User talk:Director/Archive 10

hoi

Happy Holidays. :) (LAz17 (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)).

Dabnube Swabian listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dabnube Swabian. Since you had some involvement with the Dabnube Swabian redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). – Miranche ^T C 23:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Countries

Just 70 years ago you would have likely been imprisoned and killed in 8 of the 10 countries you've lived in/been to. I find that interesting. --ChristianHistory (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Is that so? Why? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Your views would have made you a bit unpopular in those countries. Europe 70 years ago:

• National Socialist Germany
  • Austria
  • Czechia
  • Slovenia
• Fascist Italy
  • Slovenia
• Independent State of Croatia
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Slovak State

--ChristianHistory (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

...What views? I do support the idea of a common Yugoslav state but I'm not a communist. I wouldn't even describe myself as "left-wing" as far as such definitions go... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought you were a Communist Serb based on the talk page for the Ustase article and your knowledge of Slavic languages. --ChristianHistory (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong on both counts. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently. --ChristianHistory (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, you have the document that states that AVNOJ adopted a new flag in 1945, that is the rounded star

First flag of the Yugoslav Partisans, 1941-1942, when they were focused on a Serbian-Croatian friendship initiative.

Second flag of the Yugoslav Partisans, 1942-1945, adopted amongst other flags, including the Partisans' naval ensign in 1942.

The aforementioned Yugoslav Partisan naval ensign, 1942-1945, bearing the straight armed star.

Third flag of the Yugoslav Partisans, 1945, you have the source from AVNOJ that states that in 1945 a flag such as this was adopted.

DIREKTOR, you have the document that states that AVNOJ adopted a new flag in 1945, that is the flag with the rounded star. I don't have a source right now, but I have seen sources that state that a different version of the flag existed prior,, but after the Serbian-Croatian friendship flag, in 1942 the Partisans adopted a series of flags with the tricolour and the straight-armed star. Though I will not use it as a source - the photograph who just recently shown me at the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia article is this 1942-1945 flag of the Partisans, but again I will search for a source. As I said, it is known that the Yugoslav Partisans adopted set of flags in 1942, including the Partisans' naval ensign that has a straight-armed star. The Partisans prior to 1942 used a Serbian-Croatian twin tricolour flag as part of their Serbian-Croatian friendship initiative.--R-41 (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge, after the initial months (wherein many different flags were used, the SC-friendship one included) both versions of the star were used interchangeably. The only way these flags were defined is by the demand that the Yugoslav flag have a five-pointed red star in its center. I do not think any further clarifications were given until the official yellow-rimmed flag was instituted well after the war. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. v/r - TP 14:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked you for a week for several reasons, I'll explain:

1. You have a history of edit warring blocks, so you should know that this behavior is uncalled for.
2. You know our WP:BLP policy. When we label a religion for a living person, we need directly attributable sources. Synthesis that a user must be A because they are not B is original research.
3. You did not gain a consensus at the talk page and it does not excuse the warring.

I know you know by now that warring is disruptive. There is no deadline to the encyclopedia and you need to discuss on the talk page. You cannot simply revert to your preferred revision and then demand the other editors discuss.--v/r - TP 14:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Its never my preferred version, or rather, my preferred version is the version before the dispute. In all objectivity I think a week is rather excessive for 4 reverts, esp when I did not really break 3RR. How about a commuted sentence to 4 days?

My perception however is that this conflict in general was provoked by Timubouctou. As I said, Gregor was WP:BOLD, I reverted him and we discussed on the talkpage. Nothing special. But in comes Timbouctou, following my edits, and manages to provoke this entire conflict (again). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've seen this issue grow between you and Timbouctou and you know I've tried to be as objective as possible. If it wasn't a BLP issue, I might agree that a week is excessive. This really has to stop between you to. I know you've made efforts to avoid and ignore Timbouctou, but there are other issues like warring where you haven't improved. I know you know WP:3RR is not a grace zone where you are only blocked at the 4th revert. Also so you're aware, I've proposed an interaction ban on ANI. If you have any comments you'd like copied over, feel free to post them here and I'll move them for you. We'll see you in a week.--v/r - TP 15:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

TP, I consider myself the offended party here. First of all, Timbouctou's apparent plan to get back at me worked like a charm (notice here he's already threatening to report me). Plus this isn't the first time he deliberately provoked an edit-war where there was none, now he's getting off scott-free. I believe that you are indeed being as objective as possible so I'll trust your judgement: do you really find no fault in his behavior whatsoever? Do four edits over three days get you blocked for a week, and three edits in one day get your opponent blocked? Do you believe Timbouctou is any less familiar with the gist of WP:3RR and Wikipedia's rules on edit-warring? Does the fact count for nothing that for the umpteenth time, after being warned and blocked for this exact sort of behavior, he followed me to a discussion, and created a conflict through haughty, disruptive behavior seasoned with personal attacks ("perhaps you don't know your own language?").

From what I gather, after being harassed, and blocked because of this guy's scheming, my edits on Wikipedia are now to be restricted. Setting the edit-war aside, I am (objectively I think) the harassed party. The harassment is not mutual, and I challenge anyone to show otherwise. Why should I now have to be additionally inconvenienced in any way? This may sound demanding somehow, but I think its fair to ask why isn't Timbouctou alone simply warned to stop WP:STALKING me? I avoid him anyway, to be sure, but why should I, for example, be sanctioned if I happen to respond politely and appropriately to something he writes? I am not the one harassing him - its vice vesa --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You know I have no barrier to blocking Timbouctou when appropriate. In this case, I felt the BLP issues settle the debate. Your own actions led you to the warring, not Timbouctou's. I understand you feel harrassed, but just because you haven't engaged Timbouctou directly doesn't mean you've completely avoided him either. You've reported him several times to ANI and on my own talk page. I understand how you feel, but I think this time you let yourself get caught up in the mess and made a poor decision. I hope the IBan will make things less stressful for both of you.--v/r - TP 16:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my own actions led to the edit-warring - and Timbouctou's, so how come I am the only one being sanctioned for them? And I certainly do not understand how reporting someone for harassment - is harassment in itself? Is that really what you're saying? I mean what else could I have done? Just withdraw whenever he inevitably appears? I don't think that would be right. I can only repeat: I am the one being harassed, and I do not think that, in addition to being the only one to be sanctioned today, I should also have my own actions on Wikipedia restricted because I am being harassed by this user.

In my view, we both edit-warred, and he harassed other users. How is it right that, far even from being treated equally, which would also be unfair given that I harassed noone, I am actually the only one being blocked - for a week - and I am now also to have my edits on Wiki restricted because that user has it in for me? Please give this a second thought. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You are being blocked for a week for edit waring a contentious edit back into a BLP. None of that involves anyone being harassed and is completely due to your own actions. As far as the IBan sanctions, like I said, if you want to make a statement, I'll copy it over there for you.--v/r - TP 17:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• I am not really challenging my block (which certainly was due to my own actions and does not involve harassment), its an admin's decision, I am only inquiring as to how the other participant was not blocked similarly. As we all know, "it takes two to edit-war".
• As for ANI.. theoretically, could you unblock me until the thread is closed? I will not edit anything else, and if I do, well, block me for another week? :) If not, fair enough, can you please post this conversation over there? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• I will unblock you conditionally that you only edit that ANI thread and your block will finish at 1303 12 January GMT. An immediate reblock will occur if you edit elsewhere or when the ANI thread closes. I know you know this, but I'm just writing it down for clarity sake. The reason I didn't block Timbouctou is I felt a person's beliefs or lack of beliefs falls under the WP:BLP exemption for WP:3RR.--v/r - TP 17:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes of course. Feel free even to extend my block if I edit outside WP:ANI (and my talkpage of course). However, I still can't edit, did you unblock me? Honestly TParis, when you block someone, you don't do it half-right :D

As for Timbouctou, am I to understand Timbouctou was not blocked because you think he was right? I'm not going to try and discuss the issue here with you, but honestly, we did not even finish the discussion and review all the sources (in good part thanks to Timbouctou as well, people like to head for the hills when he arrives to have it out with me). The matter is hardly unambiguous. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done And no, not that he was right. That it was contentious and where WP:BLP are involved, we don't restore the material until there is a source that directly attributes the contentious material.--v/r - TP 18:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the contention was exactly whether the cited source directly supports the cited material or not, we even went into the dictionaries. And does WP:BLP really excuse edit-warring? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It is listed under "exemptions" on WP:3RR as a kind of "discretion" thing.--v/r - TP 18:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What about the fact that the direct support of the sources was the subject under debate? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not listed as an exemption.--v/r - TP 19:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean in WP:BLP? But what I'm saying is that WP:BLP exemptions certainly do not apply any more on Timbouctou than on myself - since the conflict was precisely about whether the source does or does not directly support the disputed content. To say WP:BLP applies on Timbouctou's edits and not on my own, is to support his position in said dispute by agreeing that the source does not, in fact, support the disputed content. This of course is a proposition I still, for the record, very much oppose, and I think on good grounds. I'm certainly not saying you favor Timbouctou over me, but the proposition that WP:BLP excuses Timbouctou exclusively is, I think, mistaken and strongly in his favor. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I mean Wikipedia:3RR#3RR_exemptions. "Removal of ... poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)." I felt that labeling someone as any belief or non-belief unless directly attributable (ie, they say "I am an athiest") is potentially libelous, but at the very least poorly sourced. That is the exemption I've given Timbouctou in this particular case. I've taken no sides, ya'all are free to continue the discussion on the talk page when your block expires. I don't know the individual nor care either way if he calls himself an atheist or not.--v/r - TP 21:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

For crying out loud, the man said "I am not a believer". Agh never mind, I'm supposed to be on holiday anyway. You may block when ready Gridley *lights a cigarette and blindfolds himself* --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

TParis, not that I'm complaining I'm not actually blocked, but if I am going to be blocked I wouldn't want to have to wait another week after all this. As I said above, I realize at this point I'm only able to annoy everyone further :), so I'm done with ANI. I haven't been editing anywhere since you posted the block template above, and I wonder if the past couple days will count towards the one week? As far as I'm concerned, I'm certainly not going to edit while I'm supposed to be blocked, whether the block is actually in place or not for the duration.

Another question I'd like to ask you regards how exactly the interaction ban works? For example, if Timbouctou should post an RfM, would I be allowed to respond to that? -- Director (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

These past few days do count toward the block. It will end on at 1:03pm 12 January 2012 GMT. I'll go ahead and reapply the block so you have a clear sign of when it ends. As far as the IBan, an RfM shouldn't be neccessary since you two won't be commenting to or about each other. Basically, you can edit the same articles, but you cannot revert each other. You can participate in the same discussions, but you cannot comment to each other on any page or about each other to anyone else, or opening ANI threads except to report violations of the IBan or to ask that the IBan be abolished. The restrictions will be most felt by you in discussions because you and he will be unable to provide counter arguments to each others; or rather you can provide a counter argument but it cannot be directed at each other. What that means is if Timbouctou makes a "delete, no evidence of reliable sources" in an AFD, you could say "keep, I found this source, this one, and this one." However, you could not say "keep, plenty of evidence of reliable sources" because that would be in response to Timbouctou. Arbcom may be an exception of course, but you should discuss your involvement and IBan with a clerk before making any statements.--v/r - TP 14:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well... this should be interesting. The boundary between "interacting" and "not interacting" seems to be rather arbitrary. What happens if, hypothetically, Timbouctou and I are the only ones participating in a discussion in the IBan-mandated manner you describe above? Or if, for example, I start a thread and he appears by opposing the proposition in that thread without directly addressing me in the manner you described?

It sounds a little like a family dinner conversation after a fight ("Timmy, you know everything your mother is saying is wrong, right?"). -- Director (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It is and editors often get blocked for testing the boundaries of the line. I'd recommend just not commenting in anything Timbouctou is already involved in.--v/r - TP 15:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I certainly do not intend to do anything of the kind. What about the two example cases above? If its just the two of us in a discussion? -- Director (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Hello DIREKTOR, with this edit, in enacting a consensus of the community reached at the Administrator's Noticeboard, I hereby inform you that you are banned for 6 months from

• interacting with Timbouctou
• undoing his edits
• making reference to or commenting on him or his actions
• replying to him in any discussion
• editing his user talk space
• filing WP:ANI reports about him except to clarify or abolish this interaction ban or to report violations of the interaction ban.

The discussion leading to the ban may be viewed here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no intention of interacting with Timbouctou, in fact, I can show that I have been actively avoiding him for some time now. However, I would not like to get blocked if the user should nevertheless attempt to harass me still further (as he has done twice after measures have been agreed-upon on WP:ANI) - by skirting the limits of the IBan. The problem I perceive is that "interaction" is not defined in any way, and neither is a "reply". -- Director (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, now the interaction ban is in force; should Timbouctou try to harass you, just report him to ANI and he'll be blocked. Blocks can also be issued if the other party attempts to game the restriction. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2011

FkpCascais, I should probably report you for trolling on my talkpage ("nice to see you were blocked"). Please be sure not to use my talkpage to evade your t-ban. -- Director (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Emblem of Yugoslavia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sheaves (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Seven enemy offensives

G'day Director, please see my RfM re Fourth anti-Partisan Offensive for my policy arguments against this. I am flagging this because I do not want an edit war over this, but am disappointed that you did not respond to the RfM and have not engaged in any discussion before moving all of these articles. There is no consensus between our key texts on this. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Be bold!

Peacemaker why are you offended? If you feel the moves were unwarranted by all means feel free to revert them! :D The battle articles aren't part of the massive continuous Chetniks dispute so I was simply being WP:BOLD. The thing to do is to follow WP:BRD: I was bold, you revert me, and we discuss. Of course, I don't want to be reverted :), but if you feel that is necessary I certainly won't take offense and start edit-warring or something.

Also, I did actually discuss beforehand at the RfM on Talk:Battle of the Neretva where I explained that the term "anti-Partisan" (in relation to the seven offensives) is really a Wikipedia-invented term probably originating from some very old, non-policy-based, misguided "compromise". I can't find it in any sources, whereas "Enemy Offensives" are quite common. Cheers, I'll see you over at the talkpage -- Director (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Not offended. I believed the issue was under discussion and you moved unilaterally whilst a RfM was in play. I only used an RfM because WP wouldn't let me move the 4th and 5th offensives. No doubt I lack the skills to get around that. I don't see how your moves address any policy other than WP:NAME, and they are completely one-sided. There is probably a good reason for the compromise, and it could well be based on policy. What about the other policies I referred to in the RfM? I'll move this to the main talk page for the offensives. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Skills? Certainly not, tools rather. Sometimes when an article name has an extensive edit history it is not possible for use to move an article there without admin tools. To do so, you go to WP:RM and request a technical move. As regards the RfM, it concerns the Battle of the Neretva article and not the others, each article is separate. As always, if a move is contested an RfM must be posted.

There are a lot of instructions on WP:NAME, but in general when an an article title is being discussed, what it usually boils down to is "the most common English language name in sources". A sourced title, if it exists, is always superior to a Wikipedia-invented term. And a more common sourced term is better then a less common term. What it usually starts with is extensive Google testing and then moves on from there... -- Director (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Boskovic

Pozdrav,

Could you please elaborate on why you decided to add a distinct classification? Despite that few primary sources do speak in favor of that, the issue was brought into question numerous times without pushing forward credible literature to back up that side of the dispute (or both for that matter). Er-vet-en (say) 15:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if I made a mistake, but I thought I was simply restoring the status quo and reacting and to the addition of claims that Boskovic was "Serbian". To be perfectly frank, I don't care what we call him. Perhaps we can refer to him as "Croatian or Serbian" since it seems we've narrowed it down to that and the two nationalities were completely interchangeable in his time.. -- Director (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Ustaše, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Croatian Home Guard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Uniform 03.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Uniform 03.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've orphaned this image again. Using a non-free image in this way, in the infobox of the general subject of Croats, is not acceptable. Please do not reinstate the image as it is a direct violation of WP:NFCC #1. If you have questions, ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, thank you. -- Director (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Tito and Walter

Hi Director, it's a Walther PPK, not a Walter. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Lapsus calami? :) No, I actually didn't know that, thanks Peacemaker. -- Director (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Revert

Goldstein is nonetheless a locally published source and we do not pick and choose which locally published sources we prefer. It was agreed for them not to be used on both the Chetniks and Yugoslav Partisans talkpages. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 00:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. As you know, there is no provision in policy for ignoring sources based on their location of publication so I think we should pick and choose. Goldstein is a very well known, highly respected international historian, published in more countries than one. That publication qualifies as an exception imo. -- Director (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no need for a provision. Editors, including you, came to a consensus and agreed to avoid locally published sources as we have numerous reliable university published and peer reviewed sources on the subject of Yugoslavia already - including the demographics of the Partisans. Also, the recent addition of Hoare is pointless as both he and Ramet are referring to the same statement by Tito on the composition of Yugoslav Partisans in May 1944. Ramet is more specific and mentions all the ethnic groups whereas Hoare mentions only Serbs, Croats, and Muslims. No sense in repeating it. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 00:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I always say "preferrably" non-locally published sources. I would always take a foreign source over a local one, but that does not mean I would be willing to outright ignore every and any source based solely on its location of publication. I understood the provision would be applied on a case-to-case basis, and certainly not to publications by world-renowned experts such as Goldstein. He's right up there with Banac, Tomasevich and Zerjavic. Do you seriously question his professionalism? I suggest we leave this for now and discuss it later. -- Director (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Josip Broz Tito (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to TT-30

Ustaše (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Grabovac

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

NATO Flag in Kosovo War Template

If I can't put copyrighted picture of NATO flag.svg can I pin the flag as a {{flag| / {{flagicon| style?? Please answer on my talk page 68.202.26.86 (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Split, Croatia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Snow day (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Elio Lampridio Cerva

Without any surprise even on this - fairly minor - writer there was the usual and sad discussions about the name. As you were directly involved in the discussion can I understand why the article is named with the Croatian version of the name when in this case it is IMHO quite evident that the Italian (or the Latin name) should be used? For you personal reference consider in Italy on the names of the street it is written "Elio Lampridio Cerva, umanista dalmata XV secolo". Wouldn't be more correct to name the article to the name used for this person when in life and report him as Dalmatian? Also it is surprising to name with a Croatian version a writer that wrote exclusively in Latin and Italian and rejected Slavik? --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Silvio, the issue regarding the names of various Dubrovnik nobles is an incredibly complex one. How do you approach the issue of a state where the nobility spoke two languages, but 99% of the populace just one? Even when you consider something "quite evident", others might regard the opposite as "quite evident" as well. Suffices to say that Wikipedia does in no way "honour the wishes" of individuals as regards to the title of their articles. And, while I am certain that in Italy the Italian name is naturally preferred, that also carries little significance for this matter.

