This user may have left Wikipedia. Fainites has not edited Wikipedia since 16 September 2013. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Only when reading the recent Signpost did I realise your role in creating a good proportion of the
current FA content on Psychology. Since that work took place when this barnstar didn't exist, justice requires that...
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Fainites's Day!
User:Fainites has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Fainites's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Fainites!
Fainites, I thank you for the input, and especially the respectful and polite way in which you have imparted it. I will take your words under advisement in the future. Also, regarding my use of the word "lazy", I have issued an apology to Malleus [3]. Once again, I thank you for your polite and respectful advice, -- Cirt (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I, -- Cirt (talk), award The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar to Fainites, for the polite and kind tone in which you have imparted constructive criticism to me. I really appreciate that. A lot. It meant a lot to me. And I will do my best to learn from your advice in the future. Thank you very much. Yours, -- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as this user has not withdrawn their statement telling me to go **** myself at WQA, it might appear to be stirring things up for me to contact them on their talk page, however the current user page User:Rinpoche does not meet the guidelines of User pages unless it is clear that s/he is applying a recognized Dispute resolution process. Could you please take a look and advise me on the best action to take here? Thanks, Fæ (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I was just looking over all this and catching up and was about to say to you that I didn't think Rinpoche was remotely interested in dispute resolution when I saw he had, quite rightly in my view, been indef blocked. Fainitesbarleyscribs14:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As of right now, I've removed/replaced/fixed all but two of the problematic images. The first is File:The British Empire.png (the infobox image) - "Maps can be copyrighted (see commons:Commons:Image casebook#Maps and satellite images). Unless the maps in those books were not copyrighted (either using public domain maps or creation from data sets), retracing them would be a copyright violation." The second is File:British Empire 1897.jpg - "Link does not show or help to verify this map was created or published in 1897. Neither does it help to verify {{PD-old}} since the cartographer might have created this map at the age of 25 and lived till he was 80 (1952), which would not be 70 years ago." If you can come up with a way to fix those two problems (or find good replacements), then I think all the image issues would be addressed. However, that's assuming the images in the article remain static - I've already reverted the re-addition of some problematic images. Other than that, I think all the sourcing stuff is already done, so we should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Depends. Does it show the Empire as it was in 1922, or its evolution up to 1922? What exactly does the copyright notice say? Where was the atlas published? Copyright rules can get so complicated...Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for the blank map - that definitely applies to some of the images I removed. However, the lead map says that it was derived from maps published in atlases, which may or may not be copyrighted. I'll see if I can track those down. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it - sent an email to the people at the Cambridge U Library to see if they know where it's from. In the meantime, could you check with Jappalang that his concern about the infobox image has been addressed? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic development on the 1897 map - I heard back from Cambridge, and they don't know its copyright status or its source either, because they got it from "Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons". Apparently the description page said it was PD, so they took it at its word. They think the original source, which they didn't make note of, was either in Spanish or was described in Spanish, but they're not really sure. It's not on OCLC. I've contacted the original uploader here, but as he/she uploaded the image in 2004 I don't know if we'll get an answer. I'll keep digging, but it's not looking promising. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh bugger. Still - if nobody knows who owns it - there's nobody to pay the royalties too. Mind you - I live the idea of Cambridge getting it's stuff from Wikipedia. Fainitesbarleyscribs21:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there is a rule. But you could ask somebody at Wikiproject:Television. They're always very helpful. What they'll say if use final ratings (I'm guessing). It's just using the average is what's done, and what's always been done. If you say 2.05, it's inaccurate because that's only the first half of the episode, so that needs to be specified when using it. When ratings are calculated, they use the average viewers for the full episode. TVBTN gives you more information for the tv obsessives like myself. Do you want me to ask at the project for you and point you to the discussion when it's done? Jayy008 (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Especially on controversial topics, which have been the subject of WP:SPA-targeting [4] and massive sockfarm disruption [5], one must take care to maintain meticulous sourcing for every single sentence - with regards to new article creation within those topics. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your easy to follow instructions on hot to bust creeps and sockpuppet. So are you like, encouraging me to post a sockpuppet denunciation on Matthew I. Gnash? I totally will if you want me to. All the best, Carolyn Baker III (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not encouraging you to post a sockpuppet investigation request. Really I am saying put up or shut up! If you have a genuine reason to believe he is using a sockpuppet to double-vote at AfD's or create the appearance of false consensus on talkpages or in articles then by all means, make a report. Just arguing it at length at Projecst and article talkpages without pursuing it properly is merely disruptive and tends to derail discussions.Fainitesbarleyscribs15:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The editor can't even spell my name, and honestly is just a troll. Sorry the editor bothered you about me. I did a SPI on "her" and it seems this person is indeed a sock puppet of a previously blocked editor. Mathewignash (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for your message. I'm not surprised. Give them enough rope.....etc etc! I was watching to see what "she" did but usually I miss the denouments being on UK time! Best of luck. Fainitesbarleyscribs12:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In so far as it is relevent it is already better addressed in other sections of the article - something that has been pointed out to you before. Mostly though it is neither accurate, relevent nor appropriately sourced. Finally, you are a sock of a long term abuser, permanently banned, who frequently adds this material.Fainitesbarleyscribs11:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thanks for the input and the welcome links!
