User talk:Director/Archive 11

From the discussion on another talk page

Personally, used to go a lot to Dubrovnik, Pelješac peninsula, Korčula, Vela Luka, etc. during the mid-1980s and already by then one could see Croatian flags on the roads, and that area was not even known for being nationalist compared to other regions of Croatia. I remember locals telling foreign turists how their country was Croatia, and not Yugoslavia. In Sarajevo, while visiting family, I remember quite well kids playing football in front of the buildings and it was allways Bosnians (Muslims) vs others, and mostly Bosnians wouldn´t even want to play with others. Not to mention that when I visited Kosovo in that same period, most Albanians even refused to talk to us in Serbo-Croatian. One there only had a few spots in each town where could go, usually owned by Serbs or "friendly" Albanians, while the rest was like a distant foreign country and one speaking Serbo-Croatian would really feel unwelcome. For me all that was surprising, and kind of dissapointing, because by then almost no one even knew about Milosevic and in Belgrade there was absolute feeling of "Yugoslavianess". OK, we can discuss how Serbs compared to others looked to Yugoslavia, but there is one aspect which I wanted to highlight, and it has to do about Serbs having been the last to potentiate something else but Yugoslavia, and seccessionist spiryth was already found elsewhere, perhaps still not intense or popular, but present, and that was before Milosevic histeria of defending Serbs and Yugoslavia. FkpCascais (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Look, the chain of events is as clear as day. #1 Kosovo Serbs suffer atrocities, #2 Serbian nationalism starts up (e.g. SANU declaration), #3 Milosevic comes to power backed by nationalist sentiment (conspiracy theory: and perhaps IMF/western backing to bring down communism?), #4 Milosevic tries to be a Serbian Tito through his "revolution", #5 Slovenian and Croatian nationalism manifests as a response (conspiracy: with covert German backing?) - #6 secession and war. Muslims refuse to stay in a rump Serb-dominated Yugoslavia, and so on.

No Yugoslavia can function with Serbs united, and with their national identity prominent. Its a fundamental problem of our region - there's just too many of you, i.e. too few of everyone else. Any such state would be dominated by its central Serbian population, and that, in and of itself, for a number of reasons, is unacceptable to Slovenes, Croats, and Bosnian Muslims.. and apparently to Montenegrins(?). The second Serbs started to "awaken" in terms of their national identity, and consolidate under a single authority (Slobo) - you get flashbacks to attempted assimilation in the Interbellum - and collapse. If he didn't know it before, Slobo found all this out at the 14th extraordinary congress. Which is why he very early shifted his goals from keeping Yugoslavia together to creating a greater Serbian state, which in turn could not be allowed by Croats and Muslims due to the messy geographic distribution which would leave Croatian and Muslim states nonviable etc. etc...

One can't really blame Serbs for having a national identity or (later) working towards a proper nation state, but then on the other hand we did have a pretty good setup here and said developments ruined it. Maybe King Alexander had the right idea in theory to abolish all individual nationalities, but he was a Serbian king after all, his support base was Serbian, and that whole thing in practice just turned out like one huge assimilation drive into a de facto Serbian identity. As I said, it always comes back to the problem of the overwhelming disparity in numbers... -- Director (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hehe about that conspiracy teories, there is a Portuguese author, Carlos Santos Pereira, who actually explained them quite preciselly, and even got further claiming how the destruction of Yugoslavia was fundamental for the captalism in order not to leave any sort of positive heritage of some leftist system. And he went even further, saying how it was also crutial that the destruction of Yugoslavia happends in a painfull way for all Yugoslavs, so on a long term the association of "Yugoslavia" becomes negative and thus makes all good things forgotten... Very curious conspiracy theory. He also mentioned how for the West was also crutial in same way to destroy the BAAS party in Arab world (funny to see that still going on), which you certainly know how was a certain version of light Arab-world socialism, much influenced by Tito ideals, and quite modern and progressive, specially compared with other Arab world poltical tendencies...

He also pointed out how the democratization of Yugoslavia was intentinally done with elections being held in Republics and not on national level like everywhere else, and how that obviously created the seed for nationalist regional parties to win. Talks also how Yugoslav economy was sabotaged, how Markovic plan was intentionally conducted in a way to destroy the economy and lowers quality of life, etc.

About the rest, yes, I see your point. I still find it that somehow nationalism in Serbia in that period is not well explained. Because what happend among Serbs in those years was extremelly confusing and Western authors kind of tend to simplify it too much. What we mostly call Serbian nationalism in that period is actually a complex mixture of some real nationalism (guys in panic about Serbs being in danger) and real passion and defence of Yugoslavia. And beleave it or not, the majority were the second ones, which felt that the entire "Brotherhood and Unity" was in danger, that foreign danger existed, and people were educated to defend it at all cost. Actually, one had there a majority of people supporting Milosevic policies actually beleaving of defending Yugoslavia, and not Serbia. While many Western authors talk about Serbian nationalism from that period, I actually think they are completelly missing out that most Serbs wanted Yugoslavia, listen to Lepa Brena singing Jugoslovenka, men absorved by the success of Yugoslavia in sports... And the actual focus on real Serb issues and tradition actually came as response when became clear that other nationalities didn´t shared that Yugoslavianess anymore... and came basically as "OK, wait a sec... Who is still with us? Who are we?" But for the vast majority it actually happend quite late.

But I understand what you said about numbers and how Serbs as majority forciing their traditions and ways basically threatened the others, which outnumbered saw it as actual threat. Sorry for talking you all this without any real reason my dear "enemy" Direktor :P Haha, just to say one more thing: personally, if Croatia and Slovenia became independent after WWI we could have eventually had became all good neighbours. But our politicians had a strange ability to make allways bad decitions lol FkpCascais (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Confusion, yes. One of the most ironic aspects of Yugoslavia's collapse to me personally is how the people (JNA officers, SKJ members and such) who most wanted to keep Yugoslavia together ended up placing their efforts behind precisely the regime that most contributed to its collapse, and was effectively bringing the whole soliter down even as they fanatically supported it for Yugoslavia's sake. Like Balas said.. ma sta su znali djenerali, i brkati majori, jedino da vicu PALI... Though the top brass in the JNA (Kadijevic) understood it all very well, but knew they really had no choice but to go with Slobo. -- Director (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the whole "they were out to get us because we were so amazing" thing is a bit much. The US and the West were naturally out to bring down communism all over Europe, not especially where it was more successful. Fraudulent loans, where interest rates skyrocketed in a most bizarre way, brought down our economy in the same way they brought down Romania's Ceausescu regime (which was kind of copying us and was our sorta "ally"), and a whole bunch of other "third world" countries. I am also not at all convinced that any power actually wanted war in Yugoslavia, at least not originally. Americans probably wanted communism out, so they co-opted the banker Milosevic to betray his allies in the SKS and take over as a "democratic" strong man in the SFRY, which was to become an "FRY". I think it was only later, when his bid for takeover failed at the 14th Congress (and perhaps a bit earlier), that Germany and others moved in and supported the secession of Croatia and Slovenia by various means. But I don't think they really wanted to start a civil war, any of them; imo the West was mostly indifferent to the possibility ("meh, as long as we get what we want.."). -- Director (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The guys from JNA and Slobo politicians were totally out-of-touch with global reality, they still lived in deep cold war as if we were in the 1960s. I think it was exactly in Kadijevic book where I read how they all went straight to Moscow for consultations when everything started, and kept going there. I can just imagine the big laugh that people in Washington/London/Bonn had knowing this. And they knew it in advance, couse the imaginary JNA-USSR block was full of holes like Swiss cheese long time already. Moscow was in total caos by then, weaker then ever, and they basically went there to offer themsefs to be a coin for exchange in the Russia-West relationships. It was all just too idiotic. But again, it is our (people´s) fault for having such guys deciding the future for us, although it is debatable how much ordinary people could really do something.

Regarding those conspiracy theories, I am not saying I´m with them, I am actually cautious with any theories by now, and I take them all with reserves. But this one is not so ridiculous, and goes basically in the line that we were just too small to decide anything, and we were all just kind of marionettes in hands of those really deciding world order and deciding what will stay written in the history books for future generations. I am not so convinced like you are that world order guys are so peacefull... they still aren´t, they still take opportunities to play wars around... and we were just another theatre for them, and we just made them all too easy with our warrior past, stuburness, our accumulated army arsenal, and even a subcoscient will in the people for blood and war, with all the "our glorious past" and "defend it at all cost" education which had an auto-destructive element as well. We´ll probably have 100 years both of us, you and me, and we could still be able to debate many aspects of this :D FkpCascais (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I can´t really lie to you that one of the few things I am sure of is that creating Yugoslavia was a mistake. That doesn´t mean I don´t recognise all the good aspects of it or that I dislike it, on the contrary, but it was a project with great probability of failure from the very start. Serbs have a strange inability to do the right things at right times and are extremelly stuborn. That along with other general characteristics of Serbs clash with Croatian and, specially, Slovenian pragmaticism and practicism. I think that those differences in character and way of dealing with issues were even more divisive than religion and history. Even nowadays Serbs continue to act that way, and will probably never change. Look at Kosovo problem for instance, the vast majority of Serbs want to keep Kosovo but not for the right reasons. They don´t even realise or consider the positive/negative aspects of the issue for themselfs. The vast majority of Serbs wouldn´t even know what to do with Kosovo if someone would come and say "OK, here it is, it´s yours now". Not to mention that 99.9% of Serbs don´t even realise what would mean to have 2 million of Albanians participating in the democratic decitions of Serbia. Don´t even listen to what is told to them and don´t even learn from recent lessons. Exemple, the West allways clearly said that the SFRY borders will not be changed. And what Serbs do? What is the genious and only Serbian proposal? To divide Kosovo hoping to keep part of it (the North) ignoring the fact that the proposal goes straight against what the West allways clearly said it is unacceptable. Now the entire country and nation looses decades on something everyone else knew it will not happend from the start. The problem is that Serbs support that, so it is no longer an issue of politicians making bad decitions, it´s actually the peoples fault. And this happends often to Serbs, its our stubborness, "we´ll defend it at all cost!" (even if the cost is actually greater than the goal itself), and you and Slovenes simply can´t live with people having these characteristics. Slovenes would weight all and see what is in their best interess, and would never loose time on bad proposals known to be condemned to failure, and all because of stubborness or some sort of pride. FkpCascais (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pavle Durisic.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pavle Durisic.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. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Serbia

Please stop accusing me of being "disruptive" or of not understanding the history. There's a big problem here and it needs to be sorted: it's those vetoing and blocking a solution who are being "disruptive" if anyone is. And I know more than enough about the region's history. The bigger problem seems to be the excessive, and fundamentally flawed, purported analysis of how English terms and phrases are used and hence the avoidance of the far simpler issue at hand – how is this thing normally described in serious sources and/or what term will offer a broad, generic and flexible but clear description? Thanks. N-HH talk/edits 09:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ivan Ribar non-free.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ivan Ribar non-free.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. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 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: Carcharoth and Hawkeye7 look at World War I cemeteries and the British Army in World War II Interview: Less-represented areas of military history – part 2 Op-ed: TomStar81 and Nick-D look back on 2013 and ahead to 2014

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) 00:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ad hominem

I expect you to revert your edit removing Croatian language name from the Adriatic Sea along with an apology for unwarranted ad hominem attack you made in edit summary of this edit. Croatian language is not "nationalist nonsense" as you say - implying I'm a nationalist speaking nonsense - but an official language of both Croatia and European Union. This slur is nothing but abuse.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I will redact the ad hominem, but I will not revert myself to re-introduce nonsense. What I will revert is you restoring those ridiculous four entries for the same language, based on an invalid, defeated reasoning shown time and time again to be supported by a tiny minority of linguists (Croatian linguists, almost to a man). And if you believe Croatian is not just "a variant of Serbo-Croatian", you are welcome to first push that POV on the appropriate articles, not there on the Adriatic Sea article where you can try to pretend there is no consensus on the issue. And yes - you're the one POV-pushing here.

I'm terribly sorry you disagree with the scholarly consensus on the issue of what exactly Croatian is, but I'm afraid you're probably going to have to come to terms with it (at least while outside the parallel universe covered by hrWiki). -- Director (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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 Statesman

Split, Croatia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Syracuse

Taranto (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Spartans

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

:)

Despite finding you a terrible pain in the ass at many discussions, I do wish a merry Christmas old friend :) FkpCascais (talk) 08:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Its the magic of Christmas! :P Thanks, Fkp. -- Director (talk) 09:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Provisional Government of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nikola Petrović (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) 09:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Flag of Nazi Germany

Hi DIREKTOR, I'm replying (a bit late) regarding the revert you made on 23 October 2013 on the page Weimar Republic. I do respect your opinion, but please explain to me whether it is really mandatory always to use the first flag of a succeeding country. IMHO, the most representative flag should be used in this particular occasion, even though it came only a few years later than the point which we now call the end of the Weimar Republic (1933). Indeed, the Nazi seizure of power was quick, but still gradual. There was no single point in time when the Weimar Republic ceased to exist and the Nazi Germany began. It can be said the Nazi Germany only came into its full existence in 1935. Therefore, I still think it is acceptable to use the Swastika flag to denote the state which replaced the Weimar Republic. Thanks for your clarification. Johnnyjanko (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, nothing is "mandatory" on Wiki :), but the next flag is used in the vast majority of cases. Its sort of makes more historical sense than to use the last flag that wasn't in existence at the time of the succession. Germany had two national flags that were simultaneously official 1933-1935: #1 the NSDAP swastika flag (with the disc centered - as opposed to the post-1935 swastika flag that had the disk off-center), and #2 the imperial tricolour (with the proportions slightly different than the flag of pre-1918 Kaiser Germany). The two are supposed to have been equal, but the imperial tricolour seems to have had some precedence over the flag of the Nazi Party, though. That changed in 1935, when it was scrapped for being too conservative. -- Director (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Split, Croatia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages South Slavic and Issa (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) 08:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You will have to devote yourself to get passed TFD, otherwise you should leave Wikipedia

I am posting this here because my attempt to return here under a new account has failed, in spite of attempts to make amends. I am R-41, and like you, I was pushed and pushed by TFD in the past. I am definately guilty of my own fits of anger and he and N-HH played my psychology to induce a breakdown to throw me off Wikipedia I know that TFD deliberately intends to incite people to anger, as he has achieved with you, in hopes that he can knock you off Wikipedia. He has a chess player's mentality, and he will play you like a fiddle like he did with me, and in a sudden moment he WILL find a means to kick you off of here by scouring your edit history.