I assure you that the current title is well grounded in policy. Notice, just for example, that Ilija Crijević yields in excess of 1,800 hits among scholarly publications, whereas Elio Lampridio Cerva yields about 560. The approximate 3:1 ratio remains even when we limit the search to English-language publications. Of course, there are other reasons behind the title, such as previous WP:CONSENSUSES regarding the naming of Dubrovnik notables (for another example).

Thank you for bringing your concerns regarding this issue to my attention. In my opinion, all these sort of issues can easily be solved amicably through WP:AGF :) -- Director (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course it would not be of any relevance that in Italy he was considered Italian, but indeed this is not the case. In Italy he is considered Dalmatian. For the same reason it is not of any relevance that in Croatia is considered Croatian.
At the end of the day it is always the same discussion. Most of the Croatian historiography insists that Italian/Dalmatian ethnicity at the end of Middle Age was marginal. The reality is that it was quite marginal in terms of population, but not in terms of contribution to culture and arts. And not because those people were a better race, just because the most of the nobility preferred to consider themselves as Roman descendent, Dalmatian or Venetian. This issue is very frequent elsewhere. In the XIX century the nobility of Gent (Flamish part of Belgium) considered themselves as French, because the Flamish were the poors. This is perhaps irratating for modern Flamish historiography but does not change the fact that that the area of culture and art of the Gent nobility belongs to Francophony.
Medutin Vrsta Direktor, I am not discussing the Ragusa in the XV century was fairly out of the sphere of influence of Venice (and BTW nothing close in any sense to modern Italy existed at that time). And I do not discuss that the most of the population did not speak Italian/Dalmatian/Latin (albeit your quoted number of 99% it's an exaggeration). I discuss merely that EL Cerva is described here as Croatian (to the point that the main name used for the article is the Croatian one), when even he described himself as out of the sphere of the Slavik culture. Even if we do not give a damn to what Cerva thought he was (and perhaps this is quite legitimate), there is still the issue about the sourcing of your claim. PS Don't worry, I am not going to start with you the same dispute I had with Zenanarh. If you think that you are right because this guy born in what today is Croatia or because he was a representative of the non-Slavik nobility that was oppressing the poor Slavik people there is nothing that could drive the discussion forward because we would move the issue from History to Politics. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The references have been provided in the links, Sig. Silvio. Please note that "Ilija Crijevic" is decidedly the WP:COMMONNAME - in addition to other issues, that would apply even if the former were not the case - upon which I shall now elaborate. The first thing you must understand when discussing medieval Dalmatians, is that they are dual: there are both Slavic Dalmatians, and Romance Dalmatians. Neither are "Croats" or "Italians". Those are notions from the mid-19th century that are difficult to apply to the time period we're discussing. The Slavic Dalmatians were in a very significant majority, and they spoke (and still speak) their own distinct dialect of a language that is problematic to name, and that today is most commonly known as Serbo-Croatian. Hence the name Ilija Crijevic is not really "Croatian" as such, it would be more accurate, in that context, to call it "Slavic Dalmatian". The consensus is to use "Slavic Dalmatian" names as the article titles, since Dubrovnik is in modern Croatia, and because its people in general were Slavic Dalmatians.

P.s I am a little confused with regard to what you mean by "Vrsta Direktor" :). "Medutin" is "međutim" ("however"), that I understand, but "vrsta" means "species" or "type". -- Director (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Director, I am well aware of this argument. I do not need to be any more convinced that the claim of "Croat" and "Italian" are absolutely inappropriate when speaking of people living at that time. I think I have shared enough this argument in all the different talks (please check my last change in Luciano Laurana talk page). But honestly, under which condition can you consider someone Slavik when he even refused to write in that language?
Concerning the use of the name you know more than me that the use of Slavik to name all people from Dalmatia did not start before the beginning of the 18th century. Elio Lampridio Cerva was not known as "Ilija Crijevic" at the time. To support your claim you should quote sources reporting him as "Ilija Crijevic" at that time.
P.S. On my dictionary (M. Deanovic), Vrsta is the translation of "Kind" or "Dear". --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I do not know what you shared with others (forgive me, but your discourse with Zenanarh is quite long and detailed). To answer your question, I do not consider that person to be particularly "Slavic" in some way, but that is not the point at all.
• @"the use of Slavic to name all people from Dalmatia did not start before the beginning of the 18th century." I am not aware of that, and I am not prepared to take your word for it. The very structure of your sentence implies that these names were somehow "forced" on these people from the outside (by evil Slavic propagandists perhaps?). Have you considered the possibility that those names, being Slavic, were the names the majority of Dubrovnik's people would have used (at any time in its history)?
• "Cerva was not known as 'Ilija Crijevic' at the time. To support your claim you should quote sources reporting him as "Ilija Crijevic" at that time." I disagree. We know this is the Slavic version of his name, I submit that the WP:BURDEN of evidence is on you if you postulate that this name was not used at some period or other. However, I must stress yet again: it does not matter what this person was called during his lifetime.

P.S. Haha :), I see the mistake: you looked-up "kind" in English. In English "kind", used as a noun, is a synonym of "species" or "type". Whereas when one uses it as an adjective, it means "of a sympathetic or helpful nature" or "nice" (though not "dear", really). The word you're looking for, "dear" or "caro", would translate as "dragi" in Serbo-Croatian. Also, Serbo-Croatian is an inflected language, meaning that you must bring the noun "Direktor" into vocative case: "Direktore". So its "međutim dragi Direktore" :). Serbo-Croatian, I'm told, is a very difficult language - not at all like Italian

Interestingly, I had a friend named "Drago", which is derived from "dragi" ("dear") and is somewhat less common. I simply could not convince my cousin from Italy that his name had nothing to do with dragons :D. -- Director (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, you play with (my) words here. The language used by the majority of the people in Dubrovnik at the time is almost irrilevant, what counts is the ethnicity of the person. However, I am not convinced that at the time Slavik was spoken in the terms you describe. This is just another feature of Croatian historiography. On the old customs building of Dubrovnik it is still written "DOGANA" and the main street of the city in named "STRADUN". To complete the job of Romance eradication perhaps Croatia should once for all remove all this residual evidence. Let's do this job, this avoid to people like me to born in the future.
In the XV century Dubrovnik was out of the sphere of influence of Venice (fact) but many literate people were still influenced by Romance languages (fact). It looks that the fact that EL Cerva considered himself as strongly external to the Slavik world is totally irrelevant to you. Perhaps we could give right to someone dead to be what he wanted to be when he was in life.

And let's be very clear, I do not believe in "evil Slavic propagandists". I believe that at some point Croatia took fully knowledge of themselves and arrange the history in the most suitable way. Yes, the burden is on me and I am not sure that I am going to take it. This is a fairly minor writer, if I can find something easily I might submi some evidence. In this Dalmatia project even when you submit strong evidence such the result of a census or the opinion of the Britannica there is no way to change things, so I do not see how this article could change because I submit the evidence from a minor scholar (I could not find anything of major for such little known writer).
PS I speak Russian, Serbo-Croatian really cannot scare me. --Silvio1973 (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• I am not "playing with your words", and I would appreciate it if you kept such WP:NPA accusations to yourself. I assure you that, even though you might be personally inclined against this fact, the majority of the population in Dalmatia - were Slavs. Who spoke Slavic. This is a very basic fact that was never really contested by anyone. It is nothing short of racist to imply that these people did not have their own culture and language prior to the 18th century or whenever, but instead somehow "applied it retroactively".
• We could squabble about what is "important" in perpetuum, I have already explained that previous consensuses and, most importantly, WP:COMMONNAME support the current title. Would you kindly cease ignoring this point?

Silvio, I am not Zenanarh and I will not stand here discussing the same thing over and over again. I will say again: this title is mandated by Wikipedia policy - as it is the English language name of that person (as defined by policy). Please take your very offensive ideas concerning Slavic propagandists and how they "eradicate Romance" somewhere else. You must first finally amend the fact that you have no conception whatsoever regarding the complexity and duality of Dalmatian culture, which, uniquely on this planet, embraces both Slavic and Romance influences.

Unless you can provide a reason, a real reason, why Wikipedia policy does not apply to the issue at hand, this discussion is over for my part. -- Director (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, let's focus on the facts but please avoid any allegation of racism and nationalism with me. Please believe that genuinely it is not the case.
Direktor, I did not write that the most of the people in Dalmatia were not Slaviks (infact I said the opposite, please check the discussion we are having at the very beginning). Also I did not write that those people had no culture before the the 18th century (or whenever), I clealy meant in the 18th century Croats started to have the full knowledge of the modern concept of nationality. And there is nothing racist in this affirmation, indeed the very same thing applies for the Italians or the Germans.
Let's come to the reason, the real reason. This writer used to write in Latin and clearly stated that he belonged to the Romance area of culture (I can quote what he wrote, but I guess you know it already).
Ivan, the fair thing would be to move the title of this article to the Latin version of the name (indeed the original one) and direct both the Italian and the Croatian version of the name to the Latin one. As things are right now, it is even not possible to make a search from his Italian version of the name. Do you consider this fair?
If this proposal does not seem sound to you, yes we stop the discussion here. Our positions would be then too fare to get to any compromise.

P.S. Concerning the conception I have of Dalmatian culture, yes it is different from the one of Croatian historiography. But please consider that it is legitimate to have some doubts about the fairness of Croatian historiography. An example? It might even be that Marco Polo did not born in Venice. But from there to consider his life belonging to Croatian history there is quite a distance. On facts like that is built-up what I could call "legitimate doubts".

--Silvio1973 (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Croatian historiography, since the recent Yugoslav wars, is just terrible. This is because Croatia is only a very recently independent state, and nationalist sentiment is quite strong even in the highest academic circles. What puzzles me is why exactly are you pointing this out to me? I had not even mentioned Croatian historiography.

@"This writer used to write in Latin and clearly stated that he belonged to the Romance area of culture" that is just not a real reason. You're saying that because this person wrote in Latin his name should be in the Romance form. That's a non sequitur. If I declared myself to be "Romance" and started writing only in Latin, would that change who I am? In short these are your own personal perceptions. Are you at all familiar with Wikipedia policy? -- Director (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, I am not pointing you because I consider you responsible of anything. It is just a side note to make you understand why I have perhaps some doubts when Croatian references are used to justify facts. Another example? It is not my fault if in some academic circles in Croatia there are historians supporting their thesis using chromosomic comparative analysis. Unfortunately, such facts happen and it is unavoidable that they contribute to creates a general climate of doubt about the fairness of modern Croatian historiography.

OK let's remain on the matter.
Of course the real reason it's not because he wrote in Latin. Please pay me some respect even if I am only a person of average culture. The most of the people used to write in Latin untill the the 16th century. Newton wrote in Latin but this did not make him Romance. Latin was used as a language of convenience because the language of literates.
But here the facts are different. EL Cerva clearly stated that he belonged to the Romance culture and refused in quite straight terms Slavik language and culture. And was educated in Rome. These are facts, but one could still claim that he was Slavik because his family was Slavik. Are you really sure of this? Again here we do not speak of claimed nationality, but of the name to use. And again it is not fair that it is not possible to make the search on en:wiki typing "Elio Lampridio Cerva".
You write in English but you are Croat. But if tomorrow you will start exclusively to write in English (and of course if your books sell a lot) and affirm that you refuse Croatian culture, in two centuries you will be considered an English writer. Ok, you might be considered also Croatian because you have perhaps a Croatian passport, but at the time of EL Cerva that stuff did not exist.

PS I have made a modification on the main article. Give a look and if you want to keep the previous version please justify with a valid source (or if you really feel the actual source is valid just undo my edit, don't be worry I will not insist).

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Ivo Tijardović, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fascist Italy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hello I think we had a misunderstanding. I explained it better this time. Sry for the misunderstanding. regards Seader (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I see now my error in reasoning. Thank you for your patience. Left explaination on the talk page of the article. regards Seader (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Languages

Why is that important to push Serbo-croatian in all those articles. You must have talk page agreement for all of those, you see that your edits are reverted. Give us the reasons for that, i dont see those. And i am speaking for article Serbia, primarily. :) --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

In short, "Serbian" is not a language as such, its a "form of the Serbo-Croatian language". The reader should be informed that the actual language is Serbo-Croatian, and that Serbian is only one standard of said language. -- Director (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, that is your POV, at the end. Second, as official language of Serbia is Serbian, and not Serbo-Croatian, you have to gain agreement for your proposal on talk page first. Serbian may or may not belong to the group of languages, but that is irrelevant for your need to gain consensus for introduction of such data in the article. --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is always necessary, but it supposed to be based on sources. That is not my "POV", its what the sources say. If we agree that "Serbian" is a standard of the Serbo-Croatian language, then this should be made perfectly clear on an article about Serbia. -- Director (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Outing

No problem, but do you realise that YOU started with this? Why do you call me Silvio? Don't do to the others what you do not want they do to you. Kind regards. --Silvio1973 (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

My user name is Silvio1973, not Silvio. I called you with your name (alleged) because you started. However, I will refer to you as Direktor. No problem. --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It will not happen again, but please do not call me with my first name. I dislike you to take such proximity. --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvio1973 (talk • contribs)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Yugoslav Partisans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fascist Italy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

BiH langs

Per the continuing debate, is it true that all laws of BiH were repealed by the Dayton accords? — kwami (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I never heard anything of the sort. I'm not from Bosnia and Herzegovina so in all honesty I'm not 100% certain, but that sounds like nonsense to me. And Dayton was in 1995. Why would a source from 2006 (and a source from 2010) quote a law from 1993 if it was only valid for little more than one year? In short, if it isn't sourced I wouldn't take that claim seriously. -- Director (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing without consensus

Stop editing without consensus. BoDu (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Haha good one. "Turn the argument around", is that it? Cut the nonsense, you're the one edit-warring without consensus. Yesterday you've introduced opposed changes on a half-dozen articles, and now you're edit-warring to have your way against three other users. This is going up on ANI. -- Director (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

As I already said, it is not against the rules to remove the material that was added without consensus. BoDu (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read this carefully: that is nonsense. It does not matter for our considerations whether the information was added by consensus or without it, what matters is that your NEW EDIT is opposed. Opposed. What matters is that the stuff is that you're edit-warring against three people, on six articles. -- Director (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not against the rules to remove the material that was added without consensus. BoDu (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Every single POV-pusher invents some cockamamie "logic" for his edit-wars.. Can you show me a policy that says "its ok to remove material that was added without consensus"??? Which, incidentally, is the vast majority of content on Wikipedia.

Look: when you see something, and you think it should be removed, and it wasn't "added by consensus" (which is 99.9% of content on Wikipedia), then you remove it. Once. If its not sourced. And if you're reverted, you discuss your proposal for removal on the talkpage and build consensus. This is not my "opinion" it says so very nicely on WP:BRD. Do I need to copy-paste it again? -- Director (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I answered on my talk page. BoDu (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Just like that "I think this is actually the correct CoA" [1]? You think? Without any source?[2]--Bracodbk (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I have no source, but I do recall I always thought that the blue-red stripes were the Republic's CoA, whereas the white-red combination was that of the city itself. I just know I saw the red-blue version on a lot of old Dubrovnik coats of arms. I know it was used, at least in some capacity or in one period. Its not a fake. -- Director (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Zdenka Janeković Römer: Okvir slobode, page 364.: After the Treaty of Zadar 1358 political reasons prompted the nobility that in the crucial moment of independence take the Coat of Arms of the new sovereign. Hungary, Árpáds (Apradovići) Coat of Arms with red and silver beams was adopted in the Republic of Ragusa as their own, so it stayed after the termination of state ties with Hungary. Luccari Giacomo (Jakov Lukarić) mentions that in the 17th century voting urns in councils of the Republic were labeled with the original red and white beams. Although recognized as a declarative character of subordination sovereignty of the Hungarian king, Coat of Arms with silver and red beams was conceived and used as a sign of the sovereignty of the Republic of Dubrovnik.

Well, Zdenka Janeković Römer, Ivan Mustać, Jakov Lukarić (Giacomo Luccari), Vito Galzinski, Milan Rešetar, Frane Čizmić, they all agree that Coat of Arm is red and silver, sometimes red and white, and during the 18th century rarely blue and red (made by mistake according to those who have studied history of this Coat of arms). I have plenty of different pics with red and silver, or red and white (white symbolizes silver) from catalog of the exibition of history of Coat of arms of the Republic of Ragusa:

• Rectors Palace, picture of Saint Blaise from 15th century, in right corner Coat of Arms - red and silver
• Rectors Palace, picture in honor of Vladislav Bucchi from 17th century - red and silver
• Rectors Palace, picture of panorama of Ragusa before the earthquake, begining of 17th century, left upper corner - red and silver
• Pavao Riter Vitezović, Stematographia sive armorum illiricorum delineatio, descriptio et restitutio (Vienna, 1701), red and silver
• Antonio Primi, La legga dell' honesta e del valore (Venetia 1703.) - dark and silver (it's not colored but dark represent red)
• Matija Alberti, Oficij B. Marie D. (Venetia 1617.) - dark and silver (it's not colored but dark represent red)
• Stjepan Gradić, Peripateticae philosophiae pronunciata, front page - dark and silver (it's not colored but dark represent red)
• Gate of the Palace Spoznza, 18th century - red and white (white symbolizes silver) etc....
  

and only two with red and blue Coat of Arm. What else do I have to do to prove you that present Coat of Arm of the City of Dubrovnik is based on historical one with red and silver stripes? If anyone wants this pics please send me a mail.--Bracodbk (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

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

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

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

A plain Yugoslav tricolour is not merely a royalist symbol, it is the pan-Slavic flag.

Pan-Slavic flag adopted in 1848. The flag was adopted by Yugoslavists and became the first flag of Yugoslavia.

The plain Yugoslav tricolour flag-map is appropriate for the Yugoslavia-stub template because it is about Yugoslavia as a whole, not just the SFRY. The plain Yugoslav tricolour is not a royalist symbol, it is the same as the pan-Slavic flag and was used by Yugoslavists, it served as the flag of the rump Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the plain Yugoslav tricolours are seen used today by supporters of a state of Yugoslavia. Besides, the SFRY flag was based on this flag, it simply put the Communist Red Star on top of it. A plain Yugoslav tricolour can represent Yugoslavia from its beginning to its end.--R-41 (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The plain blue-white-red tricolour is, in general, a pan-Slavic symbol. Unfortunately, in representing Yugoslavia, its a royalist symbol, a symbol of the Serb-dominated kingdom (or even worse, a symbol of Milosevic's rump "Serboslavia", as some have called it). In short, non-Serbs don't like it as it represents Serbian hegemonism. I don't like it either. It would be nice if the plain tricolour didn't carry such political symbolism, but unfortunately it does. WikiProject Yugoslavia uses symbols which, though communist, ar at the very least not unacceptable to the majority of Yugoslavs.

