it? Probably it's possible in cases where places already have 2 names because of the bipolarized population. But it's not a case here, in Dalmatia. Zenanarh (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's where the problem surfaces. If we leave it to the "zealots", then we will (or may) have constant problems with the articles, and with Users, IP or otherwise, trying to add the name. I propose we assume that the coastal towns, villages and islands are mentioned by at least 10% of the sources with the Italian name (modern names in Italian, are identical to those in the Venetian dialect, medieval names are sometimes not, but that's irrelevant). That way we can ensure that the standardization will be acceptable to both sides, otherwise we risk future edit-wars because of this "loophole" in the strict policy. Its only a small concession really... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I propose we assume that the coastal towns, villages and islands are mentioned by at least 10% of the sources with the Italian name - that would be a very dangerous assumption basically giving open hands to irredentists (just as Alaisdair's interpretation of NCGN that all FL names should be listed just because they exist), with which I don't think most Croats here would agree on. For once, I'd be happy to take a look at the "proof" that > 10% modern English sources use Italian Cittavecchia di Lesina instead of Stari grad. Google [53] gives only 1 relevent usage hit for it, as opposed to thousands for Stari Grad. As I said earlier in my "uncompromising" post - irredentist should first prove (e.g. on the basis of some trivial google books/scholar/site search) that the Italian term is present in > 10% modern English sources, otherwise their additions should be assumed to be vandalism and undone. Maybe writing some local policy page dealing specific with Dalmatian exonymics, that would be voted on and take precedence over more general WP:NCGN? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that would give the "irredentists", as we like to call them, open hands. There is only one possible "loophole" in the policy, and we would effectively seal it by the proposal: there could be no more serious debate and conflict on policy concerning geographical names in Dalmatia. Even though I would not mind the more rigorous approach you're suggesting, my experience in the Dalmatia edit-wars makes me think that we need to try and be more compromising if the standardization we're aiming to achieve is to be as permanent as we can make it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

DIR don't be naive. Your proposal results with Dalmatia as the only place in the world with foreign names added to the native as the "other" ones. Why? Just because of a few vandals? No way. It's not correct according to this policy and it's not reflected in reality at all. It's a "highway to trouble", Croat (Dalmatian) users will be 10 times more offended than any vandal involved. For the vandals it's just a game, for the Croats and Dalmatians it is pride and true. How could you explain to an inhabitant of Brela that Italian name is there just because we assumed there's >10% of that name in English sources in a contemporary context and we transformed that assumption in a kind of policy? And Italians or Venetians never stepped in Brela, a little village of 15 houses! A vandal who edited those names a few days ago, doesn't even know where Brela is and what is it. He just took a dictionary or some lexicon and edit, edit, edit.... We should stick strictly to policy whatever it means, without any assumptions, it's the only way to be on the right side. There will be always some problems, because there will be always some vandals. But vandals should dance on our rhythm, not opposite. We just have to find the best way how to use policy and that's all. When we find the best pattern we should edit it that way. Any change will be vandalism as long as it's not proved that we did something wrong. It's the easiest and the most correct way. Anything else is chaos and trouble. Chaos and trouble is what we already have here, that's why we have this discussion. Zenanarh (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Be careful with the "don't be naive" stuff please Zen. Let's remember we're all trying to achieve the same thing here, just trying to find the best way of doing it. So what if we look at a couple of useful examples. Žilina in Slovakia is called Žilina throughout the article even though it was part of the Kingdom of Hungary for over 900 years. The editors of that article mention the main foreign names once at the start in line with NCGN and then forget all about the issue. Covasna County in Transylvania does the same, even though it is ethnically overwhelmingly Hungarian and, if anyone applied the arguments that certain "friends" of ours like to use regarding Dalmatia etc, the Hungarian name for Covasna should be used at least when describing the place in a historical context. There are lots of similar examples if we have a look around. About Croatia, I've got no problem with how Rijeka is now. It's clear and consistent. (Poreč, on the other hand, sucks).
I think you are right about the problem with having a separate 'names' section in short articles. Perhaps, therefore, the solution is to:

• have the most important non-English names (maximum three of them) mentioned once in the lead;
• any 'names' subsections such as the one that I added to Zadar should be deleted;
• looking towards a permanent end to this names nonsense, we could merge together List of German exonyms for places in Croatia, List of Italian place names in Dalmatia and List of Italian place names in Istria into a single unified article with exactly the same style as Names of European cities in different languages: A (we could use that article as a template) and call the new merged article Names of places in Croatia in different languages. So we'd end up with each article starting something like Zadar (other name 1, other name 2, see also other names) and the end result would look like the first sentence of Seville. What do you think? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Alas, I wrote "don't be naive" to my wiki friend, not to my enemy ;) Zenanarh (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Zen, please do not be naive, User:DIREKTOR is not our friend, he is a well-known fanatic. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Alas, don't be naive, I'm fanatic too and you are nothing better than me. Zenanarh (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We should open a Fanatics' Bar where we can drink beer on warm afternoons like today :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And chips and chicks included. Zenanarh (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, now seriously. I think your proposal is acceptable. The question is only how to deal with historical names if there is no Name section. In small articles we can write Name sections and place it in the talk pages until articles get expanded, in the meantime just a sentence in the article with all those names included but without explanation.