TFD is cold-blooded, analytical, ruthless, obnoxious, and diguises his opinions behind a lawyer-like interrogative style. He has alienated many newbies to leave, I have seen that. If you ever want to be rid of this user, you must compile every last detail of his combative behaviour on paper over a year or so, and file a massive report showing his abusive behaviour towards multiple users, and especially his arrogant know-it-all behaviour and his refusal to bring disputes to a dispute resolution panel, but instead belittling another user to prove his intellectual superiority. I am a fool, but I know that he is scum, best of luck in your efforts, sincerely, R-41. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.113.85 (talk) 06:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

If I though I was a Nazi-loving anti-Semite, I'd be blocking me too. Trouble is, he seems quick to jump to such assumptions. In either case - stop posting personal attacks on my talk and go away. I'm sad to see you go, but then again - you're a sockpuppeteer. bb -- Director (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Territorial Defence Forces (Yugoslavia)

You asked for this to be moved at WP:RMTR, but there is opposition. Do you want to withdraw this, or should it be listed at WP:RM for a full discussion? EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sigh.. WP:RM. Thanks for the notification. -- Director (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014

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, Zawed and Hawkeye7 look at recent releases

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) 13:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

There it is, per your request

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Shokatz (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Director (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

AH succeeded by Serbia and Italy

Why did you remove Serbia and Italy from list of sucessors countries of AH (diff)? As far as I know, Vojvodina joined Serbia before it joined State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs into Yugoslavia. Part of Austria was given to Italy. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Part of Dalmatia was given to Italy as well :), also Istria, and parts of Slovenia.. Re Vojvodina, if I recall correctly, that was a much more complicated business.. the region did not immediately join Serbia but instead joined the SHS and the "Banat Republic" or something. But,, in general, I thought that it would make more sense for the Austria-Hungary article to list actual successor states than every country that got a scrap of its territory. Esp. because we've got the "today part of" list just below. -- Director (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Gondola/Gundulic

Never been accused of being a sock puppet before! (-; Please spend lots of time investigating. Tapered (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Kingdom of Croatia suggestion

I've left a message on Talk:Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102). Since we are the two most involved parties in that whole mess I would really appreciate to hear your thoughts on the suggestion I made there. Thanks. Shokatz (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Your proposal on Byzantine Empire

I read your recent proposal on the Byzantine Empire talk page. I know the discussion is a few days old at this point, but I still feel that your argument has merit. If there's any way I can help to push your proposal forward let me know and I'll do my best to help. I Feel Tired (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, its basically a matter of WP:VOTING. And since three or four people over there are going to oppose it, an RfC with all the trimmings might be a good idea.. to see whether others are for it too. Have to retire now, but if you feel like giving the proposal a go then I suggest posting an RfC tomorrow (1:30 AM where I am). -- Director (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Warning

• Warning - Direktor, I don't think we've met before or at least I don't recognise the name. But it is not acceptable to remove Silvio's comments like this. If you remove Silvio's comments (and I might agree with you otherwise) as a non-involved third party I will be reporting you not Silvio. Please comment on the substantive issue of sources and not on the other editor. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, you don't know the other user either if you pardon my being so forward. Well, I won't do it again since he appears to disagree with it, but I certainly shan't give up on sectioning his links off. Honestly, you have no idea how disruptive the person is. -- Director (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014

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: Rabaul in World War II and Australia in 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 Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Croatia in the union with Hungary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Union (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) 08:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Shokatz (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.   Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Could you please notify Shokatz I did indeed report him on WP:SPI [1]? I was just about to when I got the sign, can you believe that?

Also, please do have a look at the history of those pages. Only yesterday Shokatz was reverting there [2][3][4], in a sort of "joint" edit-warring campaign.. to out edit war the other guy and thus "win". That's how these things go. Yet he spins yarns about "two months".. Yes, two months ago he did have a high-intensity edit-warring campaign, but he kept to it steadily enough afterwards as well.

Shokatz, sorry but I had to report such a case. I mean, both you and the IP with no prior edits, posted report threads within three minutes.. -- Director (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll let him know momentarily. Also, I did see Shokatz' edits, but I considered them stale for the purposes of an edit-warring block. It's possible that additional restrictions are appropriate in this case, but, as I've said on WP:ANEW, if one thinks they are, he'll have to start an WP:AE thread. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying the man, but I have to ask.. yesterday is stale?

In my opinion, if the powers that be restricted everyone who edit-warred on these articles, there wouldn't be many contributors left. I don't like bothering the folks at WP:AE because of that. The basic problem is that there is no real way to solve these sort of disputes. I've tried everything, so many times. Nobody responds to RfCs, or to a WP:DRN thread.. all you're left with is organized edit-warring and endless talkpage exchanges. And said disputes will inevitably arise when the deeply-ingrained national history narrative is challenged with sources/policy. -- Director (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

My personal standard is that, when it comes to edit warring, blocks are only appropriate for current disruption. There are exceptions (such as certain slow-moving edit wars), but, in general, I consider everything older than 6-8 hours stale. As I said, it's my personal preference, other admins have different standards – the reason is that, unlike other kinds of disruption, edit warring sometimes occurs because an editor believes he's protecting Wikipedia; for that, I try to limit blocks to those cases where they can't be helped (does it make sense?).

More generally, I'm not really familiar with the topic area; I have occasionally seen (and, perhaps, participated in) a couple of WP:AE threads, but that's it... It's easy to understand why Wikipedia's dispute resolution methods don't really work when it comes to disputes which are that entrenched in real life, but it's disappointing nonetheless... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

At this point, and for quite a while now, I don't really know what's to be done. I mean, to go to WP:AE I'd have to want to eliminate the user from the article(s) - which I don't. I could have probably put together a relevant AE indictment with regard to ARBMAC violations, but that's no way to solve mere content disputes. It takes interest from uninvolved parties. Some kind of interest. When there is none, the message is "go away and edit-war until you're blocked". Be that as it may, thanks for bothering with this. Signing off. -- Director (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

P.s. Gotta say, feels kinda liberating to close all those WP tabs :) -- Director (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Historical CoA's

I've seen you upload historical arms on Coat of arms of Croatia, they look decent but the thing is they are still basically the same 3rd grade stylized models from Sutej. I took the liberty and made some on my own using older models from Wappenwiki, tell me what you think: Dalmatia, Istria, Slavonia, Dubrovnik, Croatia (proper). Shokatz (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hah, lol... here I am working on mine and you just finished a sceond batch :). Well, they look nice, but the only thing of mine that's really "Shootey" is the goat from the Istria coa, and there he didn't really make any serious errors (it seems it really is just standing and not moving [5]). The rest is all new. I'd like to "standardize" the main depiction of the Dalmatian coa, so I'm in favor of using the new heads, though yours are certainly good. Your Dubrovnik shield seems better than mine, but I'm not sure the star on the Illyrian coat of arms is supposed to be gold? -- Director (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You should have requested the guys who made you the Dalmatian CoA to make you all these as well. :p You are right on Istria though, Sutej based his model on the old arms of Istrian March where it shows Goat statant (goat standing in place) as opposed to my arms which show it as goat passant (goat walking), Istria County shows a walking goat as well although boat legs are the ground but it's certainly walking. I've took this as a base for Illyrian CoA. However it's a minor issue, "golden" star can easily be turned to "silver". Shokatz (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't pester so much, esp when I can do it too. I have requested a vectorized 1495 Croatian coa, though.

Yes, "statant, passant" lets not show off in informal conversation.. :). The Fojnica coa seems to use a white star, don't really know which is more accurate.. as you point out, gold and silver are often interchangeable (e.g. the Serbian cross). A word of general advice: always use subdued, desaturated colours, it generally looks a lot better. Putin figured that out and desaturated the Russian flag, for example. Of course, we are still plagued by that seizure-inducing colour scheme on our flag.. When there's some wind epileptics probably have to look away. -- Director (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Fojnica should be our reference but rather arms on historical flags of Croatia, more specifically flag used by Jelacic in 1848 see here, you are right though, it seems both the star and crescent should be silver-white. The colors are a bit stronger, more saturated...the thing is I've used these arms to make CoA's for Crusader Kings II awhile ago so I enhanced the colors a bit since it looked a bit dull. ;) Shokatz (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You know, ck2 is one of my favorite games. And I too actually created custom coats of arms for it. Did you notice the entire coastline of Croatia is off by one field? Zadar is where Split should be, split is where Dubrovnik should be, Dubrovnik is where Montenegro should be, etc. -- Director (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that since I was the one who pointed that out on their official forums several times already. I even made a small visual representation with real maps and screens from the game. I used to be quite active there, way back in the days of CK1 and EU3. ;)Shokatz (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I also pointed it out on their forums.. wow. I actually fixed it in my game.. -- Director (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

So...what am I to do now with the historical depictions of the arms in the crest? The current arms of Slavonia, "Illyrian" CoA and even the Istria and Dubrovnik are not of very good quality. Should I upload my own or what now? I wanted to upload my own arms having some standardization, but now with you insisting on the Dalmatian CoA I am in a complete deadlock...

These are the arms I wanted to upload: "Illyria", Dubrovnik, Istria, Dalmatia and Slavonia.

Any ideas? Shokatz (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Shokatz (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, the best way to demonstrate the problems with Shootey's crown is to upload versions that follow the same basic design - but correct the mistakes. That's the logic I went with. With that in mind, I wouldn't like to see the current versions of the Illyrian, Istrian, or Slavonian coa replaced.

Your Dalmatian coa isn't bad at all, and may actually be more appropriate since its more similar to Sutej. Your Dubrovnik coa is just of better quality than my own. So, here's what I propose: #1 upload the Dalmatian coa as a separate file on Commons, and #2 overwrite my own Dubrovnik coa. I will then modify them somewhat: I'll darken the mouths of the lions in your Dalmatian coa, and I'll remove the black borders delineating individual stripes in your Dubrovnik coa. -- Director (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Second try, sorry missed the point first time since I am really tired now...if you replace the Dalmatian lions then at least we should also replace the marten in the Slavonia CoA as well. I've said several times and I'll say it again...the "marten" or whatever that cartoon(ish) character is in his variant is completely wrong. It's of wrong color and doesn't look like a marten at all. I can overwrite the arms of Slavonia you uploaded and you can then use the marten from my CoA. Shokatz (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I understand what you wanted now...I tried it and the quality remained the same. So I decided to go ahead and just upload the Slavonia CoA with a better marten. Everything else is more-less ok. Hopefully thats ok with you? Shokatz (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Ahem the Dalmatian CoA you uploaded based on the one I proposed now looks totally out of place when compared to the other historical CoA's on Coat of arms of Croatia. The blue color is of lighter hue and appears as "light blue" when compared to f.e. Istria and Slavonia. I think you should revert back to the original one which you uploaded...duh. :p Shokatz (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Jews and Communism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Red Guards

Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Larousse

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Query

Is there any connection between you and PRODUCER? You both have names in all caps (which is unusual) and edit the same articles and pages. Just curious. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Strangely enough - no connection whatsoever [6]. We're not even in the same country, as I gather. As I always say, if I were so stupid as to create a sockpuppet, I certainly wouldn't call it "PRODUCER" :). Also, my username is not derived from movie-making terminology. -- Director (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for politely answering my question, Director. I'm now sorry that I brought it up! Happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd find it suspicious too; I did my share of sock hunting :). -- Director (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of Split history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pietro Orseolo (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) 08:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Listing/Not canvassing

Hi Director, since you know how to list a discussion for additional comments, can I ask for your help please? There's a requested move at Talk:History of the Jews in Russia#Requested move (2014) and it needs to be listed in Russian and Jewish history sections for additional comments. That's not canvassing, right? Can I please ask for your assistance? I think it would be nice to do something together for a change. What do you think? USchick (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@USchick. That's not canvassing, and you can do it very simply by viewing the other added entries once you click to edit the page. I really don't have anything against you as such, USchick, and I admire your interest in these important issues. That (plus my general reluctance to report anyone), is why I have not yet moved to request sanctions. It is, however, inexcusable that you persist in such disruptive behavior. I won't go into details again, but some of the stuff you wrote displays a staggering lack of information on this subject. To the point of absurdity. Again, in itself, that is not a bad thing, but persisting in said course of action, spitefully opposing for opposition's sake, even when the folly is explained to you, is disruption. On Wikipedia, we #1 read the sources to find out about the subject, #2 edit, and #3 discuss the subject. You forgot about "step #1", apparently. -- Director (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Your signature

Hi DIREKTOR. I notice that as of late you've started signing yourself as "Director". However, there already is a User:Director. Are you in control of that account? If so, could you please redirect its pages here? If not, would you please consider signing yourself with the "k" once more, because it could be quite confusing to anyone not looking carefully. Thank you. — Scott • talk 01:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

That account has made 0 edits so I think it would be simple to ask for a username change, should you want one, through usurpation. That's how I ended up with Liz. No one was using the account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't changing my username to "Director" create even more silly sockpuppet nonsense? In English form it really does mean "movie director" in its primary meaning, whereas "direktor" reflects its use in Serbo-Croatian as denoting director (business), i.e. a lack of connection with movie making..

I changed the sig to make it more English I guess, but at the time I didn't think the Producer-is-your-sockpuppet! issue would come up again. Guess the "K" really doesn't help much. I'll see about changing my username to "Director", then. -- Director (talk) 09:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Image question

Hi, at Talk:Game of Thrones/GA1 the reviewer commented: "File:Dubrovnik crop.jpg has author issues that need clearing up as the uploader and author are not the same person it appears". You uploaded File:Dubrovnik crop.jpg, can you comment about its provenance? Thanks,  Sandstein  09:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Its not mine, I just fixed it up a bit. The author is Michaelphillipr. -- Director (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I mean, is there a reason why you uploaded it rather than the author themselves? Could you ask the author to confirm authorship and licensing on-wiki? I wouldn't ordinarily bother, but given that somebody has voiced copyright concerns, it's better to clear this up.  Sandstein  11:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I mean I didn't upload it at all, I just uploaded a slightly repaired version, and somebody deleted the previous versions. -- Director (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, but what's strange is that the file history shows no deleted revisions, and the first version of the page, created by you, names you as the author. Then you changed the uploader and description. I don't quite understand that.  Sandstein  16:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, then I must have uploaded it as a cropped version of the original. Either way, the guy who you want to talk to is Michaelphillipr. Its certainly not mine. -- Director (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014

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 on military command and Nick-D on F-111s in combat

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) 12:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTVAND

Hi, Direktor,

I don't think WP:NOTVAND would characterise the edit you reverted [7] as being vandalism. I don't disagree with your revert, just your edit summary. Best regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Got a bit carried away there, gotcha :) -- Director (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Asking for POV/NPOV check of article

Hello Sir! We have met at the article "Nazism" regarding fascism and nazism issues. If possible, could You please have a look at the following article Landskrona BoIS, it's about a Swedish football/soccer team. Article isn't new , but lately I have been given som photos from a professional retired photographer (donated for use at Wikipedia). I've also found very good documentation at the webb. So I've began to use the documents (It is an university thesis or something similar - and its author has found relevant issues all the way back to 1882). I do believe that what I have used so far is adequate, relevant and may even be interesting for others to read, there may be some parts to polish (specially between old stuff and newer). But I do not understand the POV allegations. The documentation is in Swedish, but that has not been the trouble.

Nothing of the five pillars of Wikipedia - or any WP:GUIDELINE I'm aware of, gives me any reason to belive that the article is POV, nothing what so ever but another edtitor (User Recklless123), who claimbs that article indeed is POV, and at who at a daily basis puts the POV-icon up, and uses various reasons at the talk page.

