This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Yugoslavia

My family is from Yugoslavia (now part of Croatia) and I am happy to see that you take such an interest in Yugoslavia! Could you tell me if Yugoslavia was neutral in World War Two. Please and thank-you. Laura 203.59.192.209 (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Yugoslavia was not neutral in WW2, since it joined the Axis in 1941. Then, after a pro-British coup, it was invaded. So it was first neutral for a time (until 1941), then nominally Axis for a very short while, then Allied for the rest of the war. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Poreč – Parenzo

I'm very sorry for you, but the official name is Poreč – Parenzo: See page 3, like Buje-Buie, Novigrad-Cittanova, Pula-Pola, Rovinj-Rovigno, Umag-Umago and so on. I've just said that I think to know Istria better than you :-).--151.48.47.96 (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

_Sometimes? This is the Official Bullettin of Regione Istriana - Istarska Zupanija (another one official bilingual name...), wich stated by law the official bilingual names of many towns in Istria in his Statute! Please, read the document!--151.48.47.96 (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but of course you and the other guy have this "Clanak 1.": FIRST, erase; THEN speak... also if you see that i know the question with my sources (biased, of course, even if is the Statute of Istria...). But... what do you think if I'll register myself another time here in this mad Wiki? I'll conduct myself pretty good, I hope :-)))!--151.48.47.96 (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Mmm: I understand your point of view. I know that for you I can be a problem, because I'm not so easy to lock like the other two/three in Italy that speak of Istria and Dalmatia. I have my sources, much more than the others. Well: have funny, you and the other real friends of Italian memories! I'm going in my house in the Dolomites, where I'll spend the next two weeks.--151.48.47.96 (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

SHOCK

I am in shock... user:PaxEquilibrium has fallen !? See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PravdaRuss. He is puppeteer of banned User:PravdaRuss. I can't believe that ???--Rjecina (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Pax!!? What the f...! He was a perfectly normal guy! I would never have thought... What is WITH these people! WHY do they create socks!? When you're banned, ok, I can understand, but just for the fun(?) of it!? I never even thought of something like that, I feel no overwhelming desire to agree with myself all day. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Before ban this genius has recreated article Croatian nation and ethnic cleansing and now I am having problems with deletion. Do you remember date of discussion about deletion of this article ?--Rjecina (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added on Wikipedia:Croatian Wikipedians' notice board call for our discussion in article Miroslav Filipović. It is sad that only Zenanarh and Kubura are using noticeboard but....--Rjecina (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It is sad truth that users are refusing to enter similar dispute.. Only if we call users interested in Holocaust and WWII we will recieve comments. Maybe we can call users which has writen comments in Jasenovac RFC (see talk page) ?--Rjecina (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

In my thinking our problem in article Miroslav Filipović is solved. Now we (you) need only to rewrite article.--Rjecina (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This are not 2 short quotations. See my proposition on article talk page.--Rjecina (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm DIR, obviously you never had some deeper discussion with Pax if you think he was a perfectly normal guy. I had a few and decided never to change any word with him again. He was shameless pro-Serb POV pusher hidden behind long sentences in quite nice English with perfect talent how to avoid an opponent's arguments. In every such long discussion his talent and real nature were exposed. A maniac. I'm not shocked. And he'll come back definitely, maybe like Jesus Christ. BTW you cleaned up History of Dalmatia. Can you remember what did it look like before your intervention? Serbs here, Serbs there. In Dalmatia? That was his work, or of his earlier alter-ego HolyRomanEmperor. One more thing: Cetina as line between Croatian and Serbian settlers in Medieval is one of the Serbian mythomania ideas. It's sourced only by ONE source - DAI - in chapter which is considered to be the most controversial part of that writing - Byz. Emperor gave the name of Serbs to people settled eastern from Cetina just to mark a territory of his political influence directly after spreading of his influence there (Serbs in Raska were his direct vassals and servants, Croats were not). Zenanarh (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow... Well I suppose I never did face him in a serious argument. He certainly seemed ok... Btw, Zen, have a look at the Pula talkpage --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Look what Pax has writen to himself [1]. user:KhoiKURČINA. is Pax [2]. This is crazy ???--Rjecina (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

OMG LOOOL XD --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Pupusinka is Pax. I can't understand reason for his hate which has started in last days of June or first days of July ? --Rjecina (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ustaše

In near future we can solve problems in all Ustaše related articles because all puppets are blocked or banned during next 10 days. It is right time that serious users find compromise about many articles--Rjecina (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Map of Split

What program did you use to create this map? I'm thinking about creating a Zagreb map and your map of Split looks very professionally. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 16:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks nevertheless. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 16:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina

Perhaps a severe lack of food has muddled my thinking, but can you help me figure out exactly what Rjecina's objections are in regards to the RfC? I have a hard time understanding some of what he writes on my best days, and right now I'm starving and in the middle of getting ready for a night out, so may be it's me... if you could clarify for me, I'd appreciate it. (and trust me I see the irony of going to the person he's in conflict with for help understanding his motivations, but you've dealt with him more than I have). A ni Mate 02:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Also you need to clarify why you think the article on Magnum crimen isn't neutral. Is it because the article isn't neutral or is it because criticism is included that makes citing the book more difficult? Regardless, we don't just tag and run. We tag and explain why we left the tag on the article talk page. You know this is the way we do this. I think you may need to give yourself an objectivity test and perhaps back away for a while in order to look at things less passionately. A ni Mate 02:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Well done. It's difficult to be objective, and harder to acknowledge when one is not being objective. A ni Mate 11:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that I learned, the hard way... ;) thanks --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

153.5.62.201

This guy is Slovenian. Luigi--151.30.191.202 (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well done, detective. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

PIO

It was here [3], but I don't think that Luigi 28 and this IP editor are the same person. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

IP editor

Hi Direktor, please see my comment on ANI. Would you like me to begin watching and removing comments that are made from that IP range from now on? --mboverload @ 01:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome =). Yeah, I think we can both see that you don't need to waste any more keyboard time on him. I will keep an eye on it - lol I might even setup a monitor at work to "ding" me when the article gets edited =P. I wonder if any of the bots would be able to provide this assistance. After all, all you want to do is revert comments from that IP block to that one page. --mboverload @ 02:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Petar Brzica

Please can you let in peace articles in which I and banned editors are edit warring ? About use of quotations we will wait solution in article Miroslav Filipović ?--Rjecina (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

About Filipović his life and crimes we all agree, but about Brzica I am having problems. You have seen my 22 July question on Petar Brzica talk page. I am waiting for answer last 18 days but .....--Rjecina (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Rijeka terror attack. Users is giving me free hand to remove deletion tag. Your thinking about this article ( for deletion or against) ?--Rjecina (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rijeka terror attack

I really need help or your thinking about this ? To tell truth my english is problem for this discussion.--Rjecina (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what this is about...

Bleiburg troll

Hey!

For crying out loud, let that IP editor argue with himself. He’s a troll and you’re giving him exactly what he wants by paying attention to him and replying to each and every one of his ridiculous personal attacks against you disguised as legitimate questions. The best thing to do is to simply ignore him and he’ll go away as soon as he has no one to argue with. There’s absolutely no argument that you can present to him that will make him change his mind about the article or your involvement in it. He’s not here for any good reason but you are, so don’t let him distract you from your other work on here.

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I had to try and reason with him, that and he's kind of amusing, in a hick sort of way... ;) I also thought if I showed him that the OKW reports are not something the guy that posted them invented, he may be a bit less "diligent" in removing them and eventually go away. Now that he's had someone to vent his frustration on he might even give up. And, yes, I am seriously considering Psychiatry as a choice for specialization... :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Rab concentration camp

I thought you might like to know that I've rewritten and expanded this article. Your views would be appreciated (on the article talk page, please). -- ChrisO (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Translation

Can you please make little translation from Croatian on English ? Text is:

za neumornu borbu protiv wiki vandala. Na tvom mjestu ja bi već odavno izgubio strpljenje.--Rjecina (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"For your tireless struggle against Wiki-vandals. In your place I would have lost my patience long ago." :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you please look in article Serbs of Croatia section prominent individuals and tell me if I have made mistake in deleting few names. I am really tired of user:Mike Babic and his POV pushing.--Rjecina (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Quotes in Filipović article

I assumed you had put this matter to bed, but it seems Rjecina will not let it drop: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Insults_again

(To save you ploughing through the whole section, his question is at the bottom of his post, near the end of the section.) Kirker (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, if you want to take issue with me or my behaviour, that’s fine. Anyone can have an opinion. But don’t advise me how to behave or you start to sound like that condescending guy Ricky81632 who’s been spewing rubbish recently. (Where did he crawl out from, by the way? He’s contributed sod all to any article I’ve ever seen.) And what makes you think I lost my temper? I would have thought that everything I say is rational, lucid and fair.

I was dealing with the sockpuppet tittle-tattle on a different page because that’s where Kubura had crept off and entered his complaint. (It’s all disappeared now.) And that’s where Ricky81632 “highly suggested” I should respond, if I may borrow his grotesque syntax. If it was the wrong place, perhaps someone needs to tell Kubura and Ricky. Kirker (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, noted thanks. Kirker (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Italian Empire related AfD

Hi there - input would be appreciated at this Italian Empire related AfD [4]. Thanks The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

We await developments

See these [5] [6] [7]. This one's written to our dear old friend Bruno, socking at itwiki these days as Jr. [8]. I have no comment to make about all this activity. Naturally, just as I would never ever suggest that there is any comparison to be made between the Italian military and the Keystone cops, so equally I must assume that these editors' forthcoming campaign will be splendidly well organised and impressive. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Meatpuppets

Now we're meatpuppets. Great job on encouraging him with that barnstar. :P A ni Mate 20:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be funny if it weren't frustrating. I suppose that if he gets his way none of us will be allowed to edit any articles the other has already edited. It makes no sense! Clearly it's within the scope of an area we have all expressed interest in. Honestly, he seems to care more about reverting sockpuppets than improving articles. He most likely thinks we should also be banned from discussing anything a sockpuppet has ever mentioned. I'm letting him shoot himself in the foot over at WP:AN, and have no plans to reply to him there so he can hopefully get some outside advice that stops his wikilawyering and rules-mongering.(If they can figure out what he's trying to say.) A ni Mate 21:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I just reread WP:SOCK, WP:BLOCK, and WP:TALK. There's nothing that says removing a sock's talk page edits is encouraged. In fact editing anyone's edits seems to be strongly discouraged. I'm curious to see what he comes up with this time. No doubt it will be something along the lines of "socks are never allowed to edit," while avoiding any real attempt to discuss anything of substance. It's a great strategy to get everything you want: tie users up in endless policy debate so no improvements can be done. A ni Mate 22:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

GREETINGS FROM OBJECTIVE TRUTH/FRANE - SHARING A FEW LINKS WITH YOU

Hi DIREKTOR, I (named OBJECTIVE TRUTH) was the pest on the Alojzije Stepinac page defending his good name although it now seems that all of my commentary has been deleted (Its great to see the so-called "democratic" values of Wiki). Anyway, not to dribble any further- I thought you might be interested in an essay on the Ustasa/NDH by an Australian Croatian by the name of Nevenko Bartulin - it is one of the best analytical pieces on the Ustasa that I have encountered. It very objective and something I think you will agree with - so here's the link> http://www.library.unsw.edu.au/~thesis/adt-NUN/uploads/approved/adt-NUN20070911.113128/public/02whole.pdf

I also run a group on a social networking called Croatian and Serbian Reconciliation which I think you might find interesting> http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=6020220755

I'm quite unique in my views - I'm an anti-fascist, anti-Communist and a supporter of a democratic and sovereign Croatia which we currently have today. I'm not anti-Yugoslav and agree with you that Tito sought an equilibrium between the nationalities of Yugoslavia but the way Tito pursued that through Communism and state terrorism I don't support and I ultimately believe led to the downfall of Yugoslavia.

Peace Frane Franky1990 (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Pole? Pizin?

"A Pole xe arena, Foiba xe a Pizin". Your incredible ignorance is astonish. Mr. Cobolli wrote "A Pola xe l'Arena / la Foiba xe a Pisin / che buta zo in quel fondo / chi gà un zerto morbìn". My dear, do you know the meaning of this words? Of course no... If you leave the fake citation "A Pole xe arena, foiba xe a Pizin", who can understand what Cobolli was thinking? Cheers.--151.48.10.175 (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted out of hand. I'm sorry if I seem "aggressive" here, but this is the Foibe massacres, and we can't have any more edit-wars. Please discuss your edit, wait for a response (I'll respond immediately) and edit after a consensus has been reached. We've reached a consensus before, we'll do it again. As for the grammar mistakes, feel free to correct them, but make sure you edit only the mistakes. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem aggressive. You are aggressive. Anyway, we have also a fake citation from the Italian/Slovenian Commission. Do you accept the change with the real words? What do you think to do?--151.48.10.175 (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(I'm actually a really nice guy ;) Just change grammatical errors without discussion. Do not add your stuff. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The "stuff" is the correct citation from the document of the Italian/Slovenian commission! In the article now we read: According to data gathered by a mixed Slovene-Italian historical commission established in 1993, the number of people missing in the present-day Slovenian Istria and Trieste (believed to have been thrown into the foibe) range from 1,300 to 1,600. Where is the statement about the alleged number of Italian killed, in the document? Where is the citation? Do you like false citations here in Wiki, my dear little comunhistorian?--151.48.10.175 (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL, the insults you guys dish out... "my little" sounds kind of gay in English, somebody should really tell you that. xD --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You called me "fanatiscist", but I don't like Mussolini at all. You love Tito, so communhistorian is absolutely appropriate for you, my dear. What do you think about the fake citation from the Ita/Slo Commission in the article Foibe massacres (a free-will Italian fascistic incident, of course)? Don't you care about the fakes? Are you maybe like the Orwell's "Big Brother": the story regardless the sources?--151.48.10.175 (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Tito's rule was very beneficial for my country, I don't like communism but I don't care what you call it as long as the whole thing works fine. During his tenure as President, the country was:

Socialist (for the majority of its existence)
liberal (far more than any other state socialism country)
very influential in international politics
economically more advanced than it is today.

Mussolini's rule was not beneficial for your country, it destroyed it. Why did it destroy Italy? because his fascist ideals (nationalist pride) made him do stupid things. Tito's communism did not make him do stupid things. In fact, when he had to choose between his country and communism, he chose his country and became an outcast among communists. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't move! So you are perfect, druže Ivan! Do you know this poem?

If the Sun could
Fall from the sky
I would give him to Tito
The keeper of the peace and thruth

And I would give him my heart
From my garden with a flower
Let him live forever
Our maker of happiness

Let him live and let happiness follow him
As long as he with us
In our heart
A happy childhood will bloom

Sanela Bazovic 4th stade Student, Vasa Pelagic Primary school

You and Sanela... the same thing... What a romantic story!--151.48.10.175 (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What's your point? The rants of a fourth-grader do not mean anything. Shall I gather the poems about Mussolini and post them on your talkpage? Do you claim his rule was not beneficial for Yugoslavia, or do you just like to clutter people's talkpages with meaningless bull? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You forgot that Mussolini was a dictator and a criminal. Also for me he was so. Your Tito is so beautiful in your words, and your liberal Yugoslavia is so funny! Please, Ivan: don't move. You are like the guys I've seen in Moscow three years ago: red flags, Stalin's and Lenin's photos... For my fascistic/irredentistic/sockpuppeting point of view it was a very interesting thing. In '50s many Italian Communists already faithful to Tito were sent to Goli Otok, because Tito and his guys were afraid even of its communist. In 1974 the Italian Communist hero and President of the UIIF (Unione degli Italiani dell'Istria e di Fiume) - Antonio Borme - was eliminated because complained of the treatment received by the Italian minority. In 1988 a Croatian of the Italian minority was arrested in Istria, because he took photos of the tunnel of Uc'ka (a normal tunnnel for cars!) for his studies: one year in prison, with a false accusations of espionage. His name is Virgilio Giuricin, but the real probleme was that he was one of the prominent Italians in Yugoslavia, and in those years the Italian community was wondering what would have done in the Yugoslav communist regime. This was the liberal Yugoslavia you dreams. If what came after was even worse, it does not mean that we need to enhance the previous regime, which was a dictatorship. And Tito was a dictator, similar to many others, but lover of wealth and dolce vita. From Italy he bought shoes, clothes, watches and even shotguns, to satisfy his desires. A perfect "socialist", don't you think? Have you never seen his Villa Bianca in the Brioni Islands? Like a regular, normal American billionaire! If you want, you can use one of its Cadillac: so for 15 Euro I sat where he laid his buttocks. This was your idol, my dear. And you're one of the last faithful. You get to register as WWF pandas, my dear.--151.48.10.175 (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll ignore all your stupid accusations of communism. My ideology is actually a lot more complex than I care to explain right now. I'm not even a socialist.

"In '50s many Italian Communists already faithful to Tito were sent to Goli Otok, because Tito and his guys were afraid even of its communist."
- Communists faithful to Moscow and Stalin were mostly arrested and imprisoned during the Tito-Stalin split. This was true of many high-ranking Yugoslav politicians, like Andrija Hebrang, for example. This was also necessary to avoid a Stalinist coup, and/or dissent that might ease a possible Soviet invasion (massive numbers of troops were being being gathered in Hungary).
"In 1974 the Italian Communist hero and President of the UIIF (Unione degli Italiani dell'Istria e di Fiume) - Antonio Borme - was eliminated because complained of the treatment received by the Italian minority."
- Antonio Borme was pushing for autonomy within SR Croatia and SFR Yugoslavia (Something like SAP Vojvodina and SAP Kosovo). And he found many supporters among Serbian communists pushing for a fragmented SR Croatia along the lines of SR Serbia. The fact that he wa Italian had NOTHING to do with his situation. The nationalist Croatian communists who led the Croatian Spring movement received identical treatment.
"In 1988 a Croatian of the Italian minority was arrested in Istria, because he took photos of the tunnel of Uc'ka (a normal tunnnel for cars!)"
- I am not familiar with this case, but I'm not about to take your word on the "the accusations were false!!!" thing. The UDBA is infamous, but it was also highly efficient and capable (performing admirable intelligence achievements). It knew what it was doing, and made very few mistakes. I highly doubt they just got together one day and decided to send innocent motorists to jail. The Adriatic shore was teeming with spies at the time, and agents spying for NATO were caught and deported on several occasions. "Imported" Ustaše guerrilla groups attempted to ferment revolts, etc...
You show deep misunderstanding of Yugoslav history. Tito's rather lavish lifestyle is actually what made him so popular later on. You see, people are prepared to view anything in a positive light if it brings prosperity, economic advancement, and stability. I for one do not care if he lived twice as lavishly, just as long as he ensured the unity and prosperity of this region. After his death, this area became a place of extreme misery, death, poverty, war, and economic depression in the Yugoslav Wars. It is only natural that I support his policy on the unity of this region, because, quite simply, people lived a lot better while those policies were upheld. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In order to get some more neutral perspective, and to perhaps gain some objectivity in matter relating to Yugoslavia, I suggest you have a look at this link. I leads to an episode of the acclaimed American Biography series (later the Biography Channel) episode about Josip Broz Tito:

Part 1 [9]
Part 2 [10]
Part 3 [11]
Part 4 [12]
Part 5 [13]

It lasts about 50 minutes. Though it may have few errors, it is very good in explaining the post-war situation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh boys! I'm laughing from fifteen minutes! Your sources is The Biography Channel!!! The same wich stated for Mussolini that: "He restored order to the country and introduced social reforms and public works improvements that won widespread popular support."!!!![14]. Tell me more about it: your contributions here in Wiki are always based on sources of this level?

I have to notice your incredible ignorance about the history of Italian minority in former Yugoslavia:

Borme never pushed for authonomy within SR Croatia. I have a complete anthology of his public speeches and private writings. Show me one single word about your (false) statement. One single word, and I'll write a complete page of apologies.
Giuricin was arrested because he was one of the preminent Italians in former Yugoslavia. You could read something before writing you nonsense about UDBA and the Giuricin-case

Tito lived as a Pasha, his private expenses were higher than those of the Yugoslav kings. The Yugoslav liked this kind of things? As well as inhabitants of Uganda liked the life of Idi Amin Dada.
In any case, we return in point: in Foibe massacres there is a false quote. You have canceled the correct quote. The question is always the same: do you like the lies?--151.48.10.175 (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mussolini did undeniably indeed "restore order to the country and introduce social reforms and public works improvements that won widespread popular support". This is absolutely true. His single largest mistake, from an Italian perspective, was entering World War II. We can all thank our good fortune that he did! Had he not openly allied with Hitler, Germany might even have won the war!! :P The massive Axis resources spent in the Mediterranean theatre to shore up the long succession of spectacular blunders by the Italians might well have been used elsewhere. In any case, I hope you watch Bio on Tito. At least parts 4 and 5. You may gain an idea as to why intelligent people in Yugoslavia still support the ideals of a de facto dictator. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh my God! What kind of bullshits!

You wrote: Had he not openly allied with Hitler, Germany might even have won the war!! :P The massive Axis resources spent in the Mediterranean theatre to shore up the long succession of spectacular blunders by the Italians might well have been used elsewhere.

Do you know the source of this alleged "might even have won the war"?

Adolf Hitler ("It is in fact quite obvious that our Italian alliance has been of more service to our enemies than to ourselves. Italian intervention has conferred benefits which are modest in the extreme in comparison with the numerous difficulties to which it has given rise. If, in spite of all our efforts, we fail to win this war, the Italian alliance will have contributed to our defeat!", A.Hitler, The Political Testament, 15th February 1945), and Joseph Goebbels (the "Diary")!!!

Your sources: the "Biography Channel" and the Nazi propaganda! Tell me the thruth: you are 12 years old, don't you?--151.48.10.175 (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What about Greece blunder and Operation Barbarossa ? You will find many historians which will say that because of Italy blunder in that war Germany is defeated in Operation Barbarossa !--Rjecina (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? Many historians? The names, please?--151.48.51.68 (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you're 12 years old, but you're English is certainly on that level. (repeat after me: "You are twelve years old, aren't you?") Forgive me, but its kind of funny to be called "infantile" in baby talk. I actually formed that opinion on my own, and if Hitler (who actually forged that Alliance and rarely admitted mistakes) thought so too, I am incined to believe him. Just because "Hitler was a bad man" does not mean everything he says is now proclaimed "wrong" and "bad", I'd expect soemthing like that from a twelve year-old. His Political Testament is not "propaganda", and neither is Goebbels' diary.
We are not discussing articles. I mentioned the documentary not as a "source" for anything (I just found it on YouTube a few weeks ago), just as a possible means of giving you an alternative, non-Italian, non-Yugoslav perspective. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

1) Germany had to compensate for humiliating Italian military incompetence with hundreds of thousands of troops (most high-quality formations), aircraft, and U-Boots in the Mediterranean theatre. The Mediterranean theatre opened with the Italian entry into the war, and is a string of spectacular Italian military disasters, spectacular German victories, and spectacular Allied cunning, bravery, and (most importantly) numerical superiority.
2) The Balkans Campaign of the Wehrmacht, was caused by another Italian humiliating blunder: the "invasion" of Greece. This blunder caused the Axis to postpone Operation Barbarossa for a crucial several weeks. These same "weeks" were exactly the time missing for a German victory at the gates of Moscow (Operation Typhoon). As it happened, "General Zima" ("General Winter") moved in at the crucial moment to stop the Germans. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And bla, bla, bla, bla.... The point is:"Had he not openly allied with Hitler, Germany might even have won the war!!"; "because of Italy blunder in that war Germany is defeated in Operation Barbarossa". The sources, babies, the sources! Where are the many historians who wrote something like this? What kind of university have you attended, my friends? That of Disneyland-no-source-perfect-story?--151.48.51.68 (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but Hitler is a source, for example. And a very good one, first hand report. He actually formed the alliance between Germany and Italy, and he rarely admits his own mistakes. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find a better source. Even if he was a "bad man", that does not mean he's wrong (that's a twelve year-old's perspective). Noone knew the German war effort better than Adolf Hitler. Where is your source to the contrary. I know this is all probably very confusing to you, but try to read the big words. Pay attention to other people's posts if you want to communicate, or else get lost. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In my thinking his comments are example of Italian education about Mussolini. This education is very similar to Croatian about Ustaše or Serbian about Chetniks.

"Once Mussolini had committed the blunder of thrusting his blunt sword across the Albanian border into Greece and had suffered bitter reverses, Hitler felt obliged to rescue his brother-in-arm"

on site US center of military history you can read about all problems created by Mussolini blunder in Greece [15] --Rjecina (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"example of Italian education about Mussolini"? Oh boy: what kind of total bullshit! You wrote "You will find many historians which will say that because of Italy blunder in that war Germany is defeated in Operation Barbarossa". In the article you cited, you can read: "No postponement was mentioned before the Yugoslav revolt, which had an immediate effect on the plans for Operation BARBAROSSA", and also "The three creeks lost by the execution of the Balkan operations therefore seem of minor significance."!!!

Do you read your source, my dear Rjecina?!?