I did not remove any content though, simply changed some locations to make the article better readable. Most important I moved the part about assesment to a section of it's own, and wrote a small part about the difference between tests and questionnaires and DIF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MethAdvice2010 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have Iran-Iraq War on my watch-list, and I noticed that you are removing parties that were associated with Iraq during the war, calling it "controversial" additions that need to be discussed, yet you don't seem bothered about the same type of entries under Iran's side. This seems like a selective POV interpretation of what is and what is not OK. This would be normal if you were acting as just another editor. But that doesn't seem to be your capacity on that page, as you have used your administrative powers to block one of the parties involved in this dispute. Please clarify what your role on that page is, as an administrator can not be involved in in a content dispute , and at the same time, threaten/block the other parties involved. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not involved in the content dispute. I blocked Scythian77 for abusive edit summaries, (calling other editors "racist") edit warring and stonewalling attempts to resolve disputes on the talkpage. as can be seen from the block summary. He called other editors "racist" more than once. I have no idea whether he is right or not about the content but no doubt if he is right he could produce sources to say so. Very shortly afterwards IPs started making the same edits. On the not unreasonable assumption that it might be related I removed those edits with the advice to discuss it on the talkpage. This was not done at the time. If you say there is more edit warring/abuse/disruptive editing going on there now by all means take it to ANI so it can be looked at. Believe me, Kurdo, I hold no brief for either side. If you say properly sourced information is being kept out and improperly sourced information is being kept in, I would be happy to look at the situation if the relevent sources are clearly set out on the talkpage but I am unlikely to have the sources available to me unless they are on the internet.Fainitesbarleyscribs12:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Going back and looking further into at Scythian77's edits, he was indeed being abusive and unreasonable, which did a disservice to his own edits/arguments. I was just wondering why the IP's edits were being reverted, when the other side has the exact same type of info listed with no sources. But I'll take your word for it, I understand your position now. By the way, I listed two sources for now, hopefully the other side will tolerate the well-source ed items which maybe against their POV. Cheers Kurdo777 (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Atheist discussion at BLPN
Hi Fainites, I just spotted a comment of yours in the atheist/agnostic discussion at BLPN which I missed at the time. You were referring to the EB definition of atheists:
Atheists. Persons professing atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion, including the militantly antireligious (opposed to all religion).
Note that the same Britannica page also provides a definition for nonreligious/agnostic, a category which includes nonbelievers:
Nonreligious (agnostics). Persons professing no religion, nonbelievers, agnostics, freethinkers, uninterested, or dereligionized secularists indifferent to all religion but not militantly so.
So they make a subtle distinction between disbelief and nonbelief, seeing the former as a more definite stance on the issue than disinterest. I would have mentioned that at the time had I seen your comment. Best, --JN46617:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At one end of the spectrum - yes. However, it also includes people who express disbelief. This doesn't have to be done militantly. At it's simplest, atheists know they don't believe in god. Agnostics either aren't sure or don't care. I am simply concerned that we don't fall into the current zeitgeist of promoting the idea that atheism is a belief system. Fainitesbarleyscribs22:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I studied with Dr. BW when he was here a couple of yrs ago and found his work helpful at my community clinic. I was researching complex trauma and noted that there is nothing there on DDP, yet there is one or two studies regarding it and so think it should be listed...maybe I don't phrase my addition correctly, but I think what I say is supported by references and so is accurate. Why are you so angry about this? PranakanLegion (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not angry. I just think you are yet another sockpuppet of the DPeterson entity who has been trying to insert adverts for this unvalidated therapy for years and who adds material that is not supported by the references. Fainitesbarleyscribs14:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you continuing to violate the wiki policies regarding no personal attacks and such? I just don't understand your violent objections to the sourced, referenced, and NPOV edits I made. Clearly DDP is not an unvalidated treatment...that certainly meets the wiki standard for a POV statement. My edit is NPOV. My edits are supported by the references. How are they not? Maybe it is time to have an administrator review you conduct and lack of civility. If you are such a defender of wiki, how can we get such an intervention by an unbiased administrator? PranakanLegion (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help with this. I appreciate the time you spent. What frustrates me is that there's typically only ever one editor interested in any given situation, so you had to take the load and it could only be dealt with as fast as you were able. Most admins just don't seem to bother with disruptive editors because it's too much hard work.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to thank you. I was thinking to leave a much wider explanation on the ANI report page, but then I saw that it was quite long. However, I do feel that it could be benefitial, and I would like to have it exposed somewhere, so I honestly hope you want mind I post it here. This was my report:
"Regarding the issue itself, I would like to stress out, just for the future record, the following: here on WP there are two kinds of NPOV editors, the ones that edit too positively, and the ones that edit too negatively. Let me please explain myself, and the reason why do I find the second one much more offensive. This user has donne an incredible effort to, beside glorifying his "side", completely carnish the other. The method used is to massively edit all related articles, following by an intense protection of the same, reaching or being very close to the breaking of the WP:OWN policy. This user could favour "his side", but what is being prejuditial here is that beside that, he is preventing any attempt made by other users to "defend" the "other side" in any way, reverting all positive edits to the other side (even if well sourced). Besides that, he takes enormous advantage because the issue has not receved much interess lately, and the few editors mostly without much experience (or non at all) are promtly and severely reverted by this user and ridiculously accused of suckpoppetry (not even one suckpuppet has existed on this lately). Going to the exemples from articles, the "nazyfication" of the Yugoslav monarchic movement and their leader has been massively donne by the user, beside being very clear to all that the movement has been the allied of US, Britain and France troughout most of the war, the exception being the final year and because the other side was being more effective and had the support of the Soviets ending to win the war. So, this user, beside most of the content in the articles being highly NPOV and edited by him, should be quite "happy" in having the monarchists listed in the Axis side, but further, he is blocking any attempt to list them in the "Allied" side as well! Despite being they a "resistance" movement, having been officially allies for most of the time in the war, having receved directives from London, and beside the high condecorations that Mihailovic receved for his efforts in the struggle against the Axis, most even post-mortum, meaning that were unninfluenced by the events in the war. This obviously is making many people to be quite shocked when finding this in WP articles, and most of them end up being roughly reverted and treatened, giving up, wrongly thinking that this must be some "purpously politically" oriented move that WP supports. So, the inclusion of the movement and Mihailovic in the "Axis" section is already hard to accept, but their exclusion from the "Allied" section is very serious disruption. Further, when the user is confronted, he promtly uses provocation, and purpously tries to make all look some "Balkan nationalism" while the only one "Balkanically" behaving here is himself. Instead of appreciating an automatic neutral approach that most of this users had used (including myself) by leaving the movement and their leader in both sides (because the issue is actually controversial), this user reverts all that doesn´t include the nazyfication of them. Even in the mediation itself, the collaboration donne by the movement has been described as occasional and oportunistic, and this clearly users knows this but chooses to ignore it. That occasional and oportunistic collaboration has given him the "right" to include them in the Axis side, but the nature of the movement, the fact that they were the recognised allies for most of the war, and all high condecorations doesn´t allow them to be in the Allied side"? The move request can demonstrate this as well, because he wants to rename a "wide range" article (Yugoslav Front), to the name of the struggle that only "his side" addopted during the war this way preventing any editing of anything alse but his rethoric. Please see the number of times this user has had problems before, the number of reverts that he has donne in that and other related articles, and the nature of them, and everything will be easily clear. I apologise for the long comment but I´m feeling that the situation here is perhaps hard to understand when not involved in it, and some explanation can be helpfull."
I apologise for leaving this entire explanation here, but I am having much trouble of dealing with this behavior, and it has been a serios problem in all related articles because is making many users just give up on editing on this, and that ends up being very prejuditial, and leaves all this articles with only one POV rethoric. FkpCascais (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and regarding the link to the mediation that was provided by Nuujinn (another participant in the mediation, in direktor´s side), it would be good to say that the link you had has zero arguments to "my side" (because I touth, and still think, that page was not for argumentation) and all the other for the "other" side. Here is the actual mediation dispute: [6]. FkpCascais (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not holding a brief for either side but I suspect the situation may be too complicated to simply put the Chetniks and Mikhailovic in just one list, whichever it is.Fainitesbarleyscribs14:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise, I haven´t noteced the message you left me here, and if it was before my edit on the article, please forgive me because I didn´t knew about it until now.