Could You possibly have a look at the article - and afterwars give "Your verdict" wheather article is POV or not. Or give me a link to someone that could help me (and a few others). My intention have been to tell the history of Landskrona BoIS as good as possible. It sure is "my club", but I think I know what's POV or not. I may be wrong. Best regards Boeing720 (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Boeing, at the moment I've got my hands full with the bombshell that is the Jews and Communism article (that place could certainly use uninvolved input on a number of issues, consider yourself invited :)). Football really isn't "my thing", as it were. So far as I can tell, though, there's no "POV".. but do refer to WP:NPOV if in doubt. -- Director (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Appriciate that, due to the subject You are mentioning, I really can imagine what bombshell that one is. Best of luck and thanks for the brief look. Boeing720 (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Links on Jews and Communism

What is "Otto Korvin-Klein"? He was Otto Korvin, I had created this article about him today. You should also repair the link "Red guards", see Red Guards. I know, I can edit that article too but I hope you will edit this. OccultZone (Talk) 15:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Wonder why? :) Sure thing. Though I'm not sure what producer meant by "Red Guards" there. -- Director (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for all those WP:REDLINKS. If you minded, Gustav Eckstein, Reuben Falber, Zvi Gitelman, Louis Rapoport turned into blue. Because I created them yesterday. Whenever you get to know about notable personality like these people, and they lack wikipage, let me know. OccultZone (Talk) 16:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Sanctions

Following up on the ANI report, I am imposing the following sanctions under WP:ARBMAC:

1. A full interaction ban between you and Timbouctou (talk · contribs), of indefinite duration, under the same conditions as the earlier one in 2012 ("banned from all interaction, undoing each others edits, making reference to or comment on each other, replying to each other in any discussion, editing each others user talk space, or filing ANI reports about each other for 6 months except to clarify or abolish this interaction ban or to report violations of the interaction ban")
2. A 12-months topic ban for Timbouctou from all topics related to Croatia
3. A 6-months topic ban for you on the narrower topic area of Croatian constitutional continuity and related issues of Croatian officeholders.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I won't fight this (as if I had a chance, right? :)). Going on a bit of break instead.

Not quite sure what "issues of Croatian constitutional continuity" are specifically.. I don't think there's an "issue" there? Not sure what you mean? I get the feeling you think this is some kind of debatable thing in Croatian politics, when continuity is actually more an undisputed and straightforward fact (one Joy and Timbouctou were just sort of quietly ignoring and I've been pointing out repeatedly)... -- Director (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

What I meant was of course: the whole set of articles with issues related to that of List of Presidents of Croatia, e.g. Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović, all of which appear to be related to the issue of how to represent the continuity or discontinuity of constitutional offices between the present-day Republic of Croatia and its predecessors. I thought that was pretty clear. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

What confused me is that that falls neatly within "Croatian officeholders", so I assumed it was in addition to that. -- Director (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dannis243 (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

April 2014

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Smeat75 (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

which Parteiadler? discussion

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Nazism_sidebar#which_Parteiadler.3F and join the discussion 115.187.78.250 (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014

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 Britain's War Machine Interview: Article writers discuss 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 Nick-D (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Disagreement on poster

I realize we have a legitimate disagreement of opinion here, and I'd like to resolve it in a reasonable way. Rather than spreading it out to a million pages, Talk:Leon Trotsky seems like the best place to discuss this, and get third opinions, so it's not just you and me.--Pharos (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Its not about our "opinion", Pharos, but alright. -- Director (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diocletian's Palace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Split (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) 08:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

What really happened

Director, I'm very happy that you have finally come to the realization that we were all "spending months in discussion on absolutely nothing." That's exactly how I feel. What really happened, whether you realize it or not, is that you blindly supported Producer (I have no idea why) and when the tide of support turned against him, you all of a sudden felt the need to change sides. Why do you "honestly feel nauseous" after reading a comparison? Why does it matter that the article was copied from an antisemitic site? Why does it matter where it came from? Any reasonable person should be able to look at information and decide for themselves whether the information is worthwhile, or propaganda, or whatever. I wonder if it may have something to do with being on the opposite side of the world (from me) and how propaganda is presented to you in your country compared to how propaganda is presented in my country. In any case, I'm really happy that you're able to see things differently, even though I don't understand your reasoning for changing your mind. I hope you know that I was giving you a hard time simply because it was so much fun, and also because you were sooooooo wrong! :-) I like you much better now that you agree with me. lol USchick (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't "sooo wrong", was I? :) I still think if the sources make the connection, then so should we. We have lots of articles like that.. But I'll be damned if I'll support an article based, even in part, on an an essay of that sort. As I said over there, my position is WP:Blow it up and start over. But I don't plan to be doing any "starting over" myself, though. Imo, if we do ever restart this thing, we should come to a consensus on reliable sources beforehand. -- Director (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

I said thanks on my talk page but I want to make sure that you see a message from me saying thank you for my barnstar! It is very gracious of you and I am really touched.Smeat75 (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to second the sentiment of appreciation. Not everyone is able to change course so radically in such circumstances; in the face of a revelation that makes them as uncomfortable as this one clearly made you, some people will just find any way to deny or rationalize. You didn't and, despite all of the acrimony over that article and some misgivings that I had about your perspectives on things, when it came down it, you acted in a conscionable manner in the face of those unpleasant facts. Though I tried to stay out of the actual content debate until late in the game to focus on trying to advocate civility first as it broke down on the talk page, I think I can still speak for everyone when I say I'm glad we are all no longer divided on the issue. Sorry the situation had to end so uncomfortably for you, but at least we can all chalk it up to an educational experience. Snow talk 05:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Fellas, the one thing I value more than anything else is rationality. If I perceive the objective point of view as being sidelined on the basis of emotion and personal sentiment - I will defend it to the last. It only follows that I in turn try not to be the one to get unduly attached to any viewpoint.

Yup. This wasn't a pleasant experience (could have finished three different projects by now..), but I guess it'll learn me to do more research before supporting something so strongly. My apologies again. -- Director (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to say to ignore some of the editors who seem bent on making this personal. I know it's difficult(believe me), but it's probably better in the long run. After all, I ignored some posts directed at me from a certain someone.  :-) In any case, have a good day. Dave Dial (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with the above. There sure seem to be a lot of bad feelings out there. I think that what happens is that people take their eye off the ball. forget that it's all about content, that it's not about extracting apologies and acts of contrition (particularly since you've already apologized, which wasn't even absolutely necessary, as you had taken a stance in good faith). I'm no scholar on the subject. What I saw here was an article that was at the top of any Google search, an article that, as you aptly put it, made me a bit nauseous. It gave me a queasy feeling in my gut. But we have to rely on Wikipedia processes, and over time the process worked (or at least it seems to be working). More eyeballs came to the article. Smeat, after walking out, returned and made the discovery that he made. And you, Director, took an objective evaluation of the article and decided that yes, it originated on a racist website, and we can't have that. No one can reasonably expect more from you than what you've already done. Coretheapple (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

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. USchick (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible Meat/Sock Puppetry Investigation

We're discussing possibly opening another investigation of you for meat and/or sockpuppetry here. --Atlantictire (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Support

Hi Director,

Each day we discover new examples of dysfunction of the "internet community" system. Group behaviour is something fascinating but that should frighten all of us. Don't forget that the accusations that target you are just the results of such social mechanisms that lead to the lynching of the black sheep. Despite the basic and clever rules that were written to manage wikipedia, writing an encyclopaedia in such a context is more than a challenge. Good continuation. For your own wellness, but for no other reason, I advise you to self-ban from this article and topic. Pluto2012 (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I virtually did so right away I think. I said I wouldn't restart the article quite a while ago now. And I do also hereby self-ban myself from all topics relating to Jews and Judaism, which were never my interest at all. I also think Producer should be banned from that topic, but that banning either of us from the topic of Communism is objectively a bad idea. -- Director (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I do NOT "scheme"

USchick (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't. What's so damn funny, Chick? -- Director (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The only saving grace you have in my opinion, is your willingness to look outside yourself and to ask questions. I see this as an effort to improve as a human being. For this, I continue to like you, even though you make it very difficult sometimes. And you're also very funny, sometimes on purpose, sometimes in spite of yourself. Peace. USchick (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

And you didn't throw me under the bus in your latest ANI nomination. Aaawwwww, that's so sweet! Thanks! :) USchick (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I am a riot at parties.. :) As regards the thread, well, I guess even when I make such a big mistake I draw the line at tolerating such poor diagnoses. And why would I mention you? I don't believe in quid pro quo ;). -- Director (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hahahahahahha! Love it! :) You shouldn't post links like that unless you want to reinforce your diagnosis. People around here have ZERO sense of humor! USchick (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from TParis

I've closed the AN thread that sought a topic ban against you as no consensus. I was going to leave it at that, but upon further reflecting, I think this warrants a little more than thread summary. I've run across you quite a few times on ANI and AN. I can't recall all of the times, but I know at various points I've supported and opposed some of the things that you've done in those threads. I also understand that you've taken a lot of heat in the last couple of days after you accepted that the article in question was sourced to a antisemitic article. So take this with however many grains of salt you choose to. However, I think what got you into this situation has been the same issues that has often led you to being at ANI. My impression of you has always been 'good editor, bad collaborator.' You seem to be right about 90% of the time I see you in these messes, and I think you're probably quite educated and informed. But I think this needs to be a beacon for you that other editors can be just as educated and informed. A little more patience and understanding of other editors is needed and would've helped you here. There were several editors saying that there fish stank and that more investigation was needed. Anyway, I'm just a kid from the US, not trying to be patronizing, so take whatever you find useful.--v/r - TP 21:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Director, I opposed the proposed sanction against you at AN. We've met on a couple of article talk pages in the past and, FWIW, my take on you is exactly as TParis puts it. DeCausa (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for your input. The way I see it, my mistakes were #1 being blinded by the bare fact that the sources were scholarly and reliable, and #2 what appears to have been an excessive confidence in Producer's work, built through years of experience editing together. Both others and myself have acquired a respect for the quality of his contributions. As such, I dismissed all the claims of some kind of antisemitic synthesis, presented without any objective evidence, as a kind of emotional reaction only to be expected in such a difficult article. My gut told me this could be fishy, but I do honestly always try to ignore it and go by the facts. I'm damn sorry for all this, and I just want to put an end to the animosity and move on. Or rather, take a wiki break. -- Director (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"other editors can be just as educated and informed" and obnoxious! Don't forget obnoxious (like me)!  ;) USchick (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014

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 Lost Boys of Anzac Op-ed: Peacemaker67 on Featured Articles involving Yugoslavia in 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) 22:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I hope you and Producer are safe and not affected by the floods. USchick (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm on the coast. -- Director (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yah, just noticed this massive body of water already covering much of the landscape! Luckily I have located an ingenious device that may allow me to traverse it on my way to safety.. :) -- Director (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? Your area is flooding?!?!?! I live in an area of frequent natural disasters and worked on disaster preparedness teams. The danger is not the flood, but the power of the water to carry objects with great force underneath the water, like telephone poles that serve as invisible missiles under murky water. The next danger is the disease floating around in the water from backed up sewers. If you're wading in it, all kinds of microscopic organisms enter through your skin and make you violently ill. More people die from that, than from drowning. Also, your tap water is probably contaminated as well. This is very serious, and if your general population is not already prepared for it, this will be extremely devastating. While you still can, I urge you to go online and read up on it. You should have a plan about what to do when you lose power. The water in your faucet is already compromised and shouldn't be used for drinking. Also, don't forget your animals. During evacuation, animals are often not allowed, so act now and leave if at all possible. Later, when lots of people want to leave at the same time, your options will be limited. This is a great time to take a vacation far away, you can always return later. Don't let your animals drink the flood water. Check on your relatives. Good luck and keep in touch! USchick (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

No, not seriously, I was joking; I said I was on the coast, when I said I see a "large body of water covering the landscape", I was referring to something like this. The Adriatic :). -- Director (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh good! You should still make a plan. Stock up on bottled water and filters (antibacterial AND antiviral). Filters are easier to carry than water. Prepare for refugees coming to your area. If not in your home, in your work and in your community. This will have ripple effects all over Europe. USchick (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sincerest thanks for your concern, but I live in a city on a (rather hilly) peninsula, surrounded by the sea on three sides, and very, very far from any major rivers. The danger of flooding is entirely non-existent.. The only thing we get around here are earthquakes, and that very rarely (if ever..). It'd be like getting flooded in downtown San Francisco.

But I hear its pretty bad up in the north of the country. -- Director (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Your area is very beautiful. I understand why you don't think you need to prepare, which tells me that no one is prepared. I hope you're right. :) USchick (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Heh, couple years ago we had a foot or two of snowfall (which is very very rare), and the whole city ground to a halt for three days. Yup, I'd say we're definitely unprepared.. but honestly I don't know if it makes sense to be prepared for something that never really happened. We do get tremors from time to time, but never a proper "earthquake" (though they are known to be a rare hazard in the region, more to the south). Serious flooding is pretty much physically impossible.. The worst that actually happens is you know, like a really bad storm, with torrential rain and strong wind, maybe somewhere a tree gets blown away, or a sailboat gets smashed against its dock. Or sometimes the 19th century drainage in Diocletian's Palace will be overwhelmed so a couple shops get flooded. Trivial stuff like that. -- Director (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but the idea behind using birth control is to prepare for things that "may never happen." :-) The idea behind disaster preparedness is to be prepared for any disaster. You never know, ANYTHING can happen and often does. And that's when you don't want to be the one suffering. Wouldn't you rather be in a position to help others instead of waiting to be rescued? At a minimum, that means having a solar device to power your phone, access to clean water, a predetermined meeting place to communicate with your loved ones when all communication is down, and an exit plan. That's all I'm going to say, because we can argue forever. ;-) And you don't scare me with your Yoda, I've been to the dark side and back. I can take you there on a field trip! lol USchick (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The probability of Direktor getting wet from the floods is like of a guy from San Francisco being affected by the rise of watter of the Great Lakes in Chicago lol... FkpCascais (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The worst natural disaster that may happend in Direkor´s city is to dive into the sea and hit an old Roman amphora with the head... FkpCascais (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Heh, or get shelled by the JRM ;)

Anyway Chick, as far as having any direct effect on me, the floods might indeed be happening in the Baltic. And to flood where I currently am, you'd need to drain the sea, push the city down to sea level, and run a medium-sized river through it. For starters. Talk to Fkp here.. not sure where he's at, and if he's in Cascais he's about as threatened as I am, but he may know some folks in the endangered areas. -- Director (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm very happy to hear that. I wonder how many of the 20,000 people who had to evacuate weren't prepared either and didn't have their important documents in one place, ready to go? With Putin on the loose, and rogue US drones flying around, who knows what can happen! lol USchick (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure a great many people were quite unprepared, as this appears to be by far the worst flood in the recorded history of the area. From what I understand, whole buildings were washed away, foundations and all. Re Putin, well, I'm sure he wouldn't be having such a fit if the US wasn't sponsoring coups in his private empire.

But where do you live (if I may inquire), that you are so well informed on the dangers of flooding? -- Director (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

For time being I don´t think you Direktor need to wander if your town is going to be shelled by now. But if you really get me mad I may consider talking to Commodore Andrija Andrić of the Imperial Serbian Navy to lend me a 1929 River patrol boat named Stražar and when I go around Danube into the Black Sea and then pass Bosphorus, turn around Greece, and then get near you by the year 2017 I may throu little rocks at your window and challenge you to a nasty game of chess. If you accept of course, if you don´t, I may pee from my boat Stražar into your beatiful sea in revenge, and take a long trip back to my Serbian Empire... Yeah, I may pass to see my beatiful family old hollyday house (2 floors, nice garden, and the beach just 50m down) near Dubrovnik which we had to sell for few pennies at same time the shelling of Split happend because it was invaded, pillaged and painted with signs "Death to Serbs" "Srbe na vrbe" "Kill Chetniks" and so on ;)

Yes, I´m in Cascais as allways. I´ve been in Belgrade in March. I don´t have no one from close family or friends affected by the floods, but some family and friends are actively partcipating in the rescuing missions. There has been some nice solidarity around such a sad event. Till now it hit mostly non-densely populated rural areas (except a few towns), but the news are that Belgrade is expected to see the rise of the Sava and Danube rivers to very high water-levels in a day or two. We´ll see what will happend. FkpCascais (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of natural desasters, I survived the 1985 Mexico City earthquake. I was preparing to go to school that morning in my parents 6th floor apartment in the Polanco, Mexico City neighbourhood when sudently everything started brutally shaking. The earthquake lasted for an incredible time of more then 3 minutes. Those minutes seemed to never end. We had a living room with one wall in glass (an enormous window) from where I saw building collapsing and just waited along my parents and the paniking maid the moment our building was going to collapse too. It ended not collapsing and was just damaged on one side, and we immediatelly that day moved to a house far from any tall buildings. Its something I will never forget, and those images in my head of those building collapsing and killing all people inside... ufff :( FkpCascais (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes FkpCascais, deciding where to locate your household is definitely something to consider once you have lived through a catastrophe. I live in the Southeastern United States. During Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita people were being evacuated in helicopters and some of those people ended up in my region, far away from the disaster area. Somehow I ended up being in charge of communications for our entire region. Thankfully, I was prepared, because my organization had just finished disaster preparedness planning. At that time, there was a national mandate that required everyone to coordinate efforts and plan for natural disasters, but anyone with a brain understood that the real reason was a terrorist threat like another September 11 attack. It's a long story about how I ended up in charge, but I did. Since I was directly involved with the planning teams, I was probably more qualified than upper management to deal with the crisis. After each event, I was officially recognized by the government. The coordinated planning effort proved to be so useful, that people keep it in place and keep updating it. It's been used for all kinds of things since then. For all our faults, one thing we do very well in the US, is self organize.