Where is the names of the historians which will say that because of Italy blunder in that war Germany is defeated in Operation Barbarossa?!? Your guy stated also that Hitler is a very good source about the German defeat! Hitler stated also in the same document that the defeat was caused by the Jews, because: "Jewry decided as early as 1933, at the very birth of the Third Reich, tacitly to declare war on us", and "I always desired to maintain peace". Hitler is a good source also for this? Boys, you were threading a bullshit behind the other, just for the sake of controversy! Read more, please, and stop with your demonstration of total ignorance of the facts!--151.48.51.68 (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. "No postponement was mentioned before the Yugoslav revolt"? It is simply a FACT that Operation Barbarossa was delayed because Germany had to invade the Balkans. Germany had to invade the Balkans because the British arrived in Greece to help defend against the Italian "invasion". WITHOUT A DOUBT, Operation Barbarossa was delayed from mid-May to the end of June 1941 to obtain the time necessary for the Balkans campaign. Your pompous attitude is as empty as can be imagined.

Are you capable of discussing without treating others as inferiors? Who the hell do you think you are!!? You are simply another banned exile fanatic without any sense of objectivity or reason. One simply cannot be overly intelligent and remain so indoctrinated in his later years. I'm still trying to figure out what you're doing here when you can't even insult people properly in this language. Didn't I tell you before to stop editing my talkpage? I've had enough of your attitude, get lost. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Kirker blocked

I would like to call your urgent attention to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Insults_again_and_again_and_again. Outrageous. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

In my thinking you are OK but you must be in case with other 3 users checkuser case --Rjecina (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pax games on your user page: First this and then revert--Rjecina (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/Participants

You are added on this list. If this is mistake you can delete your name from this list.--Rjecina (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Change is deleted --Rjecina (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Franco Sacchetti

Please stop reverting citation of Franco Sacchetti being likely from Florence. It is an authoritative source listed, Britannica. --Attilios (talk) 06:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Zadar section Recent History discussion

I kindly ask you to participate in the discussion about Zadar article recent history section in order to achieve a more NPOV version. I feel that current version is one sided and has issues that need to be resolved. Thank you. 78.30.150.253 (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

House of Caboga

I kindly ask you to stop changing citations from a reliable source of information and introducing false facts. You changed de Caboga to Kabudzic in an original authorative reliable source that has been quoted in this article. Irmgard Manhken is the source for patrician Ragusan families. Mrs Mahnken never mentions the name Kabudzic in her publications.

Stop repeatedly reverting correct edits of the name Caboga as well as repeatedly moving the page to a confusing incorrect name(Kabudzic). You have repeatedly edited Kabudzic into the page House of Caboga without quoting any authorative source of information. Please read my discussion entry under the article Bernhard Kaboga where I write about this in detail. The name Kabudzic has no reference or association to the name Caboga. There is no verifiable reliable source that associates the name Kabudzic to Caboga. There is not even a verifiable reliable source for the name Kabudzic itself. As already previously mentioned the Croatian rendering of Caboga is Kaboga.

I have in the past already asked you to include a reliable source for the name Kabudzic, which was not answered. I have in the past already warned you that these are incorrect edits, that in Wikipedia policy they constitute vandalism.

Further, changing a fact in a reliable source to accomodate your claim or edits is not what Wikipedia is about. If an authorative source quotes "de Caboga" then you cannot just go and change it to what it would suit you. These kind of disruptive and false-leading edits should not go on. According to Wikipedia policy I am warning you to stop.

This change can be viewed in the revision history: 16:03 12 September 2008 Direktor Before your revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=House_of_de_Caboga&direction=prev&oldid=237956206

Michael Georgii de Caboga (1280-1286) appears to be the oldest brother. In 1281 he received a part of the money that belonged to him from his father's estate. At the same time, Marinus and Johannes, as well as the minor Blasius, continued to live together with their mother and Marinus took care of the business. FN 5, p. 167. Among other things, Michael defined his brother, the priest Johannes, as his procurator. FN 6, p. 166

16:05 12 September 2008 Direktor After your revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=House_of_de_Caboga&direction=next&oldid=237955674

Michael Georgii Kabudžić (1280-1286) appears to be the oldest brother. In 1281 he received a part of the money that belonged to him from his father's estate. At the same time, Marinus and Johannes, as well as the minor Blasius, continued to live together with their mother and Marinus took care of the business. FN 5, p. 167. Among other things, Michael defined his brother, the priest Johannes, as his procurator. FN 6, p. 166.

Caboga (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Serbs of Croatia

I'm a little curious about our new friend's additions of numerous sources and was wondering if you could help read/review/format them in the article, if you understand the language, or mention it to someone who does. I've seen that numerous people like to insert "sources", especially in foreign languages, that are let's say a very liberal interpretation of what is there, and that article is controversial enough. Anyone that's removed should have a new section on the talk page, so it can be discussed. It's just odd that a brand new user could so quickly find sources for the exact same people that were removed a few days earlier (beyond knowing the history, he really seems to know ref formatting as well). Curiouser and curiouser. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sveta Gera

Sveta Gera/Trdinov vrh is new name of that article according to the international court consisting of the judges: User:Eleassar, User:Prevalis and User:Yerpo [16]. Zenanarh (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

See "False renaming" section [17]. Zenanarh (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

You are edit warring on Serbs of Croatia article. Hahaha so be it. Have it your way.Mike Babic (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

We are using parentage or self-declaration to write that somebody is Croat or Serb (article Serbs of Croatia). If we are using parentage Svetozar Boroević is on this list, if we are using self-declaration he is Croat ?--Rjecina (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yugoslav wars

I appreciate your attempt to neutralise the statement made by the Sockpuppets. I am still opposed to every reference to "Greater Serbia". There was no mention of it on Wikipedia before a recent sock-puppet gang emerged and now it is on every Balkan related issue: someone installs it, someone else reverts it and so on. Anyhow, please take a few minutes to read my comment to Kubura who may or may not be a part of the X Ray Tex squad, here it is:[18]. Evlekis (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Yugoslavia Award

100px		The Yugoslavia Order of Merit
		This user is awarded the Yugoslavia Order of Merit for exceptional effort and dedication to articles related to WikiProject Yugoslavia. Gaston200 (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

I notice that you have just now, and also on previous occasions, replaced English spelling with American-English spelling. Is this in order to conform with a Wikipedia rule? I'm all in favour of a consistent house style but I have noticed that in many articles English spelling prevails. Kirker (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Discontinue your Propaganda.

You, sir, write anti-Serbian propaganda, and your position is obviously biased against Cetniks and Draza Mihailovic. Your lies can be easily identified so please stop writing fabrications about his supposed collaboration with the AXIS, because that is a disgusting lie, and you should be ashamed, beacuse you know that you are lying. Draza Mihailovic was a Serbian Royalist who defended the Kingdom and her sovereign territories. Stop fabriacating lies, it is wrong and evil, leave history to be truthful, do not try and expand your anti-Serbian propaganda through Wikipedia. It should be an education source, rather than a propaganda source, an anti-Serbian one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yugoslavyugoslav (talk • contribs) 14:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Exams?

Hi bud, how's things? Not on an exam break? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alasdair, good question, that. :) I am taking a particularly nasty exam tomorrow but, since I'm basically done studying, I decided I have time to pop-in now and then for an hour or so. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Good luck tmrw, then... ;-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

How was the exam, doc? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, got a 5! Came, saw, passed. :D --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. :-) Now you need some of these, I guess. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Savin' them all for tomorrow... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Flag of NATO

Image:Flag of NATO.svg is a copyrighted image, so it can be used on Wikipedia only under the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy. This means that it can be displayed on a very small number of pages that are directly relevant, and certainly not as a decorative icon in infoboxes on tangential pages. You cannot circumvent this policy by creating an alternate file yourself and uploading it on Commons with the claim that you own the copyright. I have requested that commons:Image:NATO flag.png be deleted for obvious mis-licensing reasons. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Can't blame a guy for trying :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Photo

Leave the photo with the Macedonian partisans in Bitola here, and I will send you a very beautiful similar photo with Dalmatian partisans for the article Yugoslav partisans :) Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Several Yugoslav stub templates

Hi - two or more stub types which you created have been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub types (templates or categories), which were not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, do not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding these stub types, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 01:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Just want to say, i like your ideologies. Hxseek (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha, well, yes. I am Christian in a cultural - heritage sense. I am not practising. If anything I am probably agnostic. Hxseek (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Riva

Well, uninformed user might think that you treat the asphalt version of Riva as "vandalized". Kubura (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Warning?

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: House of Bunić/Bona. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ragusino

:) Um, I didn't actually personally attack anyone. Read up on that... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Under fire

For handling the attacks on you by Deucaon that were very harsh with diplomacy and ablomb, I award you the Purple Star. -- **Logical** **Premise**^Ergo? 19:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That was some pretty out there personal attacking, it's good to see you keep your cool. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 19:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Pozdrav

Pozdrav Direktore, ovo je tekst koji sam stavio odmah iza tvog odgovora na diskusionoj strani od clanka "Differences between standard Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian language". Pozdrav tebi i sve najbolje:

Totally agree with you Direktor, and I am sure that your highly reasonable opinions and facts you are presenting on wikipedia are highly respected and accepted by the waste majority of its readers. Please, if you can, - do your regular check-ups of the articles concerning South Slavic languages and make sure they’re not presenting some misleading information. I would just add to this, that although ‘the political reason is the officially maintained distaste of the so-called "pan-Yugoslav commonness”’, this distaste should be ‘expressed’ in a more civilized manner than creating some non-acceptable partial maps showing only a half of the Shtokavian speaking area, or trying to camouflage the factual state of the close ties within the Central South Slavic system (language) at the templates featured in the articles about South Slavic languages and dialects. And most importantly - that ridiculous ‘pan-Yugo’ distaste which openly sends a message of hatred and separatism, should not, by any mean be reflected in the language area, because it only shows how low and how uncivilized its ‘supporters’ can be, no matter what ‘not-supported-by anyone-in-scientific-world’ theories they may point out as their sources. And, at the end, as an example of a civilized political distaste between nations, here’s the example of Americans and Canadians. Majority of Canadians feel in a different extent, a kind of aversion to Americans, especially since the start of the ‘George-Bush-era’ in USA. But still, nobody says that Canadians speak a ‘different language’ than Americans, and nobody tries to hide the common history facts and the strong cultural and economical ties that exist between these 2 countries. This is a typical way of overcoming any kind of ‘distaste’ in a human and civilized way, all the other ways are just a shame for humanity. Best Regards to you Direktor and to your beautiful and cosmopolitan Split and Dalmatia. Best Cheerful Greetings;24.86.116.250 (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

jos nesto

Postovani Direktore, mozes li napisati clanak o 'Operaciji trijumf'-najveceg show-a na Zapadnom Balkanu, na hrvatskoj wikipediji? Takodjer, dali bi mogao napisati clanak o legendarnoj dalmatinskoj i jugoslavenskoj grupi 'Magazin' na hrvatskoj wikipediji? Pozdrav.24.86.116.250 (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop deleting content

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Italian language in Croatia, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. JdeJ (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page to your comment. Don't get me wrong, I know very well that you're no vandal JdeJ (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Tito

Direktore nemoj vise ispravljati kolonu u clanku Tito i stavljati da je Savezni sekretar za nacionalnu odbranu u Jugoslaviji bio politicka postavka kad svi znamo da je u SFRY tu poziciju drzala samo JNA na celu sa generalom armije ili admiralom flote. ^{Snake bgd} 12:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Foreign Relations of SFR Yugoslavia

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

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Foreign Relations of SFR Yugoslavia, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Brought down Yugoslavia?

I live in Canada, and don't claim to be any soldier or politician. But, the very act of moving towards, and finally proclaiming Croatian independence in the face of foreign indifference (or disapproval) and the spectre of a still strong JNA (which did still exist during the destruction of Vukovar), brought down Yugoslavia. Serbian nationalism was a response to keep Yugoslavia together.

Anyways, as an example of the history of Croatian independence which you might not know, but gets occasionally mentioned: Tudjman came to the little hamlet of Norval in 1989 and with his shocking speach that Croatia would become a sovereign state, inspired a huge crowd of people that Croatia might finally be. By this time even the most ardent nationalists in exile held little hope in Croatian independence. But this Partisan general inspired thousands of people that day to donate handsomely to his cause (including us, representatives of a waning HSS), and this huge donation of money to his party paved the way for the HDZ to become a force. Later, the protest at the White House (apparently one of the biggest ethnic protests ever), humanitarian aid, military aid, financial aid, etc all helped ensure that Croatia would not fall into hostile hands. As soon as Croatia was independent and recognized, Yugoslavia was but a ghost.

I don't expect to you to understand or care about what I've done or claim to have done. We come from two very different traditions. But, I feel that mine is the democratic tradition, while yours is clearly one that celebrates dictators and a single party state (if that's what pays your bills). Democratically, it was Croatia, and Croats and Bosniaks in BiH who ensured that federation's downfall. Serbs voted to keep the federation together and when that didn't work, the guns came out.--Thewanderer (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

"The fundamental misunderstanding, I deem, lies in the fact that you believe that supporting Yugoslavia means supporting communism. As I keep repeating: I do not support communism, I support western-style capitalism and democracy." Unfortunately, you (and others) have not done enough to convince me otherwise. The very template about a "peaceful and democratic" return to Yugoslavia is defaced with an ugly red star, above a flame. You may earnestly believe this to be a "Yugoslav" symbol, but I can only consider it a symbol of communism. Also, you've recently called the grb with white field first an Ustasha symbol. Such comments are quite insulting and entirely unnecessary, given that you apparently know quite a bit about history.--Thewanderer (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"Of course, it is too easy to disregard the "quality of life factor" when one lives thousands of miles away..." Ha! Why do you think my family had to move thousands of miles away? Because that apparent prosperity you nostalgically speak of certainly didn't reach my family. And if it was purely for military and economic reason, why not unite with Hungary (they're not quite so oppressive as 100 years ago), or Slovenia (if we annexed them, would anyone really notice?), or a more heavily unified Europe? No, the answer ultimately lies not in wanting to unite for some kind of benefits, but because you also believe that we are one people.

I am opposed to Yugoslavia because I see it is an abomination and a negation of my nationality. And despite people who long for a "democratic" Yugoslavia, it is certain the state would never have been formed (or ever will be again) by democratic means, while extremist ideologies of monarchism, fascism and communism could very well lead to such a union, because they ultimately always act against the will of the people. There's no reason Croatia and Serbia (and BiH, CG, Kos, Slo) cannot exist as proud, separate countries in peace. If we had been separated long ago, much blood would have been saved, and much more prosperity accomplished.

I am a Croat. My homeland is Croatia, I come from Bosnia and Herzegovina, but I live in Canada. I never stepped a foot in Yugoslavia, and I quite frankly couldn't care less about it in my daily life (although my WP editting forces me to deal with it). I am not some seljak, but live in a multi-cultural society in which I assuredly know more people of African, Jewish, Arab, Persian, Chinese, etc descent than one could hope to know in Croatia. And, yes I do even know some Serbs. But they are not my countrymen, yet nor are they my enemies. My people have my right to their country, just as each other nation has a right to theirs. Several of my good friends have actually returned in the past few years to Croatia, and is it almost a certainty that I will as well. There's an indescribable love for Croatia (in its sovereign state), which the rapper Shorty recently described as, Živimo snove naši djedova. With that, I'll conclude this discussion.--Thewanderer (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I said to end the discussion, but as you wish... The communist party relaxed the borders in the late 1960s, resulting in a huge emigration of Croats due to Yugoslavia's largely failed economic policies, which reached a peak in 1970-1971. My family left shortly after the peak. 500,000 Croats left that magical land of milk and honey in the 1960s and 1970s. By the 1980s the Yugoslav economy was in shambles and relied heavily on remittances from the Croatian diaspora. Despite a serious war, political uncertainly, and a short period of international isolation, Croatia's "useless little economy" (as you seem to consider small economic zones) never experienced anything like the dinar inflation in the '80s. While Croatia's economy did shrink after the fall of communism, everyone's did, and the rest of these countries didn't have to deal with a destructive conflict which left huge costs, a permanent dent in tourism, unusable mined land, serious problems with infrastructure, etc. The rather grainy videos of '70s and '80s Yugoslavia show a place of cheap Yugos and deluded Party optimism (hey, we're better off than Belarus, we must be doin' swell!).

The second Yugoslavia could have served as a middle-phase between the fiercely unitarianist version and the tolerant democratic version of the union. Again, there is no indication that the peoples of Yugoslavia would ever democratically choose to continue the state, even in the absence of Serbian nationalism. The Albanians, Macedonians and Croats had a long, shared history of resistance to the state (Croats especially wrote rather heavily about the escalating "Kosovo question" in the '80s). The Slovenes were too western, the Albanians too foreign, the Macedonians too proud, the Croats too disillusioned, the Bosniaks too unrepresented, and the Serbs too determined to keep it all together. I am not threatened by a democratic Yugoslavia, because a democratic Yugoslavia would dissolve as soon as it was formed.

To most people, national sovereignty is not an economic question.--Thewanderer (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As first, you are totally confused in what you're saying about Yugoslavia, and as second, if you've never lived in Yugoslavia, how can you say all these nonsense about it? Seems like your nationalist parents brainwashed you since you've been born:)). You don't know ANYTHING about Yugoslavia and you have no right to insult that country. Yugoslavia was a proud and progressive country, respected in the whole world, and it's very likely that now after all the natonalistic histeria, our south SLavic peoples will re-establish some kind of an union like Yugolsavia was. On a big contrary from Yugoslavia, Croatia today is nothing but an isolated island with itsown political points of views shared with nobody, which fights with all its neighbours, and whose national heros are charged with the highest sentences against humanity in Haag. Croatia today is nothing but a balkanic artificial amalgam of different cultures and languages, which are forcibly pushed into one fragile 'croatian reality'. Everybody knows how big Yugoslavia was, 90% of ex-Yugoslavians are today regreting for the brother-killing war, caused exactly by those who think like you. You might pretend being blind and live with that your problem, but the fact is that Serbs, Croats and Bosnians speak just 3 variants of the SAME language, and most likely sooner or later they will reunite, regardless of those like you. They share many cutural and music events, shows, concerts etc, which makes them closer and closer every next day. Those are the facts and the reality, all the rest is just your wishful dream, that will never be realized. Go and watch the best ever music show in Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia -'Operacija Trijumf' with singers who sing in Serbocroatian and are from all 3 countries, and leave all your irrational nationalistic-utopistic dreams to the past. Bye and cheers. DIREKTOR, Best Regards to you:)).24.86.116.250 (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with all that. The Croats will probably give you some trouble, but I'm sure you'll beat us ;).--Thewanderer (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The normal Croats won't give me trouble, the only trouble might come from croatian nationalists, who are, Thanks God, a relative minority within all Croatian people. And who gives troubles - he gets them back, that's a fact. Bye.24.86.116.250 (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm yes, well... as a realist, I do not believe a Yugoslav union will be established within our lifetimes (or longer), at least not in the Pax Americana. As Stipe Mesić, the Yugo-nostalgic twice-elected PRESIDENT of Croatia says, even if there was significant political will in the myriad entities of former Yu on forming some kind of new union, the "powers that be" would not "allow" it to go through. However, this is of no concern in the long term, as the inevitable process of European unification will eventually economically unite all the Balkans states. As I'm sure Wanderer will agree, the influence of the individual seven (or eight) minute statelets within the EU will be a wisp compared to the hypothetical influence a Yugoslav union would have, being the most economically powerful state in the Balkans with a larger territory than Great Britain. Oh well, --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Operation Storm

You need source? Just read the article about JSO. Everything is stated clearly there. Other sources are for example documentary "Jedinica" by serbian TV station B92. You have there for example, "Kapetan Dragan" and other people directly involved. I really don't know what other proof you need? Just read article linked under "Military units". Unit is called "Jedinica za specijalne operacije" or JSO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.26.212 (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WWII

Dear DIREKTOR, Could you please have a look at WWII talk page. I prepared a new version of the Allies close in section where I present some details on the Yugoslavioa offensive (1944). Maybe, you will fins something to fix/add.
Best regards
--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Operation Storm

You need source? Just read the article about JSO. Everything is stated clearly there. Other sources are for example documentary "Jedinica" by serbian TV station B92. You have there for example, "Kapetan Dragan" and other people directly involved. I really don't know what other proof you need? Just read article linked under "Military units". Unit is called "Jedinica za specijalne operacije" or JSO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.26.212 (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WWII

Dear DIREKTOR, Could you please have a look at WWII talk page. I prepared a new version of the Allies close in section where I present some details on the Yugoslavioa offensive (1944). Maybe, you will fins something to fix/add.
Best regards
--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Croatia ethnic cleansing, NOT jokes

Back in 1995, the Croatia army didn't commit ethnic cleansing, not. They just shelled Knin for 8 hours after all military was gone, not. Burned houses so people couldn’t return, not. Made laws that forbade you to kick out the people who were living illegally in your house, not.Mike Babic (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That's all appalling, but it wasn't ethnic cleansing. You mustn't use that term unprofessionally, especially on Wikipedia. Dubrovnik, Zadar and even Split were shelled for much longer than a meager 8 hours, and what shall we say about Sarajevo? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Bona/Bunic

Mr. Director. It is not the family who need to support the facts. It is you and your editors who need to do so. You are the ones writing the article and will be held responsible for its accuracy. As I said, have you or your editors personally researched the Dubrovnik archives? What documents have you personally vetted to support your claims? Documents in the Dubrovnik archives are the ONLY authentic source of information on BONA or any other of Dubrovnik's noble families. Any other source is a filter through the eyes of the writer/historian and does not necessarily represent FACT. So again, up to you to decide whether what you end up printing is accurate or not. In any event, you will be held accountable.Mercy Bona (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"It is not the family who need to support the facts. It is you and your editors who need to do so."

Mr. Mercy, this sentence betrays much about your lack of knowledge of Wikipedia's functioning. Here are a few facts you may find interesting, and let me assure you of their veracity:

1) You are also a Wikipedia "editor" or "user".

2) We both need sources, not just "non-family editors", we're completely equal.

3) Noone will be "held responsible for inaccuracy", your remarks to that effect are quite ridiculous.

Now that we've cleared that up, let me shed light on another little fact: unless you actually present sources or are discussing the veracity of presented sources, there is really nothing you can say that will have any effect on the state of the article.

Have a nice day :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If I may, I tend to agree that the name is BONA and Bunic, as the slavic translation is incorrect. It would be highly unorthodox to change a name from its original form. But the sources in question should be presented. Romaioi (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, the name "Bunić" is not a Slavic translation, it's a bit more complicated than that (or there really would be no argument, as you say). The problem is the rather complex ethnicity of the Republic of Ragusa. That state was populated by a vast majority of ethnic Slavs (Croats, basically) from its earliest days. Its nobility, however, is a whole different matter. The nobility consisted originally of old ex-Roman Ragusan families, but accepted newcomers from Italy and also from its Slavic residents. This nobility was also heavily influenced by the fact that the population of their state was Slavic, a fact which altered their ethnicity fundamentally. As the centuries passed, these nobles became primarily known in their realm by their Slavic names, and they, of course, accepted this and used these names publicly (and signed their works by them).
Of course, the Romance modes are almost as equally important. This is why I advocate the dual naming policy which has successfully served as a compromise for months. Now, however, we have die-hard fanatics which strive to remove the Slavic names altogether... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly a plausible reason for the dual naming policy. I haven't read enough of the comments to decide for myself if the editors in question are fanatics - I try to take what everyone says with good faith. I can understand their concerns but believe that perhaps the manner in which the are going about stressing their points isn't constructive (much like your "Italian" friends in regards to the Dalmatia and Istria (etc) article's). For me, the information I am reading here about the eastern side of the Adriatic is certainly interesting. The information I have hitherto come across pertaining to the region has tended to be spurious and I have always wanted to learn more. But the information I am reading here is generally consistent with what I have been told by family members who have long since passed away and the other sources I have managed to find, so it is not difficult for me to trust the consensus work done here. It has such a wonderfully rich history that I believe is rather under-appreciated.Romaioi (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Message

Hi Direktor, Just letting you know I replied to your interestingly comment on on Alasdair's talk page. I see you have been "in the wars" a few times. Well done for keeping your sanity and trying to stick to what can be sourced. Good luck with everything. Cheers Romaioi (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC).

Semi-protection ?

Maybe is right time for semi-protection of talk page ?--Rjecina (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've posted a request on WP:ANI, hopefully it won't be unanswered, damn idiot is convinced Alisdair and me are one person :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Protected your talk page again

I see our old friend came back immediately. I reprotected your talk page against further anonymous edits for another month. If you want this undone, or need any more help, let me know... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Damn... I fergot his main account... could you direct me there, and I'll kick it up to "indefinite". This has gone on long enough. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks & Regards

Thanks & Regards :) --Bhadani (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of House of Bunić/Bona

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article House of Bunić/Bona, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

The article seems to have been carefully named to be ethnically neutral. In spite of this good intention, the article has turned into an ethnic football. A way to fix that might be to find better sources, but since the current sources are mostly genealogy, in my opinion there's not enough to base a real article on. EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi, it appears you are currently involved in an edit war on Antonio Bajamonti. Please do not continually revert one another's edits; rather, discuss on the talk page. I warn that violations of the Three Revert Rule will be enforced. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been trying to get the guy to discuss. Only after I let him have his way did he stop reverting and start talking. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello. The same way as German names are used for Czech or Polish towns with 0% of German population ... now. But in the past the German population lived there or the localities were a part of German administration, that's why we use them. It not only enhances information about particular localities but also helps readers to find more information in other sources, as many of valuable documents/books are in German. The same logic applies for Hrvatska and other European countries. The only justifyable way how to get rid of them from the lead is to create "name" section, which should be first in the article. Many articles like Częstochowa are using that, many like Kumanovo are using both lead and "name" section. - Darwinek (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Slavs

Your section:

does not fit (timewise) into the narative of the article,
repeats the information already present elsewhere in the article (and that information has more detail).