And besides, that outline of Yugoslavia represents only SFR Yugoslavia, no other. Also the last flag of Yugoslavia included the red star. So what are you going to do, edit-war? -- Director (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Your POV is inherent in this, you are refusing to acknowledge that a legitimate Yugoslavian state existed before the SFRY, and that the SFRY is the only legitimate Yugoslavia. There were people who strove for a democratic Yugoslavia just as there were those who did not - we should not judge those who sought a royalist Yugoslavia as wrong. Besides there was the strong republican movement led by Svetozar Pribićević ans his official "Republican" movement in the parliamentary politics of interwar Yugoslavia that supported the abolition of the monarchy, and it gained support from Yugoslavia's republican Social Democrats. [3]. Saying the plain tricolour flag is a symbol of royalists is like saying the British flag is only used by devote British royalists - it is not, there are British who are opposed to the British monarchy who still use the flag because they are patriotic to the country - not the Queen.--R-41 (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you seriously prove that the plain tricolour flag - the national flag of Yugoslavia from 1918 to 1943 - was never accepted by the many interwar Yugoslav republicans? You would have to prove this to justify your claim that it is a royalist symbol. The plain tricolour flag was flag of the state for many years, and then revived for better or worse in 1992 by the rump Yugoslavia - I don't agree with what Milosevic did but other people who opposed Milosevic also used the flag, there are many people who fly the plain Yugoslav tricolour since 2006 - I have seen the plain Yugoslav tricolour at events celebrating the Yugoslav Partisans. There were advocates of democratization of Yugoslavia even in the final years before the country broke apart in 1991. All that you have demonstrated thus far is that you are anti-royalist and oppose the use of the plain tricolour because you associate it with a movement you despise - that is a POV. In your aggressive haste, have you been willing to accept that there may be royalist Yugoslav or non-communist or anti-communist, or anti-one-party-state users out there who may desire a plain tricolour flag to represent them and not the SFRY flag.--R-41 (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. I won't go into some historical debate with you, this isn't a content dispute. Your edit is opposed. Achieve consensus for your changes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yugoslavia. And I will repeat: that is the last flag of Yugoslavia, over an outline of the last Yugoslav state. -- Director (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No this stub involves the history of Yugoslavia. This IS about history, and the history of Yugoslavia is not just the SFRY. Can you prove that the plain Yugoslav tricolour has only been used by royalist Yugoslavs and not by republican Yugoslavs? Also, you have admitted by your very complaint that there is a community of Yugoslavs that needs to be considered in the use of imagery for Wikipedia templates - royalists, and I would add people opposed to the communist one-party-state in Yugoslavia - Yugoslavs who did not support the SFRY state such as royalists and opponents of the one-party-state are not represented by a flag representing the SFRY alone. Now remember you brought up the complaint that it is exclusively "royalists" and not used by republican Yugoslavs, so now you have to prove it. If you don't want to do this, and if you want a neutral compromise, then I propose that we agree to put a plain map of Yugoslavia up without the SFRY flag or any flag for on it?--R-41 (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example of a historical Iranian flag used for the WikiProject Iran template and for the WikiProject Iran user template, it uses a plain Iranian tricolour because not all Iranian people support the Islamic theocracy of Iran.

Also, here is an example of a similar flag map with a plain tricolour used on a Yugoslavia-advocate website: [4]. So it seems acceptable to me that a plain tricolour version of the flag-map since Yugoslavs themselves are using it. I am also showing you that a historical and non-politically charged flag map is used on the WikiProject Iran template.--R-41 (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Yugoslavia

Please apologize. I am very offended that you disrespected and insulted my efforts to create the Yugoslavian coat of arms symbol that took me hours to make. After I listened to you and you spat upon me over a minor disagreement - I am outraged. You don't have to apologize, but I am offering you a way out of being reported for violation of WP:CIVIL - if you ignore or delete this like the last comment - I will report you, I don't care even if I get reprimanded because I won't put up with this kind of work abuse - if you are a good person you shouldn't spit upon people who are are working with you on something when they have listened to almost everything you requested. Now please apologize and let's restart positive conversation on the flag issue.--R-41 (talk) 01:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok listen, R-41. First of all, I want you to read my second-to-last post over there, and understand that its about your continuing to push for the plain tricolour. I did not "insult" your work, in fact I said it was excellent more than once. You showed me the coat of arms you made, and I thought it was great. However, being in Yugoslavia I knew it wouldn't be acceptable to this ethnic group or that because of a symbol or another. Then I suggested how you might make it acceptable to modern-day Yugoslavs. I still think you did an excellent job and that the new version is far superior to the original. And personally, I like it a lot.

Its not about me, however. Ex-Yugoslavia is a real, complicated and fragmented region with over 20,000,000 people. Maybe its because I actually live here, but I would not dream of thinking you or I are somehow "empowered" to put together and push a new coat of arms around on an encyclopedia that's meant to inform people. WikiProject Yugoslavia is about a defunct historical country. Not about forming a "new Yugoslavia", or representing present-day ex-Yugoslavia as a single fantasy state (which will likely never reunite together again in the foreseeable future).

With that statement you misunderstood completely, I just vaguely threw-out the possibility (which I am not particularly in favor of) that we might superimpose Wikipedia symbols over real, historical Yugoslav symbols, not that we should use a (quote) "Coat of Arms of New Yugoslavia". I understand that this was a tragic misunderstanding, and I apologize.

I can't agree to using your symbols to actually represent Yugoslavia on Wikipedia, no matter how great they are. I'm sorry again. -- Director (talk) 02:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I tried to remove the curve from the bottom, and it screwed up the bottom of the symbol - I would have to make it from scratch, just as I told you it would. Thanks, thanks a lot for you pressing angry demands with complete ignorance of how to use inkscape, I took your demands into consideration and it just screwed up the image, THANKS A LOT for your helpful and ignorant abusive pressure against my warnings that it would screw up the image that indeed DID screw up the image for me - now I have to redesign it from scratch to meet your concerns.--R-41 (talk) 02:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Angry demands?? You might actually hear some if you continue with this sort of provocation. Excuse me but I use Illustrator and I have some concept of vector image work.

Look, I suppose the only way would be to change the scope of the WikiProject to encompass modern-day ex-Yugoslavia, and not just the historical state. That's a big and controversial change, however, and I'm not sure people would go for it. As far as I know, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of ex-Yugoslav members on the WIkiProject who are just interested in local Yugoslav history and do not support the possibility of a "new Yugoslavia". And of those who do, more than a few are left-wing and don't mind the red star one bit.

I suppose I/we could propose a scope change to include the modern-day. But even so we would need a consensus to use your images and not real ones, and I'm not sure that's in accordance with Wikipedia principles. -- Director (talk) 02:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course WikiProject Yugoslavia should continue to include the modern-day - there are still Yugoslavs today, and there still is Yugoslav culture and Yugoslavist politics today - just as Roman culture still exists today through the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Italian culture. I'm just frustrated that you did not take my warnings, that it would screw up the image, seriously - that was one of the main reasons why I did not want to remove the point - I tried to remove the point and I failed - I would have to make the symbol from scratch to meet your demands. If you want to solve the issue of the flag using the politically-charged red star, unfortunately contrary to your opposition to these people, we do have to get imput from royalist Yugoslavs and Yugoslavs who opposed the Communist one-party state of the SFRY, but identify as Yugoslav - I have encountered two or three such people on Wikipedia and one on Facebook.--R-41 (talk) 02:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So you would say that a "WikiProject Roman Empire" should include modern-day Italy? Look, I'm a "Yugoslavist" in the sense that I think it would be good that some kind of union existed. I'm also a realist and I know that's just pipe-dreams. I'm not a communist or socialist either. I'm a very rare kind of ex-Yugoslav person that might support your coat of arms and what you're saying, in principle, but I also know that in practice it makes no sense.

What you're saying is called "Yugonostalgia" in our local context, and its vehemently opposed. The general opinion, at least in Croatia, is that Yugoslavia was a mistake. To try and apply something called "WikiProject Yugoslavia" as encompassing Wikipedia's modern-day Balkans articles will be opposed both in the project and without. If I were to try and go though with this I would need the support of the project behind me, and I'm not going to have that. -- Director (talk) 02:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes Italian culture is related to the Roman Empire - that does not mean it is the Roman Empire but that it is closely related to the Roman Empire - the founders of a united Italy explicitly referenced the Roman roots of Italy and have stressed the precedent of Roman culture and laws as models for Italy to follow - that the territory of Italy is based upon the name and the Peninsular territory of the Roman territory of "Italia".--R-41 (talk) 03:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for yet another history lesson. There was a Roman territory of Dalmatia as well. Anyway feel free to propose a change of scope for the WikiProject if you think that's a good idea. You have my support. -- Director (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about Dalmatia, if you are attempting to bring up the old Italo-Yugoslav tension about Dalmatia due to Italian nationalists and Fascists appealing to old Roman stuff please don't start - I am a part-Italian Canadian, I know about Italian history, but I personally don't give a damn if the Romans and Venetians controlled Dalmatia at one point of history or another - it has been populated by Slavic people for centuries, and by law of national self-determination the Slavic peoples there deserve to have Dalmatia.--R-41 (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Um... what? First with the "snotty" and now this? Damn it, R-41, how about a little WP:AGF? Since we're revealing our family histories to each-other for some reason, I'm part Italian as well (in fact I'm from an Italian family). I was merely pointing out that your argument does not make much sense since all of the Mediterranean and half of Europe were Roman both in culture and politically, and that by your logic they all should be part of one massive "WikiProject Roman Empire", since very many areas carry a distinct Roman cultural influence.

Also, the the law of self-determination is pretty controversial. To use a Yugoslav example, according to that rule, about half of Bosnia and Herzegovina should be part of Serbia (and a goodly part should be in Croatia). Kosovo should be part of a Greater Albania, etc..

But lets not digress. If you think WikiProject Yugoslavia could be expanded to include modern times, you should propose that to the members. You have my support. -- Director (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

There, it's done - I added a section asking for an extension of WikiProject Yugoslavia into modern times. Also, here is a plain Yugoslav tricolour flag combined with the European Union flag as a flag symbol fluttering in the background of text on the cover of a book written by a Yugoslav author: [5]. So this Yugoslav author does not see the plain tricolour as offensive.--R-41 (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Unitary National Liberation Front for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Unitary National Liberation Front is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unitary National Liberation Front until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Nobody Ent 11:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

DRN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism". Thank you. --BoDu (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy your Wikibreak

Don't be too long out there in the real world... Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ugh.. I hate the real world. So much better to enjoy the scholarly serenity of Wikipedia ;). Thank you. -- Director (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. When you recently edited Dalmatia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dalmatian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Template:Yugoslav_Axis_collaborationism_discussion

Sssshhh! *rubs jam on your nose like the dormouse in alice in wonderland*

Your recent comments had uninvolved people in a tizz thinking a textual fight was about to break out commenting on dispute resolution volunteers talk pages. Your contributions are very valid, and appreciated, but stop scaring the newbies! :D In disputes, people tend to be emotional, and may take tongue in cheek witty comments out of context and have a bit of a wobbly over it, and as some parties involved are clearly pushing an agenda rather than understanding the policy implications, it could very easily get ugly. I apologise for contacting you personally about it, but you seem like a wonderful contributor so I thought you ought to know first hand that someone is :( and may have taken your comment out of context. <3 BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Damn it.. I've been trying to ease myself out of involvement in these various petty disputes. I should be off on a Wikibreak but somehow can't seem to get out (just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in! :P). That whole dispute can be summarized as a user trying to delete a template that lists other persons of his nationality as having relations with the Axis (which is thoroughly sourced). I'm just so completely sick of that my fuse is about the length of a cigarette butt. -- Director (talk) 08:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism

Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. BoDu (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

DSS

From your edit moving the "State Security Service" to the "Department of State Services" I believe you have not read the act establishing the agency. The National Security Agencies Act of 1986 (Decree 19) and the the SSS Instrument I of 1999 (General Abubakar invoked his powers under section 6 of the NSA act to define the objectives of the SSS before transition to civil rule)only recognizes the "State Security Service" and not the Department of State Services. The DSS is a cover name used by the organization because it is in reality only a department within the presidency.

Please cross check and make necessary amendments. If you have been mislead by the agency's overt use of the DSS name in recent times, please don't. They have only resorted to the DSS name in a bid to shake off the negativity associated with the SSS name due to the long years under the military. The agency still writes ALL official correspondence, presents their budget and prosecutes cases with the only name recognized by the law, the State Security Service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamodele (talk • contribs) 17:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Pavelić image

DIREKTOR, can you please just tell your reason why you find this first image better then the new one at the talk page, since you initiated the discussion. --Wustenfuchs 13:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a subjective issue, Wustenfuchs. It just "looks better".. Its an official portrait, centered, turned towards the text, etc. -- Director (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't get you, subjective issue? Why? The second one is far better since you can see his face. If you could just flip the image, I noticed your activity on some other images also. The most important thing is that people can see how he looked like, and the first image only shows his profile. Also another imporant problem with the first image - it's nominated for deletation since Dec '11. And discription doesn't say it's official image. As I recall official image is him in a white uniform. --Wustenfuchs 14:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The deletion isn't going anywhere, trust me, there is no violation. And I can't flip it, it isn't allowed and it will likely be reverted (some retarded rule about people not being symmetrical, which actually goes against basic anatomy I was taught). Its the official state portrait, its well proportioned in relation to the frame and it looks more appropriate. As for appearance, why don't you include the other image somewhere else in the article? -- Director (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I could, as him in Ustaše era. The image from the infobox now looks like a propaganda poster. --Wustenfuchs 16:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Hawkeye on Wikipedia collaborating with the AWM

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Adriatic Sea

Sorry that I had to partially revert your changes, but I felt/feel that saying a section of shoreline is small is something that should only be done with a reliable source saying as much, especially since it tends to imply unimportant (which is actually contradicted by Slovenia having the 4th largest port by cargo in the Adriatic!). I think that the reader can read the table of shoreline lengths (and other info) and decide for themselves. Allens (talk | contribs) 22:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem, but... the Slovene and Bosnian strips are really quite small :). Particularly the Bosnian strip. I think its an important caveat. -- Director (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I've put them in decreasing order of coastline length, and noted as much. Admittedly, this is a somewhat imprecise measure, depending on what scale one measures at... Allens (talk | contribs) 16:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Nah, us Croats own that sea... xD [6]

Just kidding of course, I certainly wouldn't object to Italy being listed first if that's the order you've decided to go with over there. -- Director (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is Croatia first, thanks to that more irregular coastline. :-} Italy's first in terms of distance between the ends of the coastline, but that's more complicated so I preferred not to put about it in the lead. Allens (talk | contribs) 22:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess Italy's just lucky we don't rename it "Our Sea" ;). Seriously though, I'm fine either way.. -- Director (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Landesfarben Croatia-Slavonia.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Landesfarben Croatia-Slavonia.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Y Partisans

Please, participate in the discussion. Removing sourced informations is not good. --Wustenfuchs 17:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Smile!

A smile for you You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.0.137 (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

DRN-notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Talk:Serbia under German occupation, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DIREKTOR/Archive#25_March_2012". Thank you. --Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Director. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Tiptoety ^talk 17:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning, Tiptoety, I do appreciate it. Though as I said on the talkpage [7], I've no intention to continue. Please note however that the users edit-warring with me have pretty much given up the talk page. Why discuss when you don't need to, right? -- Director (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you considered other steps in dispute resolution? Tiptoety ^talk 17:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That would require the participation of knowledgeable Wikipedians who have a passion for reading through months and months of inane dispute-babel, more-often-than-not involving a user with less-than-adequate English skills who is fond of writing immense, confusing blocks of text. Not only that, but this fantasy Wikipedian would have to be willing to do the research on this extremely obscure and complex subject as well. In my five years on Wiki I've met only one such user, Peacemaker67 - who is right there on the talkpage, alongside me, trying to talk some sense into the guy who lives in the area in question (User:PANONIAN), and has strong personal preconceptions that have led him to take WP:OWNERSHIP of that damn article (ruining it in the process).

I will also say, Tiptoety, that I think its pretty obvious at this point that User:WhiteWriter is a WP:MEATPUPPET recruited by User:PANONIAN to help in his edit-wars. I mean sending an e-mail isn't exactly rocket science. WhiteWriter has not edited the article in about a month, and his last edit was exactly this sort of a revert in support of PANONIAN [8]. And the edit before that was last year [9]. His talkpage involvement is very limited, and what little there is is exclusively in PANONIAN's support (often even without an understanding of what exactly PANONIAN is arguing for). -- Director (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Apologize, please

You have insulted me and my integrity with this post. I am asking for apology. --WhiteWriter^speaks 17:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No. You may get a WP:MEATPUPPETEERING report instead, however. Its not an insult. I honestly think you're being notified by PANONIAN to revert at crucial points so that he can avoid troublesome discussions by simply revert-warring. Isn't this your last edit on that article? People are not stupid, WhiteWriter. -- Director (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

My request is still in order. Up to the next direct conversation. You will not be allowed to pushed your POV without agreement, and talk page consensus. You may be sure that when i see something similar in the future, react again. You must gain consensus on talk for your pov. I have no interest in listening anyone's notifications, by the way. And my last edit. It was useful. You stopped with POV pushing, and restored statue quo, until agreement was reached on talk page. Therefor, it was successful. One last time, i am asking you to apologize for this unfounded personal attack. --WhiteWriter^speaks 23:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Your request is not in order, and I will not apologize. I interpret your behavior as suspicious. As for whether organized edit-warring can be useful, yes it can. And you do not support the status quo, but rather simply PANONIAN and whatever he may be pushing at any one time (like his absurd "Nazi Serbia" fantasy country). Your latest "intervention" restored his edit through against the status quo ante (besides removing my own), and you never ever revert PANONIAN when he tries to get his edits through with edit-warring. In short, you can cut down on the "outrage", and you should take this as a warning. People do get sanctioned for WP:MEAT. -- Director (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

talk about double standards. I have yet to receive an apology from you, WW. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh hullo Peacemaker. I don't know if you noticed, but your whole sockpuppet scheme has been revealed by PANONIAN. Again. Your plan to add Nazi flags to the Reichskommissariat Ostland article in 2008, so you can win an argument against PANONIAN in 2012, was just not good enough. You've been caught. -- Director (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Bugger... Foiled again. :-)) Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Drat, and double drat! -- Director (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sassafrassarassum Rick Rastardly! Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Lol :) -- Director (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

1RR at Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander)

Per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case, this article is subject to 1RR. Reverting more than one time in a 24-hour period may result in a block or a ban from this article and its talk page. All reverts should be discussed on the talk page. This is a bright line, not an entitlement, and reverting exactly once per day is considered disruption, and users doing so are subject to being blocked. Please see this notice about recent edit warring. Editors wishing to make controversial edits are strongly advised to discuss them first. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 01:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Noted, thank you. -- Director (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:Civility

I opened thread about you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Constant_personal_harassment_of_User:DIREKTOR PANONIAN 18:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Subhas Chandra Bose; Hawkeye on corps commanders; Nick-D on American special forces Op-ed: The Land on commemorating World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

What is your problem, man?