We also have a lot of local disasters, but everyone in the South is extremely self sufficient, so some stories barely make the news. Anytime there's a disaster, you never hear other countries sending aid, people are so used to taking care of problems, it has to be something really serious before anyone from the outside takes notice. I would never live in a large metropolitan area with skyscrapers and subway systems. That's a terrible place to be stuck, with no way out and crazy people everywhere. USchick (talk) 04:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

USchick, it is admirable how you offered yourself to help in those situations and the way you dealt with it. It is people like you, practical and brave, that are most needed.

The situation happening in Southeast Europe is a bit different, in a sense that, well, while in the Southern states of US people know about the frequency of hurricanes, in Serbia and around it is not that often that big floods happend, so we can´t really blame the people for not being prepared to something rarely or ever happening. Also, if it would have been a minor flood, I guess people would have dealt with it easily, but once the flood is as big as moving houses out of place, hardly any individual preparation would help. Army and people made artificil barriers saving many places for further damage. FkpCascais (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding? It wouldn't help if the people had water filters? It wouldn't help to have their documents and medicines together so they could evacuate quickly? Seriously? I'm not blaming them, I'm just saying that there is a lot less suffering when people are prepared. The last big flood we had here was 2 years ago, it was 13 miles/20 km from my home and covered 44 miles/70km and no one died, no one suffered, it wasn't even a "serious problem" because people know what to do in these situations. I'm watching the rescue efforts in Europe, and the lessons learned from the big hurricanes are being used in the evacuation. Pets are going with people, security measures are being followed, neighboring countries are responding. Nice job! :) There are also 300,000 people without power who are not evacuating. Who knows how long they will be there without power. I hope some of them are prepared, so they can help their neighbors. USchick (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh for the love of Dixie, CSchick (which is what I'm calling you from now on :D)... When you have absolutely no reason to think you will ever have to be evacuated, because no one was ever evacuated from your area for any (non-Serb-related :)) reason - ever, then its just plain stupid to buy filters. You might as well carry around a lightning rod in case you're ever smitten by Zeus the Thunderer, or a tiny novelty umbrella in case an asteroid lands on you.. Or in case a volcano erupts under your backyard, etc. The documents, well, I suppose its always a good idea to keep them in one place, if for no other reason than to find them more easily when you gotta go down to the DMV. And I dare say most people probably do that regardless of whether they think they might be evacuated or not.

Fkp, I whole-heartily recommend the riverboat thing.. I doubt the canoes and slingshots of the local Navy would be effective, especially if you bring enough bricks to chuck at them.. Though I guess eventually NATO might send an official fishing trawler equipped with hand grenades, and then you'd be in trouble.. Re the Dubrovnik house, well, guess you shouldn't have sold it.. I'm sure you would have gotten it back eventually. If it makes you feel any better, my family also lost a house there for different reasons (and in the old town no less).. methinks that might be a general trend.. -- Director (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes USchick, Direktor is right. You can´t really blame people for not being prepared over there. It is not even a matter of being prepared or not. From what I hear people are actually responding quite well there considering the ammount of devastation the floods are making. Also, you said how when dissasters happend in the US how they mostly passed unnoticed because people are prepared. I´m not so sure about that, today we know when the tiniest village in US suffers something, and, thanks to the global communications, I am glad we all know. Also, we all saw for instance the huge fires in California (btw, same sort of huge summer fires happend in the coast of Croatia and in Portugal where I am now) and how they affected populations. It´s all relative. Also, you said how US doesn´t need help from other countries, but the US and European reality is quite different. European countries are more like separate US states. It is normal in Europe to have many countries helping eachother to cope with such events. It is not kind of "shame" or anything, it woyuld be stupid to a country to get proud and refuse help (it happend before in some cases with bad results). Also, only a few US states are capable of dealing alone with some major disaster, obviously the federal agencies take charge with halp from many states being activated.

So, it is obviously good to have the population aware and educated on how to respond in emergency scenarios, but when we face major disasters unfortunatelly it is "normal" to have things out of hand. That is when brave and prepared people like you become extremelly important in order to help and organise the most vulnerable ones :)

Direktor, it was my parents that sold the house, and basically because the news we were receving from one neighbour were that the house had been broked-in several times, robbed, vandalised, painted with those inscriptions, etc. and that neighbour even called the police, but at time police didn´t do anything. Everybody knew who had done that but no one wanted to have problems with them, neither would accept to be witnesses. So at that time it really seemed that going there again would be impossible, so selling it for a ridiculous price was the only option that seemed logical by then. I know some Serbs didn´t sell their properties and later they got them back, however at that time the situation was so tense that one was wondering if could even go there at all and what more will happend to the property if it didn´t go. You certainly remember the tension at that period. And defending the property and summer-houses of Serbs was not a priority, there was even speculation the local police was even involved in those actions. I didn´t wanted to talk any of this here, but you made me talk about it when you mentioned the shelling. It´s really hard to make an account of how much we all lost with the situation we all founded ourselfs in, if you suffered more by being affraid of being hit by the bombing, or me by loosing a noce house my family invested in with their hard work. One thing is trouth, beside a few profeteers and a minority, the rest of us (all in the region) we all lost, directly or indirectly. PS: Why did your family lost a house there? We lost it because everyone in the town (a small town near Dubrovnik) knew it was a summer-house of Serbs. FkpCascais (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I know that everyone has a different way of doing things, I wasn't trying to imply that our way is better. It's nice to see people getting along for a change, I wish they would do it more often, and not just during disasters. It's fascinating to hear your stories because, growing up, I always heard that Yugoslavia was so much more advanced than the Soviet Union, I never imagined you could have the same kind of idiotic things happening as in Ukraine, but it all sounds very similar. During your war we had a large number of refugees from your area come through my city in the US, and I became friends with them. They had some wild stories and they showed off their scars from whoever was chasing them and shooting at them. They tried to explain what the war was about, but it was nothing that made any sense to me. It's fascinating to talk to someone now who is still there after the war. Thanks guys! :)

Heh "still there after the war", hahah :). Um, so far as I know, FkpCascais is in, well, Cascais, Portugal. That aside, I thank you for the apparent commendation of my bravery. It can't be all that bad, though, if millions of people feel the need to crowd here every summer (lots of Americans too, by the bushelfull). 14 million last year, apparently.. which, I can tell you, feels like 50 in a country of just four million residents.

I many ways (ex-)Yugoslavia was more "advanced", and still kind of is, in spite of the wars. Before the breakup of course, and particularly before the 80s economic crisis, Yugoslavia was miles ahead of every country in the Eastern Bloc (mostly because it wasn't a part of the Eastern Bloc). Russia and Ukraine are huge countries, and as such vastly more significant on a world scale, however, given the choice between the two, its really no contest as to where you would prefer to live. The standard is far better, the economy more stable, job conditions more tolerable, the climate is incomparably better.. you don't share an apartment with other families as in many parts of, say Moscow... You might call the Balkans "Eastern Europe", but over there you've got the real Eastern Europe. A goodly chunk of the Balkans are now in the EU, my own country included.. We've got the "European seal of approval", heheh.. :)

This is of course not to say you'd not prefer "to live and die in Dixie", as the song goes ;). -- Director (talk) 07:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Be careful when you use the word Dixie, some people get extremely offended by it. (Not me, I wasn't here and I don't claim responsibility for whatever was done here by people who I'm not related to in any way. lol) And yes, Director, I think you're very brave, and fabulous in every way. Almost. *rolls eyes* USchick (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I know I know, just poking fun. -- Director (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

From the Dalmatia article, I see that it's not just me you like to argue with? Should I take that personally? I was thinking maybe I was the only one? I also see that those arguments are no match to my arguments, he may frustrate you a little, but he doesn't make your head hurt. You must miss me terribly! ;) LOL USchick (talk) 05:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a very simple "thank you click" for the edit where I was defending you. I guess I should stop waiting, huh? USchick (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, THANK YOU! Maybe if you weren't so mean to people, you wouldn't have all this trouble. Good luck! USchick (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Its 6 AM here, Chick - I was sleeping :) -- Director (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh........... what are you wearing? ;) USchick (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

A white coat, what else? (though by now I'm at the hospital.. :)) -- Director (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks on my behalf

I kindly ask of you to that you do not call me a sock puppet. There has been no reason to do so, especially on the talk page. Asdisis (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Some of your comments arouse suspicion, I'm afraid. -- Director (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Croatia proper

Coat of arms of Croatia proper?

I have a question about the coat of arms of Croatia proper. At our page, Coat of arms of Croatia, it says that the coat of arms of Croatia proper, as represented in the coat of arms of the Republic of Croatia, is the image linked on the right. However, at Croatia proper, you've put the chessboard in. I don't know enough about the subject, but I figure that either the Croatia proper article or the Coat of arms of Croatia article is wrong, or perhaps I'm missing something. RGloucester — ☎ 19:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, firstly, the coa of Croatia (the republic) is something of a shambles.. Of the five arms that are supposed to make up the (rather tacky, 80s-style design) crown - three are incorrect. Apparently the dude given the job to put together the heraldic symbol of the country cared so much about heraldic accuracy, that he altered symbols so they fit his pretty colour scheme. I wrote a special section to showcase the accurate versions of the symbols.

Not to ramble, this is the accurate version of that coat of arms, but red didn't fit the guy's blueish crown so the thing is blue. All that said - I have no idea what the devil that coa is supposed to represent. Its supposed to be some kind of "earliest known symbol", but who knows whether it actually is such.. the Kingdom of Croatia had a checkerboard coa since at least 1495. In short, while it may be some old symbol used for god knows what, its not the latest symbol used for the Kingdom of Croatia. Hence I'm disinclined towards using it, unless someone can show that it actually is a symbol for Croatia proper in some way. -- Director (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Now if you'll excuse me, I must watch our team get steamrollered in São Paulo :). -- Director (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, as I too find the "crown", if one can call it that, "tacky", and quite bizarre. I'm aware that the Kingdom of Croatia used the chessboard, so I suppose you are quite correct in that regard. I imagine that the Coa article should be adjusted at some point, though, so that it doesn't specify that as representing "Croatia proper" in that sense. RGloucester — ☎ 20:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh! You already did it. Thanks very much. Enjoy the football. RGloucester — ☎ 20:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I imagine they only added the crown because of uncomfortable historical associations carried in a flag with an "unadorned" coa.. -- Director (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, Director! I assume you'll be interested to take a look at edits recently made at Prime Minister of Yugoslavia, when you have enough time to do that. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I can see no problems (aside from SnakeBG's bit), kudos. -- Director (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm talking about his bit. I didn't want to revert it myself, to avoid edit warring, etc... You spend a great deal of time working on that article, so I wanted to inform you about his recent edits. Please, take a look at that article from time to time, in case of some more "problematic" edits. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I had a feeling that's what you were after, hah! :) -- Director (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind it! :) --Sundostund (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not. Thanks for the heads up, and kudos again for the clever way in which it was relayed. -- Director (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Check it again, same thing. --Sundostund (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

As for Marusic, I'd be perfectly happy if he discuss that issue with you. After all you added Marusic to the list about 9 months ago... I'd accept any solution over which you two can agree - you spend a big chunk of time working of that article, now he found out some document according to which Marusic wasn't PM... Anyway, please sort it out with him, I'm really not interested to jump into that discussion. --Sundostund (talk) 11:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Belligerents order in World War 2

There is a discussion about belligerents order for WWII in the talk page [8] which challenge previous consensus. Current change for WWII article is ranking USA above United Kingdom, ranking France above China and adding the leaders of Romania and Hungary into Info box. I thought you should know, as you seem to join the previous discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.38.217 (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014

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 life aboard a US aircraft carrier and Hawkeye7 considers the role of food in 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) 15:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Well..

Please, don't go into a grand conspiracy mode... I've had enough of that this week on another front (pun intended). Nobody actually removed anything about the NOB from Wikipedia. Heck, I'd be much happier if we actually had people write more about it in such a summary article, whatever its name, because this one remains an article about WWII in Yugoslavia that hardly even touches on the context of the major elements of the war such as the persecution campaigns, concentration camps, the stories of the People's Heroes, the strategic bombings... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going into conspiracy mode, I'm sure this is just a mistake, caused in no small part by my own neglect.. You simply can not deny, though, that by merging the Invasion with the Partisan war into one topic - we lost the Partisan war article. The NOB, for the first time, no longer has a dedicated article. Sure its still part of the scope, but its also part of World War II's scope, for example.

Sure, I always wanted to fix that place up, but didn't get much farther than the lede and infobox because of stonewalling from the Chetniks article crowd (ages ago). I eventually got frustrated with the title issue and left. But now I don't even care about the title (or even enough to fix the empty field in the infobox), since the scope itself has been altered from a very specific resistance war to "all conflicts in WWII occurring on the territory of Yugoslavia" (is Istria a part of that? Zadar? Lastovo? Albania?). I think you know this is not usually done in the sources: the guerrilla war is treated as separate, because it involved different actors, was fought in a different way, and occurred significantly later (as Peacemaker had pointed out). If an overview article is truly regarded as necessary by participants, fine - but then an NOB article is perfectly justified, because we do not have one. Sort of marginalizing the Invasion and pretending it isn't there in our current article, doesn't change the fact that its included now. The topic isn't the Partisan war - but "everything in Yugoslavia". -- Director (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"Resistance war in Yugoslavia", or Yugoslav resistance war, now there's a good NDESC title.. -- Director (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Andrewjacksonclipper.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Andrewjacksonclipper.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014

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: Jonas Vinther and Nick-D look at examples of electronic media Op-ed: TomStar81 on the shot heard around the world

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) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Dalmatia

The third paragraph at Dalmatia/Definition is a 65-word sentence. Would you please look at it if you have time. No response is necessary. Thank you very much.

Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Antonio Tacconi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fascist Italy. 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) 09:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014

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 the military history of Austria-Hungary Timeleine: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Roman Empire

I beg for your pardon but I see no 'consenus formed with input from quite a lot of users' as the talk page has only got a few articles and none of them are promptly responded. If you do not provide evidences, your 'very good reason' will only be a boastful self-proclamation. If my article in the talk page is still unresponded in this week, I will see that my opinion is not well-respected and will do the edit all over again. Thank you for your notice. Yours sincerely, Pktlaurence (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2014 (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! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Seven reverts is edit warring

I don't have time to fuck with you right now, but you really need to have stopped and hour ago. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to provoke anybody, but no - I should not have. Its unbelievable that the image was removed from the article. I mean there's a limit to when it just becomes vandalism. -- Director (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2014 (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.-TFD (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

IQ and Global Inequality: a suggestion

A few months ago, when TheRedPenOfDoom removed a similar map from Race Differences in Intelligence (book) along with several paragraphs from the book's summary, I opened a request for comment about the removals. Two uninvolved editors, Markbasset and Solarra, commented in favour of including the removed content before the RFC was shut down. If you care about restoring the map on the IQ and Global Inequality article, I suggest starting an RFC like I did. You may find that, as was the case on the other article, editors without a vested long-term involvement in these articles tend to share your perspective. 36.250.89.95 (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

While suggestions are being handed out, you might find this one useful: Following advice of socks of blocked users is generally not very wise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The I.P. user here should have remembered also that it is discourteous to make suggestions of this kind to just one party in the editing, and not equally to everyone involved. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014

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 review: Nick-D on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux

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 on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in World War I

NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!

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) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014

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 Nazi Germany's Eastern Front allies Op-ed: TomStar81 on the origins and legacy of trench warfare Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alex ^{discussion ★} 21:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Complaint about you at WP:AN3

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Director reported by User:Aleksa Lukic (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014

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 on armoured reconnaissance and German scientists, Nick-D on time travelling historians Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the World War I Christmas truce Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Global account

Hi Director! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 01:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015

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: Jonas Vinther on Hitler and Cliftonian on the Rhodesia Regiment Interview: 2014 Military History Newcomer Award nominees Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial Op-ed: TomStar81 on the birth of strategic bombing Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Reichskommissariat is a Commissariat, not a country

This was already discussed at Talk:Reichskommissariat_of_Belgium_and_Northern_France and the consensus was that a Reichskommissariat is a Commissariat and thus inbox government agency is the most appropriate. --Nug (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a proper consensus to me. Anyway, I think the change is very silly, and I've posted my rationale over there. -- Director (talk) 10:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the distinction between Government of Illinois and Illinois with respect to Reichskommissariats, this article here makes that distinction between Reichskommissariat Ostland and Ostland. As you see, Ostland is redirected to Reichskommissariat Ostland, which is like redirecting Illinois to Government of Illinois. Wouldn't it make sense to have Ostland as the article about the territorial entity (like Illinois), with an infobox former country, while Reichskommissariat Ostland an article about the governing entity (like Government of Illinois). In fact, it seems that Ostland was moved to Reichskommissariat Ostland back in 2005, but I think Wikipedia has moved along enough to make that distinction and have two articles, one about the territory of Ostland and the other about the Reichskommissariat of Ostland. --Nug (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

User name

When you changed your user name, your user name was changed from DIREKTOR to Director on en.wiki only. No unified global account was created, probably because unattached accounts (some of which which have edited) exist on over 40 wikis. See https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ACentralAuth&target=Director. Your account on the Commons under is DIREKTOR, and Commons is the home wiki for that account. A global unified account exists for this username. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ACentralAuth&target=DIREKTOR. Therefore, every time you visit a wiki with this username, an account is automatically created with that username, and if you edit while logged in under this name, edits are credited to DIREKTOR. Perhaps the unused user account "Director" on Commons can be linked to your account here; I don't know. You will have to ask a bureaucrat. If it's not possible to link them, you will have to remember to log out when you leave the Commons and log in with your new user name when you arrive here. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed the message above where a steward is recommending creating a unified login, so it might still be possible to do this yourself, if the "Director" account on the Commons was created by you and has the same password. See meta:Help:Unified login#How to unify your accounts. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I will have to take some time to fix this nonsense. -- Director (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate Discretionary sanctions notice

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Dreadstar ☥ 01:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hahahah, and here I thought the atmosphere over there was reasonably civil :). Thank you. -- Director (talk) 10:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Head of state

I'm gonna let others weigh in at that article. PS: Whatever you do, don't bring England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland into it ;) GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Uh.. good advice, thanks :). -- Director (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Missing mayors 20 through 23

This edit [9] at Mayor of Split seems to have removed no.20 through 23. I don't understand the table formatting well enough to fix it and I don't want to revert this edit because it fixed some content. Perhaps in your copious free time you can see what went wrong here and fix it? --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I didn't remove any mayors I just didn't update the numbering. -- Director (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Germany - historical maps

Hi. First off, I would like to congratulate you the high quality on your map of the Third Reich during 1942. I was just wondering if you were going to be making similar maps for the Holy Roman Empire (as the current map shows the expanse of the nation in Europe, but overlain on modern borders), and the North German Confederation (for aesthetic purposes so that the maps in the German articles can "match"). I'm asking you as I do not have the programming or technological knowledge to make one myself. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk)

Thank you :). But all I did was basically colour the blank map of 1942 Europe (as I made clear in the image description). If a blank map exists in the appropriate period, I'll create locators. -- Director (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Timbouctou

What do you think about Timbouctou making unnecessary changes on article about Ivo Josipović. He keeps adding years next to Prime Ministers despite the fact that I have proven to him this is unnecessary, no President of a EU member state has years next to Prime Ministers who have served in time of their mandate. Why is he doing this? This is not the first time he has done such violations. He ignores the Talk page. Does he need to be sanctioned? Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Its 9:30, and already I have a headache. -- Director (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you know why is he doing this? I mean, this is the first day Josipović is no longer the President and already Timbouctou is trying to destroy the article. How convenient he waited 5 years to do this. I guess why? Can we stop him how? Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

He's high on the election results :).. There's a lot of edits there, some are perfectly fine (in fact beneficial), others range from strange to appearing malicious.. Check what he changed [10] and explain reasons for why you oppose the particular edits, point-by-point, on the talkpage. I'm at work.

Mind you adding years next to the pms is pretty innocuous, but objectively, in a case like this, its really hard to assume good faith for anything he does.. Btw, you can revert several edits at once by clicking on the date in the 'View history' tab (here), editing the old version, and then saving. You don't need to individually revert every edit. -- Director (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

How to?

Hi. Can you help me in something. Again Tombouctou is trolling, I have provided the sources. But he wont stop terrorizing me. I would like to change on the article about Ivo Josipović from jurist to law professor. If he reverts my edits, can i warn him. I have never experiences such harassment from another user on Wikipedia so I don't know how that works, I mean the warning system. Do I copy paste the templates from this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings , or something else? Tnx. I hope I am not disturbing you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuvixer (talk • contribs) 17:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, to post a warning you copy-paste a template from Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings.. you choose the appropriate one, and post a new section on his talkpage wherein you paste the template. You sign behind the template (~~~~) and title it something.. usually just the month and year (e.g. "February 2015"). You will find a better selection of warning templates at WP:WARN.

However, a few points. #1 I would not recommend warning Timbouctou with a template.. its kind of rude, see this essay. Instead, write-up a custom warning if you feel that's necessary. #2 Be sure you know exactly what Timbouctou has done wrong. He has not "harassed" anyone (see WP:HARRASS), nor has he engaged in WP:VANDALISM. What he is doing, on several articles, is pushing opposed edits without consensus, against opposition on the talkpage, and he's doing it with edit-warring. So he's ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and is WP:EDIT-WARRING.

You could report him for that, but I don't think you'll get anywhere. Why? Because even though he's pushing an edit against opposition, and is edit-warring - in this particular case he has a source for his edit, and is more-or-less in the right. Whereas you do not have a source of equivalent value. How so? Well, because the issue is not "was Josipovic a professor of law?" (nobody disputes that), its "how can we best describe Josipovic?" - and he has a source for that, while you don't. You have a source that merely confirms he was a professor, which nobody opposed in the first place.

I would not recommend warning or reporting Timbouctou at this time. You don't need to warn him at all: he's familiar with policy, and it won't have any effect on him whatsoever. As for reporting, he was extremely pushy, but he has not stepped over the line where he would warrant sanctions. To be more precise, he might warrant sanctions for edit-warring and edit-warring alone - but so do you, and so do I. Reporting all of us for edit-warring and maybe getting us sanctioned isn't really helpful to anyone's position :). But if he really steps over the line with the revert-war edit-pushing (which I think and hope he won't do, since he's an experienced editor), some sort of report may be warranted. -- Director (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Tnx, you are really nice. I understand now. I was not going to report him for this law professor dispute, but if he again starts to edit-warring about dates next to PMs and similar. Tnx again. :) --Tuvixer (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey! We Wikipedians always gotta keep our Neelix side tempered with the Tuvok side, right? :D -- Director (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You are absolutely right! :D --Tuvixer (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015

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 review: Nick-D on the British Pacific Fleet Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the advent of chemical warfare Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Presidents of Croatia ANI discussion

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) 12:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Joy. -- Director (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

nazi germany map

the original map is also more usefull it shows how europe was under german domination why do we have to replace with a low quality version? the new map is incorrect and you opossed it Dannis243 (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Dune (franchise)

added a link pointing to Guidon

List of Dune Houses

added a link pointing to Guidon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Disputed text on Istrian Exodus

Hello, I understand you consider the following text POV:

The first city to see a massive departure of ethnic Italians was Zadar. Between November 1943 and Zadar was bombed by the Allies, with serious civilian casualties (fatalities recorded range from under 1,000 to as many ad 4,000 of over 20,000 city's inhabitants). Many died in the carpet bombings, and many landmarks and centuries old works of art were destroyed. A significant number of civilians fled the city. In late October 1944 the German army and most of the Italian civilian administration abandoned the city. On October 31, 1944, the Partisans seized the city, until then a part of Mussolini's Italian Social Republic. At the start of World War II, Zadar had a population of 24,000 and, by the end of 1944, this had decreased to 6,000. Formally, the city remained under Italian sovereignty until September 15, 1947 (Paris Peace Treaties) but by that date the exodus from the city had been already almost total.

Please do not hesitate to join the Talk page. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

References

The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015

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 review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian Fleet Air Arm Museum Op-ed: TomStar81 on submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution of Istrian Exodus

I am the third volunteer at the dispute resolution noticeboard who will ask you to limit your comments on Istrian exodus until a volunteer agrees to mediate the content issues. User:Doniago advised you and other editors on 27 March not to continue your back-and-forth until someone takes the case, and said that continuing to complain about conduct would likely result in no one taking the case. On 29 March, User:Keithbob said: "Stop the bickering and wait for a moderator or this case will be closed and sent back to the talk page." Threaded discussion is generally not permitted at DRN, and discussion of issues is generally not permitted while a case is waiting for a moderator.

You then said to User:Keithbob: 'I don't appreciate being talked to like this. Simply because Silvio1973 keeps trying to "reply" to everything I write doesn't mean I'm "bickering" with anybody (that kind of disruption is "how he rolls"). I was asked a question. I replied to that question. If I discussed Silvio1973's conduct its because its relevant to my reply.'

First, no, your comments on editor conduct are not relevant at DRN. DRN discusses content, not contributors. Conduct issues are dealt with elsewhere, and are not allowed to get in the way of content resolution at DRN. Second, it is not useful, if you do want the content dispute resolved here, to rebuke a volunteer mediator, who was only trying to explain how we work here.

I don't know anything about the content dispute. I do see that you need to be more patient if you want the content dispute resolved amicably, and patience includes avoiding premature threaded discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I've closed the case. The participants are treating DRN like an extension of the talk page and that is not permitted at DRN. It is better they take their discussion back to the talk page and continue there. They may also explore other dispute resolution options listed at WP:DRR and WP:DR but they should be careful to abide by the procedures for each venue if they want to have success. I wish them luck in the efforts to resolve their dispute. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Director, I filed a DRN to have a mediator joining the discussion. My effort has proven useless. Can we return to the talk page, discuss and find a compromise? Silvio1973 (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh what nonsense... Firstly the DRN request was ridiculous from the start: Silvio1973 doesn't know what DRN is for (he thinks its this), and his "summary" is a deliberate provocation. I do know what DRN is for, but since I wasn't about to discuss while Silvio1973 is edit-warring - I naturally had to state that position. Then I was asked outright whether or not I'd discuss the issue with Silvio1973, and I again explained my position. This is "bickering"? Look, I've been around Wiki for maybe eight years now; with over 55,000 edits, I know full well how DRN functions. Its Keithbob who didn't really appear to read or get the point of my comments on Silvio1973, which were: "I won't be bullied, I won't talk to this guy". I'm really getting too old to just take that kind of patronizing nonsense from random users. I wrote a total of what? Three posts? -- Director (talk) 04:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thanks a lot. I'm really learning about Wikipedia... Here's a little something I found as well: WP:DTR. -- Director (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

See a question at this thread: Talk:Istrian exodus#What is in dispute? If you intend to keep editing this article, your response would be appreciated. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Germany

Thank you so much for the polite and civilized debate over NSDAP, Nazi etc. I really do appreciate when it's editors who can talk to each other! Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Just enjoying the peace and quiet outside the Balkans articles.. :) -- Director (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Cabinet of Zoran Milanović

Hi. Can you put your opinion regarding the "Budget 2015" column in the table listing the ministers. There is a discussion on the talk page. Cabinet I think it is a good addition to the table to list the current budget for every Ministry. But an other used has been overzealous to stop this addition. Tnx in advance. --Tuvixer (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure. -- Director (talk) 05:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015

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 landing at Anzac Cove Op-ed: TomStar81 on the debut of poison gas in World War I Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Ministries

Hi, can you join the debate on Talk:Ministry of Culture (Croatia). I think it is a good addition to the infobox to place next to the amount of budget increase/decrease arrow that shows the changes compared to the last year budget. Also only one user thinks that the HRK should be before the amount and not after. What is your thinking on that. It is for all ministers, and you can see in the history of all ministries of Croatian Government that timbouctou has started a edit-war just to harassed me again, I don't know why. I have put a great effort on finding the information and I can't think of a reason not to put the information in the infobox. I understand that he wants to put the HRK currency in front of the amount because it makes the amount less visible or maybe he thinks that people will think that it is in dollars and that would be a disaster because we now have a "red" government. I mean he is crazy, you understand? I hope I was clear enough. You can imagine how I felt when I saw that he reverted all my edits. And did not even try to discuss. Tnx in advance. :) --Tuvixer (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

list of presidents

Hi, tombouctou has again vandalizes the article about the list of presidents. Can you handle him, i can no longer stand him and i will go offline now. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tuvixer: I would like to request your input on the relevant articles, you being involved in the issue previously (the articles are [11] and [12]) -- Director (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Ema Derossi-Bjelajac.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Ema Derossi-Bjelajac.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

nazi germany

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nazi_Germany#map_4 Dannis243 (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

but its diffrent this time and i explained the diffrence Dannis243 (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015

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 review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 and Simon Harley on the sinking of the Lusitania Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Croatian language

Could you please enlighten me - is there another official language in Croatia besides Croatian? Our article about Croatia lists Croatian as the only official language. Our article about Croatian language states that it is the official language of Croatia. Why should then our article about Croats state that Croatian is an official language of Croatia? Surtsicna (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Please, stop this and go to a school to learn English. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You are adorable :D Surtsicna (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It should say "the", obviously. But I hardly think that's the only issue. -- Director (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Potočnik (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't participate there. -- Director (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015

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 review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the new technology of World War I Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015

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 review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on sourcing articles about bombing a battleship Op-ed: TomStar81 on the role of nursing in World War I Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Ban appeal

Hi,

I appealed my topic ban (diff). Taking in consideration that we were involved in disputes in past I would like to inform you that I appealed my ban so you could again present your opinion. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Banrevert

Template:Banrevert has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015

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 on the Second Schleswig War Interview: Featured picture participants Op-ed: TomStar81 on Indian nationalism during World War I Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Siderophage

The article Siderophage has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Dictionary article

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rathfelder (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors, coordinator elections have begun Articles: Abbasids to a Yugoslav monitor Book reviews: Economics of warfare, Japan, and light horse Op-ed: We can (not) advance Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (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. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Battle of France Result

Hello!

