Jump to content

User talk:Peacemaker67/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Article you requested per fair use

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TUHpBTWcwR21vVkE

Send me a message when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)

To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!

View the full newsletter
Background

Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way.

Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process.

An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here.

Progress so far
Stage one of the dispute resolution noticeboard request form. Here, participants fill out a request through a form, instead of through wikitext, making it easier for them to use, but also imposing word restrictions so volunteers can review the dispute in a timely manner.

Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created.

As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May)

Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes.

Proposed changes

Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement:

1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum.

2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

  • This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute.
  • It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent.
  • If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors).
  • The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?".
  • Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired.
  • Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline.
  • Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time.

3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Tip

Will you please be so kind to point to the tip you thanked this user for?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I would be glad to. The string on RSN. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Thnks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Your input would be very welcome

Hi,
A little while ago you commented on my talkpage about a possible sock/stalker. I've just opened an SPI, here. Is there anything you'd like to add, or do you have any other evidence for / against? (I'm not absolutely, totally 100% sure about the relationship between the IPs and the named account, but I think the relationship among the IPs is obvious). bobrayner (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Please avoid posting warnings on my talk page in future

Civilty is mandatory here which you obviously lack. Also, read better the Wikipedia rules before referencing them: "However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work". May I ask you where is your knowledge of the violation of the creator's copyright here?--Juraj Budak (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing on www.balkanpeace.org to indicate that the website has any authority whatsoever to reproduce articles from news websites in general or this article in particular on its website. User:Nick-D's comment at [1] refers. And if you breach WP policy I will post on your talkpage. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Military ranks

Hi! Could you please lend a hand with translation of a half-dozen military ranks used Josef Philipp Vukassovich article? The article is currently undergoing GA review at Talk:Josef Philipp Vukassovich/GA1 and it was suggested by the editor performing the review to provide translations of Austrian ranks in brackets. Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

G'day Tomobe03, you seem to have most of them linked ok, so use them ie Oberleutnant = First lieutenant, Hauptmann = Captain (OF-2)), Major = Major, Oberstleutnant = Lieutenant colonel, he seems to have skipped Oberst = Colonel, and gone straight to Generalmajor = Brigadier or Brigadier general, but I have never seen the rank of Feldmarschall-Leutnant before, so I can't help you there, although he seems to have been a division commander so the most likely equivalent would seem to be Generalleutnant = Major general. Hope that helps. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I saw the wikilinks but I wanted to check first fearing late 18th/early 19th century ranks may not fit those linked.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Insulting language

you should appology to me because of this: [2]. you have no right to say that my changes are disruption. you are very rude person you know. Nemambrata (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I have replied on your talkpage. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
He's right, you know, Peacemaker. You should just report the disruption immediately. -- Director (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Antid

I must join ZjarriRrethues [3] in recommending you bring up User:Antidiskriminator's behavior at WP:AE. In my opinion, the user has displayed a clear pattern of WP:TE and general WP:DISRUPTION/HARASSMENT by way of WP:WIKIHOUNDING and WP:STICK. The user has been informed of WP:ARBMAC and duly warned [4], but has nevertheless demonstrated time and again that he will not back away, and is generally ignoring attempts to address the disruptive pattern of behavior. He does not edit articles, but merely opens WP:BATTLEGROUNDS on a daily basis.

At this point I can't see what will put a stop to this short of a WP:ANI or WP:AE report. I believe it falls to you to write the actual thing, as you've been dealing with the disruption more than anyone else. I'd be happy to advise, if necessary, and will fill-in the gaps (if any) in my own comment. -- Director (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by WP:T? Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
A typo: I meant WP:TE. -- Director (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, that's ironic because that's what I get accused of... Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Forget about that, its nonsense: if anyone's objective in these articles its you. There's no way anyone would buy that. -- Director (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
For what my comment may be worth, I think that official and unofficial warnings should always be followed by reports as users tend to devalue them when there are no consequences. All in all, possible reports shouldn't be discussed as in some cases accounts, whose only use is the harrassment (edit hounding etc.) of the reporting editor in order to make him be perceived as equally problematic, are activated. If you're going to proceed with the report, it'd be best to just prepare it and without disussing it publicly.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Peacemaker67/Archive 3. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by heather walls (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Pavelić

I'll check this this evnning or tommorow... I hope there is no rush. --Wüstenfuchs 14:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

no rush, lots to do and no time limit... :-) Peacemaker67 (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

 Military history reviewers' award 
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work on Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews of Military history project articles for the period Jul–Sep 12, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Which reminds me..