I am not going to revert it again but it does not make the article better. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL re:

No problem ;) Luigi took some speed powder, he's so quick that 2 of us are not enough hahaha Zenanarh (talk) 10:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

These pages need semi-protection. Zenanarh (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Reunification of Yugoslavia

I can't think as you can support the reunification of Yugoslavia. Really, are you croatian? or you are Croat-Serb? Is imposible that a Croat want the resurgence of Yugoslavia. After all that your compatriots have suffered in the war for the independence. I'm very surprised. --190.172.252.227 (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(There is no such thing as "Croat-Serb".) Maybe you didn't understand me: I do not support the resurgence of the SFRY, I do not support communism. I do, however, support the reunification of the many tiny "statelets" of this region into a greater whole in the interest of economic prosperity.

I don't expect you to understand. The Croatian War of Independence was not a war between Croatia and Yugoslavia, as Yugoslavia is not Serbia and Montenegro alone (regardless of the name). Without Slovenia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia, Yugoslavia ceases to exist in all but name. The Croatian War of Independence was fought when Serbian rebels and a remnant of the JNA attacked Croatian-populated areas. It was a war between Croats and Serbs, not between Croats and Yugoslavia. In effect, a war between Croatia and Yugoslavia is more-or-less an impossibility, as Croatia is an integral part of every conceivable Yugoslav union. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

))Very well said, Direktor. Svaka cast i pozdrav;24.86.116.250 (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Kaboga

Hi Direktor Why are you changing Bernhard Kaboga to Brno Kabudzic on the Bernahard Kaboga page when there is a discussion going on and no consensus on Kabudzic? Why is Bernhard Kaboga being changed to Brno Kabudzic with no sources or references? As I wrote in the discussion please be aware that the Croatian usage is Kaboga, do an Internet search and you'll find various references. Sorry but Kabudzic has never ever been used in relation to the Caboga/Kaboga family.Caboga (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

DIR I don't know. Zenanarh (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You have a message from me via wiki e-mail. Check it. Zenanarh (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Jakša Račić

Hey buddy, what do you know about this guy, Jakša Račić? Some Chetnik guy was Governor of Split? Is that right? Cheers, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, "Governor" isn't right but he did become Mayor of Split for a period around the time Alexander I announced his "January 6 Dictatorship". That would be 1929, and since the term was usually four years, I think he was in office between 1929 and 1933 (I could be mistaken, though). He was a medical doctor, had a pretty famous clinic, and even started the forestation work around Marjan. His family name was well known in Split (not anymore, though)... and that's about all I know, I'm not sure about his involvement with the Chetniks. I'll look into it over the weekend, in the meantime I'll add the infobox. Thanks for the heads-up :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I'll be interested to see what you are able to find out :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You're a genius - you got the dates exactly right. There seems to be a partial list of mayors in this book, pp 243-244. Hope that helps. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nationalism

Thanks for note but I am having problem even with Croatian grammer :)

To tell you truth my poor knowledge of english is killing my try to have active puppet account with which I can write new articles....--Rjecina (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have seen this to late, but it will be interesting for your discussion ?--Rjecina (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

From time to time I am looking talk pages of user involved in Croatia related articles and sometimes it is possible to read interesting things :)

During Spring 2008 I have tried to block user:AP1929 because of his name and something other but without success. He has been calm last few months because of Future Perfect ban so you can give him call :)

Toroko is calling Hungarian users for edit war about personal union. He has called user:Hobartimus with which I have worked on article Creation of Yugoslavia :)--Rjecina (talk) 08:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I really can't understand user:AP1929 problem with fascism. Fascist states are never involved in mass killing or something similar (NDH is different problem). In my thinking they are brutal dictatorship which are created around right wing ideology. I am wrong about this ?--Rjecina (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC

Situation is going to better and better. You have missed who is original source of data for statement Croatians has not been partisans (Yugoslav partisans). Answer is Mladen Lorković, Foreign Minister of NDH :)--Rjecina (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Croatia is ulmost only article about country where nothing is writen about history. Now I have started to work on that but I will need grammar help :)--Rjecina (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No comment about my table in Yugoslav partisans ?? There is space and data for another table victims nationality--Rjecina (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

They have not published this data, because it was declared state secret.--Rjecina (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Check Talk:Yugoslav Partisans. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Mario Andretti

Hi

I am sorry but I had to edit your addition to the Andretti page. The article is currently under GAR and needs to be perfect for a few days to maintain its assessment. Hope you don't mind.

Cheers --Chaosdruid (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ustaše

I starting to worry about you old friends ! Can you please explain your revert (in support of meatpuppet) in article Ustaše which is against 3 month of talk on talk page ?--Rjecina (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

I didn't block you (mostly because I had already blocked the sole other party to the edit war for other issues), but I could have. You were way over the line. I see that you have been blocked for edit warring before, so you know what an edit war is and how not to get into one. Remember, when you get to the point of "I should revert this a second time because I'm right and he's wrong", it is time to step back. That means that they might not be blocked for their conduct and the article may be in the "wrong" revision for a while, but in the end it is better off. So consider this a pretty stern warning. Don't edit war again. Don't come close to 3RR. Try to avoid breaching 2 reverts per day per article. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand, I pretty much figured it'd be ok since his edit constitutes pure nonsense (near vandalism). Its like someone writing "aliens killed JFK" over and over again in the JFK article, except this guy's serious. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Usually better safe than sorry, though. It's too easy for someone like me who doesn't know UDBA from U.N.C.L.E. to just see the content reverts, see your block log and fire away. I don't know if my ignorance means that you should be forced to edit differently, but just be careful. Protonk (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Could you help me with Template:Infobox BiH? Im not too familiar with syntax. PRODUCER ^(TALK) 16:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Macedonian Qestion

Hi, I see, you do not understand my position about it. If you could find a bit of time to read this independent research (it is short), my oppinion is nearly as the author's view:

NATIONALITY IN THE BALKANS: THE CASE OF THE MACEDONIANS by F. A. K. Yasamee (Balkans: A Mirror of the New World Order, Istanbul: EREN, 1995; pp. 121-132) Jingby (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've got your terms mixed up, and your statements lack sense. How? Lets review the facts:

The ethnic group living in the territory of the Republic of Macedonia has lived there for hundreds and hundreds of years.
Modern sociological science affirms this ethnic group as a seperate nation.
Sociological science did not always hold that view, and in the past mostly described this very same ethnic group as "Bulgarian".

From this you draw the erroneous conclusion that this ethnic group were "Bulgarians" in the past. This is like claiming that the Earth was in the center of the universe before Copernicus's day, because most contemporary scientists believed it to be so at the time. Or like claiming that Croats and Serbs were "Illyrians" in the 18th and 19th centuries because that was the contemporary view. Your logic is seriously flawed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You did not read the article. You won't learn nothing new and you did not vorget anything old. Jingby (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I'm afraid your point of view has been plagued by your love for the (thank God!) former Yugoslavia. It's not only about what scholars or scientists believe: you say people believed the Earth was the centre of the Universe before Copernicus, but people in Macedonia actually considered themselves Bulgarians. It's like the Earth itself, not the scientists, believing it's the centre of the Universe. But in terms of ethnicity, it's mostly about what you consider yourself to be. If you think you're Bulgarian and everyone else, including international scholarship, thinks you're Bulgarian... chances are, you guessed it, you're Bulgarian.

That said, are you actually claiming all the people who considered themselves Bulgarians and their language Bulgarian were something else that they didn't even know existed, namely "Macedonians"? Are you actually against the view that a group can evolve out of another group, and instead has to have always been separate from its parent group? This is so much against common sense and so close to Yugoslavist propaganda that your opinion cannot be taken seriously anymore. I'm afraid Titoism is not acceptable here, so you'd better drop that. Wake up and smell the ashes (literally), it's 2009 and Yugoslavia is dead. Todor →Bozhinov 15:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And I'm afraid your point of view is completely clouded by your nationalism and support for extra-territorial ambitions. What the hell do you know about Yugoslavia? You're obviously completely ignorant on the subject as you're not even aware what Titoism is: its a form of communism and has nothing to do with Macedonia. And yes, I am aware that Tito is dead, and that Bulgaria doesn't have possession of Macedonia, Constanta, or access to the Aegean, it is at its absolute tiniest extent in its entire history. "That said", its obvious you're playing word games. Let's have a look at your statements:

"It's not only about what scholars or scientists believe." I'm sorry, but on Wikipedia its ALL about what scholars and scientists believe. Read a bit about Wikipedia policy.
"...you say people believed the Earth was the centre of the Universe before Copernicus, but people in Macedonia actually considered themselves Bulgarians. It's like the Earth itself, not the scientists, believing it's the centre of the Universe. But in terms of ethnicity, it's mostly about what you consider yourself to be." This is true, for individual persons today! You use singular and present tense to mislead. I'm afraid its not that simple in sociology or historiography. Here are a few examples:
- In the past (during a period), Croats considered themselves to be "Illyrians" speaking the "Illyrian language", they are now considered to have been Croats speaking the Croatian language all along.
- During the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (during Alexander I's dictatorship), the official view both of the Yugoslav Government and of the world scientific community was that Serbs and Croats are, in fact, Yugoslavs, and that they've been Yugoslavs all throughout their history, regardless of what they "considered themselves" (both then and before).
- Montenegrins "considered themselves" Serbs for most of their history, now they're a seperate nation and are officially considered to have been one throughout their history. (This is just local stuff, of course, there are many more examples.)
"Are you actually against the view that a group can evolve out of another group, and instead has to have always been separate from its parent group?" No, you're putting words into my mouth in an effort to make me look nuts. I simply "believe" the official (scientific) view on any one issue.

Please do not bore me with what Macedonians (allegedly) "considered themselves" to have been five million years ago, it is completely irrelevant to this subject. Just like the death of Tito and the collapse of Yugoslavia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait, wait, what extra-territorial ambitions? Where did you read that? You're accusing me of putting words in your mouth when I'm asking you questions and at the same time you're claiming I'm some kind of irredentist jingoist, which I'm not. Obviously, I know *way* more about Yugoslavia than you do about Bulgaria and its foreign relations because for some reason I don't remember us having any particular passion for Constanta, and this isn't Bulgaria's tiniest historical extent (might wanna look at some historical maps before embarrassing yourself yet again).

First you're saying something along the lines of "scientists believed shit, that doesn't mean it was true" and then you're like "Wikipedia is all about what scientists believe". I've said that before, but please, make up your mind before defending an argument, it's humiliating to be saying absolutely contradictory things in two posts that follow each other. One can't argue with you because you offer no coherent arguments.

Don't bother me with "Illyrians", "Yugoslavs" and other failed forms of Pan-Slavism or internationalism, nor with Montenegrins and other emerging nations.

Let me just summarize what I think you're asking me to accept, and tell me whether it really is that so I can laugh out loud: "Macedonians have always been a separate ethnic group, from the Early Middle Ages when the Slavs and Bulgars arrived in the Balkans until today, even though they called themselves Bulgarians all along, they were called Bulgarians by their neighbours all along, they were regarded as Bulgarians by other Bulgarians all along, they were treated as Bulgarians by scholars ever since the emergence of modern historiography, and Macedonia was not even the name of the region they lived in." Basically, you're saying "They thought they were Bulgarians, but they were actually always Macedonians", right? And that just because Yugoslav and Comintern support boosted Macedonism as a dominant doctrine somewhere in the mid-20th century to create the Macedonian nation?

Your idea of identity, nationality and history is so flawed. And I'm sorry, but you really can't be expecting anybody to take you seriously with all those alternative theories. And believing Yugoslavia brought harmony and prosperity to anybody isn't even funny: it's offending to all the people that this completely flawed, artificial country caused the death of. It's almost like believing Nazi Germany brought prosperity to its citizens. Have some respect.

Anyway, I consider this conversation over: I'm not going to contact you anymore as long as you keep your made-up fringe theories to yourself. Todor →Bozhinov 12:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this conversation is definitely over, you appear bent on bringing me and my personal stances into this discussion. I wondered why you started the debate, anyway, I don't remember ever addressing you in any capacity? You said it perfectly, though: "scientists believed shit (past tense!), that doesn't mean it was true", like the Earth being flat and such. This encyclopedia bases most of its information on modern scientific beliefs, not those of 400, 300, or 80 years ago. Therefore, if scientists believe something (today!) this encyclopedia treats it as "true". If you're unable to comprehend that the position of the scientific community changes, and that an encyclopedia must be up to date, we are truly unable to continue a conversation on the same level.

If the official (modern!) scientific stance is that ethnic Macedonians are a seperate nation and were one for hundreds of years, this MUST be the stance of a modern encyclopedia. The origins of ethnic Macedonians can be traced all the way to the 6th century AD, when a numerous local population was assimilated by the Slavs, contributing to a unique ethnic identity. Sources:

William Ripley places them in the same subgroup as Bulgarians, but maintains their independence.
Gustav Weigand (ethnographer) and
Carleton Coon (anthropologist) both affirm their unique ethnicity is caused by the contribution of ancient Macedonians (Greeks, Thracians) assimilated by the arriving South Slavs
Henry Brailsford holds the position that Macedonians are a seperate ethnicity related to Serbs and Bulgarians but lacked an ethnic consciousness until recent times, etc, etc... (this is just a quick summary)

Your idea that the Macedonian nation "evolved", as you say, from Bulgarians because of Josip Broz Tito in the last 50 years is completely comical, and any serious professional in the field would laugh you out of the room. Sure, they're related to Bulgarians in the same way as Serbs are related to Croats, but they all are and were seperate nations (regardless of what they "considered themselves" to be). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(Note: I obviously meant "in recent Bulgarian history" (20th century, First Balkan War on), which is plain to anyone. You, on the other hand, have managed to display an ignorance of both Titosim, the Yugoslav economy (far proportionately superior to any Eastern Bloc state), and of the usage of the term "Illyrians", which was allocated to Croats and Serbs not by "Pan-Slavists" or "Yugoslavists", since both didn't exist in the 18th century.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about this Brailsford and this Weigand? Brailsford refers to Macedonian Slavs and (Macedonian) Bulgarians interchangeably and calls IMRO a Bulgarian movement. As for Weigand, I couldn't even find a place where he calls the Slavs of Macedonia anything else than (Macedonian) Bulgarians ;) We've been using those authors all along to support our thesis about the international community's stance pre-Macedonism. Have fun with your alternative view on that matter, though, although not suitable for Wikipedia, fiction is still fun. "The origins of ethnic Macedonians can be traced all the way to the 6th century AD" is taken from a sci-fi novel, I guess? By the way, good attempt on putting your own quoted words in my mouth, the humour appreciated.

Don't get me wrong though, even though our views don't match on too many issues, that doesn't mean I have a negative attitude. All the best and have fun editing, Todor →Bozhinov 17:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

DIR, discussing with these Bulgarian nationalists is a waste of time. I've tried explaining them a while ago how the Slavic dialects ancestral to dialects codified nowadays as modern standard Macedonian and modern standard Bulgarian were already polarised in the 9th century at the time of Old Church Slavonic writings (e.g. the reflexes of Common Slavic *t' and *d' phonemes), but they just can't grasp it - it enters one ear and leaves another one. Of course, polarisation of Bulgarian and Macedonian language at the time neither Bulgarian or Macedonian nation existed (the language in OCS MSS is always self-referred to as "Slavic", as is for centuries to come) introduces the cognitive dissonance to their firmly held dogma of "Macedonian being a dialect of Bulgarian", because judging from the historical perspective, modern-day Macedonians have just as much right to claim the "ownership" of their Slavic dialects as Bulgarians, because neither nation existed at the time the polarisation started (9th century CE). So, stop wasting time and try focusing on some real threats instead :)) Cheers --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, enough is enough, I am getting harassed by Ivan Stambuk and User:Rjecina. The latter keeps wanting me banned and accusing me and other users of being socket puppets of one another. In reality, the real threats are these people, because they .... I won't even continue--Bizso (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm turning this into a Free-For-All, but here's what we've seen. These Bulgarian nationalists have had their arguments debunked by two Croats. One of them they called a "Yugoslavist" (Direktor), and the other, one probably couldn't call a Yugoslavist at all (Ivan). So what kind of Croat will it take to support Jingiby and Bozhinov? An Ustaša sympathiser? Ain't that grand... Balkan Fever 03:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Chetniks/Draza Mihailovic

Hey, apparently you have a problem with my edits. I'm not trying to be naive or anything, and I apologize if I do, but I actually had some sources listed for ally-aiding actions that the Chetniks did. If you think "pro-allied" is a wrong choice of words, I'll respect you're knowledge about the matter, but at least dont delete all the references, they are no less important than the references that say the Chetniks were complete collaborators. I just want to talk about it, that's all. I left you're edits alone, I promise I didn't put any of my edits back. I just wanted to talk about it. Write to me why I couldn't write what I wrote or what I did wrong Balkanskiredneck (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok so do I just list all my references in the discussion and people will eventually talk about it and decide if it works? Balkanskiredneck (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so when I have the time, I'll probly stop by one day and list some references and ask people in the discussion to discuss about how and if my references could be used and how, and whatever else I need to ask. as a matter of fact I actually don't edit here too much, it's just been this past week I've been goin around here a bit as to studying for high school and not. But I'll remember take you're advise sometime soon. hvala Balkanskiredneck (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Zadar Bombing WWII

why did you delete my job on the Zadar bombing article and the source reference, Direktor ?

Cunibertus (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Bruno. I really need to find time to nail all these accounts. Sabanglana and DuilioM and a couple of others I've been aware of for a while. What the hell is Cunibertus? Some variant of cunnilingus or what? Dear oh dear. Hopefully I'll be able to find time over the weekend to close all these down. Anyway, how's spring in Broomfield? Sunny? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Mostly because of the stuff you wrote about me on your blog, Cunibertus. :) I don't have any say there, you don't have any say here - sounds fair to me. Anyway I'm sure one of your accounts has to pass if you try often enough, don't give up. Enjoy your lawsuit or whatever... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Doctor, I know you should avoid people asking you for cheap advice, but are you aware of any potential side effects of cunibertus? My wife is anxiously awaiting your answer ;-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Symptoms of chronic cunibertus include a serious loss of higher brain function, which in turn causes irresistible urges to try and create around one million transparent sockpuppet accounts on internet websites. Fortunately, no greater harm can come to the patient or his surroundings, since the aforementioned loss of brain function usually renders these accounts painfully transparent and obvious... xD All in all, a harmless condition that, remarkably, may even be a source of amusement for the patient's surroundings --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so the sedative effects of an enforced absence from the aforementioned websites, enacted by a close down of the accounts concerned, should be enough to render cunibertus harmless, yes? Thanks Doc. I'll see to it ;-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Parliament of Dalmatia

DIREKTOR, please voice your opinion on the Parliament of Dalmatia article.

There is a dispute whether next to Croatian and Italian (Serbo-Croatian as a compromise I have ruled out, due to the unpopularity of the term among others involved in the dispute) Serbian (and whether Cyrillic too or not) should be added.

It seems that some users have, also, (mis?)understood the presence of Serbian in the insulting and provocative, due to the recent conflicts between Serb and Croat peoples in the Balkan peninsular.

Could you voice your opinion on the article? Thanks, --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Bale

I don't get the point of this edit. Unless you want to feed conspiracionist trolls, of course. --Yuma (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: probably you can use this layout (just guessing, I ignore the exact style conventions for it). --Yuma (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh! ... I did'nt expect that.. do you think this can help? Believe me, unbalancing articles just for some kind of 'retaliation' harms everyone, not only your 'enemies'. By the way, I'm sysop on it.wiki, if you are interested in my opinion about all the matter, let me know. Bye --Yuma (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: Conspiracy theories are nothing serious, of course, but someone (from inside wikipedia but even from outside) continue stating there's a bunch of people, users, authorities, martians and all you can imagine conspiring against italians and bla bla bla. I'm just attempting to demonstrate that it's just bullshit, that we all have our little pov, but if we are serious enough we can build together neutral articles. I understand you're probably sick of all this, but a little help in this direction will be highly appreciated. --Yuma (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I knew one of that guys a couple of years ago, so I can easily understand how annoyng it could be. Unluckily he is been able to make further damages before being picked. DuilioM was the last known sock, and he was clever enough to convince other users about the 'conspiracy', that's the reason of some hysterism also from non-vandal users. Sorry about it, but I think the case is now enough clear, and I'm not really so interested in talking about users.

Coming to the point. About mere informations inside articles: i saw in some point an over-reaction, like for Bale, Croatia. Fighting trolls must not affect information in the encyclopedia. About the case of Pula, I read something, and probably it's a disputed situation, even for Pula people. I do not pretend to solve complicate situations, but not all of these is so hard to understand. There's a few articles where the omission of italian-language toponyms does not make any sense. Beginning from:

the Istria Region itself (bilingual in his own statute)
a few municipalities like Bale - Valle
a few important cities like Rovinj. I'm just talking about places where bilinguism is non-controversial, but just a matter of fact.

And I'm talking just about Croatia. We have -I guess- a few case also in Slovenia, but I must have a look on the situation, first. --Yuma (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Mate Boban Article

Hello Direktor. If you would take a gander at this page: Mate Boban, I added some tags, just citation notes. If an article is citing references, good deal. If the article is POV, it is casting a shadow upon our mixed heritage as former Yugoslavians. I am willing to help on articles that have a POV slant when it pertains to the FROY, and others in between, which are finally starting to dwindle down. In your opinion, did the Mate Boban article merit the tags I put on the page? Thanks Nathraq (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Toponyms

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia regarding Croatian toponyms. You have also been mentioned, so perhaps you'd be interested... :-) GregorB (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, nickname of Zadar, well I don't think there's any widely accepted - that's what it should be to use it there, so... no. Zenanarh (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Vodnjan. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Yuma (talk) 11:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I feel this sort of condescending behavior is completely uncalled-for. I expect you're referring to this edit, which I did in good faith believing that the User who's work I slightly modified was in agreement with it (see his statement to that effect [19], and my response [20]). I simply did not notice his latest statement on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia. I do not see how you could have made the assumption that I believe I "own" the Vodnjan article considering that I made a grand total of two minor edits there. I also can't see any justification for using Wikipedia articles for "examples" when talkpages are here for that purpose.

In short, I'm a user with over ten thousand edits and years of experience who thought he was helping, why the warning? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Yuma may, upon reflection, agree that the 'warning' message above is completely uncalled for and unhelpful. While he/she is a newbie to enwiki, I believe he's an admin at itwiki so should know better. Above all, patronising template messages to experienced editors are utterly counterproductive to a sensible discussion such as the one we are in the middle of now. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem in considering an error the use of a template message, sorry about it. But I hope you know what I meant. --Yuma (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Toponyms discussion

As I said to Yuma, I understand how he feels - noone likes to be on the wrong end of the stick. I feel too that Alasdair's reaction was unwarranted, to say the least. I noted that the discussion went downhill not really because it's highly unpleasant in absolute terms (as far as Wikipedia goes, this is still pretty benign), but because - given the mildly controversial subject (compared to e.g. Kosovo - yes, "mildly" is the word) and generally constructive approach of participants, at least initially - this situation really is a bit disappointing.

But never mind all that, the discussion is now restarted (well, hopefully), so let's just continue step by step, I feel that we are still going someplace. GregorB (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Also let me add this: I suspected that this harshness had something to do with some editors' prior experiences with each other (or each other's positions). I can understand that, but here (as in any serious discussion) it's important to push forward and not get sidetracked with things that are beside the point (the point being, of course, finding the solution). No real harm done I guess, and hopefully it stays that way. GregorB (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Vergarola...

...is now 1,000 times better. A good example of taking a piece of unsourced rubbish and making it something informative and reliable. Cheers mate, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

If you can find me a human settlement known as "Pula-Pola", I'll gladly accept your point of view.

I probably was unclear, using the word 'heading' ... but I read a few times your answer, and (even assuming I was using the wrong word) I don't understand what was my point of view, and why the Pula-Pola name was related... Was You referring to something else? By the way, I corrected my sentence, maybe you just misunderstood. --Yuma (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My map

Well I'm glad it's getting more attention these days. :) I made an exception with Kosovo because of its historic importance to the Serbian nation and my lack of will to reward the KLA for their crimes. I think though that partition could be the right solution. But I am not talking about giving everything north of Kosovska Mitrovica to Serbia and everything else to the Kosovo Albanians. I am talking about 50/50. Give the western half of the province to Albania (no need for a pointless buffer state anymore) and the eastern half to Serbia. This would require some resettlement of peoples, but I think this is the fairest solution due to international law being on Serbia's side. I may redraw my map to reflect this partition. --Tocino 18:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I agree with your stance on Yugoslavia. --Tocino 18:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Removals of coat of arms of Kosovo

You seem to be in a campaign to remove the coat of arms of Kosovo from several templates and replace it with a map, from Template_talk:History_of_Kosovo#Coat_of_Arms_of_the_.22Republic_of_Kosovo.22 and Template_talk:Politics_of_Kosovo#Request_to_remove_the_flag. However, every other template of that series uses a coat of arms (except where there is no coat or there is no image of it.