I would invite you to join me, yet again, to the Battle of France talk page. Keith-264 has yet again decided to emberass himself, and I need your help. He says that he will undo the page and infobox once again, despite the facts that we have presented. Join us at talk. Thanks. KevinNinja (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Semiprotection

Hi, Director, just a heads up: I've semiprotected your user page for 24 hours. If you want it unprotected, please feel free to ask me (or any other admin) and we'll do so. Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Use of your old account.

You are using your old account with no clear link to the new one for example in talk pages. You should at least show it in your signature. Cheers, --77.105.28.219 (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The page User:DIREKTOR redirects to User:Director, as did the talk page before you broke the redirect. That should be plenty of illustration in the signature. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm.. Is this Dannis, or DasReichenz? A while ago I posted an SPI report about the two..

Well, this happens when I forget to logg off from my Commons account.. and Wikimedia has recently introduced this thing where you stay in the same account on all the sites. Never bothered to fix this, don't really know how, for that matter :). Obviously its me, I'm not trying to fool anybody at all... and the names are basically the same. Sorry about any confusion. -- Director (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015

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 review: Anotherclown and Sturmvogel 66 on war in the air and at sea Review essay: Auntieruth55 on the French Revolutionary Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the entry of Bulgaria in World War I Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Serbs of Croatia

Hello. Can I ask how come you are not participating on Serbs of Croatia to apply the consensus of the RfC. You extensively participated in the RfC and when it was closed you kinda left. Don't you agree with the consensus? 94.253.23.60 (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Nazism sidebar debate

Hi Director. In order to avoid any further improper use of a superseded RfC (the one that selected the Parteiadler as the infobox image), might I suggest archiving posts on the talk page earlier than 2015? Whether this is done now or after the current issue has been resolved is up to you, this is just a suggestion from me. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nick Mitchell 98: Makes sense, will do. -- Director (talk) 07:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Early Himmler SS photo

Director: being a frequent editor of Nazi Germany/SS related articles, and the last person to upload a version (correcting the tone) of this photo, you may have an interest in commenting on it herein: Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2015_October_17#File:HimmlerOberfhr.jpg. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

POV pushing

[13], he's been doing that for ages. Well a few months on Serbs of Croatia, and for walls of text on Yugoslavia. I think I would find more if I went trough his contributions. 91.236.250.250 (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh I know. Fkp and I go waaay back.. -- Director (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, ok then;) I've been dealing with him since summer and I really had it enough. I'll stay away from him in the future. I don't have time to go trough this again. 159.224.0.18 (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this would interest you. It seems others have problems with him as well. 93.171.64.118 (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Dubrovnik nobility2

Template:Dubrovnik nobility2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zoupan 22:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Dubrovnik nobility sidebar

Template:Dubrovnik nobility sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zoupan 22:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Undisputable titles of some Ragusan families

For now, I am sure you have no basis for claiming that the moves to Binciola, Caboga and Zamagna are controversial. In good faith, I am waiting for your answer on these examples.--Zoupan 14:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Lets talk on your talkpage. I'm very glad to see we are both assuming good faith. -- Director (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Us again...

Now that the show is over and the spotlights are off, we really need to have a chat. What happed there, why were saying those things over there? Why you use the discrediting tricks? Saying I am a Croatian Serbs refugee, why? So people would think I am acting in rage? Come on, we talked long time ago, I dont know if you remember, I told you who am I. I am from Belgrade. Born in Belgrade, have an apartment in Belgrade, family in Belgrade, and Belgrade was the only place I ever lived there. My father is from Belgrade and his family are a traditional Belgrade family, and the only remarc from my paternal side is that my grand-grand-father was an engeneer from Prague who was in the team of Austro-Hungarian specialists projecting the railroad construction between Belgrade and Istambul. He got inloved for a Serbian woman in Belgrade, my grand-grand-mother, and married and lived mostly in Belgrade since then (sowe have a little Czech blood there). My mother is from Belgrade and her parents are Serbs from Sarajevo that came to Belgrade to study still before the WWII. I lived abroad since young age because my mother worked in SIP and was a diplomat (now retired). So no, I have nothing to do with Serbs from Croatia, and much less with refugees. First time I moved abroad was to a country where my mother was sent to another diplomatic mission (SFR Yugoslavia embassy) still in the time when no one even dreamed what was going to happend in the 1990s. I was a proud Yugoslav back then, and for long afterwords. The only thing that associate me to Croatia was, I told you I believe, a summer house we had near Dubrovnik. It was preciselly there, in my summer hollidays in 1990, that I perceved for the first time what was being cooked. Our car with Belgrade-registered plates got to be a target of vandalization, and so was our house in the following years, which my parents ended up selling. In Belgrade you were feeling a change too; the gray aparatchiks talking about the nasty foreign-payed secesionists wanting to destroy our wanderfull country. However, I dont know if you ever been to Belgrade, but there, more notoriously back then, you get totally influenced by the metropolitan urban speach, which is absolutely opposed to the populist politicians one. You were mentioning there at the discussions Milošević, Šešelj, the Radicals, etc. bolding them, sugesting I am following their theories or associating me with them... They were mocked and ridiculised in all my circles, loved just as in Zagreb or Split, and you guys probably payed them more atention than we did. Only old people and rednecks followed them. You dont get information and influence by the media, but you get them from your social circles. However, and returning to my point, you dont get right or wrong necessarily that way. Because Serbs had awfull polticians you cant conclude Serbs are some crazy lunatics and were always wrong and had no points whatsoever. If one thing I learned is that there are no good&bad guys and the situations in the 1990s, it is not black and white, but rather shades of gray. Anyone using the good vs bad guys formula is subjective. So again you used a strategy I saw you doing many times before, which is working on discrediting the editor opposing you by associating him with the extremists from his side. In the personal remarcs part of your comments you made so much wrong claims that I would have needed long posts (such as this one) just to explain it all. You may have noteced I ignored those parts totally. As soon as I was seing nationalists/Milosevic etc. words in your comments, you may not believe me, but those paragraphs of yours I wasnt even reading them. And I was not willing neither having patience to have those debates with you, and I was really hoping whoever comes from outside they would just pay atention to the sources and the concrete ponts that mattered. But I was wrong, your discrediting strategy worked the trick. I ended up being seen as someone wanting to take your territory, an invasor, and that was not it. I dont plan at all coming anything near this issues, maybe forever. I have so many areas here of my interest I want to work on.

However some points need to be cleared out between you and me. First one, how I got involved? I will tell you the secret of how I get involved in differrent issues. I rutinely observe my watchlist, which after near a decade is quite vast and includes diverse topics. I involve where I see the usual POV-pushers making their work. You possibly remember how it started there. I saw the huge gap between one side and the other so there was an invitation for my involvement. Second thing; I didnt had any specific intention. I went to see sources and I made propoals by seing what they were saying. Third, Important! I never said Serbs had the right to secede from Croatia, something b the end you argued a lot. I found one source saying constitutive nations had the right to sucede (also that same, or maybe another one, talked that Serbs were added as such along Croats in what was SFRY solution for the Serbian question. An issue worth exploring for personal knolledge and you know what it refers), I just put that on the table to discuss, and you criticized that view and you made a funny exemple of a Serb-owned flat in Zagreb. I just mentioned the municipalities as a more logical exemple than your exageration about the flat. But I didnt said I supported that, or that the source was saying that about municipalities, nothing of that. You missused my exemple to mock me, and you got it. And fourth, OK, this is getting way longer than I wanted, so I will conclude; I respect you because we are ammong the oldest active editors in our area and we already had numerous battles and adventures together here, but I would respect you way more if you didnt made use of personal remarcs and those tricks trying to discredit the opponent in other editors eyes so you would get points. You and I know what is it about, and I know you know when you apologised. Cause this is a wanderfull project which often criates content by challenging the opposite views. And I like good challenges. I am someone perfectly able to get along with someone having a totally opposite opinion than me. So you apologised to me and I accept your apologies, and I apologise to you for saying the bullshit comment. I will just ask you, please, if we ever discuss in oposiite side in future to totally refrain from tricks such as labeling the opponent and commenting on each other. Not that I have something to loose, I am not affraid of your labels, I could deal and prove them wrong perfectly, but because degrades us both and creates a contaminated enviromnent. Peace. Pozdrav. FkpCascais (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

FkpCascais, this is exactly your problem. You are too emotional about this. You are trying to fit everything in the same shade of grey, and that's not what anyone should do. We are here to say what happened objectively and not to artificially mix colors so everyone has the same shade of grey. Who cares who you are or where you come from. You are not subjective because of that. You did not want to read the quotes from the constitution for yourself and discuss them and that had characterized you as subjective. I told you a long time ago, you can push everything to wikipedia but the discussion will always be there with all the sources and all the arguments. Even if you managed to push it to the article I would still be satisfied with the result. For instance I'm very satisfied with that discussion on Novak Djokovic's page where there is a shaded discussion listing a source where Novak is talking about his ethnicity. I make and I will maybe make some more commotion, but I'm generally satisfied. The panic discussion with that other POV pusher where you refer to "us" and "them" really shows how subjective you are.

I'm well familiar with the new version of Serbian propaganda and the things you were saying in the article was the 90' propaganda which can be heard from people like Seselj and nobody else. However you perfectly described newer Serbian propaganda, to fit everyone in the same shade of grey. I wouldn't want to deal with that, but just for this purpose I'll answer you. Serbia had started 4 wars in the 90' and it can't be fit in the same shade of grey as those who defended themselves. The fact is that Serbia is the aggressor and that Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Kosovo had defended themselves. That how the things are on the highest level, however today's Serbian propaganda is trying to bring it down to the lowest levels and the crimes that had happened on both sides. That's the old trick propaganda does. Emphasis the crimes to say how the other side is bad. Even if you look it that way, crimes had happened on both sides, but a vast majority came from the Serb side because Serbian regime had supported and provoked them. In the very essence Serbian regime was criminal and no other can be characterized that way. If you want to go to that level, just see the statistics of how many Serbs were prosecuted in front of ICTY and how many of all others. Even in the lowest the majority of crimes can be attributed to Serbs. The reason is that they were led by a genocidal Milosevic's regime which demonized the enemy far worst that any other regime. That had led to many crimes and those crimes had led to other crimes of "revenge" on Serbs...

For Croatia specifically, ICJ had determined that Serbia had lead an war to take away Croatian territories, ethnically cleans them and to join them to Serbia. In another words Serbia had started the war in an effort to create the greater-Serbia. Not in the sense that Seselj is advocating today, but in much worst sense, described by the ICJ. You say you don't support Seselj, but me and Director who know some of his ideas know very well that you just repeated his ideology almost word for word. This is similar to the same delusion Milosevic's regime did, when it accused Croats of being nazi's but in fact that regime had itself conducted in all aspects as a fascist regime.

So to conclude, you won't ever succeed to artificially put the same shade of grey to everyone and you will just get more frustrated. People who are interested in those things won't use any of your 20 sources that are supposedly saying something. It's not important about what someone says but about what had happened, and because some source says something it doesn't mean it had happened. Every single of your 20 sources states inaccurate statements, and I again repeat, none of them have any scientific value. No one objective will use them, and it's unfortunate that you are so subjective that you can't see that a source that simply makes a statement doesn't bring any new information. Your whole problem is that you are believing statements instead of arguments. The same goes for that The weight of chains "documentary". The question we were discussing I firstly noticed there and I saw the claim that Serbs were a constitutive nation and that, if Croats had right to separate from Yugoslavia that Serbs had the right to separate from Croatia. I watched and I know a lot of the Yugoslav wars and I'm interested in the topic so that statement had interested me to investigate on by myself. I found out that that Badinter's commission had dealt with that question and that it had determined that only republics had the right to separate. Of course nothing of that had been mentioned in that "documentary". I'm telling you this so that you realize that statements don't matter. That documentary tried to deceive deliberately in that instance and in many more, but it didn't matter. The things that had happened are "preserved in time" and any subsequent statement can't change that. I didn't want to "accuse" your sources of being propaganda in the discussion, but I'm doing it now. Without a word about the conclusion of the Badinter's commission and without a single reference to the constitution they are trying to deceive the reader. I don't care if the author is Marsian. It doesn't matter. What matters is the poor argumentation and an attempt to deceive by withholding crucial info and by directly lying to the reader. A Serbian or Croatia author who provided some argumentation has much more value that your "foreign" authors that are deceiving the reader. And lastly, this again describes your subjectivity. You don't believe domestic authors because you believe in statements and not arguments. 141.138.56.128 (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a private message of mine to Direktor, not to you. I stoped reading you at middle of the first line of yours, I really dont care at all what you think, please mind your own bussiness. And my message actually dint have the intention of having any answer, Direktor will say something if he wants to, if not, everything is just fine. (by removing the sockpuppet comment please feel free to remove this comment of mine as well). FkpCascais (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to repeat the main point. You can't artificially try to fit everything in the same shade of grey, as much as you can't say everything is back and white, and it really isn't about characterizing something, but about describing it in the objective way. You are constantly trying to characterize in an emotional and subjective way. That's why you really didn't want to accept that you are wrong. If you find some sources we haven't discussed that bring any new information I wouldn't have anything against another RfC, but try to find those which actually reference the primary source, and support your claims, because that way I know there won't be another RfC. I'm glad we debunked this, because as we all here know, that was one of the main propaganda claims of the 90', and even widely repeated today. The claim which is supposed to explain that Serbia is not in fault for starting the war, but that Croatia had started it. I don't know how would that explain other 3 wars Serbia had started... Also, don't be so frustrated only because you lost to an ip. IP's are not less valuable contributors to Wikipedia than registered users.You allowed it yourself for this to happen. You could have deleted my RfC with the assistance of that admin, but you were so subjective that you though there's no way you can loose it, so you left it be. It backfired, but I'm glad you now accept the outcome in such a graceful way...141.138.56.128 (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh god... am I supposed to read all this? Will reply when I get the time.. Asdisis, if you have something to say to Fkp, take it to his talkpage. -- Director (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: I'm not going to waste words, I'll just say: I forgot. Confused you with someone else. It wasn't deliberate. I apologize (again). I might do stupid, but I don't do underhanded.

Belgrade... always wanted to go visit, a great town, never been - but I'm an informed person, I like to think.. I know a lot of people from Belgrade, and I understand quite well - Belgrade is full of elitist liberals (awesome :)). And believe you me, I know what its like to see your city swamped... To be frank though, lately my only sentiment in that regard is - at least they're from this continent... you know what I mean, I think. I never thought I'd say this, but - thank god for the unemployment :D.

With regard to the topic at hand, I wasn't expecting you'd seriously push what you look like you're pushing. I have only one question there: do you or do you not actually believe Croatian Serbs had a legal, constitutional right (in the preamble of the 1974 constitution, Croatian and/or federal) to secede from the federal republic "with regions where they hold the majority"? Please: yes or no? Because, well, - this is where that absolute nonsense comes from. The actual fact is that the Communists never dreamed that the SKJ might actually dissolve, or that national parties might actually take power and have one nation outvote another. There were no legal mechanisms for dealing with the situation, certainly none that granted sovereignty to any groups of people. Serbs getting together and sort of declaring "The Two Milans" to be their leaders, declaring secession from a federal republic (with whatever they can grab), well... if you think that was sanctioned by the preamble of the 1974 constitution...