The Barnstar of Diligence
For tireless contribution and an unwavering dedication to accuracy. -- Director (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, cheers! :-)) Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Teritory

But its not? Syrmia, Sandžak, all of those are not part of Territory. --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken. The Territory included parts of Sandzak, eastern Syrmia (for a few months), northern parts of Kosovo and the Banat. Please read the source for the info, which is PDF linked in the Refs section. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Yes I made a (computer-assisted) typo in the article even though I managed to spell it right on the talk page. I woke up a wee bit too early today. Thanks for fixing it. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Radoje Pajovic

Yes here's a translation of the relevant paragraph: "Djurisic's stay at Belgrade was given by Nedic's press large publicity which emphasized his contribution in the war against the NOP [Partisans] and published photographs of him with German officers and Nedic's officers. In addition to that Nedic promoted Djurisic's rank to that of lieutenant colonel even though it was not long before this that the same rank, on the proposition by Draza Mihailovic, was also given by King Peter. At the proposition of the German Command of the Southeast, Hitler awarded Djuirisic the order of the iron cross." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

392nd Div.

Hello Peacemaker67. You asked me to get to you here about the change I had made to the article on 392nd (Croatian) Infantry Division (Wehrmacht). The part of the sentence I removed suggested the armed forces of NDH (HOS) were formally a part of the Yugoslav Army in the Homeland (JVuO). In fact HOS and JVuO were separate and antagonistic entities (see the Battle of Lijevča Polje - http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitka_na_Lijev%C4%8Da_polju taking place between them at the very time in question). I think the article would be better off with the change I had made reintroduced, but that is up to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.51.213 (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Serbian source

I attempted to find the article in question, but to no avail. There aren't many conclusions I can draw from the limited info other than that it's from the "Journal of Military History" and published by the Military History Institute of the Serbia & Montenegro Army, but you probably already knew that. Sorry I couldn't help you much. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 21:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Note

Kindly please, do not edit my posts. Keep your comments inside the Comment section. Altering frivolously and arbitrarily other people's posts is a vandalism.--Juraj Budak (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What article? Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles requested per fair use

Ante Paveliċ, Charisma and National Mission in Wartime Croatia

The distant observers? Towards the politics of diasporic identification

WEHRMACHT PERCEPTIONS OF MASS VIOLENCE IN CROATIA, 1941–1942

Please let me know if you have issues or when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Got em thanks! Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

An Award for You!

The Content Review Medal of Merit  
For your reviews of GA and A class military articles, I am pleased to award you the Content Review Medal Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, cheers for that! Peacemaker67 (send, over) 11:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Jevdjevic image

The Serbo-Croatian wikipedia has a better image that I think we should use for the infobox. It has him with a cap that's more familiar with the Chetniks and even his medal is visible. What do you think? There's also an interesting image of Jedjevic with the Italians there. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

definitely a better image, what about the licensing? Peacemaker67 (send, over) 20:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
and the second pic is also a good one for the Case White section, but again, is the licensing up to snuff? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
A NFR license could always be used for the new infobox image and the old one would be removed from the article and put up for speedy deletion. I think a Croatian PD license could be used since technically they were on NDH soil at the time and "it is an anonymous work and it was published before January 1st, 1949". In the second image you have the Italians with Jedjevic so I'm leaning towards them having the camera and taking the "simple photograph" so an Italian PD license could also apply. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Done. The portrait as non-free and the other as PD-Italy. It's probably worth you having a look to make sure you agree with the way I did it. They'll get scrutinised in a ACR. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
They look good to me. I think the article's ready. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Do you want to do the honours? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Done. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Dobroslav Jevdjevic.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