Example Šolta: I can write a "Name" in the Talk:Šolta, with an explanation that it goes to the article when it gets expanded. In the meantime I can write only one sentence in the article which includes all those names like:

Šolta was first recorded as Olynthia or Nesos Olyntha in Ancient Greek language, later it was Latin: Soluta, Old Slavic: Sulent or Sulet and both Venetian and Croatian: Solta.

What do you think guys? Zenanarh (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Slovenians in Croatia

Here's an interesting article about Slovenians in Croatia, as well as of persons of Slovenian origin in Croatia [54]. Kubura (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Non English place names

Hi there, I read what you put on my talk page, and I see your point, but I'd also like to explain my reasoning. In some cases, I do agree that mentioning a non-English name in the beginning is a good solution to the problem you mentioned. However, I still do not understand why the majority places in Dalmatia and Istria and the islands must have Italian names when there is little reason for it. I speak of places like Biskupija, the Kornati archipelago and so on. I am also puzzled at why every single island must have the Italian name for it, especially since this has been initiated by an anonymous IP whose motives have raised my suspicions. Best. --Jesuislafete (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see your reasoning, and I agree with it, but I think that the wider issue is more important in that we need a standardised system of rules and policy so that for example an article about Rijeka does not have to say Rijeka/Fiume every time. There has been so much of that shit it is unbelieveable. Wiki has many Italian nationalists that want to give equal status to Italian names so that all the articles are kind of dual named. This would obviously be ridiculous; the best way to avoid it is to say "Italian name once, only once, at the start, then the modern English name throughout". A part of this is that we have to be consistent and not remove Italian names from articles, as this would be POV. We need to be firm, fair and consistent. If there is an Italian (or other language) name, mention it once, just once, at the beginning, then we're done with it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand, especially since the edit wars are getting out of hand. however, I feel it is important not to cater to ridiculous 'demands' (for want of a better word). I can see why they may want to put Italian on the islands, but I fail to see the reasoning behind Biskupija, Sinj and other places in Zagora. --Jesuislafete (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing and mud throwing

See this message [55], sent by user Jr.. Using the expression of "La Banda Sloveno-croata" (Croat-Slovenian gang). Etiquetting.
Of course, you were mentioned too ("kid sloveno" AlasdairGreen27... ed inventarsi ogni possibile falsitá su utenze fantasma contro di noi.", translation: "inventing every possible falsification about ghost user against us").
The author of this message says that his blog is some Brunodam's blog (this might suggest that the author is Brunodam, but someone could pretend and write this kind of message in order to damage his reputation; however, this should draw our attention). Kubura (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bale (grb).gif

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Bale (grb).gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. J Milburn (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no image copyright tag explaining the copyright status of the image. If you add one, you're welcome to remove the notice. J Milburn (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically, no, but I apologise- I should have noticed that you had explained it. J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea, I can't read the permission page you linked to. What license is it under? Public domain? Creative Commons? GFDL? J Milburn (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Not enough- images must be either public domain or free. If there is only permission for Wikipedia to use the media, then others are not able to use it, which is our aim- creating an encyclopedia that others can freely use for whatever purpose they wish. J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the copyright page is quite clear that content can not be used for commercial purposes, which means that it is not 'free' by Wikipedia's definition. I will delete it now. Sorry about that- if I can be of any help in the future, feel free to contact me. J Milburn (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Poreč

It's true that in western Istria, tables are bilingual. But officially Poreč is Poreč. No Parenzo. An Italian minority's suggestion about bilingual official names for a few of the towns was rejected in 2003 [56]. Zenanarh (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Alas, I was wrong. This document rejects jurisdiction of Croatian constitution for officializing of the bilingual names for a few towns in Istria. Responsibility is on the local statute. I've missed that part. And the Statute of Istrian county did it in 2006, document given by IP in Talk:Poreč. I didn't read it well, my fault. Now many beers go to you. Zenanarh (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Filipović

Hi, Alasdair. Could you have a look at the discussion on Talk:Miroslav Filipović. I'd appreciate your input. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

afd of Political society

Hi. As a contributor to the first afd of this article you might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political society (2nd nomination) andy (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Generalmesse Return

Have a look at Bendiksen63, ITALONY and IP 24.20.169.90... Pretty obvious who it is... especially as the two registered users use Paolo Caccia Dominioni de Sillavengo book Alamein 1933-1962: An Italian Story as source, which by "chance" was a favourite source for Generalmesse. ITALONY and the IP are also pretty obviously the same person: ITALONY edit and the IP addition. BTW: the source he uses is a British Egyptian Philately and Edmund Hall the writer of the source material an collector of Egyptian stamps! not a historian qualified in any way to judge the WWII events of North Africa... My question is: what do we do??? --noclador (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I should have known...