Read WP:BRD, you made the bold change to replace the coat with a map, you got reverted, and now you are discussing it in the talk page, where you are clearly not getting consensus for the change. You also keep making the changes at other templates ~~citing the discussion at one of the templates where you are gettng little oposition, and not the discussion where are you getting a lot of opposition[21]~~ heh, you reverted yourself on that one[22], pity you didn't the same on the other templates. You are also making the same edits to several other Kosovo-related templates[23][24].

You are not asserting any generic problem about using contested coats of arms in those templates, this is a clear campaign to get that coat of arms out of those templates. I'm reverting all those edits, and I'm expecting that you won't revert them back until you have some clear consensus to make those edits, otherwise I'll have to ask that the Kosovo's article probation is applied on you (you are perfectly aware of that probation, as you added yourself a warning about that probation to one of the talk pages[25], so you should know better than change a controversial image across multiple templates and edit war on one of them to keep your new image)

(I restored the flag/coat at Template:Airlines of Kosovo, Template:Universities in Kosovo and Template:Kosovo political parties. You should start a discussion at WT:MOSFLAG about using the coats/flags of partially-recognized countries in those "X in country" templates instead of targetting specifically the flag of a country whose articles are under probation, just saying). --Enric Naval (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(Assuming good faith) Yes, I am completely aware of the Kosovo probation, but I dare say you may not be fully aware of the nature of the Kosovo dispute: this is NOT the "coat of arms of Kosovo". You've correctly asserted that I'm on a "campaign" to remove this coat of arms of the Republic of Kosovo from templates that talk about Kosovo as a whole. I do not and did not try to hide it. I merely made comments on two seperate talkpages which spiraled on into two debates.

I do not think this matter requires to be discussed on WT:MOSFLAG because it deals specifically with Kosovo. I'm not trying to establish a new "standard" or guideline, because Kosovo is a completely and incomparably unique case.

I've stated and restated my arguments over and over again on the two talkpages, but here they are again in a nutshell (please bear with me):

The reason a Coat of Arms can not be used for Kosovo is simply because Kosovo itself is not a country (see article for the current consensus definition). It is a "region" or "territory" with no coat of arms of its own. The coat of arms currently used in the template(s) is that of an entity within Kosovo itself which claims but does not have control over all of the "region". Even if that entity was not disputed at all (and boy is it!), a template referring to the entire region cannot be represented by a coat of arms of only one faction within that region. It is incorrect geographically, politically, and it is biased POV. Hence, it is against policy. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It was my impression that violations of policy do not need consensus to be repaired? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that those images violate any policy at all (and, yes, and read your arguments, and I replied on why I thought that NPOV and other policies were not being violated).

Anyways, see WP:BRD, you were bold, you were reverted, and now you are supposed to discuss it. You seem to be working out some sort of solution with Ev in the politics of Kosovo talk page, see if you can reach some sort of compromise there.

(and, of course, templates like Template:Airlines of Kosovo cover stricly the country commonly called "Kosovo" in English and not any part of the Kosovo region that is located outside of the country itself, and they are not called "Airlines of Republic of Kosovo" in the same way as Template:Airlines of Spain is not called "Airlines of Kingdom of Spain".) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You're either ignoring my point or failing to give it thought. Kosovo does not have a coat of arms. "Kosovo" is not a common name for the Republic of Kosovo. "Kosovo" is a "common name" for a disputed region. If you have a proper look, you'll find that Ev agrees with my argument completely on Template:History of Kosovo. The "failure to achieve consensus" as you call it, is a vague discussion in which not a single user actually discussed the legitimate reasons I've listed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You are failing to take into account the possibility that I have given thought to your arguments and then found them unconvincing.... --Enric Naval (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You find my arguments "unconvincing"? First of all, forgive me if I do not consider the arguments refuted at all simply by that statement. Second, what is there to convince? The consensus on Wikipedia is that "Kosovo" is a region. If I have failed to convince you there, I repeat that you may simply have a look at the consensus on the carefully monitored Kosovo article. This region has no coat of arms. What is there to convince? This is simple logic. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Kosovo article has a coat, in the "Infobox Country" template on the right side of the page. See also Coat of arms of Kosovo. You got the consensus totally wrong. (btw, articles are "protected" not "blocked") --Enric Naval (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

So you think I've been lying to you, and that I didn't know about that infobox? Here it is in the plainest imaginable terms: That is NOT an infobox for Kosovo itself. That is an infobox for the Republic of Kosovo. I repeat: the two are by NO MEANS the same.

You will also find there the infobox of the other of the two "entities" which exist there: the UN administration, which represents the Serbian enclaves which consider themselves within the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija administered by the UN. The Republic of Kosovo does not consider itself UN-administered, the UN does not even recognize the existence of the Republic of Kosovo. These are the two "entities" or "factions", if you like, that exist within Kosovo, which is by Wikipedia consensus a disputed region. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

(I moved my reply to Template_talk:History_of_Kosovo#Proposed_template_image, so all replies are in one place) --Enric Naval (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In your last post, please replace "block" with "protection". Users get blocked and articles get protected. People who read the comment might accidentally think that I was asking for some user to be blocked. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the proper term. It just doesn't seem right to call it "protection" in this case. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Airlines of Kosovo

Template:Airlines of Kosovo is a complete and utter joke/parody of an encyclopedia. It is a sub template of [Category:Airlines by country templates], which it should not yet be, by standard definition. It also includes only the sublink Kosova Airlines with its current total of 0 operating aircraft, which our beloved Wiki co-editors are trying to conceal in their form of wording and structure at the article. Totally bizarre. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Tip of the iceberg, Al... Its so nice that the airline is "working with other airlines". Official business lunches? :) I personally don't doubt that the Republic of Kosovo will be independent sooner or later, but I won't allow the neutrality of these articles compromised while the matter is still undecided. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Man oh man, I've heard of countries without airlines but I've never heard of airlines without fucking aeroplanes. Man, it's like a taxi service without any fucking cars. Let's get real here. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice how they formulated the airlines template so as to leave room for more Kosovar Airlines. Though I imagine they could create another 50 airline companies with 0 aircraft, no problem. There are some serious notability issues here... On a related note (silly articles), check out this jewel: Serbian surnames. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Man, I'm not getting involved in this shit. Makes the Istrian/Dalmatian fights we've been in seem like a tea party. If you want to go there, be my guest, and good luck. I'll be watching. Oh, and I've heard that while your up for some fun, the articles on the Armenian genocide need a neutral arbitrator. Have a great time! AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In the words of a famous proctologist: I'm goin' in... ;) I stay away too usually, I just get involved when its really outrageous. This time they messed with the Yugoslavia articles I like to keep neat. The Kosovo template keeps getting removed from SAP Kosovo and AP Kosovo and Metohija history articles because of its POV coat of arms. I'm hoping to neutralize that problem once and for all. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

ojojoj fuck, OK my brave soldier, for a total masochist, there's always the Greece/Macedonia stuff. Drop by there for some fun. Seems about 50% of the ANI shit is related to that. Have a fantastic time - if you escape alive, I'll buy you a beer ;-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You've got a deal :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Parenzana

Please Direktor, don't do this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parenzana&diff=prev&oldid=288048409. "Parenzanza" is the historical name of the railroad. Also Slovenians and Croatians accept this name.

You can find sources in the Parenzana official site http://www.parenzanamuseum.si, and in the official site of the City of Portoroz http://www.portoroz.si/parenzana. Here in your mother tongue: http://www.parenzanamuseum.si/HR/Glavna%20stran.html --Grifter72 (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think the name should be "Parenzana". We can write also Croatian, Slovenian and German translation, but the page should be called "Parenzana". If you want, you can use "Croatian name" in the link in the Poreč page, but if you change the name to the principal page you can create confusion. There are al lot of railroad fanatics about Mitteleuropean railroads. Your edit can generate mistakes. Look also to the croatian page http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenzana. Parenzana is the historical name. Remember, I'm not a nationalist man, I write also in Lombard Wikipedia. I understand a lot of your edits as a reaction to strong Italian POV edits, but this, like the name of the Venetian commanders in Hvar Rebellion page are wrong.--Grifter72 (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--Grifter72 (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hvar Rebellion

Hi, not now (I've seen you are busy), but in near future I need a discussion with you about Hvar Rebellion. I've seen someone insulted you, and I've seen something similar to an edit war. I understood your reaction. But in that article, I think names of Venetian commanders should be written in their original language. Giustiniani family (Gustinian in Venetian) is really important in Ligurian and Venetian History. Sebastiano Giustiniani (Sebastian Giustinian) was also Venetian ambassador in London. Giovanni Navagero was a good commander from Cadore Region. Ring a bell when you are ready, or if you accept to change names without discussion, give me a feedback.--Grifter72 (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I did modify. I mentioned in the text also Croatian names to help Croatian readers. Cheers --Grifter72 (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

NU2

Did you see that idiot scum boljkovac on NU2 the other day? Some of the idiocy coming out of his mouth sounded exactly like stuff you would say LOL, did you see how dumb he sounded ? AP1929 (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No, AP, I didn't watch Nu2 last Sunday. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame, you could have seen how ridiculous he sounded. NOV in English is the Peopleslliberation - obviously separated, People's liberation Army.AP1929 (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I just looked back and noticed you asked for NOVJ in that case People's Liberation Army of yugoslavia; the country and army which does not exist and never ever will again. AP1929 (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. Now stop annoying me with Boljkovac. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

But you should have watched how Aco stomped him in over and over again. He truly made him self look like the idiot that he is. It's people like him that make me actually like Dr. Tudman even though I was never a fan. It's funny how people like him have to have body guards in modern day Independent Croatia. Is it true that smoking is banned?AP1929 (talk) 07:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh ffs go discuss Boljkovac with one of your students, not interested. Smoking is indeed banned. Best thing that ever happened, now maybe we'll reduce smoking. Certainly worked for California... By the way, I've just been told yesterday by an Englishman that I speak with a "Bostonian accent", is that good or bad? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually it didn't, that's what they're telling you because you balkanci think that whatever Amerika does must be good for us. I knew and heard it was banned from a few people but I figured at least in some places in Split you could still light up under the table. How do you even get around in Split anyways ? Most of my friends in Split, especially younger ones would eat a yugo like you for supper haha. It's boggling my mind, I bet you're the quiet type, goes to school and sits in front of the compute the rest of the hours of the day.AP1929 (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Englishmen don't have a clue as to what a Bostonian accent is, maybe from films. I recently got off the phone with an organization in Zagreb and they asked me when I left Croatia - haha meanwhile I wasn't even born there - zamisli.AP1929 (talk) 07:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm well, I do study a lot, I suppose... Yes, I imagined your friends are like that. Some of my friends are right-wing as well (one of my closest friends is thinking of joining the HSP). Others, mostly from the Split get, are sort of left-wing. As I said, I'm not really a communist (or socialist) and I don't allow politics into my life. I started on Wiki while in college, prior to that I certainly would not describe myself as the "bookish type" (certainly not "quiet", LoL). (This Englishman lived in Jersey for quite a while, legal alien and all that...) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The HSP is a disaster joke. The closest thing to right-wing in Croatia right now is HCSP which has it's largest support in Split, obviously the home of IX Bojna HOSa. But I even laugh at them with their wannabe Ustastvo - who goes to cometary on the greatest day in Croatian history ever (10 Travnja)? I know what you are, you're very typical, especially for someone in your age group. You against the world, especially someone who is involved in scientific matters when it comes down to school - you seem to be missing a heart. Logic is a great thing but the mind without the heart is useless. I believe Albert Einstein once said that Religion without science is blind and that science without religion is lame - or the other way around I can't remember. You get my point. Atheism should be illegal in our part of the world - to me it is illogical and I find it hilarious when someone of a scientific rationale can come to the conclusion that there is no starting point, that there is no beginning force that must exist according to the law of motion. You're a dalmatinac, mi smo ljubazni ljudi makes no sense. The only thing good about that yugoslavia was it's rock and folk music scene. AP1929 (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh in regards to the accent, if the man was from jersey - Most people in the NewYork area say that all Canadians even speak with a Bostonian accent. However, most Americans are very ignorant of their neighbors up north. AP1929 (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you say "eh", AP? (LoL)

(Albert Einstein is a Jew, remember? Ustaše don't like Jews very much.) I think you're getting the wrong idea, I'm not some "rebel against the world". I'm a materialist, I look at things through money and economics. I see Yugoslavia as very beneficial for the region and I support it. I'm sorry, but when you're surrounded by the downfall of Croatian economy (the IMF is coming) you tend to forget ideologies and nationalist sentiments. Most of you guys out there are rabid nationalists, because you can afford it: you're not here. Here, "logic" drives people to do just about anything to finally start improving their lives. I won't discuss this anyomore, no point...

Atheism should be illegal?! LoL, and you call me a "Balkanite"... What's next? Prohibition of Orthodox Christianity? Islam? I expect you're a creationist as well, eh? Why don't you tell me, as straightforwardly as possible, why should I believe in the existence of something, when that has not (yet) been proven? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I do say eh. I am not an anti-semite and neither was Dr. Pavelic - this will be explained to you balkanites in Sedlars film biography of Dr. Pavelic. Antisemitism and the Ustasa Movement were pure coincidence - note, not one single piece of writing, not one single piece of propaganda, not one single statement, not one single principle of the movement ever says anything against Jews until 1941. The Ustasa Movement was a bastion for Frankists, Frankovci, and Frank himself was a Jew and prominent Ustase in the first emigration such as Ustasa Vespa was a 100 percent practicing Jew. I don't hate anyone - you have the Domovina perception of Ustastvo, kids and peasants equating it to hate of some kind, whereas I can not hate anyone as much as I love Croatia. Serbs, Jews etc. don't bother me nor do I hate them. You are so a rebel against the world - join the Armada in Rijeka haha sami protiv svi ne ? The downfall of the international economy is occurring and Croatia, from an outsiders perspective is doing fairly well. The problem with Croatia is it's corruption which is only occurring due to the fact that a fake democracy exists which holds an entire population which is yet not familiar with democratic process. Why? Because no lustration ever occurred in Croatia like in all other former communist civil countries. I blame Tudman for putting people like Manolic, Boljkovac, Mesic etc. around him at the wrong time and their reign or terror, crime and corruption has moved forward since then. Most of us guys out here couldn't be bothered with modern day Croatia - the diaspora received it's pljuska a long time ago - this is why I, as an active participant get angered with the passiveness of Croats here now who were known to protest for days. Their goal = the demise of yugoslavia is complete, see voting trends, dropped increasingly. I was one of the bigger factors in the Gotovina petitions, barely got 10 thousand signatures - useless. Dr. Miroslav Tudman is in the region, and again, barely a peep - but he will get good financial support from the few remaining wealthy tudmanophiles out here. If you want money - replace logic with money in your statement, then I suggest you finish school and you'll be fine. No need to be saddened at the fact that yugoslavia is long gone even though to some barem smo imali kruha na stol dok je bio ziv drug tito. Croatia is fine, you can't expect a new country which was ravaged by war to be prospering any better than it is. As for atheism in Croatia -- people who saw the war, people who have seen miracles happen know why. There are many things in this world which one can not physically see or necessarily prove or explain but they certainly exist. You live in a part of the world which has been blessed. I highly suggest a trip to Medugorje if you haven't already been there, I'm guessing you haven't -- and if you could, meet some of the people who are notable in the area. I have been there, and I have seen it and felt it, I am even close to someone who has eye-witnessed Vlc. Zlatko Sudac having a live stigma appear - this too can not be explained or proven. I'm sure it is very easy to dub things as cash grabs -- that's the new balkan mentality since you yourself believe there that even money talks, and since so many politicians and figures said worked and did it all for the money. You explain to me what kind of lunatic children would have done what those kids there did during communist yugoslavia - and how theyve been able to project the same message which has not benefited them in any way for so many years - for absolutely no reason? AP1929 (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll just extract the religious part of the post... "There are many things in this world which one can not physically see or necessarily prove or explain but they certainly exist."

"Explain". There are indeed many "things that most certainly exist that we cannot explain", but a lack of evidence by definition proves nothing. Least of all the existence of an omnipotent being. We are slowly explaining many of these things, and have been "explaining" them for hundreds of years.

"Prove". Hmm, "things we cannot prove that most certainly exist"? That's a contradiction. If they cannot be proven, how can they "most certainly" exist? That was my question: Why should I believe in the existence of something when there is no evidence supporting its existence.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of things which support or imply such existence. You just have to look for them, see the above mentioned. One can not prove or explain simple emotion, but it exists and takes many forms. I have many personal experiences, backed up with obviously some logic regarding actual history regarding my particular faith - not to mention how it intertwines with my culutre and historical events within my life and the existence of my Croatian people. Some things you have to try and prove yourself to yourself - because no one else has being the grounds of you agreeing is simply an easy way out in my opinion. Some things you just have to believe - and there are many things in history which were unbelievable which are today very much so believable - I need to joke right now, as I am a jokester in my spare time - tko je mogo zamisliti lani, da ce Bozic slavit partizani?. Anyways, it is a ridiculous hour here right now, I have no idea why I am still awake and in front of this screen, but I will continue another time. Look into what I was saying, maybe I can teach you something about Croatia and the above mentioned.AP1929 (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

So you essentially agree: there is no evidence for the existence of (a) god? Forgive me if I demand more than "implications" before I make a life-altering choice. However, I also contest that these "implications" at all exist. The inability to explain something does not prove (or imply) anything, by definition. It just proves there are things that we, at this time, are unable to grasp (again by definition). The human ability to "explain things" with empirical evidence and research has been conclusively shown to be increasing with time. Unexplainable phenomenon are simply not proof of the existence of anything, at all.

You apparently define "miracle" as an improbable beneficial occurrence. A "miracle" is a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature. Evidence of the supernatural obviously must be supernatural. improbable good ≠ miraculous

(The biological phenomenon that people call "emotions" is nearly fully explained, I assure you, and can very easily be medically controlled.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Dalmatia

Hi. I hope you don't think I am being unreasonable in removing the info box on Dalmatia's page. The main reason for that was because it does not conform to Wikipedia's other pages on historic regions. Transylvania, Banat, Castille, Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, etc. do not have a format like that. Also, I believe that a country info box is not appropriate for historical regions due to their not being countries. Regards. --Jesuislafete (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? I don't see why removing the box is any great travesty, like I said: no other region I have seen has a set-up like that. Perhaps a more different template would be more appropriate. --Jesuislafete (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Hi there,

If you take a closer look, the material I removed is all unsourced OR, and it was put there by an Albanian nationalist POV-pusher. If you look at his contribs log, you will see what I mean. He placed it there without prior discussion or consensus of any sort. I am an experienced user, and I know what I'm doing. The reason I used such an edit summary was because I have experience in dealing with this individual, and have no patience for his antics. If you don't mind, I will remove it again, with an appropriate edit summary this time.

Thank you, --Athenean (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy, was I ever wrong there... My sincerest apologies. I'll revert right away. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Croato-Serbian language in the Hey, Slavs!

Please stop this nonsense about using only the "group" name of these languages. It is simply not correct. We are speaking about languages and not groups of languages (diasystems). What would happen if someone would write Bulgaro-Macedonian and insist on using just that name of the group which consist of two different languages. The Croato-Serbian language was one of the four languages in which the Official Gazette of SFRY was issued. Older issues of that Gazette were published in Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian and Slovenian. The two variants of a compromise are at hand.

Imbris (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope that you would consider a fair compromise on the matter, after reading Hey, Slavs#Croatian (during WWII) and even assist me in this issue. -- Imbris (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop this petty edit-war, the diasystem or a singular language that had two equal names, therefore you should stop omitting the content, both wikilinks lead to your beloved language. Did you read the Croatian version during the WWII before reverting? I am not interested in the Talk:Serbo-Croatian language with you or the supporters of that "singular idiom", I am only interested in presenting the information in its reliable form — that form being — the equal usage of both its names and eventually moving the Serbo-Croatian language to Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language.

Imbris (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is highly controversial and in my opinion null and void (as would Mr. Jeremić say). You are trying to deny the four languages "official" system of SFRY + you are trying to allude that there were only one official language in SFRY. No matter how much you would insist on using a singular group name that was not the case, there were two distinctly different languages, and the fact is that the Croatian or Serbian was constitutionaly named Croatian literary language in the first paragraph on the language issue. You had no problem with the article when it was [[Serbo-Croatian language|Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian]]. Why do you insist in preserving the unitarist policy of the Communists that there is a one language only in SFRY?

Imbris (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

From the 1971 constitution of Federal Republic of Croatia (can you get more "official" than that?): U Socijalističkoj Republici Hrvatskoj u javnoj je upotrebi hrvatski književni jezik - standardni oblik narodnog jezika Hrvata i Srba u Hrvatskoj, koji se naziva hrvatski ili srpski. So basically "Croatian literary language" is synonymous" with "Croatian or Serbian", i.e. Serbo-Croatian. It can be "different language" only in some literary/sociolinguistic scenarios (the same ones that would gave "American language" or "Brazilian language"), but not on the principles of genetic linguistics and dialectology. Moreover, Croatian started to function as a separate standard language only in 1991, before that you had common Serbo-Croatian orthography books, dictionaries, etymological dictionaries, grammars.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

@diREKTOR: Saying nothing is not implying that a person agrees with you! Do not presume on delaying response to every question that you make, and you just love to make questions, don't you? Like a police inspector. -- Imbris (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR: Agreement on what, I think that [[Serbo-Croatian language|Serbo-Croatian]] '''or''' [[Croato-Serbian language|Croato-Serbian]] is a good enough agreement when we are talking about that particular translation of the song Hey, Slavs. Or we disagree on other issues since you did not comment on that. I do not presume that you are either for or against when you do not say anything. Also you reverted other parts, and not only the part we are talking about so I do not know what you agree or disagree. -- Imbris (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh LoL... what are you talking about? The issue was that you insisted on the existence of seperate "Serbo-Croatian" and "Croato-Serbian" languages, which is the "theory" you were implementing on more than one article. Turns out you were quite wrong. You see when I'm obviously wrong, I admit it (and apologize sometimes) [26], you just phase out of the conversation (presumably embittered).

"Croatian or Serbian language" = "Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian" = "Croato-Serbian language" = "Serbo-Croatian language".

They're all valid synonymous (or nearly-synonymous) names for the same language. However, this is the English Wikipedia. The name of that particular language in English is BY FAR "Serbo-Croatian". The other synonyms are virtually unknown outside Croatia, and maybe Serbia. Its ok by me to use the most appropriate term in the context of the SR Croatia article, but to start adding "Croato-Serbian" to article leads, or to start replacing "Serbo-Croatian" with various synonyms you personally find more "Croatian" is absurd. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are you jumping the gun, as they say, no one is talking about re-wikilinking the entire Wikipedia. Please stop with the statistics which support your POV, in cases as this one, the former national anthem, the former Coat of arms, former national symbols, there should be written in full. Why are you fighting me on this, it makes sense. Not just because I think so, there is Rave92 who reverted you too. And I am not in favour of disregarding your opinion if it is inclusive of other persons.

The article on the Croato-Serbian language in its first sentence speaks about this language being called xy or yx

I have used the exact same phrase - using the connection or.

Imbris (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles moves from Kosovo to Republic of Kosovo

Hi DIREKTOR. Were these moves from "Kosovo" to "Republic of Kosovo" discussed somewhere in advance ? - Best, Ev (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, we generally agreed on Template talk:History of Kosovo that "Kosovo ≠ Republic of Kosovo". Now I do expect resistance from guys that maintain Kosovo is a fully recognized independent country that spans the entire region (Albanian POV), however, I do not think there's any argument that hasn't already been thoroughly discussed. It objectively makes little sense to entitle articles as if the whole thing isn't a hotly debated issue. As far as the simple territorial situation is concerned, the region of Kosovo is significantly larger than the Republic of Kosovo... I digress. If there's a misunderstanding, or if you recommend such a course of action, I'll revert the moves... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Being bold about one move is fine, and even encouraged; but when it comes to the potentially controversial move of various articles placed on probation by the Abitration Committee, previous discussion is always the best course of action.

I see your point, but I'm not sure of need (or benefits) of those moves. As for "Kosovo ≠ Republic of Kosovo", that's not entirely the case. Depending on whom you listen to, Kosovo is:

An independent country (formally known as the Republic of Kosovo).
A Serbian province (formally known as the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija).
Something in between (a UN or EU protectorate ?).

It's the context that clarifies which of those meanings is being applied. So, sometimes "Kosovo = Republic of Kosovo".

For example, in the case of the "Foreign relations of Kosovo" entry, is it necessary to disambiguate its title by adding "Republic of" ? Can it have any other meaning than the independent country ? A Serbian province does not conduct foreign relations with other states.