Edit warring

I see the point for that, thank you for informing me. I would like to ask you for a little favour. Before a month and a half ago the user Edward321 started edit war with me reversing all my contributions. Can you please report that as well, because I am not that good user of wikipedia and I still don't know how to do that. Hvala. Pozdrav! :) Proudbulgarian (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Milhist B-class backlog

Thanks for taking care of castles. I just found something to make your day... Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, I 'd rather stick pins in my eyes... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 19:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Review enquiry

Hi Peacemaker67. I have a question regarding your review of the article I recently created, MTB 345. How do you decide that the article is Start-class apparently without checking any of the criteria? It would be nice to know exactly what needs improving to achieve B-class. Manxruler (talk) 09:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

G'day Manxruler (nice tag BTW, some of my family came from Creneash). I'll reply on the article talkpage. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Lovely island, isn't it? Thanks, will check the talk page later today. Manxruler (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

Ustaše

Hello, Peacemaker. I have noticed that in the article 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) the word Ustaše is written incorrectly several times− instead of Ustaše with the letter š it is written as Ustaŝe with the letter ŝ (which does not exist in the Serbo-Croatian language.) Because I know that you have spent a lot of time on this article and have expanded it, and because I know that the article is currently undergoing FA-review, I would just like to take this opportunity to remind you that you should pay attention to details such as this in the article because they are important to the pronunciation of the word Ustaša/Ustaše. Cheers! p.s. I really respect your work on Yugoslavia-related articles. Keep up the good work! 23 editor (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

thanks, I usually get it right, but in some cases there are pre-existing diacritic mistakes, and in some cases I just screw it up and click on the wrong one! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

edit conflict

From the edit summary of [5], I assume that the restoration of tags was accidental, so I've removed them again. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

of course, sorry about that. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Vojvodina

What is rm and cn??? Thanks--Nado158 (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

sorry, rm is just shorthand for remove, and cn is the "citation needed" tag you use inline, immediately after the sentence you are requesting the citation for. Just type two curly brackets on either side of cn and a bot will eventually add a date. I'll do it on the article to demonstrate. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Charles Melvill

Hi, I have found a couple of new resources that allowed me to expand the Charles Melvill article a little from when you first assessed it. Could you please review and reconsider your assessment if you think it meets B-class? Cheers. Zawed (talk) 09:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Done, good additions! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks mate. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 01:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Pavle Đurišić

Hello, Peacemaker. I have found a book called Balkan Genocides: Holocaust and Ethnic Cleansing in the 20th Century by a Professor Paul Mojzes. Inside, there is a section written by Misha Glenny where he mentions Chetnik and Ustaše actions and where he briefly mentions the massacres committed by the men of Pavle Đurišić. Do you think that this book would be a reliable source to have included in the article? 23 editor (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. Does it add anything to what we already have? We need to take into account Glenny's status as a journalist, but if the book has been edited by a history professor that helps. Who published it? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Published in 2011 by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 23 editor (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't add much to what is already written about in the article, but it does mention somethings which are described in the section in the article called Case White and cleansing actions. It could be useful. 23 editor (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why not. Be bold and add and we can discuss if there is anything contentious. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Very good pickup, I've been using it on other articles. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Sharon

Hi, thanks for taking a look at this article. I requested a copy edit from ‪Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors‬ on 18 July and it was completed the next day by User:Lfstevens when the references were radically changed, but nothing else much. I thought this was a bit unusual but proceeded to submit the article for GA review. I have been off line for a couple of days and so missed an opportunity to respond. Can you advise how best to proceed as I don't want another Guild Copy Editor mucking up the references again. --Rskp (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I've not had much if anything to do with User:Lfstevens so I can't comment. But I suggest you approach User:Diannaa direct, hopefully she is not too busy or can recommend an alternative. She's an awesome copyeditor and also a MILHIST member, which probably helps. The advantage of approaching a specific copyeditor is that you can ask them not to touch some areas (refs for example). But first I suggest you re-write the lead per my review comments. Over the last few days I've been looking at the great work you've been doing on the Sinai and Palestine campaign and it looks like many of the articles have the same type of issues with the lead. When you know the topic well, it's too easy to jump right in without introducing your topic properly (I do it too...). Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your interest. I did think refs were outside copyeditors purview, that's why I was so non-plussed. I'm not in any rush to get it to GA, but I would like to see it happen, just the same :) and will follow your suggestions. Thanks for taking the time, I really appreciate it. --Rskp (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