Stop with these threats, insults and harassment. Leave me alone already. PANONIAN 21:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What's my problem? Allright. Let's try discussion one more time.

You have succeeded in rendering Wikipedia dysfunctional on that article for years, and have taken possession of it, infusing it with historical nonsense. While the issue of the WP:COMMONNAME is perhaps a complex one, your claim that there was a country or puppet state called "Serbia" during WWII is simply ridiculous. As all sources agree, the area was a territory under military administration (you're not about to fool anyone with the "1:0" nonsense). Peacemaker reports that the coordinator of WikiProject Former countries has recommended {{Infobox former subdivision}} as the appropriate infobox. Such an infobox must be complete with Axis German flag and insignia, also sporting "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" alone on top, with translations, as the official name (without a nonsense list of "alternative names" below).

In short, I will not rest until that article is free of the nonsense POV that promotes the existence of a non-existent country or puppet state. The fact that this territory, the 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia', was a German military occupation zone, must be laid out in the lede and infobox, clearly, unambiguously, and in accordance with general practice on all the other dozen such articles.

Do you, or do you not, intend to ever stop promoting the "puppet state" POV? And is there any possibility that this article might be brought in accordance with sources with your consent? i.e. without admin action? -- Director (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, if we have disagreement about one article, it does not give you right to post personal insults and threats addressed to me. Regarding that article, you for years trying to destroy it - you simply ignoring sources, misquoting sources and, for some reason, you trying to completely delete this part of the history of Serbian statehood. Also, you claim that "I have taken possession of article"? How so? I am only trying to make it NPOV, accurate and in accordance with sources. Also, I explained the issue of difference between "state/country" and "German military district" - that were two political entities that had absolutely same borders. Therefore, some sources mentioning area as "occupied territory" and some as "state/country", but these sources are not contradicting one to another - all these sources are correct. However, you completelly ignoring these sources that describing area as "state/country". Why? Why, for example, Serbian State Guard was named like this if "it had no state to guard"? I am sorry, but your behavior and your ignoring of sources and facts is simply unbelievable. As for "Infobox former subdivision", than one is fully unacceptable because Serbia was not subdivision of anything (or you have some evidence that it was?). And would you say why you now do not like current infobox when it was acceptable for you few months ago? Also, why you want to include Nazi flag? Do you have some source that say that it was flag of the area? PANONIAN 22:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What you are saying is that the quisling authorities, the Government of National Salvation of Nedic, were not just a government, but had the status of a puppet state? Are you aware that this is directly contradicted by sources quoted to you several times? Are you aware this is unheard-of in all of occupied Europe? And finally, are you aware that this is just plain impossible and a contradiction in terms? A "puppet state", by definition, is legally sovereign, just not de facto. The second it is occupied and military administration takes over the functions of government, it is no longer even legally sovereign and hence it is no longer a "state" at all.

I will not waste my time with you yet again. The sources are very clear: there was no puppet state. You may think whatever you wish, and you may personally "believe" otherwise, but not a single source really claims there was. No source mentions one. Several sources explicitly deny its existence. The fact that you are preventing users from repairing the article and bringing it in accordance with sources is WP:DISRUPTION. Your OR does not concern me. There was no puppet state. Are you prepared to ever face reality on this issue? -- Director (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Cut the crap. I thought that you will not play your games at least in personal correspondence. Since sources are referring to the area in both ways, as to "territory" and as to "country/state", I am offering you this compromise: 1. usage of term "territory" in whole article is acceptable for me (I will not insist that terms "country" or "state" are used), 2. however, territory was de facto and de jure separate from all other entities, so you should also not insist to make this article to look as article about some German province or colony (while northern Slovenia was annexed by Germany, Serbia was only occupied but not annexed, and therefore article should not imply that it was part of Germany - this include usage of "subdivision" infobox and flag of Germany. PANONIAN 22:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Au contraire, I will not play your games. There will be no compromise between sources and your personal views. The territory was not a country, and, as was pointed out in detail, the sources do not refer to it in such a way. This was not a German province (like the Province of Ljubljana) since it was not directly annexed. It was less than a province - it was a territory under German military administration (a Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers) and must be treated as such. Exactly as such. There must be no ambiguity whatsoever as to its status, neither in the infobox, nor the lead, nor the main body of text. 1. An infobox with "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" on top and a German flag and insignia. 2. A lead starting with "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". The issue of the WP:COMMONNAME for this territory is at least a legitimate dispute - this is not. -- Director (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Look PANONIAN, I'm prepared to grant that this territory was called "Serbia" for short. I'm prepared to discuss what this thing was called, but I'm not prepared to talk about what it was. It was not a country, it was a German Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers. One of many in occupied Europe. As such, it requires the appropriate infobox, with the appropriate flag and insignia, and the appropriate official name in the infobox and lede. It is absurd to continue talking with you about puppet states. And I'm done beating my head against the wall there. I propose once more that you collaborate with Peacemaker and myself on applying the sources to the article, and do not WP:DISRUPT such efforts. I'm sure you can provide valuable input in the further development in the article, but your idea of a fantasy puppet state is a delusion. It just was not so. -- Director (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop with "no country - yes country" thing. Let for a moment put aside the fact that you obviously do not understand the meaning of the term "country", my basic point is that all these German-occupied territories in Europe were separate entities (or countries) and that they were not annexed by Germany and were not subdivisions of Germany. Addition of flag of Germany to any of these articles is factually wrong and I would remove it from all these articles if I would have time for that (or if I would care about their look). Please follow Wikipedia policies, respect sources and do not conduct your own original research here. Yes, claim that these areas were "subdivisions of Germany" and "that they used German flag" is example of original research, not supported by the sources. Or can you explain on what exactly you based your position? Also, stop with personal insults and false accusations for disruption already. If you insult me one more time, I am stopping every private discussion with you on user talk pages. PANONIAN 07:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No. The addition of the German flag to these articles is not "factually wrong", since it does not imply they were part of Germany. It only implies Germany directly controlled them (through its military, in this case). The fact that you think it implies they were annexed by Germany or "subdivisions of Germany" or some such nonsense is completely irrelevant to me.

No. You do not understand what a country is if you think "German-occupied territories in Europe were countries", or in fact "separate entities" in any way, shape, or form.

-- Director (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

the territory is actually a former subdivision of Yugoslavia, because, wait for it... It was a subdivision of Yugoslavia! Not Germany. No-one ever said that. Who said it was a subdivision of Germany? It was never included in any part of the Reich, wasn't annexed by it or whatever. Germany subdivided Yugoslavia as it chose, and this was one of the subdivisions. It was occupied by them, and that is why the infobox former subdivision should be used. I've got a mate who has some books with pictures of Belgrade during the war, and I'm sure there will be some with the Nazi flag flying over government buildings. I'll let you both know. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

@PANONIAN Let me repeat for the fourth time. The addition of the German flag to these articles does most certainly NOT imply they were part of Germany. It only implies Germany directly controlled them. The fact that you think it implies they were annexed by Germany or "subdivisions of Germany" or some such nonsense is completely irrelevant to me. Nobody else thinks so [10][11][12][13][14][15] [16]. If they did think so, and infoboxes for this type of article were written differently as a result - I would agree with you. As it is now, what you think the flag "implies" does not concern me. -- Director (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Now, now Director, I may in fact be insane, but how could you know that? Don't start an argument with me to prove I'm not your meat or sock puppet... In terms of 'infobox former subdivision', I believe I am correct, that is the recommendation of the coordinator of the Wikiproject, and it is persuasive and is why we should use that infobox. As far as the rest is concerned, I'm with you. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Haha :), I am so sorry Peacemaker I just replied to the post without realizing who posted it. I thought it was PANONIAN again spinning another tall tale. All I can say is I'm incredibly sleepy. This is so embarrassing I think I'll just delete my account now. So long -- Director (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

@Peacemaker. Anyway, the issue of what the legal status of the territory really is a bit complex. Legally, as far as international law (and the Allies) were concerned, that was still part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1941-43) and then the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (1943-45). This is mostly because there was no declaration of war (and some other legal stuff I admit I don't understand in full). That said, we're talking about an Axis territory and hence we must look at their position.

Anyway, not to ramble, I agree with your assessment above in full. I must apologize again for my rash (and rather comedic) response. As I think should be rather obvious, I overlooked the word "former" in the first sentence, and since up to now this was a conversation between just PANONIAN and myself, I simply ascribed the post to PANONIAN. In my defense, I more-or-less did not sleep last night (I was sitting in the hospital with a couple other hapless interns, staring at a laptop).

@PANONIAN, noone is claiming that the territory was annexed by Germany, or that it was a part of Germany, or its subdivision, or anything of the sort. From the Axis perspective, it was not part of any country, from the Allied perspective it was just one part of occupied Yugoslavia, one under direct German military control. The point of the matter is that using the German flag DOES NOT imply in any way that this was a subdivision of Germany. You may think it does, but it doesn't. -- Director (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

PANONIAN, as you can see, I'm tired and annoyed, and I want to get to bed. You came here asking what my problem is, and telling me to cut the crap. My problem is you are disrupting efforts to bring this article in-line with the sources and other articles of the same type [17][18][19][20][21][22] [23]. Do you, or do you not, intend ever to concede to have the article use the appropriate infobox? Please answer. -- Director (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Direktor: With the Peacemaker67/PANONIAN confusion above and your later agreement with Peacemaker67 when you earlier disputed him believing him to be PANONIAN, are you sure you are fully reading and understanding Panonian before developing your counter arguments? The reason I ask is because it seems like you disputed Peacemaker67, assuming he was Panonian, without even reading his words or understanding the context of them. So it makes me curious if you gave Panonian's other comments the same passing glance before arguing. I know you've likely argued this 100 times to 100 people, but please make sure to "hear" before answering.--v/r - TP 17:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh jeez.. Really? Alright, let me explain in full. I was awake at work all night. Hours ago I had asked PANONIAN several times whether he would ever consider changing his position on a contentious point. I saw a post that again did not address my inquiry. This being a two-sided discussion up until that point, I did not notice it was Peacemaker. So I read very quickly and did not respond in any way appropriately. I corrected my error immediately afterward and apologized twice.

PANONIAN and I have been discussing this complex issue for months now, during which time everything that could possibly have been said has been repeated a half-dozen times. I understand his argument fully and completely. To the point of almost being able to predict with some accuracy what exactly he's going to say next. Perhaps in spite of appearances, I respect his input overall, and I attempt to respond to his posts every time, in great detail. In that respect I think I've gone well above and beyond the call of duty. Frankly I am annoyed that this obvious lapsus calami, brought on by exhaustion, can possibly lead anyone to inquire as above. I'm embarrassed enough TP, please do not try to make something out of this. -- Director (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Roger, just wanted to make sure. Sorry.--v/r - TP 19:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Commissioner Administration

Director, please stop moving articles without discussion. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Had I seen the thread you posted on the talkpage I would not have moved. Apologies. Feel free to revert. However, not only is "government" more in accordance with the original name in Serbo-Croatian (vlada), it also appears to be a bit more common [24][25]. I did the research before moving the thing. -- Director (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Nah. And BTW, I think it is worthwhile to keep it. The main article is going to be bigger than Ben Hur at this rate, and I think it is worthwhile to have the names of the commissioners and a brief history of what went on (on their watch). I wouldn't support a merge until the main article is ticketyboo and we know what we need to cut down on. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The ideal situation, as I evisioned it, would be a "Puppet governments" section in the main article, with both the GNS and the CA having their own subsections there. Then we could have a link to the GNS main article, and the CA would be covered entirely in the subsection. I mean, its relevance is close to nil. -- Director (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Stalking business

Hi. I just want to say that you forgot to revert my edit here: [26] PANONIAN 08:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. -- Director (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:AE

This a notification to inform you that an WP:AE discussion related to you is taking place. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 09:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Director. You have new messages at Talk:Administrative divisions of the Government of National Salvation.
Message added 13:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WhiteWriter^speaks 13:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Director. You have new messages at Talk:Government of National Salvation.
Message added 13:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WhiteWriter^speaks 13:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Map colours

Hi DIREKTOR, I agree map colours are important in clarity, but unless you can give a valid reason for changing them then making changes is purely personal preference. You cannot make a statement like "it objectively looks better" without some kind of reasoning as statements on how something looks are by definition subjective unless properly qualified. The reason that the neutral grey was chosen for the other countries on the map is because the map is not of them and to have another brighter colour distracts from the map of the country/territory being shown. This is valid reasoning and has been used successfully on all other maps I have made on Wikipedia. None of the other maps has ever been criticised or changed by other editors for the reason of the background being the wrong colour. But if you have a specific reason for the background colour of these maps to be different, then please let me know so we can discuss it and reach a compromise. I am still trying to make changes to the maps while I am co-ordinating with other users which is impossible if you just keep removing my version. Also the source map used to generate these maps is at a higher resolution and uses some vector graphics. So your edited version loses quality by definition as you are working from the rendered version. BUT! Just to say, I am quite happy to change the background colour if you have a specific valid reason for it. It will be better if we can keep the map editing on the same original source version otherwise we will end up in the mess before with the infobox maps we used to have. XrysD (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've already begun writing on your talkpage. I will say here, however, that I see I appeared gruff in my elaboration. I apologize. -- Director (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi DIREKTOR. Apology accepted. And thankyou for your kind word about my work. I've read your reasoning and I accept that the logic for an Infobox map is somewhat different than for a fullsize map. So I will change the two infobox map source files to have a white background, make the other changes requested by Peacemaker67 and re-render them. If there are any other changes you want to request, please let me know (this applies in future too) so we can resolve it and change it as required. Thanks XrysD (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just had a look at the current InfoBox maps and I've noticed the infobox itself is a very light shade of grey (F9F9F9). What is your opinion of the map background being this colour rather than white? It would merge into the infobox more that way if that is the desired effect. I am equally happy to have the background as white (FFFFFF) as I think both versions look good, it just depends on what effect you are going for. Please can you let me know what you think and I will then make all the required changes to the maps. XrysD (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've made the changes to the maps and I think they do look better now. But tell me if you think something is still not quite right. I hadn't appreciated the infobox colours issue before because I don't use any of the standard WP colour schemes (mine uses light text on dark background). So you don't need your eyes tested! :) I know we haven't always agreed in the past, but I think the recent edits you have made to the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia and Government of National Salvation articles have improved them both immensely and they now fit together as a whole very well. As I told Peacemaker I have recently seen a number of original German WWII era maps and it is clear that they referred to the territory as Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien while referring to surrounding countries as Kroatien, Albanien etc. This along with the sourced references on the talk page is what convinced me to change the titles of the administrative maps. I hope the articles can settle down now, but I see on the talk pages that other users are still protesting! XrysD (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I take your point about the double frames for the infobox map. I had a look at the Infobox template parameters but I couldn't see a way to make the map image fill the frame. In general cartographic terms it is bad practice to not have a frame and I feel the gap between the image and the infobox frame is just too wide to not be noticeable. I agree this isn't really satisfactory though, so I will experiment to see if I can find a way to remove the inner frame without making it look like it is missing. XrysD (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Update - I just figured out a way to do it using the template! :) It makes the whole infobox width 280px instead of 290px but I don't think that it's noticeable and it doesn't crush the contents in any way. XrysD (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Director. You have new messages at Talk:Administrative divisions of the Government of National Salvation.
Message added 17:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WhiteWriter^speaks 17:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Director. You have new messages at Talk:Administrative_divisions_of_the_Government_of_National_Salvation#Title.
Message added 19:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WhiteWriter^speaks 19:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge

Bloody hell, Director. Do you mind? Here I am making inquiries about the details of the merge and you are just doing it over the top of me. Not even an 'if you please'? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Haha, sorry Peacemaker. How was I supposed to know you were making inquiries? I don't follow your contribs. Anyway, to my knowledge, that's all there is to it. People agree and redirect the thing to the appropriate place. I also archived the talkpage, that might've been unnecessary, but the article itself is merged appropriately I think. You're not angry, are you? -- Director (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

But you follow this article [[27]]. That's how. I said I was merging it, and all I asked was a question about the map. It wouldn't kill you to show some courtesy. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

How was I discourteous? I just assumed you were busy or sleeping and thought I'd do it. I'd say I did you a "favor", but its a ten-second edit, and its not your "responsibility" anyway. I assure you I had no idea you would view it as a discourtesy towards you personally. I honestly thought you were joking in your first post above. Its barely something to talk about.

I just now realized the inquiries you're referring to were re the map. Its not a subject for the redirected article's talkpage anyway, but one for Talk:Government of National Salvation. Don't we already have a map of the administrative subdivisions there anyway? In the infobox? -- Director (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If you prefer to keep the detailed map, here's an option [28] (the map can be enlarged if necessary). If you think the more general map in the infobox is sufficient, then we don't need the second map. I myself don't mind either way. -- Director (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Director. You have new messages at WhiteWriter's talk page.
Message added 15:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WhiteWriter^speaks 15:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Country data Nazi Germany

You might want to consider using the {{Edit protected}} template with regards to your comments on the Template talk:Country data Nazi Germany page. --Thefrood (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Right, thanks :). -- Director (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, it took me three days to find that template! You may also want to pop by Template talk:FlagIOC#1936 German flag. --Thefrood (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That German flag thing is really annoying.. I'd like to see it finally fixed. -- Director (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I've spent most of my recent time on wikipedia finding pages that needed the "|1935" option adding to their flag templates. --Thefrood (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. As it is the last flag used, and besides that the one used for by far the longer period of time, it should be the default flag. To all intents and purposes it is the flag of Nazi Germany. The 1933-35 swastika flag should be the one requiring a special option (perhaps something like "|nazi" or "|1933n" orsomething like that). -- Director (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Once again I agree and I said as much in the edit request I made (which did succeed in getting the 1935 flag added as an option). --Thefrood (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Its a routine fix of an obvious, minor error.. I really don't understand why its such a big thing. -- Director (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Olympic template fixed but have you looked at Template:Country data Germany? --Thefrood (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

YAY! all sorted :) --Thefrood (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Now I can retire from Wiki :). -- Director (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

*giggles* --Thefrood (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI

I've pointed Justice and Arbitration toward WP:DRN and I'm requesting you participate or initiate there. Leaving a notice on the talk page of the article would be appropriate once initiated. After I left a note on his talk page, he left one on my talk page, so I think he gets the point that the language needs to be dialed back a notch. I have no opinion as to the content or merits of the discussion, that is to be decided at DRN. I would only ask that you go there and be objective and let the clerks do their job, and try to overlook minor incivility when possible and just focus on the merits of the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Very well, thank you for your time. -- Director (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Konflikt u Makedoniji, 2001

Iskažite molim vas svoje mišljenje na temu. Hvala lepo/lijepo. --Модернист (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Its lijepo over here :) -- Director (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah Split... rasadnik genijalaca :) Još jedanput, hvala vam puno na komentaru i podršci. Bok --Модернист (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Pa ne bih bas rekao da ima takvu reputaciju ovih dana (our mayor), ali hvala :). -- Director (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Edits...