In any case, there's no need to revert those moves immediately, and they may make sense. Just try not to make further multiple moves in delicate topics without first discussing them, or at least announcing them a couple of days before. - I will give it more thought later today. :-) Best, Ev (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Izola

Hello. I saw your rv on my change on the template for Izola, including the comment. The model for Pula seems a bit too complex to me. Why not doing it like for the South Tyrolean municipalities, Bolzano, for example. Some Slovene-speaking municipalities in Italy (those which are by statute completely bilingual, like Sgonico or San Dorligo della Valle) also follow a similar model. I would remind you that the Slovenian laws about official visual bilinguism are, as far as I know, stricter than the Croatian ones. On the website of the municipality, the name of the town is also rendered in both forms, as both are official, and all public agencies and offices are required to use both names in all circumstances. For example, the Slovenian Post always uses the bilingual name of the town, even in exclusively Slovene documents (as you can see here. According to law, private enterprises are also required to use the official name of the town, which is bilingual; most of them do so, although there is no sanction for not complying with this law. The legal situation in Slovenia is thus much closer to the South Tyrolean one, so I'd suggest we should follow that pattern. Best, Viator slovenicus (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC) (btw: I hope you don't mind if I copy part of this discussion to the Izola talk page)

Foreign relations of Kosovo

I have raised the question of renaming Foreign relations of Kosovo to the more NPOV title Foreign relations of the Republic of Kosovo. You may wish to comment. Bazonka (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Image in Foibe killings

Hi DIREKTOR, they are "Bela Garda". They are dressed with Bela Garda Uniform. Look here http://muceniskapot.nuovaalabarda.org/foto-24-ita.php and here http://muceniskapot.nuovaalabarda.org/foto-26-ita.php These are really famous photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grifter72 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi: this issue seems to easily solved. Just I would like to add that the simple observation of the picture of that infamous squad should tell that not only Italian soldier are presents: some civil hats are clearly visible. Ciao --Bramfab (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian languages

Samo da te obavijestim da sam ovu tvoju tvorevinu preusmjerio na Serbo-Croatian language jer fakat nema previše smisla to dvoje odvajat. ^_^ Otvorih diskusiju na strani za razgovor o značenju srpskohrvatštine kao "skupa dijalekata", s obzirom da je takova formulacija obesmišljena najnovijim istraživačkim radovima na polju komparativne serbokroatistike (e, sad se nekome sledila krv u žilama kad je ovo pročitao :P), napose Matasović: 2008. Gledat ću da prepišem i "neutraliziram" neke nacionalističke dijelove članka slijédēćīh dana, kao i da ga nakitim najutoritativnijim mogućim referencama, pa ako ugledaš nekakove POV violacije i mutne konstrukte samo viči i bude riješeno po kratkom postupku :p --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

E direktore, u jednom danu sam doživio da me ponosni srbenda iz dijaspore nazove "anti-Serbian, ultra-nationalist Croat" [27], ponosni Musliman (znaš već ko) identificira s nekim ustašoidom koji zaista i ima povijest fašistoidnih izljeva, a ponosni hrvatina Imbris naziva...pa dobro nije me baš ničim etiketirao ali mogu misliti što mu je na umu :) Težak je wiki-život nas normalnih ljudi.. :) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Bosnian language

You're skirting a little close to WP:3RR on Bosnian language - please be careful not to get drawn in to an edit-war (regardless of the provocation). Regards, EyeSerene^talk 16:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I did my best to keep the whole thing out of the article itself. Looks like I lost my temper near the end, apologies... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No harm done. It's not the easiest area to edit in ;) EyeSerene^talk 17:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Re Yugoslavia's colour

Hello, Director. You have new messages at Goldsztajn's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to stop right now

Need I remind you of the ArbCom decision that you earned for Dalmatia? You are the one edit-waring to get the last edit before the protection of the article, and inevitably the blocking of both of us. You need to stop deleting content that was there for ages (like Montenegrin) and stop this petty fight about whether it would be:

[[Serbo-Croatian language|Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian]] (to which you did not object)
[[Serbo-Croatian language|Serbo-Croatian]] '''or''' [[Croato-Serbian language|Croato-Serbian]] (the version I support)

Also you need to stop adding Serbo-Croatian in the South Slavic languages section because even Ivan Štambuk places it into Other section at that template.

The discussion can only be at Talk:Hey, Slavs where you did not answer to the discussion about inserting the dual name as appropriate for those "big" articles on symbols and where there is extensive shared heritage.

Imbris (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

WE need to stop right now

Need I remind you of the ArbCom decision that you earned for Dalmatia? You are the one edit-waring to get the last edit before the protection of the article, and inevitably the blocking of both of us. You need to stop deleting content that was there for ages (like Montenegrin) and stop this petty fight about whether it would be:

[[Serbo-Croatian language|Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian]] (to which you did not object)
[[Serbo-Croatian language|Serbo-Croatian]] '''or''' [[Croato-Serbian language|Croato-Serbian]] (the version I support)

Also you need to stop adding Serbo-Croatian in the South Slavic languages section because even Ivan Štambuk places it into Other section at that template.

The discussion can only be at Talk:Hey, Slavs where you did not answer to the discussion about inserting the dual name as appropriate for those "big" articles on symbols and where there is extensive shared heritage.

Imbris (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes and admins will see that you have a history of bad temperament and lack of will to contribute with real sources, not just some web-sites and that british encyclopedia. Also you haven't answered the discussion at Talk:Hey, Slavs, you have not produced any sources and you haven't understood that those statistics determine only the titles of articles (not the content), especially not in this case where we have ample evidences and sources. I do not see what is the big deal in using Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian (I am not proposing vice versa).

Also you should stop this patronising, you have included new content and against the notion that SC now belongs to other languages and not to South Slavic languages, per that template (a change was made by Ivan Štambuk).

Then we should revert to a version before you came along also, because your editing is also on the line. This could go indefinitely, which would be bad for the article and we do not want that.

Or maybe it is just what you want, a lousy sourced article, without any intervention of yours truly. Funny.

Imbris (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

We file for RfC now and leave the article containing valued edits, but not those we cannot agree, that would mean keeping the ZAVNOH version of Oj Slaveni and Montenegrin (because it was before I came along). We would not insert SC-CS 'at all or we allow it to stay and let others decide. SC-CS in the Yugoslav anthem section (because It was there before). Hungarian just in the Other section. 1988 (the Constitutional sanction) stays.

Why cannot we agree, why we must allow editors that do not give a damn, and that will only say their opinion without sources, without any real interest in contributing to the article decide and on what.

You are very spitfull, you know. All this because Croato-Serbian offends you on some level, or what. Cannot you say what you think, and stop hiding under phrases. -- Imbris (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not done anything of a sort, you have started all this because I changed the following

Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian (to which you did not object)

to:

Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian (the version I support)

You need to stop reverting to the position you hold so dear.

Imbris (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Changes that I made were sourced and in good faith, but then you came deleted bunch of content (sourced btw) and insisted on that SC-CS stuff while in the same time added content that was not previously in the article.

Stop refering to me as the one who made changes, you did too.

Imbris (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No one said what you claim I agreed. Second, if we are to agree you need to stop pushing SC in the lede of all the other languages. SC is a macrolanguage and it will not be placed between bos and hrv. That is all. -- Imbris (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As for talking at Talk:Serbo-Croatian language, forget it. This issue is about Talk:Hey, Slavs, there we have a discussion and not at SC. Stop making demands, it is not polite. Also you haven't answered at Talk:Hey, Slavs. -- Imbris (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Informal Mediation

In request to the request for informal mediation, I'm going to give you guys a hand-can you see the Hey Slavs talk page please-Talk:Hey,_Slavs#Informal_Mediation. Thanks! Dotty••|^TALK 14:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Request

I'd appreciate it if you could participate in the talk section of this article. Hvala Balkanskiredneck (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection template on Bosnian language

Will you please stop adding incorrect protection templates to Bosnian language. That is an admin action only, which if done by non-admins does not protect the page in the least, just makes it show up in an error category. Thank you, Debresser (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Say what? When did I add a protection template to the article?? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. My mistake entirely. Debresser (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Partisans

Unless you are planning on directing The Partisans somewhere else, The Partisans (band) should be moved back there as adding '(band)' is unnecessary with only one 'The Partisans' article.--Michig (talk) 11:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

A matter that may concern you

Is being discussed at WP:Wikiquette alerts#User:LAz17. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Tuđman and controversies section

Hi

Regarded to that ... you reverted me but you did not pay attention to the following things:

in Karađorđevo was meeting not some "agreement". That is what even ICTY says.
about meeting in Karađorđevo...there is already an entire article about that issue. You can off course insert it , but I don't think if it makes sense more than 2-3 sentences (this issue is very poor sourced,anyway, and half of the article itself is "historical background"-repeated in at least 20 other articles related war in BiH)
His role in BiH war is indeed controversial but there is already section "controversies"-and should be placed there.

--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Independent State of Croatia as a puppet state of both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany

I have studied the Independent State of Croatia and I know that it was a puppet state of both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. In fact it was Mussolini who allowed Pavelic to live in exile in Rome up until the invasion and capture of Yugoslavia and Fascist Italy provided training grounds to the Ustase in Italy. In 1932, Mussolini attempted to pull off an invasion of Yugoslavia, but Yugoslav intelligence managed to capture the plans of what Mussolini was going to do, which included the creation of a puppet state of Croatia led by Pavelic and the Ustase. Mussolini and Pavelic agreed to partition Dalmatia and the Adriatic coastline between Italy and Croatia, with Italy forbidding Croatia to build a substantial navy for anything other than coast guard duties while Pavelic accepted that Croatia would a figurehead Italian King, through the proclaimed King, Tomislav II (an Italian member of the Savoy royalty) protested. Mussolini and Pavelic were closely interconnected prior to the war and Fascist Italy assisted the Ustase. I have acquired this information through university studies, so please take what I say seriously. I don't normally edit Wikipedia anymore and I will not repeat what I've just said again. So take this advice seriously, or I will not say it again.--R-41 (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I only meant to add information that other scholars know about the Ustase and their close connections to Fascist Italy. They were not just a puppet regime of Nazi Germany - that was only the case after 1943. But since you removed a source I added and did not take what I said seriously, you are not truly open to ideas opposed to your open. I don't have the time to engage in long arguments, day after day on Wikipedia about information that can be readily found. I could have added sources from the academic scholarly database JSTOR, but I can't because the database only permits its use for university and college research. JSTOR is where I found the information pertaining to Fascist Italy's 1932 invasion plan of Yugoslavia. In that year the Italian army amassed at the Yugoslav border and a Yugoslav intelligence operative managed to find out Fascist Italy's plans. The plans included the creation of a puppet state of Croatia led by Ante Pavelic and the Ustase. Ante Pavelic was in exile in Rome at Mussolini's request. The invasion plan disintegrated when King Alexander of Yugoslavia threatened to humiliated Fascist Italy by releasing the plans unless Italy backed off. Releasing the plans would likely have brought France (a Yugoslav ally) to mobilize its army. It is known from 1930s sources, that Mussolini did not want a war with France at that time, Italy's military was smaller than France. Still, Fascist Italy attempted to use the Ustase to provoke a war with Yugoslavia, such as plans for another invasion idea in 1940 that again involved the creation of a puppet state of Croatia led by the Ustase and Pavelic under a monarchy of a member of the Italian House of Savoy. I guarantee you, that the JSTOR articles, some dating to the 1930s, repeatedly indicate that the Ustase was heavily influenced and financed by Fascist Italy up until 1943. In closing I reccomend that you read Empire on the Adriatic: Mussolini's Conquest of Yugoslavia 1941-1943 by H. James Burgwyn who addresses the fact that Pavelic resided in Rome, that Ustase were trained and financially supported by Fascist Italy, and that Mussolini demanded and received concessions from Pavelic prior to the Independent State of Croatia being formed. Another source is Mussolini unleashed, 1939-1941: Politics and Strategy in Fascist Italy's Last War by MacGregor Knox, this source addresses the fact that the Ustase were harboured in Fascist Italy and describes the 1940 plans for a future Italian-Ustase war on Yugoslavia, here is the link from Google Books that describes exactly what I have been saying: [28].--R-41 (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"Everyone knows who trained the Ustaše and paid them". That's a presumptuous statement, and is very dismissive, and inaccurate, I didn't know as you didn't know until we studied it. I don't understand why you claim that because the invasion scheme happened in 1932 that the situation changed so differently. Did you look at the link I provided to you about the 1940 plan? That's one year prior to the invasion of Yugoslavia. Mussolini, Count Ciano and Pavelic were still in close collaboration. They remained in close collaboration after the invasion. Please don't dismiss an argument that presents an alternative view to your own so abjectly without evidence by you to back up your claim. Please don't resort to semantics by saying "1932 was a long time ago" or "everyone knows that" - those are logical fallacies and games of language - a.k.a. semantics, they offer nothing to an argument, only sources do.--R-41 (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few more linked sources from Google Books about the Ustase's links to Italian Fascism: [29], [30], and this source from Google Books describes that the Independent State of Croatia was a puppet regime of both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany [31], go to page 17 on this source to see the description of it being a "Italo-German condominium", this source also says that the Nazis wanted Vladko Macek to be the head of a Croatian puppet state, but that Ante Pavelic and the Ustase that won the bid for power. Here is a link to a Google Books source that says that Pavelic officially asked both Hitler and Mussolini to support a Croatian state led by him. [32] Certainly Italian influence had diminished with German military control over Zagreb, but Italy remained influential up until 1943 as the German and Italian governments had agreed to a demarcation line of their two militaries' line of control that roughly split the NDH in half between them, with a German sphere of influence in the north and an Italian sphere of influence in the south. Here's an image from a website that shows the military demarcation line, [33]. Here's a propaganda poster by the Ustase that demonstrates their connections to both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. [34].--R-41 (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe it. So I guess Hitler had no idea of Auschwitz and could not be linked to it since I can't quote any references. Great. And what about command responsibility? No problems as well? This article seems to portray him as a saint, no problems. Could you find any postcommunist books on him not mentioning Bleiburg? Wikipedia is really having some serious problems here, if this is its policy, OK. Burek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petricek (talk • contribs) 20:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

So Tito had no idea? Such a bad leader? Not a clue? Please read command responsibility article, it may enlighten you. Command responsibility is clearly legally defined, and as such there is NO DOUBT that Tito is eligible here. He did a lot of good things, was a great personality, but facts are facts. Bleiburg massacre happened when he was the supreme commander of JNA. IT WAS A CRIME. And no crime is excusable. Churchill ordered bombing of Dresden (quotable). Please consider this. History cannot be altered by simeone's feelings. A crime is a crime, whoever did it and no matter under what ideology. Check Mi Lay site.188.129.107.117 (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

First and foremost, Tudjman was one of "his most favorite generals", and definitely not my favorite. His quotes are dubious at least. Let me quote command resposibility article on Wikipedia:

Definitions Article 28 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court codified the doctrine of command responsibility.[7] With Article 28(a) military commanders are imposed with individual responsibility for crimes committed by forces under their effective command and control if they:

"either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that the forces were committing or about to commit such crimes."[6][7][17] It uses the stricter "should have known" standard of mens rea, instead of "had reason to know," as defined by the ICTY Statute.[5][17]

In the discussion regarding "command responsibility" the term "command" can be defined as A De jure (legal) command, which can be both military and civilian. The determining factor here is not rank but subordination. Four structures are identified:[4][5] Policy command: heads of state, high-ranking government officials, monarchs

So, how you would explain, under Wikipedia standards, that Tito does not fall under those ("quoted by Wiki") definitions of command responsibility? Yamashita had no clue what happened under his command (yes, of course...), yet he hanged.

I am not going to get involved into ideological dispute here, reds and blacks are the same trash. I only feel sorry for THOUSANDS of people that got killed, tied by wire, gassed in mines, WITHOUT TRIAL. THAT IS HISTORICAL FACT, watch the news. Guilty or not, they were not tried, that is the point. And Tito was in charge then. 188.129.107.117 (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not logged in when I signed my last messagePetricek (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This is completely useless. I quoted Wikipedia on command resposiblilty, and you ignored it in your answer. This is not editing in good faith. Think about your partiality in this issue. And I really believe that your statement "if a soldier shoots a civilian then the head-of-state would have to be tried for murder" is insulting in this matter. TENS OF THOUSANDS of people got shot in the head, and it was not haphazard manslaughter, it was organized and premeditated murder. If Tito had no idea about such a huge operation, that is very, very strange. And he DEFINITELY MST HAVE KNOWN about it later, and did nothing about it, on the contrary. And that is command responsibility. So, now I am going to search the Net, and as soon as I find any statement by some historian, victim or politician mentioning Tito in the context of Bleiburg, I will repost my paragraph. Then you will have quoted references, and no reason to delete it, yes? This correspondence will make great newspaper article.Petricek (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Bosnian language

Whats there to discuss? you also moved text and failed to bring it to the talk page. Please review my edit before blatantly reverting it. PRODUCER (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The controversy should be presented first, then the povs, and then recognition. They should not be intertwined. PRODUCER (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Bosnian War

Why is the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina only on the Croat side of the infobox? PRODUCER (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The Bosniak square is presented as empty in 1994 - 1995, the line should be removed. PRODUCER (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Template help

I've left you a message at WT:MILHIST#HELP. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 18:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Croatia

Hi, I'm impartial, but I'd like to help resolve the coat of arms diagreement you have with User:Imbris. Could I ask you to please stop editing over this issue and discuss this on his talk page (I've started a thread, similar to this)? Since it's a factual dispute, there should be little reason to get heated. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course... ok. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

2006 population estimate for BiH

The source is this [35], I just changed the colors and some municipal borders... --Čeha (razgovor) 21:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC) As I saw the sources are the data from the web, or wiki sources and aproximations for the municipalities. Why? It looks ok to me.--Čeha (razgovor) 21:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Herzeg Bosnia was military ally of Bosnian govement before 1993 and after 1994 (washington agreement). This is documented. HVO was recognized as one of the two legal parties in the war in that period. In the meantime there were war conflicts between the two parties. There were allegations about Croatian and Serbian cooperation during that conflict, as well as Muslim/Bosniak cooperation with Serbs, but non of that was proven. Mostly those are stories about smaller trafficing and contraband of petrol, amunition and similar things.
Kruško...
I'm affraid I can't help you very much with him and the map. The guy is pretty much stuborn, and I haven't loop for the exact data as the map seemed ok to me. And I'm also afraid that we can not ask none of the bih goverment to give as some of the data...
Ask Kruško does he sees some kind of error in the map? (the guy would probaby invent some bs and after long discussion he would claim that actualy half of the map is actualy green :))
One of the things I can help you are those accusations about HVO BSA cooperation. Ask him does the ICTY has any charges or documentation in their's pages? I think that should be a valid argument.
--Čeha (razgovor) 04:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia moves

Hi Direktor, you've probably noticed that your move of 2001 insurgency in the Republic of Macedonia has been undone (there's a moratorium until the issue is finally settled). Anyway, if you have any thoughts, feel free to drop by the now open request for comment at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia. Cheers, Balkan Fever 08:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I will, just as soon as my block expires :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an edit war at Bosnian language. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. EyeSerene^talk 07:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Director (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't really expect to be unblocked, but I fell this isn't right (biased as I may be in that statement :). 1) The revert of my work that I was contesting constitutes something very close to obvious vandalism (in which case 3RR does not apply as I'm sure you know). Almost the entire revert was done with no real reason given, text was removed based solely on the fact that I was the one who added it, and the edits were reverting completely neutral changes such as paragraph organization and removal of spacing. 2) The User reverting my work did not discuss the his reverts. His posts on the talkpage refer only to the matter of two to three words and and an image whos' addition he disputed, while he proceeded to repeatedly remove every single change I'd introduced (including uncontested paragraph organization) without so much as a word of explanation. I hope it will also be taken into account that I'm the one that brought this matter to the attention of you guys (was that a stupid move on my part? :)

Decline reason:

Your reverts did not concern obvious vandalism. The rest of your argument is not applicable, see WP:NOTTHEM. Be advised that continued disruption may result in sanctions under Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 11:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'll just repeat again that this simply isn't right. I've noticed that people like to "punish" both sides equally because that seems fairest to a superficial observer, but a "democratic" approach is almost always not really fair. Both sides mayy consider their block "unfair", but the objective fact is that rarely both people deserve the same treatment. Again, I am aware I'm not exactly "impartial", but I came to that article without a single shred of bias or POV, and I wanted to improve it. I worked on a more elaborate and better organized "Controvery" section, only to find my every step reverted constantly because one User believed it was "POV" to use "A number of linguists" instead of "Some linguists", without the slightest regard to the fact that he reverted every single other edit I made to that article. I asked him to discuss his revert of all those other edits he never addressed, and he simply ignored me. Am I supposed to just let him keep the section in a rotten mess or should I ask for mediation? So I went to ask for mediation on WP:AN/I and I got blocked for reverting the guy 4 times yesterday. FFS, I remove unsourced approximations and the guy reverts me and says "give me a break, half of Wikipedia is unsourced!"...

For the record, I've been around for a while. Simply warn me when I cross the line and I will stop. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw the edit-warring via my watchlist rather than at ANI, though having read your above response I have now also read your ANI post. I appreciate that you've been provoked, and agree that the other editor's actions have been extremely unhelpful. However, you've again been sucked in to an unnecessary edit-war - if you recall, I left you a note last tme this happened. Given that, and your awareness of WP:ARBMAC, I did consider a longer block but settled on the standard 24 hours since the provocation is a mitigating factor. Please, if this happens again stick to the single revert recommended by WP:BRD and then get an admin involved before you become the 'bad guy' too. EyeSerene^talk 09:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, note that I've restricted Kruško Mortale to 1rv/48 hours on the article. EyeSerene^talk 10:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, *sigh*... You're right again, of course. The bottom line appears to be "I should've known better". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Re Kruško Mortale/Historičar

Sorry I missed your posts over the weekend. I see the situation has resolved itself anyway. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 07:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I've blocked 85.158.32.0/21. If there's still socking, you can obviously open a SSP case. I see that disruptive socks are the worst thing that can happen to these Balkan-related articles, so if there's still substantial socking, you can leave me a note so I can ask a checkuser to see how much collateral there would be in hardblocking that range. Cheers, Spellcast (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop

Always provide reasons when removing content, otherwise you risk being seen as a vandal. The fact that you may not like a label is not sufficient reason to remove it.JdeJ (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Istrian Municipalities

You are right. Unfortunately he seems to have a lot of free time. What we can do? You can ask for brock "66.249.146.48", Ducatista2 and Rasmani but he can create other users. What can be the solution?--Grifter72 (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Since our discussion regarding the Yugoslav wars, there seems to be some opposition to my proposed edit of the page which we discussed.

Another user has decided to revert my edit after I replied to user:nirvana's comments and edited the article.

I'm at risk of breaking the 3 revert rule if I reverse his edits, so are you willing to do it? I think you are well within your rights to do so since we mustered a sort of consensus between our selves.

Regards, Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have just noticed this and will take further measures if Interestedinfairness once more attempts to ask another user to engage in an edit war for him. I'm sure that, DIREKTOR, you'll ignore this indecent and wrongful proposal and keep up with the good work. All the best, --Cinéma C 03:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I will not engage in edit-warring or violate 3RR. However, I see little or nothing wrong with IinF's additions: they are essentially correct, with a dash of POV concerning Kosovo. I've removed the slightly POV parts and rearranged the lede to make the paragraphs connect to each-other. I also see, on the other hand, that you are edit-warring and avoiding proper discussion. I also see that you have not properly explained your edits. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

War

What you think of the lead. I've edited it once more, do you think this should remain the definitive lead for a long time?

There is one point you might find contentious. After the sentence --- "the wars affected all six republics of Yugoslavia" --- I put, "including Kosovo". It was one of the most famous wars, and in that sense I feel it should be highlighted to readers. What do you think. Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yugoslav controversies

Hi DIR, I've recently read about this book (In SD). It appears to be one of the most important and NPOV (by a panel of the most distinguished scholars) publication on the 1990s Yugoslav war business in English language, and it would be great if its conclusions could be incorporated in some of the relevant WP articles. If you have access to it, of course :) Cheers! --ⰉⰂⰀⰐ ⰞⰕⰀⰏⰁⰖⰍ 12:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

'dwe talk?

skyp: sven0921--史凡 (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Slavs

What was "wrong" with my last contribution to the article, that compelled you to revert it — thus engaging into edit-war again??

The phrasing that was pushed in before the last protection of the article that reduce bos, hrv, and also srp to mere versions of Croato-Serbian cannot stand.

Did I push for Montenegrin language version of the anthem's text?

I will not push for medcom this should be your way of getting things done.

Imbris (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why it cannot stand? There was no such thing as "Croatian language" when that hymn was written! --ⰉⰂⰀⰐ ⰞⰕⰀⰏⰁⰖⰍ 20:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You were canvassed to the discussion by Mr. DIREKTOR because he knew your POV on the subject.

It is a fact that during the WWII there were four major Slavic languages in Yugoslavia. AVNOJ decided on that issue and the decision was valid for the entire period of existence of Yugoslavia.

In the school system in Croatia, the subject was called the Croatian language up to the end of the school year 1953/54.

The anthem was never officialy published, but there were versions written in Croatian in 1944.

Imbris (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

AVNOJ, schools or booktitles do not create a language ex nihilo. They could've called it Klingon instead of Croatian, it would still be SC, in some of its varieties. --ⰉⰂⰀⰐ ⰞⰕⰀⰏⰁⰖⰍ 11:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You were canvassed to the discussion about Hey, Slavs and you should know that whatever will happen with that article — that doesn't constitute a broad policy on the issues.

You can deny sources all your hart wants it, but this will not change the facts. I must say that it seems like you lack any objectivity in the issue.

As for you being some ultra-nationalist to some users of the "eastern POV" — it is the same with our Stipe being the "defender" of whatever. In order to be completey clear, your defence of the TRUTH is as POV as Stipe′s.