WP-BODY

You have employed this section to cut a number of see also links in a number of articles on the basis of overlinking. But this section does not mention the number of links in an article as being an issue. Rather they emphasis the helpfulness of having these see also and etc. series of links at the beginning of relevant subsections. --Rskp (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

What I am referring to is this, "If one or more articles provide further information or additional details (rather than a full exposition—see above), references to such articles may be placed immediately after the section heading for that section, provided this does not duplicate a wikilink in the text." In almost all (allowing for human fallibility) cases where I have removed the see also's in the campaign articles I have done so on that basis, ie there was already a wikilink in the article to that battle, action, capture etc. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh right. Point taken. Sorry about that - I really should learn to read :) --Rskp (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
No prob. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Nazareth

Hi, I revisited this article today and have given it a "spit and polish". Can you have a quick squiz and let me know if you think its still so terrible? --Rskp (talk) 05:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm happy to help out with the odd c/e on the Sinai and Palestine articles, but I don't want to GA review another one soon. The overall structure of the campaign articles is very convoluted and I'm really not comfortable with the complexity. I've withdrawn from reviewing the Battle of Nazareth for that reason. I wanted to review three articles but they are taking a lot longer than I thought they would (largely because I prefer to help improve them than knock them back). I will give you some feedback on Battle of Nazareth in the next few days, but I won't be reviewing it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'm grateful for your interest, All the best, --Rskp (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Bosniaks/Bosnian Muslims/Muslims