And please don't comment on the talkpage.. Biblbroks prodded the carcass. You promised you wouldn't so you wouldn't get tbanned. So don't. If you want to correct me with regard to my representation of your position, do so here. -- Director (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh the Democrats are not the only people, there are many open-minded people generally not fancing any political parties, often disapointed with politics and politicians, but doesnt meaning they are not conscient and interested.

If I personally believe Serbs had the right of secession in Croatia? I think you made such caracterization of me in your thought that I bet you are not predicting at all what is the truth answer of mine to that question, which is: I dont know. We seem to be living in a world which values strong convictions, even if unfounded, often with just limited (or call it filtered) information. Not at all unusual nowadays to hear people saying al-Assad should live, or die, or be bombed, or killed, without even knowing who is he fighting, why, not even knowing where Syria is or what is it all about. But they know if he is good or bad, they will tell you either one if asked, and the sheeps will have more consideration of him, than for the guy maybe knowing more about it, but saying he doesnt know. What I mean with this exemple is that you probably made an ideia of me being like those guys, I belong to tribe X so I defend the speach of X regardless. But no. We met at the Chetniks discussions, and even there I was not that decided to portrey them as good or bad at all, but you may have got that impression because ammong the things I knew about them, I had a strong conviction that your proposals were giving an unbalanced final result, and I opposed you, but I didnt wanted nether pretended to paint them as angels, a conclusion you made simply because of my opposition. Those are two very different attitudes, but they tend to make no difference to you once someone opposes you. So, no, I really dont know if Serbs had the right to secede from Croatia, or not, I am totally honest in recognising you I am open-minded and free to absorve information about it. Also, bear in mind that that was a question you forwarded which was a step further of what was I at back there. I was about the constitutive nation status and that was the aspect I was searching about. If the issue was the right of secession, we should probably make a search with "Serbs secession/secede Croatia" and gather info about it and see what they say. I am having for some time now a much better understanding of wp ideals, and I see this now not as a place where ansers will be, but a place where one can fnd academic views on a subject. That is it. Regarding my inputs there, or not, I said already more than once that I was not going to participate there for some time unless asked to. I brought the sources (there are more but anyone can bring them from the search engine), I presented my arguments, I am done, now it is up to others, and also, I noteced I am often being used as excuse, so without me the focus on your side can and should be stronger on the sources and the matter itself. Regards Direktor FkpCascais (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually I expected something like that, which is why I asked you "yes or no". The correct answer is "no". Hell, even Seselj (who to be sure is a very well educated, clever and funny guy, I love 'em :)) doesn't actually claim that there was a legal right for secession, or that the "constituent nation" was a legal concept. He says its a concept "in Yugoslav political theory".. which it may even have been. That is what you "don't know", and I don't know either tbh. However, that concept was not in any way enforced legally, certainly not in those couple sentences of the preamble. There were no legal provisions or mechanisms in place in the 1974 constitution, or in any Croatian or federal laws, providing for the secession of any ethnic group. Surely you can see how the very idea is just preposterous.

It does make sense that the constituent nation, as described by Seselj and others, might indeed have been a concept in political theory. In theory constituent nations might have been intended as foundational national elements that joined freely in a country. As such, however, being just a vague idea - its subject to biased "interpretation" by any interested group. I.e. a political scientist (politolog) in Belgrade might say "yes, that makes Croatian Serbs a constituent nation and gives them the right to secede", a political scientist in Zagreb might say "no it doesn't", etc. But the LAW definitely does not grant any such right. -- Director (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Director, the Badinter's commission had ruled upon the question of succession. Only republics had that right. I don't know what else is needed to close that question. It wasn't really in dispute in that discussion. Ok, having said that, I'm posting this to answer your statement that "Communists never dreamed that the SKJ might actually dissolve". Take a look at this. Also I think we both know Fkp's stand on this issue and although he didn't give a yes/no answer. I also think we all know that Serbs have their own history which is often very different from reality. For instance Gavrilo Princip is a national hero in Serbia. That's why his stand isn't surprising. He wrote that whole section in the article about the war in Croatia by starting with the constitution and the claim that Croatia was discriminating Serbs so that's why they rebelled. Discrimination had happened, but starting from that is misleading. Discrimination had happened because of the war situation caused by Serbian aggression. If we take a look in history, we can see what happened to Germans living in Poland after German aggression towards Poland. I have a strong feeling that Fkp is trying to give everyone an equal shade of grey which is as wrong as giving everyone black and white label. This is not a new concept and Serbian propaganda today is not what it used to be. Before it was going for black and white labels, but since international courts had gave numerous verdicts it went towards painting everything grey so the main thesis is "everyone is equally guilty". This whole concept is a propaganda's view on the subject. Trying to put blame to other side is just what propaganda aims for and it's an emotional look on the subject. I think whole Serbian alternative history is an emotional look on the subject and it has little to do with a scientific look. Sorry for this digression. I just wanted to give you that article since you thought that communist never dreamed Yugoslavia could break apart while they had even discussed it in the early days. I would rather say that they knew it can't survive. I tried to find a video of professor Bilandzic where he is speaking about words spoken on one of the highest meeting where Tito himself was present. They were speaking how Serbs will attack AVNOJ's Yugoslavia after Tito, and as we all know that's exactly what had happened and led to breakup of Yugoslavia.89.164.165.230 (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Serbs were discriminated in 1990 because of the situation of agression (war) they made in... 1991! Someone should recomend you to Larry David, he may give you a job at his creative department, they love that kind of stuff. Seriously, I am not joking. And please dont say you were refering to the Log Revolution that happend after the constitutional changes and mentioned dscrimination. Funny how the way of yours refering to Serbs actually describes you perfectly Asdisis.

@Direktor, what an irony that ammong all people I know, it was you who forced me to listen to a Šešelj speach :D But, I dont understand why are you showing me Šešelj? We know he is a Serbian nationalist politician, I want to hear uninvolved scholars. My answer of not knowing is simply because I havent read or get much knolledge on this issue, so it is my real answer. The concept of constitutive nations certainly seems peculiar. There may be even differences between the Yugoslav federal law, and international law. I simply dont know the answer yet. We can see about it if you want, but it is not my priority at all now. FkpCascais (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The chain of antagonism goes something like: Shiptars ethnically cleanse Serbs -> Serbs go nationalist and anti-Tito/1974, and elect Milosevic who (being something of a moron xD) tries to take over Yugoslavia on a wave of Serbian(!) nationalism -> Croats (very happy with 1974) go nationalist in response and elect Tudman to counter Milosevic, Tudman starts discriminating against Serbs in his bid to create a nation state -> Serbs rebel against Zagreb on Milosevic's prompting, thinking that Milosevic is a really nice and stand-up guy - and definitely not some sort of scumbag who'd just toss them aside like an old shoe when the other 88% of the country inevitably gets an army to squash the hopeless peasant revolt in the godforsaken backwater... bit of a miscalculation somewhere in there.

@FkpCascais: What! You never listened to Seselj, are you mad!? He's my favorite Serbian public figure! If I lived in Serbia I'd elect him immediately just so I can watch him on TV every day :). Hopefully he will get into the Skupstina next time around and I'll have him to replace Žeki as parliamentarian comedian. Ah, the good old days of Rojs [14]... (Usput, evo ti ovo [15], i ovo [16].)

My point with all this is to bring us once again to the point of WHAT right do you propose was lost by the Croatian Serbs with the change in the 1990 constitution? Because what you want to add there inescapably implies that some was. While the sources you brought up do not.

@Asdisis, the Badinter Arbitration Committee was an EC advisory body and had no authority whatsoever to "rule" on these issues. All they did was offer "Opinions". As regards gray, well... its tough to be moralistic in this issue. On the one hand, Croatian Serbs were basically 100% passive and innocent at the point when Tudman started messing with them. Its beyond doubt in my opinion that his government was deliberately trying to provoke antagonism and incite a revolt.. you had Gojko Šušak probably firing anti-tank missiles into Borovo Selo [17], e.g... On the other hand, its because of Milosevic and Serbs rocking the 1974 boat - that Tudman was elected in the first place. And he probably knew they would never leave Yugoslavia without trouble and would certainly be used by Milosevic sooner or later... Well, the Serbs definitely turned nationalist first so I'd say Serbs were of a darker shade of gray. On the other hand the Shiptar atrocities in Kosovo... and the fact that Croatian Serbs didn't do anything..

I guess the real culprit is Tito who trusted the Albanian communists (who were basically a bunch of tribal primitives) way too much... Leka Ranković kept that place in line. -- Director (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Fkp, get your chronology right. Here some of it [18]. I know Serbian history heavily distorts the chronology. As I said, Serbs really have their own version of some historical events. Discrimination started with the period of destabilization which came before the war. The war itself openly broke in 1991 however the period of destabilization goes back to mid 80'. For instance Serbia had started putting YPA under it's control during 80'. Nothing happened over night. Of course that nationalists on one side were the fuel for the other side. In wartime discrimination comes gratis with the war. Especially in this case since Serbia and Croatia are neighboring countries. We can look what happened to Japanese during WW2 in America and note that that case is much different, than this one where Serbs organised a rebellion inside Croatia. As I sad the closest case to make an analogy is the one of Germans in Poland during WW2. Look your choice is to view this what I'm telling you as insults. Your problem is that you look at historical events in an emotional way trough the "guilt meter". To make an analogy we can see that former German soldiers from WW2 never accepted that genocide had happened. They identify themselves with that regime and they can't accept that fact because that would mean the quilt is on them. Germany had gone trough catharsis and today you can hardly find a German who identifies himself with the German regime from the WW2. For them those are other people and they don't feel guilty when someone is saying that Germany is responsible for genocide. For them that is a different Germany and for you that is not the case. I'm not blaming you for that, but I study it objectively. Germany way conquered and it was transformed under ally command. Serbia was not conquered and the same people who started the war are still justifying it. The closes comparison would be with Germany after WW1. Germany never accepted the defeat and that led to WW2. Serbia is in similar position today. Luckily we today have international courts and we very well established what had happened and a majority of those responsible for war crimes have been prosecuted.

Director. I also watched a great deal of Seselj clips and I also find them funny to watch. Mainly because a delusional man is making a mockery of international court. It's funny how rational people are trying to deal with a primitive person. He even thinks he had won against Hague tribunal. That's very comical and from physical point of view very interesting. If you think something that that's true for you. If only I could imagine something like that so I make my life easy. But let's not be foolish. Seselj was a dangerous man that sent too many Serbs to their death. He is one of the most responsible people for all war crimes committed by both sides. The main reason to all war crimes during Yugoslav wars was hate and Seselj's hate speeches are one of the main reasons for war crimes by both sides. Milosevic although stated 4 wars, he is not as much responsible for the war crimes. Well if we take into consideration that he had Seselj to say everything he couldn't, then he is. So let's not desire for Seselj to have any more power. With the little power he had he made too much suffering and I personally think he would be even worst than Hitler if he had as much power. Maybe you and I find him funny, but there are people in Serbia that take him seriously. 89.164.165.230 (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

About Badinter's commission. Yes, it gave an expert legal opinion. Of course it did not have the power to enforce it, but that's irrelevant to the legal decision itself. Well at the end even Serbia had accepted that so there's really no any doubt about that question. Even if no one accepted the decision it would still stand, however it had happened much more than that. Each side had accepted that so there wasn't even the need to enforce it.

Also I really don't see the basis for your opinion that Croatia had deliberately provoked the rebellion. People often base their conclusions on their subjective perception and I would like to hear to why you think so. I'm really not interested in perceptions but in the things that had happened. Tudjman is as person heavily attacked because of the things he had said, but you can rarely find any "attack" against he had done. If we take Milosevic on the other side, you can name a lot of things he had done and why he is a criminal. Here. Compare the misdeeds that are put to Milosevic to the one put to Tudjman. Tudjman is mostly criticized because of his statements but you can't neglect the wartime circumstances. Nothing similar can be found as the things in that video. 89.164.165.230 (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to note at the end. I really don't like to look on history trough guilt meter and I guess that's how the most people are viewing it. Not just Fkp, but you Director as well. It's not about who's guilty and defending your side but about what happened. Most of people don't take into consideration that events on each side are connected. One side's nationalists boost the other side. 89.164.165.230 (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the long post, but I had to post this [19]. Just look at this sentence:"Svedok Štrbac – koji je bio predsednik komisije za razmenu zarobljenih i mrtvih, kao i sekretar Vlade Republike Srpske Krajine – opširno je opisao izbijanje rata u Hrvatskoj, sugerišući da je zato bila kriva vlast Hrvatske demokratske zajednica koja je Srbe diskriminisala, otpuštala i uklonila ih iz ustava kao konstitutivni narod.". This is exactly as I put it. People who were responsible for the war are trying to justify it. So it's not surprising Serbs are repeating those exact claims. On the other side it's not surprising that many Croatians do not have positive view on Tudjman since it's not hard to find criticism towards him in Croatia. 89.164.165.230 (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Buća, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Tryphon. 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) 14:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015

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 review: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of the Bulge Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the collapse of the Serbian Army in World War I Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Why is there no need for dob to be in lead sentence? That it default MoS isn't it? Omnipedia (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thought it looked crowded. -- Director (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 2015

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 review: Hawkeye7 on the German retreat from France in 1944 Op-ed: TomStar81 on empires of World War I Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Flag of the Social Democratic Party of Croatia.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Flag of the Social Democratic Party of Croatia.png. 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. --B-bot (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016

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 review: Nick-D on Jefferson Davis; Hawkeye7 on Australia's war in Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses British World War I conscription Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

My condolences

I am sure you must be delighted about the recent assignment of Zlatko Hasanbegovic... Silvio1973 (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Serbs of Croatia article

Sorry for bothering you again with this, but since the recent posts in that topic are directed towards you I would like to note some things here so I don't start the pointless discussions on the topic. The new editor had made a post on 10 January. I answered on 11th by saying "The matter is closed by a RfC.". Then in another post I said "This discussion has yielded a conclusion that had entered the article." Then on 12th I said "You can read the conclusion in the RfC closure and the review". The new user then wen't on claiming this on the 25th: "The IP user disagrees: they claim the RfC and the subsequent discussions haven't reached any conclusion...". I think the best thing is to ignore that kind of behavior. 89.164.194.137 (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Battle of France under review!

The Battle of France article is now being reviewed for good article status. I require your help, if possible, to get this review to pass. Much help would be HIGHLY appreciated! Since you worked a lot on the article, I think you could really contribute to the pass. KevinNinja (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016

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 review: Hawkeye7 on nuclear weapons in Britain and Nick-D on Australia's war in the Pacific Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Kamurun Campaign of 1914–16 Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016

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 review: Hawkeye7 discusses a Panzer general and a "mercenary mum" Op-ed: TomStar81 on the terrible battles of 1916 Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

House of Zamanjić (Džamanjić) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect House of Zamanjić (Džamanjić). Since you had some involvement with the House of Zamanjić (Džamanjić) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016

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 review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies, Nick-D on the German Army Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1916 Easter Rising Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016

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 review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies (part two) Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of Jutland Timeline: Events of 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 Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016

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 review: Nick-D on the Australian Imperial Force Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016

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 review: Hawkeye7 looks at disease control and defence satellites Op-ed: TomStar81 on the rise of air power Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Answer

[20] , you know that doesn't go along with Serbian nationalistic view? Those pov pushers don't care whether they go against their own previous view, as long as they insert Serbian pov. You can make an alternative suggestion, but here's a preview of what it will look [21]. Interesting enough, when it comes to insert ethnicity to the lead in pro-Serbian point of view, then it's not "so irrelevant" for them - Nikola_Tesla141.136.205.239 (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, an open access peer reviewed journal with no charges, invites you to participate

Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.