Hi Alasdair. Our pal PIO is stirring up trouble again, this time in the Pula article. I believe he is now pushing to rename the article into Pola/Pula or something like that. Have a look. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

PIO

Alasdair, could you give me a link to where PIO admits he's the annoying IP? If I remember correctly it was on your talkpage... I'll report the annoying POV-pusher and see if I can't get him blocked or at least the pages semi-protected from his nonsense. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What? Of course he is. Its plain obvious. He keeps saying he's "not PIO" but says nothing about "Luigi". Its him, and he even said so. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Rab concentration camp

Alasdair, there's currently an RfC ongoing about Elonka (talk · contribs) (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka). Some problems with the Rab concentration camp article have come up for discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Elonka#Rab concentration camp. As you were heavily involved in that dispute, you might have a view on the current discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Weird image...

Hey Alasdair, since all esuli are on ferragosto, I finally have time to direct my attention to less significant matters such as images and the like. I've noticed some weird image placement on the Yugoslav Front of World War II article. The "World War II partition of Yugoslavia" image is floating around the start of the page, you wouldn't happen to know why? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's because it was left aligned. Left aligned images are usually screwed up. I've fixed it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange, so it can't be left or it'll be screwy? I'm just trying to solve the mystery, might be something I don't know... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Every time I've tried a left aligned image it's been the same shit. A software problem I guess. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, do you think maybe all the optanti go off on ferragosto together? I hope not. Miserable bastards that they are. You'd hardly return to work after a fortnight of that shit feeling relaxed, refreshed and ready for whatever the boss has in store. Now I really am starting to feel sorry for them :-(( AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't ask me, the only thing I know is that all of Italy is over here, if all these guys stayed we'd have to rename Split to "Citta di Spalato" :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A thoroughly good idea. I suggest you get out there with your can of paint and start rewriting the road signs immediately. That, finally, will stop the interminable moaning, whining, grumbling and complaining. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't count on it, they'll be moving on to Zagabria next... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Rab concentration camp

I thought you might like to know that I've rewritten and expanded this article. Your views would be appreciated (on the article talk page, please). -- ChrisO (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Pax

Thanks for information.... Because I am not everyday on wiki can you please next 2 days ask checkuser Thatcher for check (and block). See this or you can inform administrator User:Wknight94--Rjecina (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Exhausting and frustrating

Its like banging your head against a brick wall sometimes. At this point, I think it might be easier to let Rjecina continue to object and try to get administrative actions, as continuing this fruitless (and often very hard for me to decipher) discussion seems pointless. He can try and get administrators to help him, they'll tell him it's a content dispute, and eventually he'll realize that the consensus on the page is against him and hopefully let it go. AniMate 23:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Briiliant. I've been dying to say something like that for some time. AniMate 00:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to say, orwhat to think. If he wasn't moderate in the past I'd say he's behaving like a typical nationalist. I think constant conflict with Serb nationalist socks may have polarized his views. LoL, the same thing that happened to Croatia as a nation :P

In any case, I don't want to offend the guy but this is starting to exhaust everybody's patience. I already tied to reason with him and the experience really makes me want to walk away from this, I'm glad to se you're all reaching the same decision. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Those of us who spend a lot of time trying to improve Balkan-related articles face a lot of shit from nationalists and grudge-bearers of every kind. Regarding the articles I've worked on, there are just a few people that I implicitly trust as being non-POV (DIREKTOR, you and Zen spring to mind, and I would like to mention Kubura as well but for the silly sock-stirring nonsense about Kirker). Rjecina is definitely not someone I see as non-POV. I don't see much positive stuff in his/her edit history. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's Bruno :-)