C'mon, i dont think we should be in any kind of conflict. Direktore, talk to me, listen to me, and we will solve anything possible! And our disputes are not that big, mostly about minor, or medium content edits. I will give my best, but please, try to follow. I dont want to report anymore, and i would love that (only) two of us can find some good way to coedit. I am mostly not involved in any serious conflict on wiki, except with few of you. Therefor, i want to sort this out. Follow me, and talk to me in a AGF way please! --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

(Haha, sorry about that ;)) Just provide scholarly sources for your claim and that's good enough for me. I'm not a Croatian nationalist. A few historians that say "Boskovic was Serbian" and, as far as I'm concerned, that pretty much torpedoes the "Croatian physicist" thing in the lead. -- Director (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Warning

this is a warning to you, too. Uncle G (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

A request

Can you please have a look at this discussion? Are you aware of reliable sources that discuss mass killings under Tito, and strongly link them to Communism? Thank you in advance. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Killings under Tito, yes, but not by Tito (I'm not sure what you mean by "killings strongly linked to Communism"? :)). I've always been asking for sources that directly state he is in some way responsible for a massacre/killing of some sort, or linked personally to it, before agreeing to have it included in the article. But there were mass killings in Yugoslavia. I'll have a look at the thread. -- Director (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Chiang Kai-shek; Nick-D on the Falklands War Interview: Article writers discuss biographies Op-ed: Nick-D examines using news articles as sources

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:User Split Riva

Template:User Split Riva has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kumioko (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Question

Why you delete? I represent all the versions. Соколрус (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire

OK with me... DeCausa (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Accusations and ad hominems

Start writing edit summaries on glaringly controversial edits for a change. Mass removal of text isn't warranted by default except on WP:BLP violations, and even there it's annoying without a modicum of an explanation. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That text was added without consensus. And I'm not sure we could characterize it as "glaringly controversial" because of that. Clearly, just changing the title makes it not even "opposed", let alone "glaringly controversial". But I din't post the thread just to discuss one specific incident. -- Director (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

See, that's exactly it - you decide that something was added in a non-consensus manner at some unspecified point in time, and then you mass-remove it without even a modicum of an explanation. You've been here for years, we've had this kind of a discussion before, and yet you're forcing me to recite WP:FIES. It's not a personal attack, it's me telling a single person they're doing something wrong. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

No look.. The guy was WP:BOLD and added the stuff - and I reverted him. The next step is discussion. Its not WP:BDR, but BRD. -- Director (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Byzantine Empire

Please don't switch unnecessarily between different varieties of English. There was nothing wrong with this article as it was, and there's a clear notice on the talk page stating that the article is written in British English. Ta. — JonC^ॐ 10:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

What? Where exactly did I use American English? -- Director (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it was an accident, but this edit changed most of the spelling to American English. — JonC^ॐ 10:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It was a stupid mistake, apologies. -- Director (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Cheers, — JonC^ॐ 15:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Byzantine map

On the ByzantineEmpire infobox map.png, the middle map is wrong. You can see the correct territorial extent in these maps: Map Byzantine Empire 1025-en.svg and Map of the Byzantine Empire. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 18:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You mean Armenia? Wow, I didn't catch that (even though I had previously viewed the maps you're linking :P). Poor Basil's work undone! :) I'll see if I can't fix it. -- Director (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Howdy. Yea the eastern borders but also the territory in the Crimea is absent. The 1450 map you should take a closer look at too. Also, you should use my newer 555 AD instead of 550 AD - 555 was when territorial gains in Spania stopped more or less. Good idea overall though!--Tataryn77 (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Check your email, you'll find something rather useful regarding Byzantine maps. Constantine ✍ 19:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Hsu.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:Hsu.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

cetnici

pricas o cetnicima a nigde ne spominjes Pranjane i spasavanje preko 500 americkih pilota. Sve se desava od 1943 pa do 1944. po istoriji cetnici su tada vec presli na stranu nemaca, a eto gle cuda oni spasavaju Amerikance od Nemaca ... http://www.ong.ohio.gov/stories/2009/08_August/story_20090825b.html STRASNO da se to nigde ne spominje. Prvi gradovi oslobodjeni u ex YU su bili oslobodjeni od strane cetnika itd itd Koliko ima logike da Srbi posle 2. sv rata saradjuju sa nemcima... ? Istorija nije sve sto procitas89.172.76.1 (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Languages

Hello, DIREKTOR!

Template Lang-sh (Serbo-Croatian) I have replaced with Lang-hr (Croatian) or Lang-sr (Serbian) with right because:

• As I have written: „Serbo-Croatian language” does not exist. Why? Serbo-Croatian language is an artificially created language, created in 1950s by Yugoslav government, which wanted to create a Yugoslav nation and delete existing nations such as Croats, Serbs etc. They could do that only with deletion of some South Slavic languages (some languages spoken in Yugoslavia: Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Serbian) so they wanted to delete that languages. Today that „language” again does not exist (dead language), because after breakup of Yugoslavia, every of this nations wanted its real (old) language (which they spoke before creation of Serbo-Croatian, which actually had never been spoken) and they have done that. So, in Bosnia and Herzegovina are spoken Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian; in Croatia is spoken Croatian; in Montenegro is spoken Montenegrin; in Serbia is spoken Serbian.

• Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian are old languages incurred a lot centuries before creation of Serbo-Croatian. Because of this, that languages can not be forms of Serbo-Croatian language which is an artificially created language, created in 20th century, while Croatian incurred in a 10th century. Some people, like David Dalby, Benjamin W. Fortson etc. are probably Yugonostalgics, which do not recognize current countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia), so they write that nonsenses.

• Official language in Croatia is Croatian (Constitution of Croatia-chapter 12), not Serbo-Croatian. It is similar both in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia.

--Ivan OS 10:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read the following very carefully, as I have found that it is repeated far too frequently in discussions of this sort. It has been repeated by people dozens upon dozens of times at Talk:Serbo-Croatian. Users have written special disclaimers on the top of Talk:Croatian language and Talk:Serbo-Croatian so they wouldn't have to repeat it so often. I myself explained it to you twice already, and this is the third time. So again, please read (and accept) the following:

This project is written according to published, scholarly sources. Linguistics is a science. And as far as Wikipedia is concerned, languages (believe it or not) cannot be "declared" or "abolished" by governments. The authority here are scholarly sources. It has been established (over and over and over again) that the vast majority of scholarly sources do not consider the Serbo-Croatian language to be artificial, extinct or abolished. In fact: the vast majority of sources consider Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian to be the three official standards of a single language, most often referred to as "Serbo-Croatian". Based on these sources, there is currently a Wikipedia WP:CONSENSUS on this issue at Talk:Serbo-Croatian.

So in short, as this is Wikipedia, for this discussion you can completely forget anything the Croatian government proclaims. The authority here are scholarly sources. Scholarly sources. Not governments - scholarly sources. I've repeated this a million times, please do not expect me to do so again. You are welcome to bring your theories (and sources?) on the Croatian language to Talk:Serbo-Croatian or Talk:Croatian language and attempt to affect the current consensus. Though I honestly doubt you will be successful without a large number of scholarly sources that support your claims.

Until then: PLEASE STOP EDIT-WARRING to push your new edits - seek a consensus for them. You are deleting and ignoring sources. I assure you that should you continue to revert-war your behavior will be immediately reported in the appropriate venue. Regards -- Director (talk) 11:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

RE: Kingdom of Italy map

Hello, Director. You have new messages at Talk:Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946).
Message added 23:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

očito nisi shvatio poruku. nama ovo nije zabava nego posao. stoga prestani da laješ o srbima i srbiji i ostavit ćemo te na miru. i ovo tvoje pseto neka također prestane lajati (jer obaviješteni smo da je to tvoje pseto). u suprotnom, viđaćeš svoju sliku i ime na zanimljivim mjestima na internetu. onaj sajt za upoznavanje je bio samo demonstracija. ono što slijedi je to da ćemo te na internetu predstaviti kao srbina koji piše protiv hrvatske države, tvoje ime i slika će se pojaviti na političkim blogovima i forumima a imaćeš i svoj osobni politički sajt gdje podržavaš mladića i karadžića, zalažeš se za obnovu republike srpske krajine i pišeš protiv hrvatske države i to na hrvatskom jeziku. ljudi iz tvog okruženja će prije ili kasnije to pročitati i teško ćeš ih poslije uvjeriti da to nisi pisao ti. a neko od tih tvojih hrvata može i da te prepozna na ulici i namlati. razmisli da li ti to treba u životu? je li djetinjasto podjebavanje srba po vikipediji vrijedno tolikog blata na tvom imenu? izbor je tvoj, dečko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warhammer76 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ovde se ljudi svadaju oko svakavih gluposti, Warhammer, i kada ih netko blokira (ili drugacije sankcionise), krenu na osobne vendete. Ja neznam jesi li ti zapravo netko od njih ili nisi, ali ako nisi, shvati da bilo tko ko ovde izgubi neku raspravu ce ti/vam napricat sta god hoce samo da se osveti. Ovo je savrsen primjer. Ja da imam nesto protiv Srba? NIKAD PODMUKLIJE STVARI NISAM U ZIVOTU PROCITAO! Kao sta sam ovde rekao nebrojeno puta: po mom misljenju, kulturoloske razlike izmedu Srba i Hrvata nisu vrijedne spomena. Smatram da su, u sustini, isti narod. Neznam kako bi itko uopce mogao da ima nesto protiv Srba kao naroda. Nije to uopce u pitanju, nego neko hoce da se osveti (a mislim da znam i ko). Ako imas imalo inteligencije, shvatit ces da netko s tobom bez sumnje manipulise. Moj interes je jugoslavenska povijest, i na ovom sajtu ja radim protiv svih distorcija koje su nastale od strane SVIH pojedninih nacionalnih verzija. Bilo hrvatskih, srpskih, bez obzira. Angaziran sam cesto na Talk:Kosovo protiv ignoriranja kontroverznog statusa nezavisnosti Kosova, napisao sam cijeli Prime Minister of Serbia clanak, trazio slike, itd.. I moji doprinosi su uvijek detaljno poduprti neutralnim znanstvenim izvorima.

Necu ulaziti u detalje rasprava koje su precipitirale ovaj glupavi sukob, ali u sustini su 1) da su cetnici kolaborilari sa osovinom. Sta jednostavno jesu. (cetnici! ne Srbi! pa partizani su isto bili vecinom Srbi!) I pod 2) da Hitler NIJE osnovao "Nezavisnu Drzavu Srbiju" nego da je morala da bude direktno okupirana, jer srpski narod nije u tolikoj mjeri htio da suraduje sa nacistima. Kako je to onaj lik Panonac uspeo da preokrene u "anti-Srpski" stav meni iskreno jos nije jasno. Necu sad da tupim dalje. Uglavnom ti/vam je neko podmuklo predstavio stvari da bi se "osvetio" zbog glupavih wikipedjiskih svada.

Sta se tice Peacemakera, on zaista nije u nikakvom dogovoru samnom, i ako hoces da njemu prijetis isto, morat ces to uciniti posebno. Ja samo ne mogu da vjerujem da su nekome ove glupave svade na ovom sajtu toliko vazne da se angazira i okolo laze. U krajnjoj liniji, kako nista ne "lajem protiv Srba i Srbije", naravno da nemogu ni da prestanem ako to ne radim. Ako me bas hoces da blatis po webu, mozete da pocnete, ali ja nikakvog ozbiljnog antagonizma nemam niti protiv naroda i drzava, niti protiv ikoga ovdje. Ima vaznijih stvari u zivotu. -- Director (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Director. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikola Kalabić

Hi Direktor,

I'm not sure if you're back from your Wikibreak yet but I'll send you this message anyway. My specialty is editing sports articles which I like and usually stick to. I started however this article on Nikola Kalabić as I've just recently heard of him and noticed he doesn't have an article. Knowing your expertise is (Yugoslav) history, I wanted to ask if you know more about this guy? I'm trying to get info from the Serbian Wikipedia translated. He seems to be a controversial fellow and I'm not quite sure which side he was on?

All the best,

Tempo21 (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Still very busy I'm afraid. If the matter is still current in about a week, I'll be around. Best regards -- Director (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Tomasevich and WikiProjects

Well, I didn't have bad intention, just consider this, a guy born in Austria-Hungary, lived in USA, witnessed the colapse of Yugoslavia, a state which he never saw. What does he has to do with Yugoslavia? --Wustenfuchs 20:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but he lived in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (which means he was considered a "Yugoslav" by the rest of the world when he emigrated) and was a prominent scholar of Yugoslav history. I think that certainly meets the scope. -- Director (talk) 02:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hope you made good use of your off-wiki break. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :). Studying and a brief vacation. I'll have to go back on break soon enough, but since I'm technically back I removed the tags. -- Director (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors: Wikimania 2012; special projects note Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Australian 25th Battalion Interview: Article writers discuss buildings and fortifications Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports on a weekend workshop

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

David Irving Talk Page

Sir, I wanted to thank you for your input on the David Irving Talk page. Just as I predicted, I have been threatened with a ban if I do not cease posting on the page. As suggested, I have abandoned the discussion. I sincerely wish you the best of luck should you continue with the discussion. Again, thanks for your input. Jason532012 (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Josip Broz Tito 50s.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Josip Broz Tito 50s.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers

G'day DIREKTOR, An observation about the various 'Military Administration in...' articles. If you do a Google Books search for "Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers", you get hits for:

• Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers im Generalgouvernement
• Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien
• Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Belgien/Nordfrankreich
• Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Frankreich

I am starting to think all these 'Military Administration in...' articles are misnamed. They should all be 'Territory of the Military Commander in...' articles as they relate to a territory, not just a military administration. The military commander in these occupied territories was the supreme authority (as much as that was possible with the Byzantine chains of command and control that existed thanks to Hitler's NSDAP divide and rule strategy. It was he (ie Bader, for example in the Serbien one) that issued the overall 'Verordnungs' for the occupied territory, not the chief of the military administration (ie Harald Turner). Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly fine with that. Or, to be more precise, I would not particularly mind either way - as long as we have consistency and avoid confusing the reader. This whole German administrative business is confusing enough without various territories of the same sort being called by different names. -- Director (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

revert war

Please stop to revertmy changes or I will report you. Discuss it on talk page. Nemambrata (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

"ARBMAC decision"?

How could that possibly be the case? Since when does ARBMAC dictate content decisions? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's what I gather from the {{Kosovo-note}} template. "Kosovo note was created with reference to a WP:ARBMAC decision, and the main wikipedia guidelines, like Wikipedia:NPOV, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions. {{Kosovo-note}} should be used in articles that use the word Kosovo as geographical or political indication..." And I agree with the above. Kosovo's independence is disputed. We should either omit it entirely, or list it with a caveat. -- Director (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is no such ARBMAC decision, certainly none that dictates using this template, or anything similar. What I object to is having this (insignificant, in the larger run of things) dispute continually pushed into everybody's faces on articles where it doesn't belong. Just because there are contexts where we happen to enumerate countries – especially, like here, where it is done without any political implications – does not mean we have to import some marginal dispute about some marginal entry onto every single page where this is done. This, to me, falls under WP:NPOV#Making necessary assumptions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It is insignificant, I agree, but imo the question of neutrality is still there. How do you neutrally cover Kosovo? By simply listing "Kosovo" one does imply the country is independent, no question, and by not listing it one implies it isn't. I know what you mean and I do not like it myself, but I can't think of a better solution.

Also, Serbian history is rather tightly intertwined with that of the Byzantine Empire (the coat of arms is a good visual illustration of this). Its not quite as remote of a subject as one might think. -- Director (talk) 11:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Listing it merely implies that it exists – which it undoubtedly does. The dispute is over whether it should exist as an independent state, and that is completely and utterly irrelevant to any reader of that page. Sorry, but I think I'll insist on my removal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You're not simply listing Kosovo, you're listing it alongside other modern-day independent countries, by which you're implying that this entity (which obviously does exist) is equal in status to said independent countries. And does not have the status of say, Vojvodina, which isn't listed there. And that's basically the Kosovo dispute. I would not characterize it as being about whether Kosovo "should exist" - its the status of Kosovo that's disputed. Serbia considers Kosovo the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo". -- Director (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It is true that it is hardly possible to handle the matter without implicitly favouring the one or the other side. But the only sane response to that seeming dilemma is not to bow to the obsessed agenda warriors by plastering huge intrusive notes all over the place just to appease them and acknowledge their oh-so-important concerns. The sane response is simply to go ahead, ignore the dilemma, and by doing so demonstrate to the obsessed agenda-warriors that their agendas don't matter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, better there be an intrusive note than implicit favoritism of one side in a serious, bitterly contested dispute such as this. In other words, you won't be saying "your agendas don't matter", you'll be saying "your agenda matters (to one group), and yours doesn't (to the other)". -- Director (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

We have consensus for usage of Kosovo note. It is used for years in thousands of articles. Whenever is kosovo mentioned as country, it must have template. --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

WhiteWriter, this is my talkpage and we're not having an open discussion. I've restored your post but if you want to discuss the matter you'll have to do so elsewhere. I do not appreciate you monitoring my talk. -- Director (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Dont be upset, i just wanted to inform... I am gone, so... --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Titove slike

Direktore,pretpostavljam da znaš i hrvatski jezik.Zašto ona slika ne valja- "Druze Tito.jpg" ? Jel nešto nije dobro postavljeno ili? Cromen (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Pa ona koju si zamijenio je ocito mnogo bolja.. -- Director (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

General appreciation

Hi Director,

Having followed the evolution of Yugoslav-related topics on Wikipedia for many years now I would like to express my gratitude for your efforts.