Please stop hijacking the discussion, did I wrote to you? I most certainly did not!

Imbris (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether I was "canvassed" or not into the discussion is of no relevance whether my arguments are correct or not (non quis, sed quid). I have DIR's talkpage on my watchlist, and monitor his contributions from time to time (as to see where I can be of help), so I'd end up there sooner or later. So please cut that "canvassed hence you have no right to comment" type of argument, OK?

I have sources: 99% of Western Slavists have been and still are treating it as one at the same language. Meillet, Skok, Maretić, Vasmer, Trubačev, Dybo, Browne, Naylor, Kortlandt, Jasanoff..were/are all them collectively experiencing massive hallucination or something??

Your attempts to fabricate "Croatian language" merely on the evidence of usage of the name Croatian in various places and documents is very amusing though. Unfortunately, the mainstream scholarship does not care about the name, but on what the name pertains to - in this case we have "Bosnian language", "Croatian language", and "Serbian language" (and "Montenegrin language" soon coming this fall!) denoting one and the same thing: Neoštokavian literary idiom chosen in the 19th century by venerable pan-Slavic visionaries as a common literary language for all of our brotherly nations. 99% identical grammar, 100% mutual intelligibility, identical inflections of inflective PoS (nouns, adjectives and verbs)...what's left to say? One language, no doubt about it. --ⰉⰂⰀⰐ ⰞⰕⰀⰏⰁⰖⰍ 21:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Svaka cast Ivane, rekao sam ti da ce istina i fakti pobjediti. To je sada fakt. Drago mi je da sada govoris istinu i izgleda da si potpuno rasterecen nacionalizma. To je dobro, sretno budjenje i dobrodosao u svijet realnosti. Nadam se da su za ovih 5-6 mjeseci tvoj put slijedili, ili da ce ga slijediti i ostali iz tvoje ex-cronationalist skupine. Pozdrav; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.103.88 (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Ups, umalo da zaboravim (moram ici uskoro), pozdrav i tebi uvijek pravicni Direktore, uzivaj u ljetu i sve najbolje. Pozdrav; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.103.88 (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Please excuse me for not being able to answer fully, I am very busy at the moment (as you can imagine, given the date). I will return tomorrow or the day after at the latest. (Imbris, check the dates: my post on User talk:Ivan Štambuk was well after he got involved. Its not "canvassing", look it up. I didn't even really invite him to the discussion.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You did canvass Ivan Štambuk into the Hey, Slavs think with the explicit wording saying something like: help me settle Hey, Slavs once for all. -- Imbris (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As for I. Š. his narrow linguistic "expertise" is blinding him from the more elaborate approach. Nations have every right to call their maternal language however they want. And a question, why does I. Š. insist on his user page that he speaks Croatian language as well as the Serbo-Croatian fabrication. -- Imbris (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I see the hr Babelbox on my userpage as "I am a native speaker of the Croatian variety of Serbo-Croatian". It can be informative to other contributors to know whether I'm from Croatia, B&H, Serbia or Montenegro, if they want to ask me on some Croatian-specific stuff (to which sources I have most access to). In fact, some of them did just that :p

Nations have every right to call their maternal language however they want. - here you are logically unsound. Nations don't call their mother tongue by names, individuals do. Whoever says otherwise is a discriminatory fascist. Should government-approved nation-forging linguists like Brozović determine how I perceive my mother tongue? Please... Yeah, I'm a Croat, and yet I see my mother tongue as Serbo-Croatian, and there are plenty of other Croats, Bosniaks, Serbs, Montengrins etc. who feel exactly the same way. Lots of them (esp. linguists) wouldn't dare to publicly voice their opinion on it, as not to be labeled as jugonostalgičari, komunjare and similar labels that hardline nationalists use today to defame their interlocutors (E.g. here to me recently, note the sudden mention of KPJ and communism :). Western scholars don't have that type of "fear", and freely use whatever term they prefer, which appears to be in most cases, to your dismal, simply Serbo-Croatian.

I told him I would appreciate his increased involvement in the dispute, in order to "settle" the dispute "once and for all". He was already involved, though, so I did not canvass. Why do I always have to repeat everything three times? (Disclaimer: unlike some users, particularly admins :), I do not at all mind if discussions take place on my talk.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Your Take

If you don't mind i would like to ask you for your opinion on something. In the Battle of Vukovar article, it states Serbian pyrrhic victory and the reference is an article where it says

"Although the battle was a significant and symbolic loss for Croatia, which did not regain control of the town until 1998, it was also a very costly victory for the JNA and helped to gain international support for Croatian independence. As such, it is widely regarded as having been a crucial turning point in the course of the war."

Some user don't accept this as an source since "article does not state the results of the battle, much less whether or not it was pyrrhic." In my opinion that's ridiculous since it obviously does, it pretty much states what the definition of Phyrric victory is. Although i would want to have an second opinion on this since i could be wrong. Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the quick reply and i definitely take your point. I was uncertain about it to begin with so it's nice to get some feedback from someone i feel has knowledge on the subject and a NPOV. Don't really feel like getting into a lengthy discussion or even worst, a edit war on something I'm not entirely sure of. Thanks, --Nirvana77 (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting video, by that standard I'm definitely an atheist, i think very few, next to none agnostics leans towards being a theist. Just by the fact that theres no way to know for absolute sure in my opinion i see myself as an agnostic. But i see you point. As Ayn Rand said, "You are never called upon to prove a negative. That's a law of logic". :). Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

Thought you might want to take a look at this Iranian theory about descent of Croats. PRODUCER (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Marco Polo

I recommend the "controversies" section is disbanded- any important content (obviously, there's going to be debate about a historical figure such as him) should be included in the main sections of the article. Separate controversy sections are something to be avoided. Also, the unreferenced material should probably go. J Milburn (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on this, in Talk:Marco_Polo#Controversies_-_remove.3F, and would welcome your comments. Chzz ► 13:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ante Marković

Hi Direktor, Ante Marković is a Croat (from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Konjic), but he is not a statment from Croatia. In that contex that could be concluded, but that is false. He was a Yugoslavian politician with Croat nationaly. I'm still working on that article, but will be over soon.--Čeha (razgovor) 13:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

He was not a politician in independent Croatia, nor part of goverment in it. At least not to my knowledge. --Čeha (razgovor) 13:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, my error, I'll correct that. --Čeha (razgovor) 13:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I knew that, but it was not because of the war but because of Milošević entrence into Yugoslav financial system and taking foreign money (devize) for Serbian banks. It was a long time ago, but I think it can be still be googled... --Čeha (razgovor) 15:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, one of the biggest roberries ever. You got a point ;) --Čeha (razgovor) 15:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Both you and AP1929 end your insults and personal attacks or I will request to have you both banned from Wikipedia

Both you and AP1929 are engaging in viscious and malicious arguing involving personal attacks at the discussion board for Independent State of Croatia. Cease this at once or I will request to have you both banned from Wikipedia.--R-41 (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

reply

You failed to mention that its used in a derogatory manner by advocates of Christoslavism. You really should take care of that fringe theory as I cannot as I'm preoccupied with the Karađorđevo agreement article PRODUCER (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ragusino

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ragusino. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Serbian surnames AfD!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Serbian_surnames Please share your thoughts at the page above. I read your comment at the discussion-page of "Serbian surnames". Thank you in advance!! Cantabo07 (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Comrade!

Just here to wise you a nice day and to say goodbye. Also try not to write so hard like the old Soviet Union propaganda machine (it has no style). Ps. Oh Please don’t delete me. What a Cry baby! Sir Floyd (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - are you planning to open a sock puppet investigation request? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleting users' comments on a talk page

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute between yourself and User:Sir Floyd at Talk:Josip Broz Tito, it was inappropriate for you to delete his or her talk page comments absent a compelling reason. See WP:TPO ("The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission"). WP:NOTFORUM is not such a reason.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Its not a "dispute" (no sources, no proposed changes), the guy is simply a sock trying to pick a fight and create a conflict out of nothing. Nobody is "worshiping dictators" on Wikipedia. This is simply User:Brunodam or User:Luigi 28, attempting to get back at me for reporting their socks all the time. All posts of User:Sir Floyd should be removed from Wiki. I know its all my claims, and I do intend to file a checkuser, but I'm going on vacation in like 30 minutes :P. And anyway its so obvious you really ought to take my word for it. He just announced his "departure from wiki", right after I told him outright that I know he's a sock. Regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

None of that matters. Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission unless one of the exceptions outlined in WP:TPO or another exception within the same broad thrust applies. That you disagree with the comment or suspect the comment of being a sock is not a good enough reason. If the former, ignore or rejoin. If the latter, file an SPI request.

That aside, have a good vacation. :) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

Call for arbitration if you think we are at an impasse.Rex Dominator (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

ARBCOM? For your content blanking? Are you joking? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, your statements are delusional. Look at what a real encyclopedia Britannica defines Cetniks as: member of a Serbian nationalist guerrilla force that formed during World War II to resist the Axis invaders and Croatian collaborators but that primarily fought a civil war against the Yugoslav communist guerrillas, the Partisans.^[1]. Your action are creating a propaganda article by placing WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on the fascist collaboration. Please request a mediation if you don't agree with the definition of the encyclopedia.since your actions are not logical. I keep giving you facts and you keep attacking me and frankly im sick of these attacks.Rex Dominator (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me how i can get a mediation and how to report people since im new.Rex Dominator (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

LoL... :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Mediation case name has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mediation case name and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Rex Dominator (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC).

Hello

Hello, I think that you have to sign your name on the mediation in order for it to take place.Rex Dominator (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello DIREKTOR. You have been mentioned in a discussion at User talk:Toddst1#hello. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Chetniks, you will be blocked from editing.

Who is that? Mum? is this some kind of joke? You guys... :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop

You're removing from sources that are not Encyclopedia friendly. For example I have placed the tag behind some information cited by a blog. You keep removing these tags.Rex Dominator (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

again

It's okay to edit however you deleting a lot of content. please be mindful when you edit you don't delete content.Rex Dominator (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Golee gee!, is it ok to edit? Thanks mister! :D Rex, your stuff was simply moved from the lede alongside other trivia on the Chetniks. Next time, READ more carefully. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop spamming

Honestly man, chill out, stop spamming me with the sock templates. I find it funny that someone else was there to back my claims that your edits are horrible. More funny is the fact that you think its a sock. Yet the saddest part is that admins and editors alike have wasted so much time fighting against your menace. Rex Dominator (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The thing is a sock, no question. I probably got its sockpuppeteer banned (or will get him banned real soon). Now then, what do you mean "spamming"? You're supposed to have the tag when a sockpuppet investigation is on about you! And you're not supposed to remove it. If you're "not a sockpuppteer" you've got nothing to bother you about it. Put it back... oh what do I care anyway...

Admins and editors fighting against me? Well, maybe not admins, but I certainly have been countering a lot of Croatian, Serbian, Italian, and Bosniak nationalist IPs, "crusaders" (as you guys are called), and just plain stupid guys. You wouldn't believe how many guys got blocked just for not being able to wait out a 24 hour block, or they create a ridiculously obvious sock to agree with them. Don't you worry Rex old boy, "my menace" is here to stay. It only gets more annoying and "menacing" as the months and years go by... xD gosh I'm evil --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Not now, when?

"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And when I am for myself, what am 'I'? And if not now, when?" and why not now? what is gained by waiting...? The lie is around the world already.... Stellarkid (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Hello. Could you explain what this is about? It seems like a blatant violation of WP:NPA to me. Thank you, Kotiwalo (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Section

I don't care if you add information that supports the Axis collarboration if its properly cited. I have nothing to prove on that page. If you have valid info, irregardless of whoe the info supports, and if its cited well, then i will not have a problem. However, be sure that I will try my hardest not to allow you to add information that is cited by a blog, or other controversial sources.Rex Dominator (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Chetniks

Just to let you know, I'm more likely to extend the protection than semi-protection. I don't see any agreement on the talk page. There does appear to be some ipsocks at work. Toddst1 (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

[36] - a must read :D

"Propala je jer se ne može od govana pita napraviti" - Marjanović after the WW2, answering a question on why the project of Serbo-Croatian national integration failed. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I’m Sorry

Sir Floyd here to say sorry for crossing Wiki protocol and Wiki etiquette in my interactions with you. Concerning your grammar comment that you made, well you see I have a form of Dyslexia. I would kindly like to request that my User Page Sir Floyd goes back to normal, please, because my understanding is that the investigations have proven that I’m not a Sockpuppet. Sincerely Sir Floyd (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Aradic-es

Hello DIREKTOR. If it was just the edit war about Aradic-es removing material from the lead of Slobodan Praljak I would be inclined to agree with you on mediation between him and PRODUCER. But if he can get away with it he removes this stuff altogether here. More importantly there is also addition of inflamatory material on Ahmići_massacre and Bosniaks. I know there is some truth in this stuff but adding it this way to these articles is purely inflamatory and very unnecessary. Since coming back from the 48 hour block Aradic-es immediately began to revert and change much of this back again to his version. Taking everything into account, not just the one or two events, I have gone straight to report this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. I don't like doing this but my judgement is that Aradic-es has been editing in an abusive way for a long time and some sanctions are now necessary. Polargeo (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Director. You have new messages at Polargeo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Dragon??

You may be interested in this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historičar Polargeo (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

ICTYoda guilty :) Polargeo (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

RE

Very well, I just can't stand the propaganda. PRODUCER (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Shall we move on to the next article? PRODUCER (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

We aren't continuing because Aradic got banned in doing so he's now rewarded with his version kept for 2 weeks. PRODUCER (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to move on to the Ahmici massacre article as Polargeo has already begun discussions there. PRODUCER (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Should we move on to the West Herzegovina Canton and Canton 10 articles? If we do, you should read over the previous discussion for more insight. [37] PRODUCER (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to get this dispute settled again as soon as possible. PRODUCER (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Stepinac

I want to thank you for your recent and not-so-recent contributions to the Stepinac article and related articles about Croatia. I have not had the chance to comprehensively review your body of work, but some of your contributions appear quite good. I'd like to ask that you begin citing sources for nearly all of your content additions, rather than just for a few. Some of these articles have seen years of content disputes, swinging them back and forth between equally unsourced versions. If editors would at least begin citing their sources more thoroughly, it would be easier to to ensure that the overall quality of the article improves. Your recent changes to Stepinac are a case in point; they may very well be true, but with the exception of that one sources, they are very difficult for me or anyone else to verify. Savidan 13:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the topic is prone to a lot of garbage. I believe the only remedy as far as Wikipedia is concerned is proper sourcing. If you cannot work with sources, please try to avoid introducing inflamatory material in the other direction when editing for neutral language and the like. Savidan 20:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we understand each other. I agree that the article is still of very low quality, and its probable that you would be able to make many improvements without even access to sources. Savidan 20:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply To

A personal question, if I may...

Mr DIREKTOR, concerning my dyslexia, that’s my private life, and it does not concern anybody. I am prepared to say one thing however, one can get their written work proof read & then there is always old faithful, spell check on my Apple Mac.

Ps.Sir Floyd has decided to become a Wiki weekend guy. Professional and artistic work commitments have taken priority however I will be popping in now and then to check in (during the week).

Just purchased the World of the Wars by Professor Niall Ferguson. (Can’t wait to get into that.) Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Cantons

I propose we create a Cantonal infobox similar to that of Swizterland [38] and follow their naming standards. PRODUCER (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

So what's the plan? Create a infobox or simply follow the WH Canton format? PRODUCER (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler

In your edit summary you ask why the image is being deleted. It is because the image is repeated further down the article. Britmax (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The swop is a good idea; well, I think the pictures are more apt this way round! Britmax (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, seemed so... :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Please Stay Out of my Private Life!

Lighten up Mr Direktor & assume good faith. Once again please stay out of my private life, because coming from my perspective, it is weird. These things have nothing to do with you. Also I forgive you, so be nice. Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Indentation

Please be so kind and indent your replies on talk pages. I know it's a bit tricky when there are bulleted lists in the text, but Talk:Aloysius Stepinac#New Edits is really painful to follow (even if there were indentation, as you and Paxcoder repeat your points ad nauseam). I'll take the liberty to insert a couple of breaks to that section. Regards. No such user (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'll just keep to my two levels of indentation "::" and you keep to three ":::" (or whichever you choose). No sense in constantly adding ":" every time we respond to each-other's post. I've found over time that this is a well-organized way to discuss, and easily recognize which post belongs to who.

Since Paxcoder kept repeating his arguments, I felt I should return the courtesy. After all, the more the better right? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As you wish, but I disagree that "this is a well-organized way...". It goes against established WP practice, and soon rolls out of control. No such user (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks, Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Free Territory of Trieste

Hi, what were your reasons for changing the order of languages in the article Free Territory of Trieste? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember rearranging them and in my opinion there was no good reason to change the established order. Especially because the region has more to do with Italy and Slovenes than with the Croatians or Serbs and the entity has been most often discussed in these languages. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the original languages and also replaced Serbo-Croatian with Croatian, as this was the official language of the Territory according to the article (and its talk page). Regards, --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Summary please

I must admit I'm loathe to return to any of the conflicts surrounding Balkans related articles, but I've had a relatively low level of wiki-stress lately so... give me a more specific rundown on what the problems you're facing are and I'll give sorting it out a whirl. I likely won't be using any of my admin tools, but I'll at least give sorting things out a shot. AniMate^draw 19:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll get on it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No rush, I'm going to be hitting a couple of farmer's markets in two different directions, so I won't get on this until tonight at the earliest. AniMate^draw 20:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Be prepared for a bit of a (boring) read... :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Eek! A bit much after a long, hot day of shopping and grilling. I'll take a look tomorrow/ AniMate^draw 04:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a lot to cover I guess. I did try to be as brief as possible, and that's also why I neatly separated the disputes. If you like, we can just take it one at a time. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Randomly got very busy. I'll try to take a look tonight. My best advice, if things continue to get bad, gather diffs about a specific incident and present them concisely at AN/I. That "girl" crack is pretty bad, as I'm sure many editors would be stunned that being a girl is somehow insulting... AniMate^draw 15:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Its gonna be a long, looong list. I'll get to that tomorrow. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've looked everything over, and I think you're right. The fact that I usually do think you're right and that we've been on the same side in some disputes means I cannot use my admin tools here. I simply don't have the time to get more involved... that and since I've stopped editing in the Balkans my Wikipedia experience has improved dramatically. Perhaps the best way forward is taking each individual issue to the WP:CN. Another possibility is filing a separate RfC for each issue. I'd also do these one a time, so each issue can be dealt with. Also, if you continue to have problems with the user, next time make a clear and concise report at a noticeboard. Emphasis on concise. Something along the lines of:

I've had a long running conflict with user:x on several pages. There's a history of POV pushing and on-site harassment and insults. Here are a few of the latest offenses: diff 1, diff 2, diff, 3. This is a complex situation and I could really use some help. Are there any admins willing to wade into this? -DIREKTOR

Finally, if you feel that you cannot be concise, try approaching one of these admins. The list isn't specifically for this type of problem, but I would like to note that there are several current and former arbitrators on the list. User:Ricky81682 has intervened in this area in the past. He's someone you might consider approaching as well. AniMate^draw 22:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Imbris is not prone to outright insults, don't get the wrong impression - he manages to skirt the rules most of the time. The fact that he does not sock and refrains from blatant harassment is what sets him apart from all the other typical Balkans-nationalist accounts I've encountered in the past. Had this not been the case, a harassment report of the type you've suggested above would've been filed a long, loong time ago.

Thanks for your advice, I'll do my best to end this disruption one way or the other. I should be working an an expansion of the SFRY article, but now I have to deal with this instead... (WP:CN? I assume you're referring to Wikipedia:Content noticeboard?) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I wasn't talking about WP:WikiProject Cartoon Network, though they might have an interesting view on things. If things get bad, don't waste time arguing. Get someone to help. There's no point in being insulted when you're working in good faith. AniMate^draw 23:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh good old CN, taught me half my English :) I though you might've meant WP:CSN, though I've just noticed that's inactive... :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You can also try the WP:CCN. It's not the most active noticeboard, but is technically set up for these kinds of things. AniMate^draw 01:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Imbr.....

Hey there. Any luck getting Imbris to see sense and offer a full, unreserved apology for his actions? Also; you do think that maybe the Wikienvironment encourages/nurtures certain dysfunctional personality types which (in the "real world") would be pretty much ostracized from the get go? I wonder. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The situation pretty much stalled. Once again, User:Imbris apparently started to keep quiet when people start taking serious steps to put an end to his mischief. I've received recommendations on the best possible courses of action from AniMate. The trouble is that, unlike Imbris, I actually do real work around here. Specifically, I'm working on the SFR Yugoslavia article, so I'm pretty busy. Add to this the fact that I really am loath to bother people with such nonsensical disputes, and you can see why I hadn't done anything else. I've reverted all of User:Imbris' edits. If he starts making trouble again, I will proceed. I'm definitely done discussing with him - there's no point. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Good for you; I wish you well in your future editing work. Hopefully neither of us will have to deal with this nonsense again for a long while! Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators, Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI notification

You're mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Communist_Croat_gang. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Slovenia (1990-1991)

Your merge of Republic of Slovenia (1990-1991) to the Socialist Republic of Slovenia has been undone. There was the consensus at its talk page to retain this article. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles translation

Bog!

I have recently included blocks of text in articles Široki Brijeg, Grude,Tomislavgrad...

it was an automatic translation-which I managed to correct at the certain level. I am not sure how good. Could you see it??

--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Anto, but half of that text is illegible. I can help only if I know what the text was supposed to say. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

THe original text is on Croatian interwiki.Añtó| Àntó (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

v.d. direktor

Hello Direktor, yes i'm just a reader. With far less experience on Wikipedia, but with more experience in history science. Just read references.. :) Regards. --Dvatel (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. You have nice talk page.

Dvatel, don't try to make me sound like I'm the one patronizing you. Kindly read my responses, I already repeated twice that, I did read your sources, and that I fully responded to them. I'm repeating this for the third time: one of your sources has nothing to do with the matter at hand, the other actually supports the merge. Sorry, but I can only surmise that you have no idea what the merge is about. Discuss properly, respond fully - or just stop. This is all a misunderstanding, because you have not familiarized yourself with the issue.

P.S.

Thanks :)

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If you cannot merge a page properly, or you think that the renaming may be opposed, please go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and list it there. --Dvatel (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Here, watch this video.. I actually like it more than I expected. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33iBqn5_WHI&feature=related --Dvatel (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

He's a controversial figure nowadays, but one who's influence on the Yugoslav area can only be said to have been positive... When a less powerful country is independent from foreign influence by the great powers, that more often than not means its isolated and suffering for it. Tito is the cause of a rare example in history, where a country was almost completely independent from foreign influence and yet actually benefited because of that.

Wait, you understand Serbo-Croatian? You still didn't read my previous replies, did you? :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Triune Kingdom

I've responded to your post on Talk:Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia. --Kebeta (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't see your responce to my post on Talk:Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia, only your responce to Dvatel. Please, try again. --Kebeta (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I completely see your point of view. But, as I said before, I am not talking about existance of recognized state, and I am not changing mine arguments as I go. I was just illustrateing a complexity of the subject, and my first sentence was: I am not saying it was or it wasn't a state. I think that article Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia can not explain this matter, because we are not talking only about Croatia-Slavonia, but of Dalmatia, Austria and Hungary as well. It can not be explained in two sentence as you claim, but if you are willing to try, be my guest. Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia:

was another name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia.
was a territorial aspirations of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia towards the Kingdom of Dalmatia.
was a territorial aspirations of the Croats in Croatia-Slavonia and Dalmatia for unified Croatia.
was a territorial aspirations of Hungary for all Croatia, not only for Croatia-Slavonia.
was a balance of Austria between two threats: strong Hungary and strong South Slavs in the monarchy.
was a Serbian question for their place in these territories (Triune Kingdom).
was a historical reference to unified Croatia in a sense that Croat populated medieval kingdoms of Croatia proper, Dalmatia and Slavonia.
was a popular name for one and for both administrative divisions of Austrian-Hungarian Empire in late 18th and during 19th century.
was official name of Austria-Hungarian division.
was by monarchy administration and by Croatian assembly called country Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia with emblems, flags and maps of Triune Kingdom in real administrative usage.
was by Croatian parliament abolished when it became part of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs.

Historians written tons of books on the subject, and yet you can explain it all in just two sentence. I don't think so. So, I will answer to your question: Yes, you need Admin intervention here. --Kebeta (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Direktor, calm down or else you could lose your temper. I think you have misunderstood me. Improve Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article (merge Croatia-Slavonia and Triune Kingdom article properely). That's all I'm asking. ;) --Dvatel (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As i can see, this user is pure EEVIL! But then again what should i say for myself. --Dvatel (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"Kebeta, you are obviously confused by prior usage of the term "Triune Kingdom". It has always been an alternative name for Croatian kingdoms: Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) was alternatively called "Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia, and Slavonia". Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) was alternatively called "Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia, and Slavonia". In later years (19th century), it also used "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia", but very rarely (mostly during Jelačić's reign). Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia used ONLY the term "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia", as legislative prohibitions forbade it to place "Dalmatia" up first per the medieval mode. These are ALL alternative names. They have been used by Croats more than others, and now you're determined to stop the duplicate article from being merged or redirected. That's just plain POV-pushing. All your "sources" only show that the name "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was used as an alternative name for the Croatian kingdoms. They do not show the "Triune Kingdom" as a seperate entity. Anyone can see that they are not sources against deletion, I guarantee you that. Your sources actually prove my point. :P You really can stop listing them and referring to them as "proof" of anything other than alternative name usage. Anyway, would a disambiguation page linking to Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) and Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia be acceptable? Shall we end this?"