I was wondering all the time if you were right from the beginning that Romaioi is Bruno is Generlamesse is Capitanocorelli is... well, what is a typical comment of Romaioi? it's long, it is full of wrong accusations and it's twisting a lot of facts... so what are typical Bruno comments: a classic Bruno comment... And what is typical about Romaiois comments... right - he revisits them and changes them multiple times; just like - guess who! :-) --noclador (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well actually, what we know is the behaviour you have described above is more reflective of your own. We also know that you do not carry out the appropriate due diligence before you make an accusation (actually you just simply do not read), you do not know your geography, and nor do you ever assume good faith. Most clearly, we know you will lie just about anything to incriminate your "targets". Oh, and you canvass your mates to drum up support for your lies. Once again. Keep up the good prejudiced work! Romaioi (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Today's IP is 100% definitely Bruno. So, these attacks on you by Bruno seem to possibly, perhaps tie Bruno to Generalmesse or Romaioi, but I'm not sure. Strange though, I agree... :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it's him. As I understood from reading some Bruno discussions he had a habit of registering socks wherever he went... so I believe that he registered the various socks on a business trip to Australia (which would also explain, why Romaiois favourite time to edit is 4pm to 3am Perth time - or 7am to 6pm Broomfield time) also: if Bruno is so incensed with me today, but I never before had anything to do with him... so, where does this anger come from? also: Romaioi is the name with which the Roman settlers in the Balcans described themselves after the partition of the Roman empire... so... who is so much interested in these people?? The more I think about it the surer I am: Romaioi = another sock of Bruno. --noclador (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Western Australia and Colorado are 14 hours apart. Time zone maps are available on the web - for free. You should perhaps read up more about the term romaioi before you comment on it again. Keep thinking about it. Who will you be sure that I am the next time you make an accusation against me? Romaioi (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. I can offer you these IP addresses in Atlanta that, like today's, were definitely Bruno. Special:Contributions/65.3.224.112 and Special:Contributions/72.153.151.45. There are lots of others. He seems to be there about every 3-4 weeks. I haven't got time now to dig out any others but I will have in the next day or two. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I reported Generalmesses new socks: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Generalmesse (2nd) --noclador (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Italian Empire related AfD

Hi there - input would be appreciated at this Italian Empire related AfD [57]. Thanks The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

I'm at the end of my rope with Rjecina too, but you are way over reacting to an innocent edit summary. WP:NPOV and WP:RS technically fall under an umbrella of editorial style. I don't understand why you're so upset. AniMate 23:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you think Rjecina would've reverted those edits had they not been anti-Ustaše? The whole article is full of stuff that is "against wikipedia editorial style", especially in the sense that it is mostly unsourced, and it is in need of a root-and-branch clean up. The point is that across a range of articles, Rjecina is in favour of removing stuff that is in his/her perception hostile to the activities of the Ustaše, the NDH and individuals connected to them. I stand by my remarks, except to say that I will not revert wholesale (of course not) but will look closely and with great interest at whatever Rjecina is up to. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you will change thinking about me if you read talk page of article Ante Pavelić ?

My proposition for you is to read PDF book Globalizing the Holocaust A Jewishuseable past in Serbian Nationalism. This is 1 of reasons for my problems with discovering what is myth and what is reality.

If you are having problems with my removing of words sadistic, cruelty and similar I can't help you but it will be good for you to read talk page of article Jasenovac from november 2007.

My advice for you is not to look and revert my edits because of Pax problem which you know very good. I am not having problem with users which are looking my edits but if I am too many time reverted I always ask blocking of harass user.--Rjecina (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And I am having puppet account :)--Rjecina (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well your arrogance is duly noted, but don't be so sure that an admin is going to block on request just because you've spent time hunting down Pax socks. Right now, you have four legitimate editors who disagree with your edits and strongly disagree with your unrelenting attitude. If I were you, I'd start looking at my behavior and try to see why Alasdair is reacting the way he is. AniMate 00:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Pax is not having anything with that. Before Pax I have "survived" all blocks demands because of "my" POV edits and other editors have been blocked. It is time for your "group" to stop looking my "POV" edits because this has not been first non-Filipović related "incident". First (like this) has been solved without problems but I worry about emotional reactions of editors from this group.

With which other my edits users from this 4 editors are not happy ?? Maybe is best for us all to not look my edits, like I am not looking edits of this group ?--Rjecina (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe is best if you get real about Friar Satan... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni Luppis

Erasing entire sections could be considered vandalism. Please discuss in the discussion page before. Thanks.--Holytrully (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I know some of these might be stale, but have you considered filing a checkuser request. I've had much better results, as there's very little interpretation that needs to be done with technical evidence. Besides, a nice little checkuser report makes blocking much easier for future socks. AniMate 00:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put a note on Thatcher's page (Steel seems to be away); hopefully he/she will have a quick look and quietly confirm. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Having checkusers aware of and familiar with these complex and ongoing cases makes things much easier. Hope everything finds you well. AniMate 00:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

All well, buddy. Back now from hols. Hols good, back at work, not so good. The usual :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, have you dropped in on Lika recently? A disaster, frankly. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Lika