As you'd be aware, the political climate in the area is such that an unbiased and relatively accurate account of historical events is hard to maintain. I would go so far to say, that considering the amount of exile funded propaganda, you are more than holding your own.

This is not merely a task of sourcing sound and academically accepted literature, but a monumental undertaking that would have taken much of your time over the years. You've repelled an endless barrage of our unfortunate and misled youth, and for that I sincerely commend you.

Many of us take the time to read trial proceedings or foreign military and intelligence documents, but very few donate their time to uphold the facts in the face of Balkan nationalism. For what its worth, I'm sure that your contributions have gone a long way in educating the new generation. Heck, unlike their predecessors with libraries, at least they have access to the internet.

Again, thank you.

Chechachi (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I think you may be overestimating the extent of my contribution here on enWiki, but that which you describe is certainly a goal to strive towards. When I started editing here I was indeed a youth, furious that he's been so thoroughly mislead regarding where and what we are, and what are history actually is. I still do harbor an intense dislike of any kind of overt bias and favoritism, and I strongly believe in the scientific approach as the only way to the facts. I certainly do hope the younger generations now will question and research a lot more than we did. Again, thank you. -- Director (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, and your participation in this discussion may be critical to finding a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Slavonia". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 18:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Dalmatia - Kotor Bay

The first line in the Dalmatia section of the Rough Guide to Croatia says: Stretching from Zadar in the north to the Bay of Kotor (now part of Montenegro) in the south, Dalmatia possesses one of Europe's most dramatic shorelines, as the stark, grey wall of the coastal mountains sweeps down towards a lush seaboard ribbon dotted with palm trees and olive plantations. The full citation is Bousfield, Jonathan (2010). The Rough Guide to Croatia. Penguin. p. 263. ISBN 978-1-84836-936-8. The Rough Guides are a travel book series that are generally considered reliable. You will find them pretty widely cited in the Wikipedia. If you click on 263 above you can view the scan of the page from which the quote comes. --Bejnar (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pavle Gregoric.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pavle Gregoric.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dragutin Haramija.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dragutin Haramija.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Antun Milovic.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Antun Milovic.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Zvonko Brkic.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Zvonko Brkic.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jakov Sirotkovic.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jakov Sirotkovic.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Savka Dabcevic-Kucar 70s.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Savka Dabcevic-Kucar 70s.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the legacy of World War II Op-ed: Bomzibar on German military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Central Croatia

Hello! I appreciate your involvement with Central Croatia and other articles on Croatian regions - some of them are on my watchlist, but the subject is really out of my depth, and I'm at a loss regarding what to do with IP edits. Could you keep an eye on them? Central Croatia has just been reverted. GregorB (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh believe me I'd like to help, but unfortunately I am thoroughly indisposed for the time being. I'm still on Wikibreak. As for Central Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia - that IP is just making nonsense edits (as IPs are wont to do). I recommend reverting him and requesting semi-protection if it goes on. -- Director (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Notification

Not unlike the whole "can be described as Dalmatia" argument, you're pushing the boundaries of the concept of a personal attack. I'm questioning your flawed argument, and when you keep repeating it even after saying I'll fix the Zadar County bit when I return and after it's been debunked at length, I have no alternative theory as to its origins than it being a plain old grudge. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it offends you that I accuse you of such a thing; it offends me that you would accuse me of an ad hominem. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You have been warned, Joy. Please do not repeat your personal attacks and ethnic stereotyping, and I assure you: that's what they were [29]. Not only did you suggest that I'm opposing you merely out of "spite" (as if you couldn't possibly be wrong), but you suggested such "spite" is due my ethnic background ("dispet"). You're discussing myself and my motivations in an offensive manner.

The discussion at that talkpage is prolonged, yes, but it is civil - can we please keep it that way? -- Director (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Now now Director...

I agree, but I like to do things my way. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, your prerogative. -- Director (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification

There is a discussion at WP:3O relating to an issue you have been involved with. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification

Hello. There is a report at WP:AE with which you have been involved. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: AustralianRupert on artillery in South Australia, and Nick-D on Venice's empire Op-ed: Nick-D on the "Kokoda: Beyond the Legend" conference

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Jovan Marinovic2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Jovan Marinovic2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Milan Pirocanac crop.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Milan Pirocanac crop.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Miss Representation

Yes, I would appreciate if you could strike your comment please.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Np. -- Director (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; milestone for the Fortifications task force; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2012/Hawkeye7 on mission command Op-ed: The ed17 on how The Bugle could be improved

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

		The Yugoslavia Barnstar of National Merit
		for consistency and vigilance against chauvinism on articles related to Yugoslavia. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to DIREKTOR by Peacemaker67 (talk) on 02:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

With three of these up there I'm starting to look like a Yugonostalgic :). When I get beat up by ultranationalists for parading a bunch of red stars on my page, I'll be thinking of all you guys. Thanks, Peacemaker :) -- Director (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Hello!

Congratulations for this  ! Litlok (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, but its not my pic. It was uploaded by Michaelphillipr (talk · contribs). I just fixed the lighting up a bit :). -- Director (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I had simply had a look at the history of the file ! Litlok (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

There is new thread about you on arbitration enforcement forum - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement Nemambrata (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Julian March

Good Morning Direktor
I am an Italian-Swiss (non-Fascist, non-irredentist :-)) Wikipedian asking your opinion about the recent edits on the Julian March article. I noticed that you wisely commented on the Talk page, so your opinion would be welcomed. I opened a corresponding Thread with my opinion. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Are you sure you're not a fascist irredentist? *squint-eyed glare* :) -- Director (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, I came to tell you - don't worry, I am calmed down - that based on this I believe a consensus between me and you is possible because I agree with you that it indeed was too much detail and that I should have quoted the - still very important to me - fact about the 1/4 (1/3) loss in the main text, not in the lede of that particular article. I was at the time too upset to be able to see it clearly and I am sorry for that. I would also like to apologize to you for the recent teasing here in relation to (you once bragging about) (MENSA-high?) IQ and I appreciate you wrote here that you think "(I) was quite right on more than a few points". Peace on (Yugo-)Slavic western front? ;) DancingPhilosopher ^{my talk} 10:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Could I trouble you to please remove the offensive comment over there? -- Director (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course. I removed it. DancingPhilosopher ^{my talk} 12:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Na zahodu nič novega :) -- Director (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The Byzantine Empire lead

You may wish to contribute to Talk:Byzantine Empire#intro. JTBX (talk · contribs) wanted to restore the changes he made to the lead, the ones you removed. That thread is a response to my request to bring it to the talk page first.
—Sowlos (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Europe under Nazi domination.png

Hey there :) I noticed in File:Europe under Nazi domination.png, Syria was labeled as "British-occupied." However, according to the Sykes–Picot Agreement, Syria and Lebanon were actually a French mandate at the time, and were occupied by France. I was wondering if you could correct that on the map. Thanks! :) --AutoGyro (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

POV pushing on the flag

First let me mention how I loved your style of talking down to me as if I'm some critter who showed-up out of nowhere just to undo your edits. You should know I've been editing for a while now.
Second, this has nothing to do with the fact that I'm a Syrian-American. You are adding information that pushes the POV of one side while ignoring the other. For example, what you write about the flag can be just as easily be rewritten as: "The opposition uses the Green-white-black flag that saw Syria's independence from France until the union with Egypt". See how that could be also telling half the story like with what you've been doing? That's why the version that I've been putting is the most in-between NPOV for both sides of the story.
Third, you keep telling me that I should take it to the talk page, but the fact of the matter is that this same issue that you're trying to do another editor tried to also do called user:Latristelagrima and on the talk page everyone agreed that his edits (which are exactly the same as your edit) are biased and it the current wording was agreed to. Therefore, stop telling me to go to the talkpage, it's obvious you're the one that should be reading what we agreed upon already.
Fourth, I never undid your edits b/c their "bad press for the opposition", I'm trying to keep this site as neutral as possible. You're edits aren't even cited/sourced! Bye. Moester101 (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Director, I'm afraid your edit is the one that violates NPOV. The history of the flag is discussed in detail on that page. And if you go there, you'll that "introduced by the French mandate" is hugely inaccurate, as it was stipulated in a constitution drafted by a commission (mostly from the National Bloc (Syria)) led by none other than the nationalist leader, Ibrahim Hananu. And then, that constitution was signed by a decree by the French High Commissioner. Stating simply the date of the flag, without adding POV labels like "independence flag" or "colonial flag", is the most neutral we can be. The reader could be diverted to the Flag of Syria article for a more detailed account of its history. Thank you! Yazan (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

While I'm still pretty certain the flag was introduced during French colonial rule, I'll be Stepping carefully away from the whole matter :) -- Director (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

"during" is indeed factually correct, but doesn't nearly cover all the nuances required to present a neutral statement in such a controversial subject (at the moment). "by", however, which you used, is incorrect.

this for example, is a flag introduced by the colonial power and enforced upon the population (notice the colors). The Syrian flag of 1930, was drafted in the Pan-Arab colors by a committee of the country's most prominent nationalists along with a constitution that was so disagreeable for the French that they forcibly dissolved the assembly; and had it not been for the immense outpour of public demonstrations and pressure they wouldn't have acquiesced to it (albeit with key changes to some articles, but not the flag itself).

This is an important nuance, but one that doesn't fit in a thumbnail; and ignoring it is bound to be seen as POV.

I hope this helps to better explain my position on the matter. At any rate, I hope we didn't scare you away; Syrians are known for their temper, but we're also quite friendly, so feel free to come by sometime for a cup of tea, or Arak, whichever you prefer :) Cheers! Yazan (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

All I was adding was a note that the flag was introduced during the French mandate, upon its approval. I didn't add any information regarding whom designed it.

Pardon me for bringing it up, but I see you are both Syrian wikipedians. Allow me to express my sympathy for the horrible tragedy which has befallen your homeland. As a Yugoslav, I dare say I can relate to some degree. I only hope it will come to an end soon, one way or the other. -- Director (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Two of my uncles did their PhDs in Yugoslavia in its heyday, and they are, understandably, Yugo-nostalgic :). I thank you for you heartfelt words; this past century hasn't been kind to our sea, has it? Yazan (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup, we used to be allies of a sort, my cousin worked in Iraq for years. Come to think of it, funny how all these allies were either occupied (Iraq) or suffered through horrible civil war and unrest ending in regime change, most of them recently (Syria, Libya, Yugoslavia, even Egypt might fall into this category). -- Director (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Now that's just crazy talk ;). Plagued with dysfunctional legacy of that failing mammoth, and caught between a rock and a hard place, yes, I think we do have plenty in common. Now, even with a genuine leadership, we barely had a chance; but... unfortunately, like father like son. I think I'll just get back to writing about the Romans; they were a superpower I respected! Yazan (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Question of curiosity

On the EU talkpage over a month ago you mentioned that Macedonia is the centre of a five-sided Balkans dispute. If you don't mind me asking, what is this dispute? I'm aware of quite a few bilateral disputes it's in, but haven't heard of any described as five-way. CMD (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Republic of Macedonia is home to a Slavic ethnic group who's culture is, if I may put it so simply, a sort of mix of Bulgarian and Serbian elements (with the former more predominant than the latter). Naturally, the area is claimed by both Serbian and Bulgarian nationalists. Furthermore, it is historically associated with Greece, which is very much offended that these Slavs have taken to calling themselves and their country "Macedonian". Finally, the RoM is home to a very large Albanian minority: Albanian nationalists consider the western areas of the country an integral part of Greater Albania. And then of course there's the Macedonians (ethnic group) themselves, most of whom do follow the old communist Yugoslav doctrine that they're a people apart. So that's five sides, we do keep ourselves entertained down here :). -- Director (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That does indeed make five. I've never seen all of the problems contrasted like that before, it really hammers in the confusion in the area. Thanks, CMD (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel_66, AustralianRupert, and Nick-D look at ships, soldiers, and railways Op-ed: Nick-D on navigating the FA and A-Class review processes

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If I get you straight

This is the chronology of the national dilemma of the Bosniaks: Serb/Croats->Confused medieval Christians->Muslims betraying Christianity->Losing touch with their Slavic roots and calling themselves Turks->Muslims with capital M->Viscous nationalist trying to steal the Bosniak name (4th of December, 2012). 90.230.54.125 (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I've already read one too many SANU publications to know the answer. Sorry for disturbing you. 90.230.54.125 (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

ARBMAC

If an editor express a opinion, that should be respected. Blind reverts will be regarded as nationalistic vandalism. But you are welcomed to use talk page, like normal editors do. You do not have any reason or argument for removing those, and you didnt stated any of those also. Now, inform now someone off wiki to revert me back, as you and your friend always do. --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not a matter of "opinion", and even if it were, nobody is under any obligation to "respect" personal opinions on this project. The simple fact is that these articles plainly do not fall under the scope of WikiProject Serbia ("articles related to Serbia and Serbians", not Serbs in general), and that the mass misapplication of the tags is just nationalist disruption, of the kind everybody's pretty used to by now ("this is Serbia!"). And by the way, just because you and Mirko are in off-Wiki contact, does not mean others are.

Don't worry, though, there won't be any reverting. The sheer scale of the disruption imo demonstrates the gravity of the issue quite sufficiently. -- Director (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Move of trentino-AltoAdige/Südtirol

Dear Direktor, I'm all with you in moving this page to "Trentino-South Tyrol". There's pleanty of reasons to do so, but as you see, the actual name was the outcome of an arbitration, and we need stronger grounds for the move. A killer argument would be some high-profile documents using the name "Trentino-South Tyrol". Unfortunately they are difficult to find, as hardly anyone talks/writes about this (outdated) region. Usally whoever writes about our area either refers to the province of Trentino or to South Tyrol only.--Sajoch (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I might propose an RM in the next few days.. -- Director (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: ? and December 2012

Greetings DIREKTOR. I late with response because I'm currently in Pristina, Kosovo so I do not have Internet access. It may possibly be considered a sensitive topics by some, but you know that I almost exclusively work on sensitive topics on English Wikipedia (It partially satisfies my need for freedom of speech). Although I at all do not understand your last objection on my contributions, in fact it seems to me that both of you overemphasize and falsely represents my contribution-so you are the ones who are doing this a political issue not me. Also, I do not see any rule that I broke so I dont see ground for such I would even say hysterical reactions, and your already boring (often based but not in this case) accusations of bloodthirsty nationalism, chauvinism, extremism and I do not know, maybe vegetarianism (sorry for too much freedom of speech I hope I will not offend you)? I think that my edits were 100% justified, positive and well explained, but since it is not about the content of articles it did not even cross my mind to receive punishment because of that. I plan to talk about it with other editors (about part that WP don't owe article...) and maybe to talk about special WP Republika Srpska so that we can avoid your fake argument about Serbia-Serbs, or to add part that WP Serbia deals also with topics connected with Serbs, but all that are long therm ideas. Because I still want to work on issues related to members of minority groups in Croatia I will not continue edit war in this case because it is not worth to be blocked for that (I will now maybe only raise this issue among other editors). So much of me (I may not be able to respond until next week).--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Mirko, I don't know what else to say other than the scope of WikiProject Serbia includes only "articles related to Serbia and Serbians", not Serbs and everything remotely Serbian in general, everywhere. The "Serbs"/"Serbians" distinction is not my own "fake argument", its how the members of that project defined it themselves.

As regards the current scopes of the relevant projects, if there's a Catholic church in Serbia - its part of WikiProject Serbia. If an Orthodox church is in Croatia - its part of WikiProject Croatia etc. Its incredibly simple and straightforward, and massive-scale edit-warring will just plain be reported. Especially taking into consideration the extremely controversial nature of such mislabeling, in the context of Balkans conflicts and Greater-Serbianism (not implying that was your own aim, just pointing out the political aspect). -- Director (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I just commented that on WP Serbia Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Serbia#WP Serbia tag so I invite you to get involved if you want to. Indeed it is possible that I have misunderstood the scope of the project and if that is true then I have a lot of work to repair the damage. I hope to get good advices there so I'll see what to do next based on these instructions. I know that my contributions someone can seem like a crypto advocacy of Greater Serbia, but this is a misconception, I only argue for maximum rights for Serbian minority in the states in which they live (Greater Serbia is unacceptable for me because in the ethnically mixed Balkans it can not occur without a crimes-especially against Bosnian Muslims). But all these things for me have nothing to do with the Wikipedia project, it is only the way to attract more editors to an article (Ultimately they are on talk page not in articles).--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way I see that you commented on how I outside of Wikipedia talk with White Writer. Although it is not prohibited (but it may look bad maybe), you do not have to be paranoid about it. I very rarely contacting anyone in this way and I do not remember that I ever had broader discussions with this editor even at Wikipedia. I really do not know how you came up with that idea :D .--MirkoS18 (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI thread

Please weigh in if you wish. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Director. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Serbia.
Message added 12:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WhiteWriter^speaks 12:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

What went on there?

Re:dashes? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea.. -- Director (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

List of Royal Houses

Greetings, DIREKTOR. Hope you are well.