Hello, Peacemaker! It seems that an IP has deleted all mentions of Bosnian Muslim and replaced them with Bosniak instead in the article 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian). What do you think of this? Should we revert? 23 editor (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'm sick to death of this type of behaviour. The sources use Bosnian Muslim, so it's Bosnian Muslim. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
You are sick to death of such "behavior"? That's a bit rich don't you think? How about we write "those Serb converts called "Bosniaks" who wish to establish a pseudo-nation on the legitimate territory of Greater Serbia"? I'd bet that would suit those editors who cannot refrain from disgracing other user's edits of good will, since we all know that "Bosniaks" magically appeared only in the 90s and that stating anything else is wretched "behavior". 90.230.54.125 (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Although, after reviewing the sources, I agree that the term Muslim seems to be used almost exclusively and so to observe conformity the article should preferably use the same denomination. Nonetheless, I insist on adding Bosniaks in parenthesis in the opening paragraph to underline the ethnic affiliation. Still, I am less than happy with the ill-chosen words in the post above, the matter of Bosniak ethnicity is not one of "behavior" but fact. 90.230.54.125 (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Whoah whoah, this is another one of those sensitive Balkans things. The people we're talking about are South Slavs of Islamic religion (Serbian fanatics say they're "really Serbs", Croatian fanatics say they're "really Croats"). They (South Slavs of Muslim faith) were sometimes known vaguely in literature as "Turks" before the 20th century. They were not recognized in the unitarianist first Yugoslavia. In the second Yugoslavia they petitioned for recognition of their status as a separate, sixth nation of Yugoslavia. They wanted to be called "Bosniaks" but this was contested by Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs, who considered themselves "Bosniaks" as well (living in Bosnia). As a compromise, the name "Muslims" (or "Bosnian Muslims") was used at that time (1968).
Cca. 20 years later, during the breakup of Yugoslavia, the "Bosnian Muslims" declared themselves "Bosniaks", I guess because you don't much care about the sensibilities of nations with whom you're engaged in bitter conflict. Bosnian Croats and (particularly) Bosnian Serbs still don't like this much, since the name kind of gives the impression that the Bosniaks are the "real Bosnians", while Bosnian Serbs and Croats are kind of "foreign". The S&C however certainly have a legacy there that's at least as long (imo they're basically the same people with three religions, so there's no difference really).
So when you call Bosniaks "Bosnian Muslims", you're kinda adopting the position of their Serbian enemies on the issue of their nation's name. Generally speaking, many Bosniaks might not mind (left-wing), but some might (right-wing). -- Director (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Director. @IP90. People constantly changing sourced text in articles because they have a view about ethnicity is very annoying, and the words are not ill-chosen they reflect the everyday facts of WP article on Balkans subjects. Every week I (and dozens of other editors) probably revert a dozen editors who have a particular view about what language code should be used in some article or another, and it's just POV nonsense. Your initial edit was just another example of carte blanche changes made without reference to the sourced material in the article. Now you have looked at it, you obviously have realised that the sources use Bosnian Muslims, not Bosniaks. This is the case with almost all scholarly texts on WW2 Yugoslavia. You can insist on whatever you like, but I certainly have no issue with identifying the commonly used modern ethnic affiliation of "Bosniaks" in the lead, just as I have no issue with identifying what the modern states are called. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The mode of Director's explanation is one typical of Serb/Croat nationalists, not saying he is one. That is, the attempt to portray the Bosniaks as an artificial creation resulting from the aggressive appropriation of the term Bosniak during the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Director continues this awkward path by irrelevantly referring to the Bosniaks as being known (in some sources) as Turks before Yugoslavia. Classically, this constitutes the nationalist's attempt to present the Bosniaks as an alien element in the region. If anything, the term "Turk" was, rarely, used by the Bosniak nobility in a semi-confessional manner to mark their influence. Prior to the Serb and Croat nationalism of the 19th century Bosnians of all three faiths were primarily known as Bosniaks, however, Orthodox Bosniaks would eventually begin to go by the name of Bosnian Serbs, and Catholic Bosniaks those of Bosnian Croats. Left, as sole Bosniaks, were the Muslim Bosniaks, as these were never successfully incorporated into either Serbia or Croatia. Director is right when saying all three ethnic groups in Bosnia are one people, i.e. Bosniaks. However, due to the twist of fate, Muslim Bosnians came to view themselves as ethnic Bosniaks/Bosnians, whereas the Christian Bosnians would only do so in a regional sense while identifying as Serb/Croats in an ethnic one. Obviously the Christian Bosnians (and their Serb and Croat brethren) tend to deny the existence of an ethnic Bosnian nation because it lies in their interest to usurp Bosnia, not least evident in the last war. However, it is absurd of anyone to expect the Muslims to give up their self-determination right to embrace an ethnic Bosnian nation simply because the Christian Bosnians chose not to. The Yugoslav denomination Muslim was never favored by the Muslim Bosniaks but a policy forcefully imposed on them with the goal of forcing them down the same road of croatiziation and serbianization as had successfully occurred with the Christian Bosniaks. Source: Robert J. Donia. A tradition betrayed. The title pretty much gives it away. Needless to say, the primary identification of any Bosnian Muslim has always been Bosniak, and importantly, has remained so through the turbulent nationalism of the 19th century, as well as the "Muslim" era of Yugoslavia. To quote Robert J. Donia: A Bosnian's identity as a Bosnian - even if it originally referred to his geographical homeland or state membership - has roots going back many centuries, whereas the classification of any Christian Bosnian as a Serb or a Croat goes back barely a century. The idea of being Bosnian Muslim in a "national" (as opposed to a religious) sense is even more recent.. 90.230.54.125 (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, get off your high horse. I frankly could give a toss. The sources say Bosnian Muslim, so that's what the article says. Happy with the inclusion of Bosniak in parentheses in the lead. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying you should give a toss, but I do hope your are critical of what Director writes, as his explanation is, to say the least, comfortably angled towards a minimalistic understanding of the Bosnian identity. I mean like come on, "Before Yugoslavia Bosniaks were vaguely known as Turks", I've read less biased statements at nationalist forums. Talk about cherry-picking historical facts pre-Yugoslavia.90.230.54.125 (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Reflections on your home page