This user edit has been reverted to accepted version of article because he has deleted Vlachs from article. Part of article about events in 1990-92 is bad in both versions of article. If you want another example of my "double standard" you can look article Serbs of Croatia in which I have deleted many "prominent" Serbs, but in other article (I do not know name) I have not deleted many "prominent" Croats. Simple speaking in acting like vandal revert (and if you think about my bad english) I am not having time for many things because for example today I am stoping 6 vandals (in my thinking 3 vandals which are using 7 accounts), then there is discussion with Kirker, then there is my puppet account ......--Rjecina (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina, you are, at best, an apologist for the NDH, and at worst, possibly, judging from your edits, a POV nationalist fanatic. I cannot see many helpful contributions in your edit history, and I can see very many bad ones. Your AN/I thread against Kirker is a bit of a final straw for me. Sorry, but when I have time, I think I will have to assemble a case against you to see that the encyclopedia is protected against you. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Rjecina has now accused you, me, Direktor, and Kirker of being sockpuppets or meatpuppets on WP:AN/I. He says he's going to file a checkuser. I personally can't wait for him to do this. Rjecina has gotten his way by relentlessly wiki-lawyering, endless discussion, and claiming anyone who disagrees with him is a sockpuppet. When this checkuser case is resolved, hopefully he'll realize that WP:Consensus actually applies to him, because right now he's just certain that he is right and that's all that matters to him. In addition to learning proper English, he has to learn that he won't always get his way and sometimes the majority is right. AniMate 03:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. I eagerly await the checkuser request. I'll buy beer and peanuts to enjoy the show. Perhaps I should offer to proofread the English in it so that the poor checkuser can make out what he's trying to say. Mind you, he should hurry up, as he's not alone in his suspicions [58]. Meanwhile, if I were poor old Kirker right now I'd probably walk away from Wikipedia and never come back. I'll drop him a note on his talkpage. Perhaps we all should. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about a way to solve some of the problems we've been having lately. Rjecina has a really bad habit of running to an administrator every time someone's a little rude to him. From the outside, I can see why Ricky blocked Kirker, and honestly Kirker probably should've tempered his language. Instead of running to WP:AN/I where admins just look at behavior or engaging in endless talk page cycles with Rjecina, we should consider taking things to WP:ECCN. So much of our dispute resolution is designed specifically to not deal with content disputes, and that's pretty much all we have with Rjecina. He's able to get the results he wants because he goes to admins with easily seen behavioral issues, and unfortunately its very hard to tell an admin to not block someone when the only defense you really have is "Do you have any idea how long we've been dealing with this guys endless, circular objections." I guess what I'm saying is that WP:ECCN was set up to give editors a venue to deal with these kinds of issues and is monitored by admins willing to look beyond one or two obvious diffs. I'm almost positive I've suggested this to Rjecina in the past, and am not surprised he hasn't gone there before. The next time you run across him making ridiculous arguments (using official statements from victims is proof of bias?!?) take it there. We can get more eyes on this, and Rjecina will perhaps actually understand that consensus is against him. It will also be nice to have some admins monitoring things who fully understand the situation, as Ricky, sadly, does not. AniMate 00:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Good ideas, AniMate. Well worth pursuing. Regarding Kirker's intemperate language, well, I can see where he's coming from, as he explained in his unblock request, with which I entirely agree. Mind you, there's no consistency on these civility things. Last night in an obviously irate state as you've read I told Ricky and his pal Erik to relocate themselves to MySpace, and I also called Erik a twat. Comments which I 100% stand by, by the way. There is not a single discussion in the world that would not benefit from my thoughtful and measured interjections ;-) Anyway, nobody's blocked me, probably much to Ricky's disappointment. What saddens me most, on a serious note, is that we are trying as a group (you, DIREKTOR, Kirker, Zen, me) to make Balkan-related articles substantially better. Rjecina is not. But Rjecina is able to run across to AN/I and get a quick result from an admin that is too lazy to even look into the respective contributions of the editors. Shameful. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