The article in question was a complete mess, and contained (and still contains, for that matter) material that is unsourced, original research, or just wrong.

i.Several of the entries are listed belonging to Royal Houses and they have been given the wrong name. For example; the Royal House of Belgium has been the 'House of Belgium' since 1921; not 'House of Wettin' (which was the former House designation), the Royal House of the Netherlands is simply the 'House of Orange-Nassau' (and it has been ever since 1908; via decree of Queen Wilhelmina, despite the fathers of the current and last-but-one Queens not coming from this house.) The grand ducal house of the Netherlands is listed as 'Bourbon, Parma line, Nassau-Weilburg sub line'; yet Grand Duke Jean changed the name of the House from 'Bourbon-Parma' to 'Nassau' (although the House does indeed descend agnatically from the House of Bourbon Parma) in 1986 in retaliation for the Head of the House of Bourbon-Parma; Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma, ruling the marriage of Jean's son, the present Grand Duke Henri, as unequal and non-dynastic. The name now borne by the grand-ducal House is 'Luxembourg-Nassau', by grand-ducal decree. See here: http://www.monarchie.lu/fr/monarchie/droits-de-succession/annexe-au-communique-du-20062011.pdf Likewise, the House name given for the defunct throne of the Empire of Brazil is also wrong.

ii.There are several entries where claimants are given, but the family in question is extinct and no current pretender exists. For example, 'Albania' is listed under the Zogu and Wied claims. Whilst there certainly is a Zogu claimant (the male-line grandson of King Zog I of Albania is alive and well); the son of the Wied claimant died without issue and thus there is no claimant to the Wied Principality of Albania that existed in 1913. There are also several entries where the House given is listed as 'extinct'-well; if the House is extinct, then there is no claimant; therefore why is it being listed? Likewise; there is no current pretender to the throne of Poland, nor is there for any of the various empires and kingdom that ruled over Haiti.

iii.There are several entries where the 'pretender' given is not a pretender at all. For example, Amadeo, Duke of Savoy (the Head of the Aosta branch of the House of Savoy and rival to the headship of the entire house.), is listed as the pretender to the throne of Croatia. But not only did Amadeo's father Aimone relinquish any claims to the Kingship of Croatia in 1943 (which at any rate was an Axis puppet state and was ephemeral at best); neither Amadeo nor his father (nor anyone else for that matter) have ever considered him to be the 'pretender' to the defunct throne of Croatia. Similarly, Queen Margarethe II of Denmark is listed as the 'pretender' for Iceland; yet Queen Margarethe's grandfather King Christian X acknowledged the loss of his Icelandic throne (which at any rate was decided by plebiscite anyway) and no claims to the throne of Iceland have been made by any of his successors. Like with Elizabeth II and the loss of some of her thrones in the commonwealth, King Christian X made no claim to or even lamented the loss of his icelandic throne: he sent a congratulatory telegram to the Icelandic people, and the arms of Iceland were removed from the Royal arms of Denmark by his son Frederik IX in 1947. It could be argued that 'yes; but someone could view them as pretenders; it can be a claim made on their behalf' -but the monarchist movement in both countries is non-existent, and in both cases the loss of the throne was legally acknowledged, both by the state and by the Royal House.

iv. Several entries are given for entities that had no throne in the first place. For example, the various colonial possessions of Spain (the Viceroyalties) are listed; but these were only ever colonies of Spain rather than independent states in their own right that shared a monarch with Spain. Same as regards the thirteen colonies that later founded the U.S.A.: these were colonies rather than independent monarchies with their own throne. A colony is just an overseas territory of another country, not a sovereign state in its own right.

v.Several entries give the pretender to an extinct throne titles that they do not pretend to. Yes; there have been several deposed monarchs (who have thus become pretenders) who have continued to use the title they used as monarch (ex-Kings Simeon II, Constantine II and Michael I are good examples); but this is common diplomatic practice: a deposed monarch is allowed to use the title they used during their reign as a courtesy title; but this courtesy is not extended to their heirs (for example, when the former King Peter II of Yugoslavia died, his son did not proclaim himself 'King Alexander II of Yugoslavia' but simply used the title of Crown Prince that he had been entitled legally for a week after his birth.) There are examples of Heads of former royal houses using Monarchical titles, for example Crown Prince Leka, son of Zog I of Albania; declared himself 'King of the Albanians', but this practice is rare.

Second to this; after it becomes impossible for a pretender to use a courtesy title (because they have been born after the abolition of the monarchy); the Pretender will use a title that shows they are Head of the Royal House; without using a title they are not qualified to use. Thus; for example, Georg Friedrich; Head of the Prussian Royal House is styled simply 'Prince of Prussia', and not 'Emperor Georg Friedrich I', as listed here.

vi. There are some entries that are just...well; wrong. For example, Prince Phillip (husband of Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Realms) is listed as being the 'pretender' to the throne of Hesse; with the House designation of 'Mountbatten'. Not only if the Hessian throne still existed would Prince Phillip be nowhere near the throne (his maternal grandmother was a daughter of the Grand Duke of Hesse. The Hessian throne was inherited in a salic, males-only basis and the direct line of the House of Hesse-Darmstadt at any rate is extinct in the male line and its claims have passed to the branch of Hesse-Cassel); not only that, but he has never been a member of the House of Mountbatten (he was born a Prince of Greece from the Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg branch of the House of Oldenburg and has not renounced membership of that House, neither has he been removed from the House by the Head of the House); not only that; but that arms shown for him are the ones born by his maternal grandfather, Prince Louis of Battenburg; which not only would he not be entitled to (and at any rate he has); those aren't even the arms that are borne today by the House of Mountbatten. The only throne Prince Phillip has been anywhere near in his lifetime as far as potential succession is concerned is the Greek one, and he renounced that on marrying the then-Princess Elizabeth in 1947.

Elizabeth II is listed as being the 'pretender' to the throne of Cyprus here as well. Not only was Cyprus a republic from the date of independence in 1960 (it was a British colony from 1914 to 1960, and thus had no throne of its own during this time-it was 'merely' a British territory)-it was not a commonwealth realm so she was never 'Queen of Cyprus' like she was of various other countries such as Ceylon and South Africa that she was formerly Queen of (but no longer is), not only that, but neither she nor anyone for that matter has ever viewed her as 'Queen of Cyprus'. Of course; there are pretenders to the Cypriot Kingdom that was abolished in 1490 by the Venetians, but that is not the issue here. Both those entries are erroneous in the extreme. Whilst I'm at it as well; she doesn't claim the throne of Ireland either and nor has anyone ever claimed the throne for her either. She is listed as claiming the throne of Malta; yet whilst she was indeed Queen of Malta from 1964 to 1974; she doesn't claim that title now (indeed, she fully acknowledged its loss via giving royal consent to the Republic of Malta Act 1974.), nor has anyone claimed it on her behalf.

vii.Yes; I'm aware that I deleted a whole lot of content (most of which was erroneous anyway), but my intention was anyway to add bits back as I went along after checking the sources-I did want to add the pretenders back for places like Austria, Hungary and Hawaii, for example.

viii.The present article makes no distinction between ruling houses and formerly ruling houses that have a pretender. My intention was to make this article much easier to understand to both those familiar with the topic; and those who aren't. As it stands now; it's just confusing.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Number of watchers

Did you know that 92 editors watch your talk page?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm universally adored. -- Director (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Simon Harley on British battleships and Nick-D on the French Resistance Interview: Five editors discuss some less-represented areas of military history Op-ed: Ian Rose looks back on 2012

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Some Croatian ultranationalist is trying to delete the Dalmatianism article on the grounds that a true Dalmatia is a "Croatian Dalmatia" and that Dalmatianist Croats are "anti-Croats"

I've already gotten too mad about this typical Balkan ultranationalist tirade by this Croatian ultranationalist, and told him that his reasoning is bullshit. You rated the Dalmatianism article for mid-importance, I would prefer if you addressed this user's complaints because you considered the article to be pertinent, I'm tired of that user's attitude already and don't want to converse with them.--R-41 (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If an AfD is posted, I'll pitch in. Otherwise - I see no point. The article is clearly well-sourced. -- Director (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You've been mentioned...

...here.--v/r - TP 20:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict

Ignore all the bickering, these articles always end up like this. I appreciate your trying to help out,I suggest you just have at it and the involved editors can complain or not on the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop assuming bad faith

As above, please adhere to Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility, instead of accusing me of "stonewalling" because I disagreed with your proposal for the sidebars of Fascism and Nazism. I disagreed with your proposal but I also said that you could post your proposal on the talk page and see if other users would support it. There is no reason to assume bad faith of what I said.--R-41 (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree with the changes because they make both templates only black, white, and grey. The previous templates had colour in them. I like the use of flags for such templates about fascist ideologies, because fascist movements prominently used flags as symbols. As I said, I believe it is appropriate to revert your changes for now because you do not have consensus for the major changes, you as one user agrees with them, I as one user disagrees. Opening discussion on the topic and requesting a Wikipedia:Request for comment would be the best choice.--R-41 (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we please discuss on a single user talkpage? I.e. the one where the subject was opened? -- Director (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

On my user page then?--R-41 (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok. -- Director (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TIME Josip Broz Tito Oct 9 1944.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TIME Josip Broz Tito Oct 9 1944.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TIME Josip Broz Tito Sep 16 1946.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TIME Josip Broz Tito Sep 16 1946.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:TIME Josip Broz Tito Jun 6 1955.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:TIME Josip Broz Tito Jun 6 1955.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:TIME Josip Broz Tito Jun 13 1969.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:TIME Josip Broz Tito Jun 13 1969.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslav elections

Is there any site with (original) documents from interwar era elections (lists of deputies, candidates etc.) of Yugoslavia (including the "Kingdom of Slov/Cr/Sr")?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I wouldn't know. -- Director (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin

Thank you very much for your recent edits here, but I do have a question. The overall perception of Stalin in today's society is negative. I don't see it as a biased statement to say that he "remains a controversial figure" to this day, and I think referring to popular opinion of Stalin throughout the world as "mixed" is an overgeneralization. I've decided to re-add my own text in that particular sentence; if you still disagree, feel free to ping me on my talk page explaining your side of the issue.

Take care. Kurtis ^(talk) 14:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Nazi Party's "Parteiabzeichen" means "party emblem", it was used on Nazi Party documents, here is an example

You removed the Parteiabzeichen ("party emblem") on the grounds that it was just a "badge". A "party emblem" is the same as a party logo, and it was in a section specifically designed for the inclusion of a party logo. The Parteiadler means "Party eagle" - it was not a logo of the party, but a very prominent symbol of it. Yes there were badges based on the Parteiabzeichen, but the Parteiabzeichen is recorded in Nazi Party documents. Here is the Organization Book of the National Socialist German Workers' Party from 1940 that says that the symbol is the Parteiabzeichen, and it also shows the emblem in black-and-white being used on a Nazi Party document: [30]

E.g. edict by Martin Bormann

I do know some German. My view is that the Parteiadler was a far more prominent symbol of the party, as evidenced in part by your own link, which uses the Adler both on the cover of the Organisationsbuch and on the seal. The Parteiadler was, in effect, the coat of arms (insignia) of the party. If necessary, I should be able to produce an over-abundance of NSDAP documents that sport the Parteiadler. -- Director (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Note also the flag and coat of arms of Germany that the Nazis introduced. They used both their own party flag and party insignia, slightly modified. -- Director (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

But it is not the logo of the party. The section is specifically for the logo of the party. Parteiabzeichen means "party emblem". Common use of the symbol does not imply it is the logo, certainly not when there was the parteiabzeichen. The Italian Fascists commonly used an eagle clutching a fasces, but that was not the National Fascist Party's logo.--R-41 (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The Nazi party didn't really have what you'd call a logotype. An emblem is certainly not a "logo" anymore than the insignia (coat of arms). The eagle-and-swastika insignia was by far the more prominent, "central" symbol of the NSDAP. Its the one they turned into the coa of Germany. -- Director (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

-I agree here with Director. The Nazis made a clear distinction between the Parteiadler (Party Eagle-emblem of the party) and the Reichsadler (Reich Eagle-emblem of the Reich) -The Reichsadler; whilst not technically a coat of arms (because it was not borne on a shield) faced heraldic left (dexter) in an effort to respect heraldic rules, along the lines of other national coats of arms and emblems worldwide (or, at least; europe-wide)-it being considered somewhat bad heraldic form (and bad luck, for that matter) for charges (images in a heraldic coat of arms or emblem) to face to the heraldic right (sinister). The Parteiadler; the original party emblem, was left as it was and was not abolished, and was used after their coming to power to represent the party alone, there being considered here no obligation to follow the rules of heraldry. This is discussed in the chapter 'Nazi Heraldry' in Stephen Slater's 'Complete Guide to Heraldry.'

Hope that helps. :-)

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, JW. -- Director (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This is what the standard depiction of the Parteiadler looked like:

Parteiadler.