You claim I still have no definite view and conclude There are many victims there, but in my view, not many good guys. I'm afraid you might have exaggerated on the moral relativism here. In for example the Bosnian war, more than 83% percent of the civilian victims were Bosniak, so there is no sense in denying the obvious existence of a principal victim, or the fact that the Bosnian government only complied with democratic principles and enjoyed the unanimous recognition of the Bosnian independence by the international community. As such, the war was sparked by a well-armed Serb community refusing to abide with the world around and who would rather choose to walk down a road of ethnic cleansing and ultimately genocide. Sometimes figures speak the loudest, well over 90% of the individuals convicted by the international tribunal for the former Yugoslavia are Serb. Today, a majority of Western politicians agree on the Dayton agreement being a travesty, ment to bring peace, but rather legitimizing war crimes, and as you write yourself, the lack of rules. The sort of complacent neutrality and ill-placed moral relativism only serves to undermine confidence as it involves turning the back on democracy and belittling those who suffered, in my view. 90.230.54.125 (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

And you are entitled to it. I personally saw enough of it up close and personal on all sides to form my own view. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Nazareth/GA1

Simplest and cleanest thing to do is to delete the page, so it blanks it completely. On your request I can do that for you. Leave a note on my talkpage. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

WP Hungary

I remove that because other user placed this WP to articles about other country, Serbia. Articles from where I removed it are not about Hungary and this is wrong WP. Oldhouse2012 (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

If a present day country had territory that was once part of another, and there is a WP for the latter, it is quite reasonable to include it. Please keep the nationalism out of it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 19
49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Who say that? Is that some rule writen somewhere? Vojvodina province was formed in 1945 and was never part of any other country. And territory of Vojvodina was before 1945 part of many countries, so why only WP Hungary was added there? Why not WP Turkey, Bulgaria, Austria, Yugoslavia, Roman Empire and other? And user who added WP Hungary template is real nationalist because only Hungary is imortant to him, but not Turkey, Bulgaria, Austria or Yugoslavia. Look, he add hungarian names to slovak villages: [6]. It would be best that we keep nationalism out of it but nationalism come to us. Oldhouse2012 (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN is what I am referring to. It is not up to you to decide whether another wiki project has a legitimate interest in an article. Pull your head in and concentrate on improving content. The article in question clearly falls under ARBMAC and I'll be asking an admin to block you if you don't cut it out. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN - "Many editors place banners on behalf of a WikiProject that they are not members of. This practice is normally welcomed by WikiProjects as it brings to their attention new and interesting articles." - it say that my action is welcomed by WikiProjects. You have no reason to remove WPs. Article is in scope of them all. Oldhouse2012 (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
How about not disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT? Your motives are clearly not pure, as you first tried to remove Hungary and now you want to put every WikiProject that ever had anything to do with this territory on the talk page, essentially because you don't want Hungary there alongside Serbia. You are being disruptive in order to make a (nationalistic) point, and if there's any more of this rot I'm happy to take it to an admin for their view. Just pull your head in! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

redirect with possibilities

This was what I meant. There's no obvious effect so such tagging, but the disambiguation tools will notice and will avoid suggesting to anyone that they 'fix' such a redirect. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

thanks, I'll remember that. Nice one. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

Hello, Peacemaker! I've noticed an inaccuracy in the lead of the article 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian). It says, and I quote: "...in the Independent State of Croatia, a fascist puppet state of Nazi Germany that encompassed all of modern-day Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as parts of Serbia..." I must point out that the region of Istria, along with some areas along the Croatian coast, were never controlled by the Independent State of Croatia, though they are now part of the modern-day Croatian state. This fact indicates that the above-mentioned statement in the article is incorrect, as the NDH did not fully encompass all of modern-day Croatian territory. What do you think? 23 editor (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Baranja too. Good point. I'll change it to "almost all of". Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
No problem, good work on the article btw. 23 editor (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian)