After poking around WP:ECCN I found some links that might prove useful, and am formulating a plan. Any editing in the Balkans is fraught with turmoil, and civility and productiveness is falling by the wayside. Project have been set up to deal with other areas of ethnic conflict, perhaps a project specifically designed to aid in dealing with conflicts in Balkan related areas is a good idea. Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation and Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration appear to be successful. User:Elonka is an administrator I'm familiar with and trust, and currently she's working on User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. The idea of getting a structure or framework to help deal with these unending, circular conflicts sounds like a little slice of heaven to men. I've asked Elonka to give me some details about how successful she feels her experiment is and I'm starting to dig through some similar projects as well. It could work. AniMate 00:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Loved your ideas until you got to the last bit. Sadly, Elonka made a bit of a mistake at Rab concentration camp, see this thread Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Elonka#Rab_concentration_camp, meaning that she'll be avoiding me till hell freezes over. Otherwise, I'm all in favour. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I knew about you and Elonka. I'm not asking her to head this up, just asking for her opinions and experiences. She's got plenty on her plate, and I have no intention of adding to her load. Despite my respect for her, and I have a ton, I think a less controversial moderator is needed if this comes to fruition. AniMate 01:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well, leaving all that aside, the points you make are good. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Erik the Red 2. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Your template amplifies and underlines beautifully the comments I made at your talk page yesterday. I wish you happy editing, although sadly I suspect the opposite may well be the outcome. Ah well. Good luck. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I just want to put on record my thanks for the vigorous way you went in to bat for me. When I first arrived here I thought Rjecina might possibly be well-intentioned, but I soon discarded that idea. I then tolerated/ignored his inexcusable behaviour for much too long. As a result of this latest spat I have joined you in pressing one or two of the third-party commentators to assess more carefully Rjecina's value to this project. Eric the Red and Ricky81682 seem to be listening, so I think it's worth the effort. Like you, I await with great curiosity the outcome of Rjecina's latest sockpuppets referral! Regards. Kirker (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, AlasdairGreen. Nice to see you again.
If you have good relations with Kirker, OK.
If you defend him because of that, OK.
But you have to have in mind that he posted the insults (not the "wrapped" ones, but open and blatant insults).
He told to other users "you are simply stupid" [59], etiquetted them as "snide arsehole", "you're too spineless", not to mention all his inflammatory messages.
Instead of dealing with articles, we're dealing with a person that disrupts Wikipedia.
I dare to say that, because of his blatant insults.
So, it's not fair to draw the admins away from the true problem. E.g., on hr.wiki, for such behaviour he'd get much longer block solely for such insult (an user got a 7-day block for calling others as tukci). For repeated bad behaviour (after the block and after admin's warnings), as Kirker did here, he'd already be banned.
So, I find it sad, that Kirker got away with sole 31 hour block.
I believe, me, and many other users that play according to the rules are feeling like idiots when seeing all of his unpunished behaviour, while at the same time we choose our words carefully and waste our time explaining to admins that black is black. He was supposed to be blocked long ago.
Now, to other part. I don't know why do you see any problem with Rjecina. I've never seen him using such words (am I wrong? If it's not the case, can you supply me with diffs that prove me wrong?).
At last, Rjecina proved to be excellent sockpuppet-hunter, as well as in dealing with users that perfidiously break and evade the rules, and with those that are too refined in that (many admins don't recognise the problematic user in the beginning, and Rjecina disguised such malicious users).
You don't have to waste your energy against Rjecina, the user that's on your side. We need you on other areas. Don't ruin your honest reputation.
I hope that my message was helpful. Greetings, Kubura (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my friend, definitely "Rjecina proved to be excellent sockpuppet-hunter, as well as in dealing with users that perfidiously break and evade the rules, and with those that are too refined in that", as can be seen here [60][61]:
As for Rjecina's other behaviour, well, for example, this is hardly helpful [62][63] if you are trying to persuade me how innocent and productive he is trying to be.
Nor is writing on my talk page "I am sure that in the end you will be blocked like harass account" [64].
Regarding the use of words like "spineless" etc, I seem to remember it was because of this [65][66] and because neither of you then subsequently had the courage to make an official report. Regarding my "honest reputation", thanks for the compliment and your concern, but I'm not concerned that it's in any danger, frankly. See you around ;-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

[67]: just the remarks about content dispute, editorial style. He announced RFCU. Ground: suspicion that you, AniMate and Kirker are meatpuppets.
Don't be angry because of that. I was angry at first, when some admins and users filed RFCU, finding me suspicious. My feelings were hurt, because I knew that I wasn't guilty and that I've been stubbornly playing according to the rules, and they still processed me as if I was some rule violator. But, now I see it as normal thing. Sock-, straw- and meatpuppets often behave oppositely than their master, so the opponents and monitors won't suspect anything.
Since this is the virtual and not the real world, we can allow ourselves "a shot in the bush", as soon we hear a rustle (in real life, hunters may shoot only at animals they see, not at things they hear).
[68] - just an announcement.
[69] - he could do without this.
[70] - this was friendly notification, friendly advice ("you will enter game about which you do not know..."). Notice "you will be blocked like harass account" means: don't allow yourself to be abused and indoctrinated by users that play perfidious and dirty game, because there's lot more under the surface (things look much differently if you scratch and dive a little) and those users with bad intentions'll pull you to the bottom. Potopit ćedu te, povuć ćedu te na dno, samo zato što si se povea za njima. Ispast će na kraju da si ometao ozbiljnog suradnika koji je muku mučio sa osobama koje remete Wikipedijin rad (I don't know how to express this in English in few sentences).
About Kirker. It hurts me seeing that en.wiki tolerates such persons and such behaviour. Do we have to again lose another 18 months and two admins/users (because of wikistress and wikioverburn) who'll finally have guts to say "emperor is naked" and finally decide to deal with problem? Kirker may be angry if I suspect that he's the sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user Justiceinwiki, but that's no excuse for using derrogative terms. I was angry when RFCU was filed against me, but I've never used such terms. He crossed the line. Kubura (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And this little gem? [71] How do you explain that one away? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