I am sorry for longer post. I only did that, so you could understand the situation better. Yet, you completely misunderstand me. I was not talking about Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) (c. 925-1102). The change of name that happened in northern Croatia or Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia (administrative division) was embraced in southern Croatia or Kingdom of Dalmatia (administrative division) did reflect a radical shift in the structural political-institutional framework of both states (divisions). All of this happened under Austro-Hungarian Empire. The change of name and official usage of documents, rules, emblems, flags and other did reflect in a movement transforming both states into a one-semi-independent entity in a dissolving Austro-Hungarian Empire, which occurred later in the altered shape of State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. --Kebeta (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I bothered, I understand. The closing admin is likely to do the same. In the meantime, don't give the satisfaction: they will find out that it's the strength of the arguments that matters in such situations. And those guys have buttkiss. In the meantime, give yourself a break; un-watchlist the AfD for a couple of hours, wind down or work on something else. At worst, the article is kept, but awareness that something strange and hardly permissible is going on on some Croatia-themed articles has risen up a notch - in that scenario, the AfD will remain as proof of that, and in the end you'll have obvious material for an RfC when those involved will pull another such stunt. And they will. What they're doing is disruptive, and they know it. For now, they only have a prayer that the closing admin will somehow imagine your version is just as bad/good as their, and that these are two random East European groups battling each other over stuff that doesn't matter west of Bern. Theirs is a thin hope, but if you turn it into a crossfire the impression will only be reinforced, and the risk will only increase. Dahn (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please consider also adding a "to Speedy" or something in front of your post; if you de-indent it, it looks like you're replying to me, and I picture it would look confusing for someone who's trying to make sense of who said what without much previous knowledge about the issue. Dahn (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Already did that, noticed how silly it sounded. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again

Aradic is at again adding nonsense based on forum sources. [39] PRODUCER (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Written nonsense is by your team!Añtó| Àntó (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

My team? Please continue spouting idiotic statements, it only makes your views clearer, the sooner you do the sooner we can get rid of another propagandist. I'm sick of you breaching the consensus a week later after the mediators involved forget about it. Direktor, I hope you will solve this stubborn problem. PRODUCER (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, your team. Mirror oh mirror... who is the greatest...???--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt PRODUCER is a sock of Historičar... I'm familiar with his style. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Blind reverts

Please don't perform unexplained, apparently blind blanket reverts to months-old versions which undo several good-faith changes by multiple other users, as you did here. This is highly disruptive and unconstructive. A user of your long experience should know better. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, did that totally by mistake... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Pomoc molimte

There is a problem. I made this page, Template:Urban Rail transportation in the former Yugoslavia, and a user has decided that Zagreb is too good to be with the other yugoslav cities on there. After a bit of edit waring I expanded the list and he decided to extract the croat ones into a new one, here, Template:Trams in Croatia. What do you advise on the next course of action? We can see that this here sets a standard: Template:Rapid transit in the former Soviet Union, so that standard should be followed, no? Why balkanize the countries to create ever smaller templates? Reply as soon as possible. (LAz17 (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)).

If we're going to have templates on that, you should group them into the former Yu template and redirect the Croatian template to it. It may work for Croatia and Serbia, but what are we going to do with BiH and Slovenia? I've placed the template on my watchlist, I'll help you out if Suradnik moves in. However, you should probably remove the non-existent Belgrade Metro - lets stick to actual existing transportation systems. Also, most zagrepčani don't very much like the fact that Belgrade will most likely see a subway system first ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Another option would be to split the template into the four countries, with subsections for Serbia and Croatia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Er, I don't get something now... group them... so they should all be on one template then, right? I think it would be best to keep them together as it is right now. Maybe list them in order of first opened, or in order of length of the system? Bosnia and Slovenia are too small, as they have only one apiece. And then there are those former systems. Tell you what I can do on the Belgrade Metro... I'll make a new category called planned, and in there we will have belgrade metro and skopje tram system. Should I write "skoplje" or "skopje"? As for Zagreb's metro... I don't think that I ever heard any plans for one. Belgrade is not competent enough to build a metro, in my opinion... nothing will start before 2012, when they plan to finish that bypass... and even then questions remain about funding. It's a mess there. It might be done in 2020 by my estimates, and it will probably be a shortened line. Zagreb could do something by then. It's not built on a swamp, there is more money, and the people there seem to be more competent at getting things done. Does zagreb have some sort of commuter rail? (LAz17 (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)).

You know, I think I will make a page called Zagreb Metro... as it is also a planned project. It might not be going anywhere for now, but it was proposed. I just need to gather a bunch of information like http://www.javno.com/hr-zagreb/matos--metro-je-neisplativ_19926 ... Zagreb does have a population over over one million, so it fits the first criteria for it. Lots of trams though, but I think that Zagreb could have the metro before Belgrade. Also, howabout arranging the systems in the template according to name, alphabetically? (LAz17 (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC))

I'm not sure Zagreb metro or Belgrade metro are good enough for the template, but as you wish. What I meant was we need a single template, possibly subdivided into states. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I redirected that like you said. I have not separated the countries out, because it would look too small. Croatia has two active tram systems, slovenia has one, bih one, and serbia one... let me know how it looks, and if there should be more changes. I was thinking that the trams should be listed in order of when they opened? The former ones are alphabetical. But I dunno, you tell me what you think. (LAz17 (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Trams_in_Croatia&action=history Sta da se radi, ovaj zeli edit war. (LAz17 (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)).

You ignore? (LAz17 (talk) 03:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)).

Koliko vidim vi inicirate nepotrebni editwar. Please dont redirect that template--Ex13 (talk) 07:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Suradnik, this really isn't some kind of "conspiracy" against you. I just don't see sense in seperate transportation templates, there's hardly anything to write. You want to try and settle the dispute somehow? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

How's this? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That looks good. I am not that good at making them. Could you add slovenia, and make sure that the things align correctly- BiH and Macedonia have their stuff a little bit off. (LAz17 (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)).

We need to add some padding to make trams as long as former trams... but I'm pretty bad at this cascade style sheet code. (LAz17 (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)).

How does it look now? I added the word Active so that alignment would be better. I think it's good. I'll go ahead and put the stuff where the stuff goes, if you're okay with it. (LAz17 (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)).

Nice work, though I don't know why you need the word "Active" :) the length of the entry remains the same. "Active trams" sounds a little weird. Sry I couldn't get more involved in this, I'm pretty busy with Croatian nationalist myths :P (have a look) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Pa, vratio sam kako je pre bilo... vidis sad gde je problem? Ja koristim ovaj firefox i pokazuje malo suzeno ovo kod bih i mak... a za te barabe, nemam komentara. Jedino me cudi kako toliko mnogo edita uspevas da radis dan za dan. (LAz17 (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)).

Dal vidis problem? They don't line up line the country names do. (LAz17 (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)).

Vidim, but I don't see what's the big deal... Its the Balkans, sometimes you have to sacrifice aesthetics for political correctness :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Surely it is possible to fix this somehow? (LAz17 (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)).

Oh yeah!, vidi ovo! :D. (LAz17 (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)).

Moguli da se boje malo vise razlikuju? (LAz17 (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)).

Okay, the new thing replaced the old thing. I have some limits to how much I can edit and whatnot... so I have not yet made the skoplje tram system or zagreb metro topics. I will sooner or later. Samo treba da sam raspolozen i onda uradim jednog jedog dana, pa drugog u drugom danu. Dal trebamo da imamo teme za ove druge tramvajske sisteme? (LAz17 (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)).

Language

As far as I know in Croatia-Slavonia (19th century) the language was referred to as "Croatian" or "Croatian and Serbian", but in everyday life only Croatian was used. Official language was changing status. For example, according to Nagodba of 1868, the state had its own diet and Croatian was language of local administration. There was an idea of unifying both languages, but it didn't work. --Kebeta (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
In Dalmatia official language was Italian, and after 1883 "Croatian and Serbian" or "Serbo-Croatian". --Kebeta (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you promise to read my post carefully? I don't like wasting my energy on detailed explanations only to have them ignored...

Ok, first off, we need to clarify the situation with Croatian and "Croatian or Serbian". The language used in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and in the Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) was referred to by Austro-Hungarian officials as "Croatian or Serbian". There were both Serbs and Croats in Austria-Hungary and nobody officially distinguished between the two languages. That has been established. Again, modern Croatian revisionist perceptions are not something Wikipedia will likely concern itself with in history articles.

One more point, this is crucial so please read carefully:

During the Austro-Hungarian period, the language we know today as Croatian was officially referred to as "Croatian or Serbian". Ok?

So the language was early standardized Croatian, but it was called "Croatian or Serbian" in official capacity. This was so for a great many reasons, from the Illyrian movement to Austrian bureaucratic requirements.

Now, I will address other languages in the three states we are talking about: Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) (1527-1868), Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia (1868-1918), and the Kingdom of Dalmatia (1814-1918).

The Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) (1527-1868), aside from "Croatian or Serbian", used Latin and German (and maybe Hungarian at times).
The Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia (1868-1918), aside from "Croatian or Serbian", used Hungarian.
The Kingdom of Dalmatia (1814-1918) used "Croatian or Serbian", German, and Italian.

So these are the languages that are to be mentioned in the infoboxes. Finally, a note on User:Imbris: that account is extremely disruptive and discussions with him are fruitless and a frankly stupid undertaking. I will not be caught wasting my time talking to a user that is here on a nationalist political agenda.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't want to discuss with you like this:

Do you promise to read my post carefully and reply fully? I don't like wasting my energy on detailed explanations only to have them ignored, as had been my experience with you so far...

I respect you as an editor and I don't ignore your explanations, even we don't agree on some issues. Feel free to adress me when you think its worthwhile. Regards. --Kebeta (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies

I'm sorry, but I've had enough headaches with that area of editing. Good luck to you though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And here we go again as well. ;)

Chetniks... I saw that in the yugoslav front you wrote that the chetniks were on the side of nazi germany from 1942. For a start, we could revert this to 1943, mm, no? And we can add them on the side of the allies as well as the side of the germans? Western European powers recognized them as a resistance force, and they were the preferred such force until November 1943. Right? You can't deny that. Therefore it is not fair to not include them on the list of some of the allies. (LAz17 (talk) 06:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)).

I didn't change my view on all that because of some whim. I did extensive research into Chetnik collaboration. The fruits of which can be seen in the detailed Axis collaboration section of the Chetniks article [40]. The fact of the matter is, the main Chetnik-Italian and Chetnik-Ustaše collaboration agreements were signed already in 1942, with some agreements even taking place in 1941. Diplomatic circumstances are always secondary to actual developments in the field with regard to "who was on who's side". Axis collaborators can hardly be described as "Allied" forces.

The point is: do not start edit-warring without researching at least part of the sources yourself. In particular I recommend the Standford University publication War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945 Volume 1: The Chetniks by Jozo Tomasevich, by far the best and most detailed work on the Chetniks available today, absolutely riddled with primary sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, there's so much info out there the matter is all but closed. Even I was surprised at how extensive Chetnik collaboration actually was. I went out looking to find out whether or not the Chetniks collaborated, I though if all these people keep attacking me it must at least be controversial, right? Instead I found a HUGE pile of data talking about just how obvious and widespread Chetnik collaboration really was. There are primary sources listing signed collaboration agreements with the Ustaše(!) in 1942, with the assent of Mihailović's personal representative in Bosnia. Even I couldn't believe that... There really isn't any question of "Allies". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

None of your sources show 1942. Second, collaboration or not, the Allies recognized them and preferred the chetniks. You seem to ignore that fact. You focus overwhelmingly on one side of the story. (LAz17 (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)).

Yes, they do show 1942. For a brief summary you can read the "Axis collaboration" section of the Chetniks article [41]. Allied recognition is well noted in the article, amd diplomatic status is always taken as secondary to actual de facto status of a combatant. In other words, the Yugoslav Front article is on the conflict in Yugoslavia, how can we list an Axis force as being "Allied" because of its de jure status? The force was an Axis combatant, no question there. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Your source clearly indicates that out in the open collaboration started in late 1943. Why do you not bother to even real your own sources. This is proof of how biased you are. You ignore some things... A)bloody reprisal attacks are the key factor for the reduction in hostilities against the germans, B)the chetniks initially resisted, C)the chetniks openly fought against the axis, even in 1943 and 1944, D)German general Kogard refused any alliances with the chetniks saying that under mihailovic's command they were not trustworthy as they quote"were waging an open war against the German Wehrmacht". As we see, the situation is really complex. Yet you paint it as if it were black and white. This where you are at fault. This should not be biased, yet you pretend that it was all a fine black and white line. De jure mean "legally", "lawfully", and under such the chetniks were recognized and were the preferred partner of the allies. In your actual de facto it was both. They were doing things on both sides more or less. Yet you disregard this and dump them with the Germans. On top of all that, the allies did not consider the chetniks on the side of the nazis until late 1944. You ignore this. You are biased, just admit it. Your own sources show that you are painting a very biased picture. (LAz17 (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)).

You have not even read the book. You only picked out anti-chetnik material from it. In the first part of the book it clearly says that the chetniks both collaborated and opposed them. So why are you ignoring half the picture? The chetniks should be listed as a third party, or on both sides. In de jure, they were never on the side of the nazis and on the side of the allies until late 1944. (LAz17 (talk) 05:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)).

I just might buy the book out of personal curiosity. But, do look at the reviews on amazon dot com. The most recommended reviews are ones condemning the book. Indeed when you read the info about the book you see that the author is arguing that the serbs have ethnic cleansing as part of their culture... the author does not bother to say that all balkan people have it all their culture, that it is not something attributed to serbs, but to all balkan peoples. But nonetheless, you mis-sourced that material. Not one mis-source, but four missources. Lets work towards improving that article to a less POV type of thing, shall we? (LAz17 (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)).

LAz, I read four seperate works on this matter from Texas A&M, Indiana, and Stanford universities, and despite your implication, I read them back-to-back. You say the matter is complex? Well I know just how complex it is. What I have found is detailed accounts on total Chetnik collaboration in most of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in Dalmatia, Lika, Montenegro, and Slovenia from early 1942, and with local agreements dating even from 1941 - with the approval of Mihailović's personal representatives such as Major Todorović. In Serbia there was initially little collaboration, but there was near-complete inactivity. However, collaboration with Nedić's Serbia, i.e. in Serbia itself, began taking place in 1943. Aside from very minor acts of sabotage (that were actually against Mihailović's general order) - that was it.

LAz, I am not biased. I just feel strongly about busting Balkans myths. The "Good Chetniks" myth was one of the easier myths to bring down. They collaborated. And now we know where they collaborated, with whom they collaborated, and when they started collaborating. We know, for example, that the Germans were initially opposed to Italian and Ustaše use of Chetnik troops, and demanded that the Italians stop using them. The Italians replied that they know the Chetniks are under Mihailović's control, but that without the Chetniks they actually could not maintain the occupation in their sectors. After the Italian capitulation, the Germans completely changed their policy and favored the Chetniks in spite of Ustaše protests. About the time Chetnik-German collaboration became widespread did the collaboration with Nedić's Serbia begin.

Now, this is all SOURCED. Every bit. Your attempts to "attack" university publications may well show that you are the one that's biased. I hope you do buy that book. I've always said that people from around here should only learn their history from non-local sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have some problems with your responses. You seem to be ignoring what I say. The problem is that you pretend that they did no resistance whatsoever. Look, I am not saying that they did not collaborate, what I am saying is that they collaborated with both sides - yet you seem to say that they collaborated with only one side. (LAz17 (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)).

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should've been. I meant to explain that vague statements like "they did resist" are not real arguments. We should now deal in more exact information - regions and time periods in months. The only "resistance" took place in certain areas of Serbia in 1941, 1942 and early 1943. This "resistance" is described as "minor acts of sabotage and diversion", and was executed by local leaders mostly "in contradiction with Mihailović's general order" of inactivity. In all other areas of occupied Yugoslavia, Axis-Chetnik collaboration 1941-1943 was complete and total, after 1943 it was complete and total in all areas of Yugoslavia, period. Chetniks appear as a major combatant on the Yugoslav Front only on the side of the Axis.

Now, you say that Chetnik inactivity in Serbia (the only area where they weren't fully collaborating), was due to Mihailović's "humanitarian concerns" about German reprisals. This is highly debatable. In publications his inactivity is explained more realistically, as part of his general plan for the war. Firstly, his immobile forces in Serbia were in great danger to be blown away by a determined German attack (they were nowhere near the mobility of the Partisans' proletarian brigades), drawing attention to himself would thus be plain stupid. Secondly, his plan was to wait for the phantom Allied landings in the Balkans to utilize his forces, and thus turned out inactive in the 1941-1943 period. After the allied landings failed to materialize, and he was increasingly abandoned by the Allies, even his Serbia forces cooperated with the Germans directly or through the Nedićevci. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, I tell you to read your own sources. In your own sources, like the book "serbia's secret war". You recommend it, but you ignore these facts: in the book it says that the chetniks were collaborating with both sides. The book also says that the chetniks actually significantly increased their fighting against the germans after the partizans were labeled as the favored allied troops. You see, the book says this, but you clearly avoid these points and pick out other points. So tell me how are you not biased? In the same book it talks about humanitarian concerns about reprisals. Your highly debatable thing is in the book that your source. You ignore it on purpose. I do not have the time to right now to wage a full scale investigation for various sources. In the partizan issue months ago I bought books and dug out the sources to prove you wrong. I am not in a position to do this now here, but trust me, I will eventually if I have to. What's worse, they will be your own sources. I hate reading them online. The problem is that it might take a year for me to actually do this all, who knows. The point is that you are biased, you pick out certain things from your sources and leave out other things to promote a certain POV. You are a croat and I suspect that you want to make it seem like the serbs were as bad as the croats in the war. (LAz17 (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)).

And fyi, it is well known that Momčilo Đujić often battled against the ustashe in nazi croatia. He had some massacres of croat civilians too. And this is supposed to be collaboration. ... (LAz17 (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)).

Suradnik disrupts again

Template:Trams in Croatia help please? (LAz17 (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)).

I opet... Template talk:Urban Rail transportation in the former Yugoslavia (LAz17 (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)).

need a source

Ran into this on a wikipedia article: "Eventually, units of the Ustaše military began defecting to the Partisans." Can you help find a source for that? (76.29.100.8 (LAz17 (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)).

"Ustaše military" is the wrong term, my mistake, its supposed to go "NDH military". The source is The Chetniks, if I recall (though I'm not 100% sure), you'll find all the sources at the end of the paragraph. You don't seriously doubt the Home Guard did not defect all over the place? Whole brigades switched sides, you can find sources on that anywhere. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not doubting, I was just wondering. (LAz17 (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)).

Cookie

The Second Coming of The Cookie Monster has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Yum! --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Do you really think that I am sockpuppet of Fairchild-Republic and others?--Ex13 (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, then tell me what i need to fill, and on what page and i will do it for you and Laz. Nemožeš više ni pisat članke a da ti netko ne visi nad glavom. --Ex13 (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ne, nego je glupo da se ja moram opravdavati, a ti ga još u tome podržavaš. Ja sockpuppet sigurno nisam, spreman sam to dokazati, a za ove ostale koje spominje nit znam tko su nit što su radili. Nekad sam radio kao Suradnik13, sad radim kao Ex i to jasno piše na mojoj suradničkoj stranici.

Ja sam spreman normalno razgovarati, ne moramo se slagati u stavovima niti u argumentima, ali argument sigurno nije optužba za sockppupet, argument sigurno nije nešto što je stvar druge wikipedije (i koje nema veze s radom na wikipediji, nego s nečim drugim, ali nisi u tome pa ti ne moram i neću ojašnjavati, jer su me dovoljno obilježili). Koliko vidim na tvojoj suradičkoj da si student, pa bih te zamolio da lijepo i civilizirano nastavimo razgovarati kao akademski građani. Znaš ono - napadajte teze, ne osobe. A ako si negdje/nekad u Zagrebu, možemo i na pivo --Ex13 (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteering nema veze sa argumentima i ti se nemaš šta opravdavat. Samo čekaj checkuser rezultate i to je to. Šta se tiče tvojeg ponašanja na hrWiki, to ima i te kako veze za enWiki, jer to govori o tvom "karakteru". Samo kažem da to Admini i te kako uzimaju u obzir. Definitivno nemoj ulazit u edit-warove.

LAz je poprilično uporan, to sam osjetio na svojoj koži [42] :), ali ovaj put je imho u pravu. U Zg sam često ali ne trenutno, hvala na pozivu. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sloga za ovog tvoj hrvatskog brata je da mu ostane trams in croatia template. U drugim recima da bude kako je bilo i da ja odjebem. To je sta je mi ponudio. Ne hvala. A za upornost i onaj clanak... samo da znas da mi nismo zavrsili sa onim clankom. To je samo privremeno stalo, jer nemam vremena ni zivaca da se prepirujem sa tim za sad. Ispiti imaju prioritet, tako da tu imas prednost na meni... imas vise vremena. (LAz17 (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)).

(hehe, ja sam da cijelu godinu još u šestom mjesecu.) LAz, šta je sad tebi?? Ti si uporan, pa šta? Ja sam još gori! :) U potpunosti podržavam tvoj stav u ovom pitanju, šta hoćeš više? Dva prava Überhrvata nemogu izmijenit par rečenica bez da Srbi postanu paranoični (šalim se xD). Ozbiljno, ne vidim zašto si odma dobia dojam o nekoj "hrvatskoj uroti"...

Šta se tiče bradonja, to je druga stvar. Tu imam vrhunske izvore i nemam milosti. Bolje pročitaj hrpu knjiga pa se onda javi. I zaboravi na neke gluposti à la "oni su digli uzrak dvi kočije '45 pa su dakle saveznici itd." --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Izvini buraz, al ja sam super-lenj. Mora da ovo saceka do vikenda. Ipak, sto se tice upornosti, ja mislim da sam prevrsio sve granice ovde - podeljeno u dva dela, grozno nesto... dio jedan - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bosnia_and_Herzegovina/Image_discussion_Bih_1991.jpg , dio dva - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rjecina/Bosnian_census I sad daj probaj da ikome kazes da neko moze biti uporniji od mene. Nemoze. Apsolutno nemoguce, kad vidis tu ludost oko toga tu. Ma bradonje nisu nista... mnogo su opasniji grobari... razbili su KHL Mladost pre neki dan 5-0. Jebiga, ako ovaj buraz suradnik moze samo da nam plati po jednu pivu za svaku pobedu ovaku. (LAz17 (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)).

it:wiki

ehm... why this? Perhaps it:wiki is not accepted here? ;-D --Retaggio (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, feel free to revert me at any time. :) I was just busy getting rid of sock edits by good old User:Luigi 28... He really isn't supposed to edit this Wiki, and when he starts annoying me I like to remove his edits every now and again (hehe ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I do.

But... if the edit is OK, I think that "wiki" is more important than a battle against one sock, but... probably it's a my idea... :-D --Retaggio (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Usually yes, and I did let him do it when he first edited. However, he recently started insulting me and such so I thought I'd impress upon him his situation... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, but... ;-) Bye. --Retaggio (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No "buts" with this guy, I'm afraid. by --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Direktor... Really, I don't think that user:Crisarco is a sock of Luigi28 or PIO. See: [43]. He's well known on it:wiki. I think it's a mistake. Bye. --Retaggio (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoah, sorry there... my apologies again. I just looked at his userpage and saw he was created today just to revert my edit - anyone would've assumed he's a sock of Luigi. My mistake then. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:COIN

Someone has reported you to the conflict of interest noticeboard here, I can't see what the COI problem is but thought you would like to know about the discussion. Smartse (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

House of Božidarević and user page

Ok, no problem. --Crisarco (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Suradnik

Okay, what should be done about suradnik? He has started edit waring with me. It's too complicated for me to do the check user thing. They do not want to listen to reason. So what is to be done? (LAz17 (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)).

ANI discussing you

hello! This is to inform you that there is a discussion about you on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_request. Ecoman24 (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

LoL, its another one... :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Crazy Colors

Well your map is incoret. Firstly it name is incorect. 1868 is the name of the Cro-Hun settlment. Than is should be called 1867 map.
Secondly.

Until 1868. Rijeka was part of Croatia. In this map it is showed outside it. Only with "Riječka krpica" in 1868 it was divided from Croatia.
Syrmia (from Ilok) was part of Vojvodina (1849-1860). In 1868 it was in Croatia.
Territories of Military frontier were under claim of Kingdoms of Croatia and Slavonia. Few years latter (1881.) they were as such included in it. There is nothing about it in this map
The same goes for Dalmatia (name alone Triumvire kingdom shows it) and Međimurje. It is clearly stated that those were claims, not actual possesion.