We welcome you to have a look the journal. Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter. Feel free to participate in the journal.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:

• Publish an article to the journal. Even a medical student like you can make a submission.
• Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
• Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
• Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
• Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
• Join the editorial board.
• Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
• Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
• Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
  • Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
• Technical work like template designing for the journal.
• Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to updateswijoumed.org. If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at haggstrom.mikaelwikiversityjournal.org.
• Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reachwikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

Diptanshu^Talk 05:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016

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 review: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on Nazi terror and covert warfare Op-ed: Hawkeye7 looks at Australians on the Somme Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Help in calming nerves with the Battle of France, again

Hey!

Please visit the talk page for the Battle of France. Again, a discussion has been created about the infobox, and I need you to back me up. Thanks!! KevinNinja (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI Battle of France and terminological inexactitude on the milhist page might be of interest. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Abusive edits and threats

User:Director: I have mentioned you by name [[22]] here. Keith-264 (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016

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 review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on the evolution of the tank Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Battle of France (last time?)

Please comment on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_France#RFC:_Scope_of_.22result.22_included_in_the_infobox

Thanks. KevinNinja (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016

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 review: Hawkeye7 looks at two new books on the US military Interview: A chat with our new project coordinators Review essay: Nick-D discusses recent works on the British and Australian Armies in World War I Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Director. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016

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 review: Hawkeye7 looks at America's nuclear capability at the start of the Cold War Review essay: Hawkeye7 on the Manhatten Project suite of articles Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses leadership changes in World War I Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Question

I would just like to ask you something. --Silverije (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Ask. Who're you afraid of, for heavens' sake... -- Director (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Silverije: Spit it out, man! -- Director (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, God, I'm not afraid of anybody. I 'd like to talk to you in Croatian. It's about a delicate matter. --Silverije (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Pa imas lijevo botun "Email this user"... -- Director (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

re:COA

Why, prey tell, didn't you simply upload the COA with one border as a separate file instead of uploading it over a COA with two borders? And then you upload the same COA with two borders as a separate file. It's a waste of time. Also, please keep Christmas and other celebrations of superstition for yourself.--Calapone (talk) 10:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I have corrected the mistake you made. The separate file you uploaded is marked for deletion because it's a duplicate of the file:Croatia, Historic Coat of Arms, first red square.svg. I have uploaded your COA with only one border as a separate file. Please use that file from now on. I have also uploaded the COA with one border and the first white square, in case you need it. Good day.--Calapone (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not "liking" or "disliking" anything. I'm merely undoing the damage you're making with your stubbornness. This whole "edit war" could have been avoided if you just took a few seconds to upload one new file instead of uploading the one bordered COA over the two boardered COA. Whether you keep your "holiday spirit" or not is up to you. And please, do call the community and don't forget to tell them that you're too lazy to do one simple task and you would rather waste your time on bickering than admit that you're wrong.--Calapone (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017

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 review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on a curious episode of World War I Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move: Split, Croatia to Split (city)

Hi! Seeing as you're one of the most active contributors to the article, I thought you'd like to share your thoughts on the matter. You can find the move discussion here. Thank you!

(Also, you should probably consider archiving some of your talk page.) ~barakokula31 (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017

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 review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017

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 review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on two facets of US military power Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Russian Revolution Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Yugoslavia

Although I like to thank you for rolling back the Yugoslavia article since it is the overview article, do we consider the main Yugoslavia (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) as the default article? Supreme Dragon (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

There are currently two former country articles covering the kingdom and the federation. As things stand now, those are the two "main" articles. I don't necessarily agree with that state of affairs, maybe the two can be merged into one, but that's now the long-standing consensus and I can see good reasons for it (mostly the fact that all former communist European countries have their own separate articles). Also, Serbia and Montenegro (FR Yugoslavia) was thrice rejected for inclusion as part of the primary subject of the Yugoslavia article. This is because, despite its name, it was not recognized as the sole successor to the SFRY, but an equal successor among five. -- Director (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Balkans calling Split, EU

Hey, whazzup? How is life now in EU? You dont need to forget your old palls. My wife hated you so much those past years when she spent the nights alone while we fought each and every word in the neverending discussions here. Are you still in Split? I am still in Cascais. Time starts running so fast one doesnt even notece it. I thought of moving to Belgrade with my wife but I am still postponing it. As much as Serbia still has a harsh reputation of low living standard within Europe, looking just to Belgrade actually is not at all behind compared to Lisbon in many paramethers. The thing that actually warries is that your favourite comedian Šešelj is bloody serious about taking power and if that happends, a scenario quite plausible, the uncertenty about the future will be huge.

I always considered you intelligent. So it is not necessary for you to comment to me about the reasons why was Šešelj allowed to return to Serbia and even engage in politics. When wanting to finish with an already beaten and unstable enemy, you don't need to further get your hands dirty, no, all you need is just give him a gun and they will kill themselves. Šešelj is the perfect gun for the job.

So allow me to go back. I was in 1990 in Belgrade, Sarajevo, Mostar, Dobrovnik and Korčula. Since I had already lived in the West I was quite used to election campaigns. Everything was quite iqual, posters, flags, stickers, borring politician faces, slogans of promisses of wanderfull futures that never happen, etc. but this one was clearly different in one important aspect. My country was Yugoslavia, but the parties were all campagning for their respetive republic. In all previous countries I had the chance to see the election campaigns, parties were focused on national problems and had platforms and agendas directed to the entire nation. How could such democratization process lede to anything beside separation? FkpCascais (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"EU"? Croatia has been bought by the Russian Federation [23]. Tell your wife "from Russia, with love".

Seselj is perfect, period. If he wasn't a cartoon character, I'd marry him.

It couldn't. The second Yugoslavia was set up all stupid, and the first was more-or-less just a bigger Serbia. There's too many of you damn Serbs everywhere.. and we Croats are much too Austro-civilized to be a minority in your country. So here's the deal: either we say we're one nation and really push that concept for a couple generations by force.. or we kill a third of you, catholicize another third, and turn the last third into a joke-writing slave underclass. We also must kill all the Slovenes and Purgers, that's just a must anyway. -- Director (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It is really all about marketing. Cheers! :D FkpCascais (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Sarajevo should have been the capital. xD

Or that idiot Slobo might have been more careful with Racan. Didn't learn from history. You can fuck with the Slovenes, the Muslims, the Squips, but if you don't make the no.2 people happy - we'll call the Germans and blow everything up. Including ourselves. -- Director (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017

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 review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at air power and nuclear weaponry Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017

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 review: Hawkeye7 on Strategic Air Command doctrine Op-ed: Tomstar81 looks at a little-known aspect of World War I Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threat by Director. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

A bit of advice...

You may want to look into {{fbdb}} which produces () or maybe setting up a link like this. For the record, I thought it was pretty obviously a joke, too. I wouldn't have thought so if it came from a brand new editor, though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Its my bad. I honestly forgot how bitter and up your own behind you have to be to engage on this project... -- Director (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

We really need a "Your neckbeard must be this long to edit Wikipedia" sign. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017

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 review: Hawkeye7 looks at the Battle of Kokoda and US defence acquisition in the 1960s Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ExamsDIRlong

Template:ExamsDIRlong has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017

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 review: Nick-D looks at planning for the unthinkable Op-ed: TomStar81 on Russia's Provisional Government in World War I Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVI, August 2017

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 review: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines and recent Australian Army leadership; Nick-D on South African armour Op-ed: Nick-D talks photography Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVII, September 2017

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 review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at two recent releases Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on ANZACs in the Third Ypres Offensive Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

"Full Titles in Infobox"

A while back you reversed my edit to Adolf Hitler's main page listing him as "Fuhrer of the German Realm and People". You mentioned that your reason for doing so was because "full titles were not used for this entry". Does this apply to all biography articles or just the one for Hitler? Thanks!Emiya1980 (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

All infoboxes of that type. Notice that Donald Trump isn't "President of the United States of America" in the infobox... Emmanuel Macron isn't "President of the French Republic", Angela Merkel isn't "Federal Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany", etc. etc... -- Director (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Would you mind pointing me in the direction of a Wikipedia article or set of guidelines that corroborates this? While I don't dispute the rule, there's someone who keeps insisting on listing Soviet leaders as" General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Soviet Union." If I could point to a rule that specified in no uncertain terms that such overly long titles are not allowed in the inbox, it would help prevent a drawn out edit war. Thank you once again for your consideration regarding this matter. Emiya1980 (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Emiya1980

Oh there's no "rule", nothing's really "forbidden" on Wiki.. its just how its done... virtually everywhere. Infoboxes are problematic as it is, we don't need to make them worse: keep it simple - and the wikilink will take the reader to the article where he can (or at least should be able to) find the full formal title of an office. -- Director (talk) 08:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Kingdom of Yugoslavia

Your edit was reverted by another user back to a state flag. Just thought you should know. 108.30.128.7 (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

[annoyed sounds]... -- Director (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 2017

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 review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on late 1917 naval warfare Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid you;re showing your ignorance on this topic

Kershaw is the author of the recent 2-volume definitive biography of Hitler, Fest is the author of the first major biography, and Burleigh is the author of the recent The Third Reich: A New History. These are not WP:FRINGE writers, they are major players in this area, and they all agree that there was no coherent political philosophy behind "National Socialism", that it tried to be all things to all people in order to attract voters, and after the "seizure of power", all it really stood for was whatever Hitler demanded. Early on it tried to combine radical nationalism with socialism, but about the only thing it really stood for was getting into power, at first by putsch and then by electoral politics. Its most consistent aspects were nationalism, anti-Bolshevism and antisemitism, but even the latter was significantly under-emphasized during the electoral politics period. There really is no ideology called "National Socialism". BMK (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That's just utter rubbish. Revisionist historians who don't follow the VAST majority of scholars on this issue would be considered 'fringy.' 104.169.28.113 (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Director. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry

Director, I apologize for framing my question at Talk:Benito Mussolini/Archive 4#Infobox image RfC in a way you found as "an insulting question". I used sarcasm to try and understand your position, and I apologize for that. I in no way intended it as an insult, and certainly would have made that clear if I'd have a chance to respond before so many other posts took control and drove the discussion way off track. I respect you as an editor and commenter, and look forward to cooperating constructively with you in the future. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 03:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Its my fault. I've been too combative over there ever since the issue was framed in ideological terms. Living where I do, Mussolini's atrocities aren't as academic a fact as they may be for others.. so I get defensive when in a position where its perhaps implied I'm attempting to (quote) "burnish" the fascist monster's reputation. -- Director (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXL, December 2017

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 review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Halifax Explosion of 1917 Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Director: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Director!!


Hi Director, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Director!

Happy New Year!

Director,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

The Bugle: Issue CXLI, January 2018

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 review: Hawkeye7 looks at tropical medicine and Operation Market Garden Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on US Army doctrine in World War I Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Re:Stop pushing the FRY into the Yu article

Prva je bila Kraljevina Jugoslavija do 1939., druga su "DFJ", "FNRJ" (1943. - 1945.) i "SFRJ" (1945. - 1992.), a treća je Savezna Republika Jugoslavija koja je postojala do 2003. kao legalni sljednik bivše SFRJ.

Neki autori čak govore o "četiri" Jugoslavije, a prema konceptima njene strukture, odnosno ustavnog uređenja i koncepta.

Dejan Jović, zagrebački politolog koji predaje u Škotskoj, u svojoj doktorskoj disertaciji a kasnijoj knjizi "Jugoslavija - država koja je odumrla" spominje "prvu" Jugoslaviju kao onu koja je u svom srcu imala ideju stvaranja jugoslavenske nacije, od 1918. do 1939. (Vidi: "Jugoslavija - država koja je odumrla" Dejan Jović s. 107)

"Druga" je bila 'sporazumska', od Sporazuma Cvetković-Maček 1939., kada je stvorena Banovina Hrvatska. Time je priznata hrvatska posebnost, čime se odustalo od ideje stvaranja jedne nacije.

"Treća" je bila Titova Jugoslavija, od 1944 do ustavnih izmjena krajem šezdesetih odnosno početka sedamdesetih. Ona se temeljila na socijalizmu, ali i na jugoslavenstvu. Tito je, primjerice, izjavljivao za sebe da je i Jugoslaven, i da se država ipak temelji na bratstvu i jedinstvu, tj. ideji etničke sličnosti među njenim konstitutivnim narodima.

Četvrta je Jugoslavija po Joviću više Kardeljeva nego Titova. Ona slijedi koncept Ustava 1974., kojega je autor Edvard Kardelj, a trajala je do 1990. i usvajanja novih ustava pojedinih republika SFRJ.

Želim vam još ugodan dan!

MateoKatanaCRO (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

<font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- [[User:Director|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:Director|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></font> : -- Director (talk)

to

<span style="font-family: Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:Director|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:Director|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> : -- Director (talk)

—Anomalocaris (talk) 07:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Most users are updating their signatures as requested. We hope you will also. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLII, February 2018

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 review: Nick-D on the Napoleonic Wars and Hawkeye7 on World War II Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on generalship in 1918 Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIII, March 2018

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 review: Hawkeye7 looks at a work by Daniel Ellsberg Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1918 flu pandemic Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. FkpCascais (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Jarnović

Zdravi bili, šjor Director! Ufan se da ćete me, kâ fetivi Splićanin, razumit ako pišen luški (Lučac m'e starina i baza), da ni' triba mi pisat ingleški. Za niki moj članak povirî san u Wikipedijin tekst o možebitnon Jarnoviću. Malo se grustin - baš o temen pišen - ka' (kako rečedu Rvati) svojatamo ono ča ni' naše. Zato bi ja bî pinkicu suzdržaniji, rezerviraniji, bar bi spomeni Ragusu na Siciliji, dočim je možebitni Jarnović kršten u Palermu, kâ Giovanni Gernovichi. Nave' bi mu i ostale forme imena koje je dupera. Pisali su da je bî barufant i da je dobro igra biljar, po more bit da je bî patentani Vlaj, ali to nî dokaz - po temen je moga bit i Inglež.

Ne volin se pačat u tuje tekstove. Ispravin činjenicu, tu i tamo, dodan podatak, ako je triba, ma ne užan pripravjat, jer vazdan računan da je oti jema svoga rezona pisat kako je pisa. Je da je Wikipedia kolektivan trud, ali svejedno znan da autor tišći do svoga. Eto, zato san Vas lipo otî zamolit da malo žuntate, more bit se oslonivši i na članak u [Hrvatskoj enciklopediji], odnosno oni u [Hrvatskome biografskom leksikonu].

Ja bi rekâ da ono inicijalno J nî metnuto da bi se štilo kâ 'rvasko j tj. /j/, ven da je metnuto za proštit kako ž oliti /ʒ/ (dobro, jemate prav ako mi oćete reć da su jarko i žarko sinonimi..., a i da je talijanski palatal gi iz istega fonetskoga kolina).

Škužajte ako san Vas zadavî, stojte mi dobro i veselo. --Inoslav Bešker (talk) 08:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIIV, April 2018

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 review: Nick-D looks at the bombing of Darwin; recent books by female military historians Review essay: K.e.coffman on Wikipedia's representations of the Nazi German military Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Red Baron Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIV, May 2018

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 review: Hawkeye7 looks at coalitions and logistics in World War II, and Nick-D at Australia's frontier wars Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVI, June 2018

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 review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on a supergun of World War I Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVII, July 2018

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 review: This month's external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the murder of the Romanovs Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 2018

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 review: Nick-D looks at a classic US official history Op-ed: TomStar81 on belated declarations of war in 1916–18 Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)