Congratulations!
Great work! GregorB (talk) 12:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much. It took some doing, but it was worth it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

talk/Serbs

its funny to me ... that on serbs page, its written, that more than 3,5 million serbs live in diaspora, and that besides serbia (nearly 6 million people), atleast another 2,120,000 people live in neighboring countires = which would make out 8 - 8,2 million serbs in balkans + add those 3,5 million in diaspora = and we come to a number of 11,5 mil. or 11,7 + mil. serbs around the world.

how on this heavinly earth did someone come up with a new number of 9.9 million serbs (as total population) on that page? which source says that? besides these logical mathematical countings as i just did...


~6 million (serbia) + 2.120.000 (neighboring countries) + around 3,5 million (serbian diaspora) = ! 11.620.000 ! (or otherwise somewhere around that number clearly)

how can it be 9.9 million???


the number 9.9 million - simply doesnt add up, by all the data that exists on that page.... tell me how is this possible? even the last number of 10,5 million was wrong, (which source said that?) when we can all clearly see the upper mathematical calculation ive made or anybody can make (ca. 11,5 mil.) ... i see this act as an act of anti-serbsism (ignoring the already given datas on the page and falsifying them by adding something completely out of any sense and lowering the number from time to time) 2+2 is not 5... but on page serbs i guess anything can be possible.

if i had rights to edit this page i would, but i dont have permition, so i kindly ask you if you could do something about this, or just simply edit it, and write down the clear data after this clear and logical calculations i simply made and wrote down, that anyone would with just simply putting the already given numbers (on that same page) of serbian population together

ty, and hope we all meet realistic results and definetly needed changes of data. Правичност (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Правичност (talk • contribs) 21:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

you can request an edit, but you'll need to provide reliable sources. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


im sorry but you dont understand... im trying to say that , the already written total population has no reliable source leading towards to it itself, where did they come up with 9.9 million? ... and 2nd im trying to say... that datas of numbers of serbs are already written, just not calculated correctly.... why need to request a reliable source? when the reliable source is already on the page "serbs" itself (serbia, neighboring countries, diaspora population data) its just necesary to change that " 9.9 " into 11,5 .... or if not... then data showing number of serbian diaspora needs to be changed instead of 3,5 million into only 1,5 million or so... but that would really be a laugh and an unrealistic number. Правичност (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I do understand. I don't think you do. Anything in the article of this nature needs a source or sources. If the current figure doesn't have one, then you can't just change it to another figure that also doesn't have a reliable source. If you have a reliable source for it, you can ask for the change. It's pretty straightforward. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Albania was a kingdom from 1943 to 1944 under German control

Albania had a "Regency Council" run the state from 1943 to 1944 in the absence of a claimant king. A regency is adopted in the absence of an available monarch to rule a state.--R-41 (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

Dinara Division

There's a bit on the Dinara Division in Milazzo's book on pages 121 and 151 according to Google Books. Could you please add it? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Will do. I'll check a couple of other books as well. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 19:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I will get to this, probably on the weekend. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Kosta Pećanac

Should we nominate the Kosta Pećanac article for A-class now? I don't see the sense in waiting for the Jevdjevic nomination to wrap up. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point, I'm pretty sure we can co-nominate two at a time. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you up for the Jevdjevic article heading straight to FAR after the ACR is formally finished? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Nazareth

This article does not need a copyedit. Thanks for your interest. --Rskp (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

sorry, but the lead had typos and I couldn't help myself. I'll leave it alone. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Operation Rosselsprung

Hello: my apologies for the lateness of this.
Thank you for responding to my doubts on this page; I've finally gotten around to answering (here). In order to reply I thought I should first read Eyre's essay, and followed a link I found; but when I returned to it, the link had disappeared. So my comments are based on a cursory first reading; if I have misinterpreted anything, I apologize for the error. regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

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

Guide for participants

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:
  • It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
  • It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
  • It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
  • It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
  • It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
  • Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
  • Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
  • Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".
  • If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 15:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peacemaker67/Archive_3&oldid=1079380490"