So please, change the name (my map is walid for 1868. year) and fix those errors. P.S. I don't see why showing claims of Croatian Parliament on the map should upset you. --Čeha (razgovor) 00:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't make compromises. Make one map showing all the changes. 1861 and 1867 are the same. Rijeka is Croatia all of time, and Slavonia is lightly red with legend which says that it was not part of Croatia in period (1859-1867) and Ilok in another color of red which says it was in Croatia in 1848,in Vojvodina 1849-1860 and in Slavonia 1860-1867. Legend is the key. It should also reflect Međimurje (I think it was unilateraly annexed by Croatia 1848), and claims for Dalmatia and military frontier (orange, pink, which color)?

If you do not want to play with the legend 1848 is a good year to show the status for me :)

--Čeha (razgovor) 00:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Međimurje was from 1848 till 1861 part of kingdom of Croatia and under its juristdicion. I googled [44]. Here are few books [45]. Here [46] are some time tables, here is something from Varaždin museum [47]. Etc. --Čeha (razgovor) 19:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

DRAZA MIHAILOVICH

DIREKTOR: Thanks for rv the vandal who deleted my edits, but could you explain on my talk page why you elected to redact some of my text, which I believe improved the article? Yours, [email protected] (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

OK -- I understand your point of view, although I am neither "pro-Chetnik" nor "Pro-Mihailovich" (as a Jew I would not be pro-anyone who worked with the Axis for whatever reasons). In any event I agree that the topic is ripe for POV. (Keep an eye on User:Rjecina if you are concerned about POV-pushing). [email protected] (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, me again. I don't feel I should need to have to apprise you in advance of any edits I choose to make, particularly in light of the rather immature edit summary you left ("Reverting another defender of the Serbian nation... My Ustaše-like plans are so far functioning perfectly") -- you really should have risen above it -- but in the interest of harmony I will lay out my question here. When did Mihailovich and his forces began collaborating? You changed the dates of the Chetnik collaboration back from 1943 to 1941, but I have concluded that there is no evidence this is so. In fact, according to the paragraph "A telegram sent on February 22, 1943..." would logically indicate that this was the time that Mihailovich began his break with the Partisans. So I am modifying the text accordingly. Yours, [email protected] (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, you don't have to apprise me at all, at no point did I suggest anything of the sort (as I'm sure you're aware). Although, if a matter is controversial, it is highly recommended by Wikipedia guidelines that you discuss the edit prior to going through with it so as to avoid edit warring. But you surely know all this full well, so why the "I don't have to but I'm going to do you a favor" attitude?

As for my "immature summary", it was a joke intended to liven-up a tense situation, and I will not apologize for it. Nor will I apologize for recent-changes-patrolling these two articles and keeping them free of vandalism and nonsense.

As for Chetnik collaboration, if you go to the article right now you'll notice some five sources or at the end of the two sentences in question (it would've been rather inelegant to list five sources after every sentence). Those sources are all university publications by historians who wrote on the matter, and the article's "Axis collaboration" section is based on them and primarily on The Chetniks by Jozo Tomasevich (Stanford University Press). In that section, you will find detailed accounts of when and where Chetnik collaboration with the Ustaše and the Italians began, all sourced directly from those five publications. Please do some research prior to editing in such delicate Balkans matters. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you, for obvious reasons, know more about the history of the Balkans than I do (although Istria is closer to the Alps than the Balkans I think). As far your summary, I didn't request an apology. I just said it was immature and it was immature. I didn't detect any notable tension. The person who rather hysterically and in all capital letters shouted at you is rather pitiful I would say. As to the crux of when the Chetniks began collaborating with the Germans, I will check out what you told me, but for now I can only point to your own words:

IN 1943: 1) Chetniks fought against Allied forces consistently, repeatedly and with (relatively) massive forces. 2) They attacked Allied forces in close cooperation with Axis occupation forces. 3) They Attacked Allied forces while receiving Axis supplies to do so. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC) [email protected] (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I told you I would check the sources you cited, and other sites on the net. That takes time. Examining the background of a situation and seeing what preceded it is scholarly examination as far as I am concerned. If you're right about the Chetniks being pro-Axis as early as 1941 I will acknowledge it. [email protected] (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge your quote, but I question whether approaching an Italian military man in 1941, given that the Serbs really didn't have the kinds of problems with Italy, even as an occupying force, that they would with the Germans and Croatian nationalists, the latter beginning their attempts at genocide in April of that same year (1941), with the resurrection of the Ustase, which, I know you are aware, wasn't born in 1941, but in 1929. Isn't it possible that Mihailovich was impelled to believe that he could gain some ground by approaching a nominal enemy for help against a far worse one? [email protected] (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Dinarides leads to Dinaric Alps from what I see. Anyway, Alpine or Balkan, I am also a left-wing, atheist (of Jewish background), anti-nationalist. We should be more in agreement. I understand you're from Split, Croatia; how much do you know about Milan Levar from Gospic? I should create an article for him, he's well-deserving. [email protected] (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkpage edits

Hi DIREKTOR, I am no desire to apportion any blame here, could I please ask you to stay away from Sir Floyd's talkpage, this would really be for the best, this is only to reduce interaction between you, I will monitor and remove any issues that arise there, and protect his talkpage as necessary. If you have any issues with him there are dispute resolution options, please don't think I am butting in, I am only looking to reduce any tension. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks. If the IP posts on fozzies talkpage again I will get it protected. Off2riorob (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, as you commented, I am not an Administrator, I am merely another editor attempting to help. Off2riorob (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, same thing. I certainly won't edit on User talk:Sir Floyd if the IP sock is reverted or the page semi-protected. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

acronym

lol :) Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18

42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Republic of Slovenia (1990-1991)

Hello DIREKTOR. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Republic of Slovenia (1990-1991) - a page you tagged - because: This has not been created as redirect but redirected and tagged together. Moreover, the talk page indicates a possible merge. In case of doubt bring to RfD. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Tikiwont (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but we keep in general the edit history under a redirect in case of a merge. So it would take more than local consensus on the talk page to have it deleted, and as there is no obvious harm in the redirect, I wouldn't even see that coming.--Tikiwont (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

ceha problem

He is trying to delete what I wrote, so that you do not read it. Well, here it is...

I'll show you where Ceha's source came from. It was an outstanding fraudulent image.

First, here is one of his early fraud maps. It's still online!!! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BiHSimplifiedEthnic1991.gif Just look at glamoc or kupres, or many other countless places. It's really a shame. He later made some edits, but still keeps this fraud online.
Here is the fraud off of what it was based - I saved a copy before it got deleted from wikipedia. http://s459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/?action=view&current=Bih_1991.jpg
Here is his modification to the original fraud. http://s459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/?action=view&current=Bih_1991_colors.jpg

He has just been re-editing. He took a map from belgrade university from 1981 and created this monster, which shows more croats in certain places and fewer serbs in other places. A really despicable disgraceful map. It really says what kind of person he is, when he is putting so much effort into fraud. (LAz17 (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)).

Cehas maps are not made from any census data. They are only refined maps of a fraud. Re-modified modified fraud basically. He never had any source where he pulled out his original fraud - when he was asked years ago. He did it himself obviously. He has no source. No map of settlements. In these links you can see how his fraud progressed as time went on. No source man, no sub-municipal boundaries, no nothing. (LAz17 (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)).

So that's that. What can be done about him and his fraud? He keeps maps up like the one I showed. The only thing that is a good sign, is that his dumb maps are not used as much as they have been in the past. They are not so widespread, are more and more uncommon on wikipedia. (LAz17 (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)). Ah sorry, the map I posted was not his worse one that is still up. This is the worse one, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bih_Stan_1991.gif (LAz17 (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)).

First off, no offense to Čeha, but I believe you're probably right. I know there were no population censi in Bosnia and Herzegovina (as that would probably start another war :)... I do not intend to get too involved, however, I'm starting to get really busy. Here's what you can do: draw attention to it. Invite some impartial admins to have a look. Its up to them in the end, anyway. Try WP:AN/I, people whine how its over-used but its still by far the best place... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I talked at his talk page some more. The guy is starting to totally disregard anything and has become rather rude, you can see here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ceha#Map_Problem

Compare his map to this one, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/sr/0/0e/BiH_-_ES_N_1991_1.gif - you can see the huge differences. Could you maybe leave a message or two as to what you think? Perhaps if I contacted the guys on the serbian wikipedia, they could put this on the commons and then ceha's stuff can be replaced? (LAz17 (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)).

Hm, well, the guys made those maps themselves. There are four mappers over at the serbian wikipedia. So licensing/copyright shouldn't be a problem. I think that the best thing would be to get them to upload it on the commons, and then I can replace them. If Ceha or someone has a problem, I would then go to the admins - does that sound like a plan? Here are some other maps that were made... http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:BiH_-_UH_N_1991.gif and croatia, 2001... http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Etnicka_karta_Hrvatske_2001.gif There's much more too. (LAz17 (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)).

RM rationale

The rationales for moves on the WP:RM page are supposed to be one brief paragraph, but your request for Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta was taking up an entire page - I put it in a collapsible box so anyone interested can still read it if they wish. I feel that this formatting is clearer for the page, but feel free to revert or refactor as you wish. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course, I'm aware the length is irregular, except I wasn't about to make the same mistake as I did when I inadequately explained the RM last time. Sorry :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Director. You have new messages at Kotiwalo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I know You love Your Yugoslavia BUT You also love the ONE Truth and the Serbian pro-nazi government must be included in an objective article unless You want Your account to be blocked. Read these figures carefully which are undelined by Yad Vashem.--155.105.7.43 (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Serbian pro-Nazi government Even though the Serbs collaborated more with the Nazis than the Croatians, the Serbs try to depict all Croatians as Nazis and all Serbs as pro-allies. That's why I included the following chapter in order to make the article more objective.

In Serbia, a new pro-Nazi government was first established under the leadership of Milan Asimovic and later under former Minister of War General Milan Nedic which governed until 1945. Nedic supported Hitler and met with him in 1943. This new government established even harsher racial laws than Prince Paul had enacted and immediately established three concentration camps for Jews, Gypsies and others. Nedic formed his own paramilitary storm troops known as the State Guard. The Guard was comprised of former members of the Cetniks which had existed as an all-Serbian para-military police force under Alexander and Paul to enforce loyally from non-Serbian members of the armed forces. When Yugoslavia disintegrated, one faction of cetniks swore allegiance to the new Serbian Nazi government. Another group remained under the pre-war leader Kosta Pecanac who openly collaborated with the Germans. A third Cetnik faction followed the Serbian Fascist Dimitrije Ljotic. Ljotic's units were primarily responsible for tracking down Jews, Gypsies and Partisans for execution or deportation to concentration camps. By August 1942 the Serbian government would proudly announce that Belgrade was the first city in the New Order to be Judenfrei or "free of Jews." Only 1,115 of Belgrade's twelve thousand Jews would survive. Ninty-five per cent of the Jewish population of Serbia was exterminated.[2

SFRY

I understand what you are saying and I am fully aware that SFRY annexed some small parts of Nazi Germany and Italy territory. But this does not yet mean that Nazi Germany and Italy preceded SFR Yugoslavia. The word predecessor extends to more than just land, it conveys politics, geography, demography, culture, etc. The one and only SFRY predecessor is Kingdom of Yugoslavia, as a geopolitical ancestor. So if you wish to report me for correcting this, go ahead, I will not stop because it wrong and insulting, I hope you now see why. --Barlo7 ^(TALK) 18:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Prvi zdrug edits

As an uninvolved admin, I have resolved the matter by notifying the user of the ARBMAC sanctions and reverting the edits. You may also be interested to know that on hr:user:Prvi zdrug which consists simply of a Croatian phrase (I speak a *little* Serbian but not enough to understand it) and the words "Stop communist-fascist-Nazi propaganda!". The account on that encyclopaedia was created on the same day as the English one. Orderinchaos 07:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to add - if they cause more problems, check my contributions to see if I'm likely to be online. If I am, let me know. If I'm not, take it to AN/I and note that the precondition of remedy 1 on WP:ARBMAC, "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision." has been satisfied. Orderinchaos 07:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, and listed on ARBMAC's enforcement section. Orderinchaos 18:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. Now I'm busy with another one... You've met a "Croatian nationalist", now you can get acquainted with a typical "Yugoslav fanatic". User:Barlo7 has been constantly removing valid predecessor states from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia article infobox. Calling me a "fascist" [48] and claiming that to even mention Nazi Germany in there is somehow "insulting to the dead" [49]... I tried to explain everything to him [50], as usual to no avail... It never ends. xP --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You are not welcome to talk at my talk page.

Plus the fact that each and every tag that I inserted is permissable, because the content of your request for a move is full of biased, unsourced and otherwise fallable information. And it is also a common practice to insert tags when content is objected.

Also, your continual defamation of my character at the same request is noted, my persona is not the object of the discussion. At least it should not be.

Please stop writing on my talk page, since I expressed such a wish, and explicitly forbade you from disturbing my peace of mind with your gursome attacks, defamations, horror stories, etc.

Imbris (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The next time I notice you trying to make me sound like an imbecile by altering my own posts rest assured I will report you. Then you can explain all about how it is your "right" to add fifty tags intended for article text to talkpage posts. I have posted a warning, as is recommended by Wiki guidelines. As always, feel free to write-up a report against me for making this post against your wishes. Thsi time it would even save me the trouble of reporting you for your most recent disruption. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, this has become a flame war. My advice is to ignore Imbris, ignore the ANI page, just let it cool off. If Imbris attacks you, don't respond, he'll get blocked and no one will respect you any less. Nezzadar ☎ 00:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm I appreciate your effort, and I shall certainly do my best (believe me I'm always happy to ignore Imbris), but I don't think you're addressing the main problem: the move proposal. How does the discussion go on? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Forget it, and come back in a week. It will have defused by then. Nezzadar ☎ 02:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

No, it is simply that I have other concerns, on and off Wikipedia. But my action would be the same; I am not persuaded by the argument to move, but I do not mind if a consensus is formed against me. So my !vote remains, but I do not expect to comment further. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. The arguments you listed in support of your vote have been thoroughly defeated. Forgive my inquisitiveness but If you are tied up at the moment, why in the world did you enter into what you know full well will be an exceptionally difficult move? After all this I'm starting to think you "Oppose" for opposition's sake.

I am aware this is a pretty insignificant article. I myself did not want to get into all this at first, but GoodDay sort of talked me into it. Once one becomes involved, it is commendable if he/she sees it through. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I stated what seemed to me the right thing to do; I still think so - and I think Good Day's argument whether he was legitimately King of Croatia to be exactly the sort of thing we are not supposed to consider. Having said so, I have nothing more to say. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"Tomislav"

I have responded to your recent comment on my talk page, there. Thank you for taking the time to bring your concerns to my attention. FactStraight (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

personal attacks

Please refrain from comments like this in which you discuss the editor in the folowing manner: "You like the idea of the Ustaše monarchy, we get it... " That's a personal attack and such behavior can get you blocked. Comments like that could make the discussion degenerate in both meaning and supstance. EOD. -- Imbris (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Imbris, you know you're always welcome on my talkpage. :) This is NOT a personal attack (see WP:NPA). This person was a supposed monarch of the Ustaše state, thus I have characterized his "reign" as an "Ustaše monarchy". The fact that you are supporting his reign so feverishly led me to believe you support this monarchy. Was I wrong? I did not refer to you as an "Ustaše". In fact I do not think you are an Ustaše and have never held that opinion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat this again: In fact I do not think you are an Ustaše/Ustaše-supporter and have never held that opinion. I am of the opinion that you may be a nationalist, and that's pretty much it. Now, please remember this disclaimer for future reference. This is not the first misinterpretation you've drawn. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd post this on your talkpage, but as you know I'm not welcome there, so here it is. I will consider this post read. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta

Howdy DIREKTOR. Did the guy ever consider himself 'King of Croatia'? If not, that ought to be the decider. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Imbris is just one editor. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I proposed a page movement, though not certain I got it right. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

~~OK, I'll leave the ridicules article title alone. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)~~

Ah hah, I had forgotten about Peter II of Yugoslavia. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I need smelling salts. Did Imbris just suggest I was someone's sock? GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My sock, I think :). The trick is to remain calm in the face of that accounts constant personal remarks and provocations. Do not respond to his posts, that's my advice. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather then provoked, I'm amused. No worries, I'll follow your advice. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a "fraud" barnstar? We should collectively award one to Imbris, who's just banned CrotchetyOldMan from ever writing on his talkpage. I'm similarly excluded as I believe you are, DIREKTOR. I'd laugh, if it weren't quite so bizarre. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sadly no, no negative barnstars that I know of are like that. Crotchety is busy talking to Imbris here. Its amazing how many excuses that guy can come-up with xD. First he said my Google test was faulty, and did his own. After that Google test proved him wrong as well, he changed the rules again demanding that only one phrase be tested... I'm actually having fun :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Howdy, we'll have to re-name the discussion section. It's keeps directing to the old discussion. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Howdy again. I've tweaked DWC's edit at the Userbox. I don't mind having 'King of Croatia' in there, if it's got (disputed) next to it. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Kubura

There is a problem with user kubura. He has been causing wrong edits on the croatian hockey league articles. Croatian Ice Hockey Championship - he is kept at bay here on the english ones, but on the croatian ones he is inserting is false information, that there were croatian ice hockey championships held concurently with the yugoslav one. See if you can undo the edit there. Somehow he, who walks over human rights and human rights organizations (he called human rights watch made up once), is somehow an admin there - and he blocked me for using the word "zajebavas" - this is not a swear from what I know. It means like "stop messing with me." Anyways, at the least, could you add links that say "source needed"? His supposed reference says that the KHL Mladost won the yugoslav championship, not the croatian one. Please help there. (LAz17 (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)).

Help please

Could you please give some input - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rjecina/Bosnian_census#To_end_this_thing I want to finish up with that. You could maybe comment on what you think of the map from the serbian wikipedia. Maybe also a comment on what you think of ceha's map. (LAz17 (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)).

Please! (LAz17 (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)).

The data source has been agreed upon. That is well known. So please don't take a step back to talk about it. Ceha likes to take these steps back to delay discussion, to take this into circles. (LAz17 (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)).

As you noticed, his map was made with heavy POV from the start. (LAz17 (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)).

Lets talk about it there. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Okej. Thanks for helping out there. It looks like something might be actually done. Just ceha and me won't amount to anything, as he ignores much of what I say. Your help more has been done than everything until you came. Thanks man. (LAz17 (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)).

Some people you can't talk to. Čeha you can talk to. The only thing you guys have to do is find and agree on a source and the conflict will disappear automatically. Whatever does not go by the source- has to be either fixed or the image removed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Need some more help. He only listens when you say something. (LAz17 (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)).

Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta

Don't faint. Recommend we 'move' the article to Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta (thus matching the other Dukes of Aosta articles). GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Award

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		I want to acknowledge that you have spent so much time mediating between opposing editors. I know not everything has been resolved but your efforts have helped to reduce the conflict significantly Polargeo (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I shall wear it with pride, but only if all parties agree... :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You know that is unlikely. At least unlikely that they will ever agree with each other. However you have certainly stopped a lot of the arguments therefore you should wear it. It may be the best you can do at present. Now get on with your exams ;) Polargeo (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sound advice, as always... xP --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you should accept AniMates offer of rollback rights because they could be useful and other admins may notice the level of trust, but you know best. Polargeo (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Everything in due time, though, killing microbes always comes first :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Direktor, please help with the problem, otherwise I really do not think that it is fair for you to keep such a barnstar for starting a problem but not finishing it. (LAz17 (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)).

I wasn't awarding the barnstar for mediating in your case although I hope that goes okay too. I assume your case involves those darn maps :). Polargeo (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

How do you know about the maps problem? Can you help?

Direktor, please help, Ceha has stopped cooperating. User:Rjecina/Bosnian census (LAz17 (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)).

Can't do it for now, extremely busy. I'll be back as soon as I can, for now there is only one advice I can give you: extreme politeness. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

PIO

Buddy, PIO's back. 100%, unmistakeably. User:Pantaleone. Revert on sight. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI mess

Hi, I've left a note on Sir Floyd's talk but please don't reply to it. It's clear that he's breached WP:HARASS on two occasions however, if he really is willing to take this discussion as a lesson and move on then maybe it would be worth drawing a line under (obviosuly it's up to you, you're the victim here). I mentioned that he may still be blocked but, like I said, if he's learnt his lesson then maybe a block would be pointless.

If it happens again go straight to an administrator and get a block, one would have been granted as soon as the first breach occured so don't bother raining a discussion about it, be bold and take action. Ofcourse it's difficult to act wiki-like when faced with problem editors but when the challenge is so monumental (such as it is here) then it's just even better practice. If you do need to raise threads on ANI etc. don't then go and get into an argument with the other party when they respond, it just makes you both look bad. Either ignore them or leave a note saying you're looking for admin assistance not a discussion.

I really do think that, as far as possible, avoiding eachother is a good idea. You're both passionate people and that's just a recipe for disaster when discussions like this arise. RaseaC (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding youe ani complaint

I was just wondering as you are editing and yet have failed to respond to Sir floyd's offer there, what does that mean from your side? Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The ANI thread is stagnant, IMO there is no evidence of outing by Floyd, the s no check user as yet no proven connection between him and the ips leaving the comments, I realise you are upset by the comments but I see nothing actionable, at least if you accept this offer you will not have to come across him and if you do you will have a stronger case for action against him, what action or commitment would satisfy you? Off2riorob (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I know it is annoying for you but I don't see anything actionable as regards floyd's comments in regards to the outing, and no one saw anything at ANI or they would have commented, you guys have dispute issues but unless you check user floyd and the ips and get some connection then it is a minor crime that he commented on the ips outing...Why don't you check user him to find out, he says the ips are on another continent? Off2riorob (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you checkuser all the ips against sir floyd, and find out if there is a connection. Right now it is just conjecture and supposition, nothing actionable, do a checkuser and we'll see..Off2riorob (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI response

Hi, don't apologise for being on a wikibreak, it just show's you've got more sense than most of us! To clarify, my opinion on the matter was that the user should be given another chance but that ultimately whether or not to block was down to you because you're the victim here (I have seen the evidence of the attempted outing and agree that it did occur). The behaviour you have described is understandably frustrating for you but that coupled with Sir Floyd's edit history is testament to the fact that you could easily have simply reported the user as disruptive and by now he would probably be serving a very long or even permanent ban, similarly if you have a sock suspicion then act on it - that will put your mind at rest and deal with the situation once and for all. While the user was disruptive I believe the matter was made immeasurably worse by the way you reacted to it (I'm not bashing you here, I'm saying it how I see it).

The user has agreed to stay away from you for a good amount of time and I agree with Off2riorob that if you accept this compromise then his breach of it will almost certainly be grounds for a ban by itself. The user seems to be co-operating and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity so in my opinion you should accept this truce and carry on with editing, but ultimately it's not up to me, it's your decision. Thanks, RaseaC (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly feel the pressure from you guys, however my position remains unchanged (for what little that's worth, apparently). This is hardly the first time, the user has a history, and the situation could not be more serious. I cannot imagine a situation where the user could endanger my person further with his behavior on Wikipedia. I will only point out once more that Wikimedia privacy policy has obviously been breached. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case find an administrator and report him. The AN/I approach hasn't worked for two reasons; 1) no admin picked it up 2) you and the other user went off on an argument which discredited you both and buried the original reason for the post. I don't know how many times you've been told to report him if that's what you want to do and I don't know why you haven't done it. All other options have been suggested and put in place and these are apparently not good enough so reporting seems to be your only option, going direct to an admin will make sure it gets noticed. RaseaC (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, RaseaC, do not think your advice is taken for granted. I would likely be of the same opinion myself if the positions were reversed, however I find myself unable to believe that after all this time the account will suddenly stop being abusive. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Report it then. The evidence is there you'll have no problem getting it done. RaseaC (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Rado te se setim ljubavi stara, jer me svaka nova ljubav razocara ;) Guess who's back, back again, shady's back, tell a friend, cmok AP1929 (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

^ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/109820/Chetnik

[1] ttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/109820/Chetnik

[1]

Yugoslavia

Poreč – Parenzo

SHOCK

Ustaše

Map of Split

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

Rjecina

Barnstar

153.5.62.201

PIO

IP editor

Petar Brzica

Bleiburg troll

Translation

Quotes in Filipović article

Italian Empire related AfD

We await developments

Meatpuppets

GREETINGS FROM OBJECTIVE TRUTH/FRANE - SHARING A FEW LINKS WITH YOU

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

Pole? Pizin?

Kirker blocked

See alsos

Checkuser

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Franco Sacchetti

Zadar section Recent History discussion

House of Caboga

Sveta Gera

Edit warring

Yugoslav wars

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

WikiProject Yugoslavia Award

Spelling

Discontinue your Propaganda.

Exams?

Flag of NATO

Photo

Several Yugoslav stub templates

Hi

Riva

Warning?

Under fire

Pozdrav

jos nesto

Stop deleting content

Redirect of Foreign Relations of SFR Yugoslavia

Re:Brought down Yugoslavia?

Operation Storm

WWII

Operation Storm

WWII

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

Croatia ethnic cleansing, NOT jokes

Bona/Bunic

Message

Semi-protection ?

Protected your talk page again

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

Thanks & Regards

Proposed deletion of House of Bunić/Bona

Edit warring

Hey, Slavs

LOL re:

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

Reunification of Yugoslavia

Kaboga

Nationalism

Mario Andretti

Ustaše

Edit warring

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

Infobox

Macedonian Qestion

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Chetniks/Draza Mihailovic

Zadar Bombing WWII