checkuser case --Rjecina (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Amusing nonsense. I will sit by my computer enjoying beer and peanuts while we await the result. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Be free to enyoy but you must read wikipedia:stalking. This is your first and last warning for stalking--Rjecina (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"First and last warning" for what exactly?? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alasdair. You've been mentioned at ANI, and at User talk:Tznkai#Sock thing at ANI. Can't we all just get along? (rhetorical question). EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Alasdair, for the time being, try not to interact with Rjecina as much as possible. The stalking accusation is ridiculous, as his sock-puppetry case... or is it the meat-puppetry case he is now trying to start against you and Kirker. It's all very confusing, tedious, and reeks of bad faith. His evidence is either obvious (I wonder if User:Brzica milos etc and User:Brzica milos ect are socks? though one has no edits) or insulting. This is my favorite. Using a statement about collaborative work as an example for meat=puppetry? Just terrible. And the fact that he took a conversation about setting up a forum for ending the conflicts surrounding editing in the Balkans area says mountains about what kind of an editor he really is. Anyway, if you must interact with him on talk pages, try to keep things, especially your tone, neutral. I'm painfully busy today, but am hoping to leave a message over at WP:ECCN in an attempt to get the ball rolling on a task force to end some of these editing conflicts. AniMate 19:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed buddy, and thanks. I'd already decided it'd be better not to substantially respond to my "first and last warning", as doing so and remaining within the bounds of civility would be.... a stern challenge to anyone's talents with wordsmithery. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Blok yourself now

Your days as meetpuptet are over again. Today Rijeka river flows uphill becaus of your pupptetry. Stop this immediatly this ist your last only warnig. Blok yourself or you will be bloked immediately by Thatcher. He and other admins say Rijeka citizns are very NPOV accounts who never are wrong. I file report Tusday and then you see! Rjecka-budala (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Pax? Zenanarh (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. Could be. Someone with a sense of humour, anyway, judging by his/her contributions so far. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Some problems?

I'm sorry but, do you have some personal problem against me? Why do you inserted fake accusation in [[72]] based on wrong evidences?--D'Agrò (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Zadar section Recent History discussion

I kindly ask you to participate in the discussion about Zadar article recent history section in order to achieve a more NPOV version. I feel that current version is one sided and has issues that need to be resolved. Thank you. 78.30.150.253 (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/Participants

You are added on this list. If this is mistake you can delete your name from this list.--Rjecina (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Change is deleted --Rjecina (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

NDH corrections

Plz, firs there was Chetnik (retreating King army killed more then 300 Croatian people before single victim of Ustasha regime terror in NDH then there was Croatian reaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.157.251.100 (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Erwin Rösener. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of ALEX COKE

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on ALEX COKE, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because ALEX COKE is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting ALEX COKE, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 07:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Dalmatia gets the cold shoulder again :P

It would seem the Admins have once again decided the best way to solve Dalmatian problems would be the all-favored "ignore it and it'll go away" strategy, oh well... How've you been lately Alasdair? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine thanks mate. Very busy. Ah well. I saw your thread at AN/I. It'll get attention sooner or later. If it gets archived for lack of edits, I'll bring it back. Meanwhile, a quick resolution at Italian language in Croatia would be good, don't you think. What's Kubs up to? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Magnum Crimen again

In your opinion, after User:Don Luca Brazzi's 3rd revert, under the explanation that I need to read the book before committing "further damage" and "Whoever needs more detailed information about the book - will start reading the very book.", do you agree with me it's time for a RfC. In response, I simply removed every unsourced possibly controversial statement. I don't think further discussion is going to get us anywhere. Don Luca's overall editing history (including the IP addresses he was using before) leaves a fairly clear impression of his goals here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely Ricky. I don't think that Don Luca Brazzi or his "associates" are interested in improving this article. They show no interest in discussion or trying to find consensus, or adding sources in response to fact tags. It seems the only acceptable version is DLB's and that any attempt to, for example, just simply improve the English is met with a stern rebuke to go and read the book. There's not much to be gained from further discussion, I agree, and I support your idea of going for an RfC. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternative at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Magnum_Crimen_issues. Indef block both accounts under ARBMAC provisions until they learn. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Ricky. Not an entirely surprising outcome. I look forward with some interest to seeing the 'reasoning' behind their likely unblock requests. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Gross metropolitan product

A big "THANK YOU" for cleaning this page up. I was planning to do it, someday, but did't have the patience. Keep a look out to make sure no one changes it to estimates, though. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Slr's RfC

Hi Alasdair, just a friendly word of advice. I think you should probably remove your comment about Elonka on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/SlrubensteinII. I say this because the RfC is not about Elonka, and you don't appear to be engaged in the RfC in any other way. This isn't the appropriate place for comments about Elonka, who isn't really an involved party. She's entitled to have her say even if you suspect her motives it would probably be best to keep them to yourself. All the best. Alun (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. All of what you say is correct. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Alun (talk) 07:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about?What nationalism? I had problem with serbophobic users before... User:Bg007

Marygiove

Hi Alasdair, Out of curiosity, do you have much history with Marygiove? An ip claiming to be that former user had some strong words to say about you on my talk page a couple of weeks back. I am gathering that it is sock related. You may want to take note of it for the future. Cheers, Romaioi (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Freddyboytoy