If the Parteiadler is going to be used in the infobox, this common version of it should be used.--R-41 (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources? The documents I saw (just e.g. [31][32]) used the current one. That one is also a bit too wide, it wouldn't fit as well. -- Director (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Template talk:Nazism_sidebar#Parteiadler.3F".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 13:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC) help Can you help at hr:Naglasak? I am trying to fix confused iw's across 60 projects, but have now been blocked at WP-hr; that one problem with disrupt all the rest. (The confusion is accent = stress vs. accent = regional speech.) Thanks, — kwami (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Unfortunately, I'm currently on vacation and can't do a thing, even if I wanted to. But if i were you, I wouldn't give one red cent for hrwiki: its ruled by a cabal of thugs who call themselves "admins" and use their tools however they feel like (as you've probably noticed - an enWiki admin blocked), many of whom had actually been banned over here for things like socking, e.g. One of the most pathetic and useless projects around, far worse even than the Serbian Wiki. -- Director (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Problems there infect other projects through IW bots. But it looks like the problem's been solved. — kwami (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013 Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC) IvanOS IvanOS has been pushing his "Serbo-Croatian does not exist" nonsense on more articles, see his list of contributions. --JorisvS (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Continuation on Serbo-Croatian controversy I noticed that editor IvanOS continuously delete term Serbo-Croatian from all my edits and replace it. I'm interested would it be considered edit war if I return expression Serbo-Croatian? Specifically, I used so far versions (Serbo-Croatian: Sunce) and (Serbo-Croatian: Sunce;Serbian Cyrillic: Сунце). I was thinking about how to solve problem of Cyrillic in cases where I need it. Option (Serbian: Сунце) would clearly be POV pushing, but since there still is no (Serbo-croatian cyrilic:Сунце) I decided to use version (Serbian Cyrillic: Сунце) because just this option allows me to use Cyrillic alphabet without to say that Serbian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Bosnian, Martian... are different languages. Again, I spread story to much, I'm interested in your advice regarding IvanOS and just maybe you can save in the edge of mind this ?problem? with (Serbo-croatian cyrilic:). BR.--MirkoS18 (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Possibly unfree File:Milos Trifunovic left.jpg A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Milos Trifunovic left.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Re February 2013 I accepted your request. Since you are offended. You remove this [33]--Sokac121 (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Possibly unfree File:Bozidar Puric right.jpg A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bozidar Puric right.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Possibly unfree File:Branko Mikulic left.jpg A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Branko Mikulic left.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Possibly unfree File:Veselin Duranovic left.jpg A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Veselin Duranovic left.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC) You should take Frietjes to ANI... ...because he keeps reverting everything and everyone without giving a reason for his actions. -- 92.13.59.67 (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Why should a ten-day alliance that made no military contribution to the Axis be included? Yugoslavia was a part of the Axis for ten days. The state made no military contribution to the Axis war effort. Why should it be included?--R-41 (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Talk:Axis Powers -- Director (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Italian irredentism Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Vituzzu (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC) DRN: editing 'overview' section Are you done? If you're going to keep altering what you said, it's going to be confusing. We don't mind people taking a few goes to get it right, or fixing layout or typos in their own comments, but coming back hours later and adding to or changing the substance of a comment is discouraged. WP:REDACT explains why and gives some tips on how to show that a comment has been altered, if you really feel that it's necessary to change it. It might also be easiest and clearest (especially for adding to the comment) to just make a second comment (with a separate signature). CarrieVS (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Sure thing, I'm done. -- Director (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC) PANONIAN Sorry Director, but I'm not buying into that one. I get the impression such things are not taken very seriously over there. I'm happy to continue playing Whac-a-mole with these goons on en WP that keep changing the flag, and report it if it continues. Thanks for the tip though, I'll keep a closer eye on the suspect. Interestingly, I note that PANONIAN keeps a list on sr WP of your "socks", which includes me (lol) and a name for you. I take that is not "outing"? Anyway, thanks for the pointer, I'll keep an eye out. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Oh don't trust Panonian, he is a sockpupet himself and a 100% Serb chetnik propagandist. I've just looked at his edits going back to 2004. Keithstanton (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC) It would suffice to finally show he's a sockpuppeteer. Do you have any insight in that regard? -- Director (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Feb 2013 Hello, I would love to hear your opinion on this RfC request [[34]] cheers! Eng.Bandara (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Hey mate it appears after this RfC, a user with some hidden agenda accusing me of a ridiculous case of sock puppetry. I'm quite new here, and your the only person that I've known for a short period of time. I would appreciate if you could give you opinion of me there. Eng.Bandara (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC) I gladly would, but I'm afraid I have no idea whether or not you're a sock.. My comments wouldn't be worth much :(. If you're not a sock, you needn't worry overmuch. Best of luck there -- Director (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for February 22 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Star and crescent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Slavic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Syria I saw your message and looked into the problem, however, I doubt I can help. I'm inactive on Wikipedia for a longer period now. I was constantly watched by some IPs, my pages and edits were vandalised for days and so on... I lost any will to participate on Wikipedia since... Wish you luck with Syria topic though. --Wüstenfuchs 06:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC) YOU ARE BROKEN. WE ARE LEGION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.134 (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC) No, you're not a legion, you're a guy who dedicated his life to my WP user account. Great achievement. --Wüstenfuchs 20:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013 Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC) RE:Cyrillic Both scripts are in use in Serbo-Croatian, and in given local communities are prescribed by official documents. When we have writen in articles (Serbo-Croatian:Bla bla...) than your arguments will have more sense. BR.--MirkoS18 (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC) I'd also like you to see practice with settlements in Bosnia and Serbia that have both scripts in infoboxes so if you object to this practice in general then you need to writ your opinion at another place. I can support you if you have some reasonable proposal but while it is not adopted you don't need to threaten me for learning based on examples on Wikipedia. All the best.--MirkoS18 (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC) I gave reliable sources. Municipalities actually do exactly what you are saying, I ask you not to ignore that. All the best.--MirkoS18 (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC) See this page, they may be a bit illiterate but clearly demonstrate principle http://www.markusica.hr/ .--MirkoS18 (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC) See statutes of these municipalities. See instructions from Ministry of administration (Ministarstvo uprave). See practice on ground (forms, road signs, signs on institutions, schools). If you really have a lot of time compare it with the same documents in Istria cases and you will see that we that we talk about the same thing that stems from Constitutional Law on National Minorities. All the best.--MirkoS18 (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC) With all this see Stamps of these municipalities and see on what basis they were adopted.--MirkoS18 (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC) I will definitely try to find an official document that use this version. Such documents are available for all municipalities in Podunavlje (Serbian and Hungarian) but I'm not 100% sure it will be possible for all other municipalities in Croatia. The problem is that very few of these documents are available online so I have to use one that I use in articles. But I'll think of something. I'm glad that I finally explained that it is copy of Istria case. In general, I even personally agree with you about Serbo-Croatian, but practice is very different (I rarely even use Cyrillic alphabet-I just think that in this case it may have "cathartic" and positive effect regardless of all conflicts).--MirkoS18 (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Would it be considered OR if I for now cite Zakon o ustanovama>točka 22 (treći dio) next to current source? (http://www.zakon.hr/z/313/Zakon-o-ustanovama)--MirkoS18 (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC) I put a link on this conversation on WP Croatia in order to have a better view in all activities on this topic. I hope it is ok for you?--MirkoS18 (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the heads up. -- Director (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Syrian civil war Please see my comments here. As a result of your edit warning, I am warning you that you may be subject to discretionary sanctions under the terms of ARBPIA if you continue to edit in a manner inconsistent with expected standards of behavior. Do not interpret the fact that I have expressed some sympathy towards your position as evidence that I will extend more leniency towards you than the other participants in this edit war. You need to focus on advertising the RFC and gathering consensus, now and after the protection expires. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 22:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC) We did advertise, RfCs do not work, as this is a current political issue - which mostly just boil down to organized edit-warring unless a resolution is enforced by admins. On one previous occasion the RfC was clearly in favor of the motion, only to be edit-warred to the ground by Sopher99. I've been around on this project, JW, most of my 45,000 edits here were posted in pursuit of NPOV on various problem issues. Had this matter not been driven to edit war, the Futuretrillionaire/Sopher99/Sayerslle trio would just continue to essentially ignore sources, argue repetitively, refuse consensus - and just wait it all out. In fact, I think that'll happen once again (for the fifth time or so) now that the article is protected. The "sources problem" is like a temporary bother to them ("consensus is required, citations don't matter"). The bottom line is both sides cannot be right on this issue, and neither is likely to voluntarily agree without forceful action. Speaking philosophically, if you think one side is closer to being right than another, and you have the best interests of the project in mind - then you should support one and take action against the other. Why not? I will also note its unfortunate the page was protected, particularly at the pre-edit-war version. Not because it removed my changes, but because some sort of progress seems to have been made "through" the edit war. This version, introduced by Sopher99 and apparently deemed acceptable by him, is not a bad step towards compromise. As things stand now, like I said, the thing may well peter out once more - as the fellas are no doubt hoping it will (note the lack of their response on the previously-frantic, relevant talkpage thread). I'm sure they're very happy indeed with the state of affairs.. -- Director (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Your attention is requested on my talk page. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013 Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC) An interesting Infobox solution Syrian civil war Part of the Arab Spring Date 15 March 2011 – ongoing (2 years, 1 week and 5 days) Location Mainly Syria, with minor spillovers in neighboring countries Result Ongoing Belligerents Syrian government Syrian Armed Forces Jaysh al-Sha'bi Shabiha Iran Revolutionary Guards Basij Foreign militants: Hezbollah PFLP–GC Iraqi Shi'ite militias (For other forms of foreign support, see here) Syrian National Coalition Free Syrian Army Supported by: Turkey (including border clashes) Qatar (since May 2012) Saudi Arabia (since May 2012) (For other forms of foreign support, see here) Mujahideen al-Nusra Front Ahrar al-Sham Ghuraba al-Sham Democratic Union Party Popular Protection Units (For more on Kurdish involvement, see here)    Border clashes Iraq Israel Jordan Lebanon Suggested by EkoGraf. This entirely makes the need for a lengthy debate of which country supports who or which is of greater importance than the other obsolete. (Refs to be added appropriately) Sopher99 (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC) I'll reply over there. In short, the problems are #1 it doesn't say with whom the "border clashes" are with, #2 it suggests the "border clashes" factions are allies, and #3 (perhaps most importantly), it again subverts the standard layout of the infobox for the sake of POV. A reader is left guessing what exactly does that thing down there mean. -- Director (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your notice User:direktor thank you for your notice on my page. Please do go ahead and utilise Wikipedia's arbitration process or noticeboards if you feel that that will help the process of building consensus on the military infobox on the Syrian civil war page. The actions of all editors on that page are open and transparent for all other editors to read and gauge. I look forward to working with you further on the Syrian civil war article.Guest2625 (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Ah, there's that wonderful, sparkly attitude that made me think I wouldn't have to repeat the same argument ten times without it being addressed. I may have to make a note of that. You're certainly welcome, Guest. And thank you for acknowledging the warning. -- Director (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013 Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel 66 and Hawkeye7 look at aspects of the Pacific War Op-ed: ErrantX considers the rabbit hole of research The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC) April 2013 Please be advised that WP:GOODFAITH and assuming normal actions (allowed on wiki policy) conctructive edits is against project policy and did you REALLY read WP:CANVASS? the first paragraph in the lead clearly states that "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Peterzor (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC) ANI Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Peterzor (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013 Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Dumelow on the French Foreign Legion and Nick-D on New Zealand military history Op-ed: Nick-D on military history tourism The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3 Please see WP:AN3#User:DIREKTOR reported by User:FutureTrillionaire (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC) I've proposed that you be blocked per the above report unless you will make an appropriate assurance about your future conduct at Syrian Civil War. See the noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC) You must realize that adding Israel to the infobox as a combatant is a serious step. In your opinion, whenever any nation (or faction) shoots at anyone else within the borders of Syria, that nation (or faction) becomes a combatant? Is it generally agreed by a project such as WP:MILHIST that this is the correct use of an infobox on a war? Should we list France as a combatant in the War of 1812? UK was fighting against both France and the United States at the same time. Yet France is not in the infobox as a combatant. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Well, its my opinion that military involvement, however marginal, should merit some kind of mention in the military conflict infobox - if there's room (that's roughly what the infobox guide says, anyway). Why not?.. And if you notice, even non-combatants were included in the Syrian war article (when certain users wanted to emphasize rebel support). If there isn't room, if it makes the infobox too crowded, fine and good, then we can discuss the significance of particular combatants.. I don't think the mc infobox over there is particularly populated at all. However, I would not be making such an over-the-top drama & fuss if the only thing I had was evidence of bare military action. What we have there is an over-abundance of reliable sources stating, quite explicitly, that Israel is a participant in that war (respected scholars included). That is to say, secondary sources interpreting said military action as Israel being a part of that conflict. And when you add to that that the whole point of opposing Israel's addition is obviously to maintain a rebel-friendly, POV infobox.. it just ticks me off. I could go on for quite a while about the bias in there, but this is probably the most glaring example. -- Director (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC) P.s And yes, I realize its a seriois step.. the discussion has been going on for months. The main problem there, in my opinion, is that the talkpage is evenly split.. and given the sources - it shouldn't be. The war has effectively "spread" to Wiki, whereas it should be about the refs. At least to some degree. -- Director (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Nazi Party article Hi: It appears that you tried to rv to the "Emblem of the National Socialist German Workers' Party" for the info. box but it did not go through. Could you check it and fix it as to the "emblem" you wanted to place there. I assume it was the NSDAP eagle but would rather you fix it as you know what you wanted there. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Byzantine Empire discussion I know it's a bit late for when I should be mentioning this, but I just thought I'd come here and say that I agree with your proposed changes to the opening paragraph of Byzantine Empire. Not much to be done about it now, but I just thought I would put that out there, Anyway, keep up the good work. I Feel Tired (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for June 8 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jakov Cindro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Podesta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for June 16 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Istrian exodus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fascist Italy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013 Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Works on the RNZAF, World War I in the Baltic, and British battleship construction Op-ed: Anchors Aweigh for the Majestic Titans The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Director. You have new messages at Talk:List of national animals. Message added 04:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 04:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Call for research participants Hi DIREKTOR, we are a Croatian team of researchers who are looking at the editing dynamics on different language Wikipedias and are focusing specifically on the topic of Kosovo. We are looking for users who have edited, discussed, or acted in accordance with administrative rights on articles about this topic, and who would be willing to be interviewed for the purpose of this research project. This is a project approved by the Wikimedia Foundations´ Research Committee and you can find more information on this meta-wiki page. Research results will be published under an open access license and your participation would be much appreciated. If you would like to participate you can reach us at interwikiresearch@gmail.com and we will set up an interview in a way that best suits your needs.Pbilic (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC) National Animal of Croatia Hello. I've replied to you on Talk:List of national animals. I am not sure Peregrine Falcon should be listed as a national animal of Croatia. This also means it does not belong in the Symbols of Croatia. I am quite sure the Marten (Pine marten to be more specific) is the only one which can be claimed as a "national animal" (Nightingale excluded). Shokatz (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Anon7mous Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Istrian exodus". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 19:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Possibly unfree File:Slobodan Jovanovic left.jpg A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Slobodan Jovanovic left.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Possibly unfree File:Slobodan Jovanovic right.jpg A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Slobodan Jovanovic right.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Possibly unfree File:Milos Trifunovic right.jpg A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Milos Trifunovic right.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC) A minor change to DRN Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 13:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Coat of arms of Dubrovnik Republic Hello. I have noticed that it was you who changed the CoA of the republic. I hope you do realize the colors on the CoA are wrong. I have elaborated on this in Talk:Republic of Ragusa and I have also contacted the author on Wikimedia Commons. The blue lines were a wrong interpretation from 1950s-1960s when they thought the CoA was barry azure and gules (blue and red lines) when instead it was barry argent and gules (white and red lines) - the old CoA of Arpad dynasty. This issue is also very well elaborated and sourced on Croatian Wikipedia [35]. Can we please discuss this issue? Shokatz (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC) July 2013 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nazi symbolism may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013 Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Australia's frontier wars Interview: What Wikimedia chapters can offer military history editors The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC) the first wave of people abandoned Istria in 1943, when the collapse of the Italian regime and army left vulnerable those individuals most compromised with the Fascist state; a second wave followed at wars' end, when the Yugoslavs used force and intimidation to achieve de facto control; while a significant number of Istrians legally 'opted' for Italian citizenship as a result of the 1947 Italo-Yugoslav Peace Treaty, which awarded two thirds of Istria to Yugoslavia (leaving in dispute the remaining territory). The question's final settlement in 1954 recognized the territory's partition and prompted the last "Big Exodus" of those persons in Zone B who held out hope of remaining Your recent edits to Double-headed eagle Please be aware that the inclusion of specific images in the gallery in this article was the subject of recent detailed discussion at Talk:Double-headed eagle#Examples image gallery, where at least a tentative consensus was established. Please see other editors' comments there regarding the rationale behind each decision to include or exclude certain images, and offer your own commentary on these and any other images you recently introduced to the article. I will refrain from reverting your changes, because I feel that consensus is still tentative and not yet settled, and I sincerely hope you will include yourself in the discussion there. One of the issues prompting the discussion is the endless stream of drive-by additions, which are often driven by an inflated sense of nationalism (not in your case, but in many others) and erode the gallery's essential purpose: to display a geographically, temporally, stylistically and functionally diverse set of examples of double-headed eagles. Thank you for your contributions! Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 01:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC) edit request can you include a motto in the nazi germany infobox? if not "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" can you please help me find another one?, i saw a comment on the article's talkpage that you will find one 83.180.188.119 (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Re: Kosovo and Metohija This might constitute a technical move but at this point I'm honestly not sure if Antidiskriminator wouldn't complain about that because it offends some peculiar sensibility. They've already reverted my 1990-related change there. Besides, I didn't discuss it previously, and there's some history to those names, both at the English and the Serbian variant: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo_and_Metohija&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo_i_Metohija&action=history I see myself in the history of both of those, so I think it's actually fair to say that this would be excessively bold - please post to Talk:Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija first. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Perhaps it was a bad idea after all. "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" clearly designates the article's subject is one of the two political entities on the territory of Kosovo (or rather claiming it). "Kosovo and Metohija" ought to redirect to Kosovo. -- Director (talk) 09:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for August 9 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albanian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Possibly unfree File:Dusan Simovic left.jpg A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dusan Simovic left.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Macedonian help needed Hello DIREKTOR, I'm contacting you because we need some Macedonian translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on mk.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Macedonian Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for August 16 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ante Marković, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aleksandar Mitrović (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Huge Tanks ! You really should have a big star for your contributions with the "nazism" article. To me, the preavious "Fascism-varity"-describing in the early lead strongly suggests some kind of hidden agenda. Thanks once more ! Boeing720 (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC) All I do is apply the same standards of neutrality (per sources and policy) to the Nazis as I would to other political groups. Opposition to said approach hardly suggests a conspiracy of some sort: most people hate the Nazis (and with good reason). And since Wikipedia is influenced by popular opinion far more than most encyclopedias, it is to be expected that a slant will exist there. I don't think however that combating said slant (real or imagined) is ultimately a worthwhile investment of time. Its not likely to be successful since, as I said, people really really hate the Nazis :). Also I'm not sure if I want to be the Guy Who Defends the Nazis on this project.. the title doesn't have a nice ring to it, to say the least ;). -- Director (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013 Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the death of Osama bin Laden Op-ed: Sturmvogel_66 presents his secrets of prolific contribution The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Roman Empire Hey, just letting you know that the coin switch came about during a series of edits, including a change of the caption to say it was the divinized father of Trajan, that I found a bit precipitous. I think the coin caption was one of the discussions I opened on the talk page regarding these edits, so we could confirm consensus on various points the other editor wanted to change. Do you have a secondary source that discusses this coin, so we can put this to rest once and for all? That is, which ID of the coin portrait is right? I can support Trajan, but not his "father", as the lead image. The legend reads divus pater Traianus, not Traiani, so I'm assuming it's Trajan himself, but the other editor said its date of issue meant Trajan was still alive and hence not divinized. I was preoccupied by other matters regarding the accursed infobox, and restored the other image till the correct caption could be verified. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Here on the the same errand; "The honours of Divus Pater Traianus may have stressed the fact that he, as much as Divus Nerva, was responsible for the present fortune of the emperor Trajan". See BH Isaac, I Roll, "A milestone of AD 69 from Judaea: the Elder Trajan and Vespasian" JRS, 1976, (available at jstor). If the coin legend refers to Trajan's father, so too, presumably, does the image. I'll copy this under the "Coins" section on the article talk-page. Haploidavey (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC) I see. Then I "wash my hands" of the matter for the time being. -- Director (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Orphaned non-free media (File:Marshal Josip Broz Tito.jpg) Thanks for uploading File:Marshal Josip Broz Tito.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC) September 2013 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Strasserism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: {Nazism sidebar|expanded=Ideology}}} Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC) WikiProject Military history coordinator election Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 18:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:Jakov Blazevic.jpg ⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Jakov Blazevic.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013 Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the American Civil War The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC) September 2013 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Anti-fascist Assembly for the National Liberation of Macedonia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: '; {{lang-sh|''Antifašistička skupština narodnog oslobođenja Makedonije''}}) abbr. '''ASNOM''') was the supreme legislative and executive people's representative body of the [[Republic of Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox former country multi-name Template:Infobox former country multi-name has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox SFRY-AP Template:Infobox SFRY-AP has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox SFRY-AP Vojvodina Template:Infobox SFRY-AP Vojvodina has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox movement Template:Infobox movement has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC) October 2013 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Božidar Purić may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: Božidar Purić''' ([[Serbian Cyrillic|Cyrillic]]: Божидар Пурић); 19 February 1891 – 28 October 1977) was a [[Serbia]]n and [[Kingdom of Yugoslavia|Yugoslav]] politician and diplomat. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013 Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks Austro-Hungarian battleships of World War I Op-ed: Advice on reviewing Featured and A-Class articles The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Edit warring on Istrian Exodus Just to inform that I have reported you for edit warring. You can find details on the notification on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You cannot revert sourced edits without a reason. Please note a discussion has been proposed on the talk page but you diserted it.--Silvio1973 (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC) I've protected the article for now. Please discuss your complaints on the article's talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC) The problem there is Silvio1973's lack of English skills. I have conversed with the user at immense length, and I'm afraid that (by my own personal estimate) he simply does not possess the understanding of English required for the sort of complicated discussion such a controversial issue engenders. Neither can he often fully understand the very sources he attempts to cite in support of his position (and usually interprets them in-line with a strong pro-Italian bias). Either that, or this is one hell of a case of deliberate WP:ICANTHEARYOU, but I'm somewhat less convinced of that possibility. To be sure, the user can read and post intelligible posts when he really makes the effort, but usually, as the discussion goes on, the exchange, unsatisfactory to begin with, deteriorates further and further in terms of understanding (presumably as the user gets tired of writing and reading English). There are other concerns as well. The user is consistently dishonest in his sourcing, and has been caught misquoting references on about half-dozen times (perhaps due to the combination of POV agenda and a lack of ability to read professional-level English). He doesn't understand WP:OR and/or refuses to abide by it, etc. I hope you can appreciate my position. I'm sort of caught between "a rock and a hard place", as it were. On the one hand I can not just stand by and let the user go through with low-quality, biased edits, often fraudulently sourced - yet on the other I'd rather have my nails ripped out than try to discuss with him yet again (if you'll pardon the mental image). As I said, I've already written volumes of text to make no real progress, and nobody else really seems to care in spite of several DR attempts. -- Director (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC) @Silvio1973, you may be once again in the mood to see me beat my head against a brick wall, but I'm afraid I'm less inclined to do so. -- Director (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Request for Comment Please see here Regards IJA (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Republic of Kosovo". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Istrians Hi Direktor. Concerning this edit[36], I can't help but fear that preferential criteria is being introduced on what to many is unfavourable. Ethnicity by its very description is the label by which an individual identifies himself. Conservative Serbs feel the same way about Montenegrins; conservative Serbs and Croats both have reservations over Bosniaks and to whom they belong; Bulgarians and Serbs question Macedonian ethnicity, everybody likes to denounce Yugoslavs, the list goes on for ever but there is no "Day 1" policy. If a person wishes to call himself Istrian, it makes precious little difference whether his dad is Serb and his mother Croat because the only thing that makes them Serb and Croat in the first place is their decision to dclare themselves as such, it doesn't mean they have bloodlines going back to some imaginary progenitor. That's why I believe ethnicities should be given equal treatment. Zavtek (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Well, it was me who added the "('Istrians')" bit in the first place, and perhaps I was in error when I did. The census (if I recall) only says "regionally declared", and we should stick to that. To refer to the "regionally declared" people as "Istrians" is unsourced and constitutes OR. -- Director (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Aha. I know about the "regionally declared" status of Croatian citizens. Surprisingly, I myself am in that category!!!!!!! But I am not implying any form of WP:OR. I guess it's a hard one then - no smooth easy way of imparting the actual status. I'll leave it in your hands. BTW, I support your position on the Republic of Kosovo article, so I am not someone out to oppose editors on every conflict. Zavtek (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Republic of Kosovo Hi, [37] you say "This page is under 1RR restriction. Please do not edit war, do not introduce changes without discussion" whilst making a second revert. Would you like to fix this yourself with a self-revert, or shall this be fixed by the Extreme Chutzpah division of Arbcom? bobrayner (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Heh, extreme what now? :) Reverted myself; I actually thought it was 1RR per day. -- Director (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Report to ANI Hello, I am informing you that following the dispute we had on Istrian Exodus I have filed a report on ANI.[[38]] Silvio1973 (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC) height of Stalin is disputed Hello Director, there seems to be some inaccuracy in the Stalin article, and from the edit-history you looked like you might know more about the subject than me. Can you comment here, if you have a moment? Talk:Joseph_Stalin#Biased_about_Stalin.27s_height Thanks. p.s. There is also a piece of photo-evidence, that User:Objectus claims gives evidence of Stalin's height, but I cannot read the script; perhaps you can verify what the text in the photo says? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013 Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at US industry in World War II Op-ed: AustralianRupert offers a soldier's perspective on editing Wikipedia The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)