Hi Alasdair! Sorry, I have no experience with these procedures. It's not amusing for me, to waste my time with senseless attempts and explanations. I only unwillingly deal with similar problems here... Have a nice day and thanks for your help. --Vejvančický (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Bona/Bunic

I don't know who you are but please feel free, before continuing to be rude, to visit my website at www.de-bona.com That should speak to my authenticity, and if you have any manners or intelligence, motivate you to apologiseMercy Bona (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Bona/Bunic

I don't know who you are but please feel free, before continuing to be rude, to visit my website at www.de-bona.com That should speak to my authenticity, and if you have any manners or intelligence, motivate you to apologiseMercy Bona (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am possessed of both manners and intelligence and therefore I willingly and gladly apologise. I have stricken my remarks. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Freddy

Well, I think we need to take a very hard line on trolls - and precisely for that reason, I am loathe to block anyone unless they have had ample warning or have really violated a policy that calls for immediate blocking. In this case, AGF and BITE seem to justify taking a few minutes to write an encouraging constructive message - and if s/he ignores it, well, then we can block with confidence ... which I just did! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Do me a favor and keep an eye out in case he starts sock-puppeting. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll do that. Thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You think you are smarter than freddyboytoy hey?

Let me prove you 2 fools wrong, go on the links on the page you will read about 11000,

here is more proof, 11000 for basketball, imagine how many more seats for boxing, since boxing ring is much smaller, what do you 2 fools now? I created that account, knowing you will suspend me, now i can take you before administrator board to have you suspended, would you like that and when i present evidence on 11000 you will look like total morons that you are and after you read this, you will also delete this segment so you idiots look innocent, go ahead, make my day!

basketball.ballparks.com/NBA/ClevelandCavaliers/oldindex.htm  : www.nba.com/cavaliers/news/ccu_uniform_050920.html LOL

Bona/Bunic

Apology accepted. I urge you to contact Chuck Sudetic (google him) to obtain accurate information on BONA and other noble families before publishing this article. As I said, my only interest is to ensure that the BONA family history is recorded accurately and without political prejudice —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercy Bona (talk • contribs) 07:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly...

For all the slander of our Italian buddies on articles such as Istrian exodus, Josip Broz Tito was decorated by Italy with the highest possible order of merit, the Grand Cross with Collar and Sash. Thank goodness we were alerted to the fact that he "planned and committed the 'democide' of thousands of Italians", as well as "orchestrated the bombing of Zadar", one might have thought he was an Italian national hero or something ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is interesting... AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

...and Kissinger was awarded the Nobel peace prize. I suggest its best to consider your Italian friend's behaviour and the actual history as separate issues (just a general comment). By the way Direktor, I was reading through some of the discussions you had with Brunodam et al regarding the Istrian and Dalmatian pages. You did well to be able to remain as objective as possible. You put in a lot of good work. Cheers Romaioi (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Incivility and threats

Writing on article talk page:"the person adding them has gone down the list of available tags trying to dream up any and every tag that he might get away with applying in an attempt to discredit this article" [73] is attack on person in question.

Comment on my talk page:"However, and I will give you this notice once only, your adherence to Wikipedia's rules on collegiate editing is a requirement for your continued presence here. Now, is that clear?" [74] is threat and this is again against wikipedia rules. --Rjecina (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Alasdair I understand how frustrating working with Rjecina can be and how irritating his communication style is. However, writing in sarcastic pigdin, as you did on the Jasenovac talk page, does absolutely nothing to advance you or the point you're trying to make. With this guy and his overzealous desire to get anyone who disagrees with him blocked as a Pax sockpuppet, the best and really only strategy for you to use is unending civility. Besides, Pax was actually unblocked by Thatcher so Rjecina will likely implode with indignation any day now. Seriously though, play nice and consider refactoring your last comment.--AniMate 07:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right. I will change it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Two Links:

1. [75]
2. [76] ;D

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for National Hunger March, 1932

On 4 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article National Hunger March, 1932, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Operation:AniMate

Sir: AniMate gave me permission to work with you in the RfA nominating endeavour. Please let me know how we should coordinate this. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's splendid that you agree that AniMate will be a very good admin. Indeed, I fully expect this to be a non-controversial nom. He/she has suggested it should wait a week or two; I'll let you know as soon as the candidacy is open. Happy editing :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I always knew it. You can ping me via e-mail to discuss details. And, again, sorry for that confusion earlier (I am not always such a dum-dum). Be well. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Operation:Ragusino

Hi Al, I've posted a request for large-scale semi-protection of Ragusan "House articles" on AN/I [77]. Since its a pretty big request the problem might need support to get addressed by admins, could you have a look? I'm getting pretty sick of constantly reverting Ragusino on 5 different articles :/ --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Tanthalas39 has this afternoon protected House of Gundulić/Gondola and Ivan Gundulić for this exact reason. Good. May be worth dropping him a note of appreciation on his talk about it, also mentioning the AN/I thread :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)