I already left a message on the talk page on the article where I expressed my full agreement on having a 3 side infobox. That was the ideal solution from the beggining, and something I allways defended for this situation. I allways defended that it was a 3-side conflict and that the simplification made by direktor and his insistence in including them in the Axis side was simply wrong. I didn´t knew about this possibility (I didn´t knew how to do a 3 side infobox, or if it was going to be accepted) and I already left further suggestions on how he could improve it, on the articles talk page. FkpCascais (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Protection request
Fainites, since Fkp seems intent on editing the article (and you may rest assured the edits will undoubtedly be disputed), I would like to repeat my request that the article be restored and protected for the time being until the RM is concluded. Would you consider this? The article is only stable at this time due to good will on my part. I admit I strognly feel that neither should good will be exploited, nor edit-warring be rewarded thusly as a means of pushing through changes in an article. --DIREKTOR(TALK)11:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise to intervene here, but I really need to stress out my surprise to this request since I am an editor here on en.wiki well known for my extreme NPOV approach on Balkan related articles with a good collaboration with editors from all nationalities, not only from that region, but from the entire world. The only one oposing me has allways been direktor, and it was only because of him that I had a few blocks here. Anyway, I also find it strange because, and sorry for saying this, but most of my edits end up quite well accepted and usually considered highly fair by most users. I could even bet that the only reverts I have in total on en.wiki are almost all done by direktor (or alasdairgreen, an editor with close relation with direktor). On the other side, I have serious doubts that direktor has even one area where he is not disputed, and I can strongly say that direktor doesn´t have more blocks only because of certain resons I wan´t express here. I apologise once more for this intervention of mine here, but I felt attacked by direktors unfair arguments here. FkpCascais (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise to expose the issue here, but I need admin advice. Following your guidance, I made 3 proposals on how to make the infobox more correct. My first question is if you don´t mind my approach and possibly support me on this at least to put it on vote. The second question has to do with the ignorance I´m receving regarding my proposals (participants are present but ignoring the vote and distracting with other, not so urgent issues), and I am suspecting that the ignoring of them is done on bad-faith. I´m only asking for a simple yes or no answer for each and a reasoning for the oposition, if existing. Could you please support me on this by asking the intervenients to at least respect my efforts and answer to me? FkpCascais (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People have answered, though not in a yes/no format. I think it's pretty obvious Direktor does not agree and WF quite likes it as it is so he is not agreeing either. The approach of making a proposal and asking for agreement or disagreement on each element is a reasonable approach. However, it is not going to be quick. You are all still in mediation and there is no agreement as far as I can see on the extent of Chetnik collaboration, or even on whether they were more than merely nominally Allies. Voting as such can be problematic on topics where there is a history of socking.Fainitesbarleyscribs19:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The answers didn´t provided any reasonable oposition to the proposals and were rather unfocused and vague. I apologise but I find all but fair to be ignored. If they don´t have arguments to oppose them, than the proposed changes should be accepted. Lets not forget that direktors oposition was promptly accepted, and I am not asking to have my changes accepted, but simply discussed if oposed (impossible to be more fair that this). FkpCascais (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Fainites, I just saw now that we had a missunderstanding on the articles talk page. It was after your 6th comment on "Chetniks-Allies?!" section. You started by saying that you had not added anything into the infobox as your suggestion, and you ended up saying that you were having the idea that I was going to, citing you, "struggle to persuade other editors that the Chetniks did not collaborate with Italians, then Germans (Axis powers) against the Partisans. Is the mediation going to resolve this?". I started my next comment with "Of couse,..." answring to your initial part, that you were not rsponsable for the content, but the way it was, you probably got the idea that I said that I was going to deny collaboration! No! Fainites, I said several times that I am not deniying collaboration, but from what we saw in the mediation, the collaboration was only active with the Italians (and specially because they fought the Croats in Dalmatia, that were German allies, just as Italians, what a mess, I know...) and that all the sources direktor menaged to present as demonstration of collaboration with Germans was a number of meating between officials (from where we can even see the animosity between them) and that the only Chetniks that effectively collaborated with the Germans were actually the rebel Chetniks of Kosta Pecanac. Sorry to bother you with this, but seing that you read the current articles, plus this, I understand now the feeling that I may be biased that you probably ended up having. I hope you understood the difference now. Also, Fainites, I understand that you obviously have some doubts when I tell you that direktor editing is really very biased, but please do an exercise and see any of this articles in a state prior to direktors editing. I wasn´t here back then, and I asure you (because recently I saw many of the old versions) that they are much more objective than the current ones. FkpCascais (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please give me credit and when you find yourself with time do this exercise and read these articles, as well (don´t warry, these are shorter and much older), and just make a comparison to the current one, and make your own conclusions.
This was the Chetniks article before any direktors intervention: [7]
I am not saying this articles are 100% right (I haven´t analised them at all), but I can assure you they are more close to NPOV than the current ones. Please check all this and other versions from that period so you can be sure I am not lieying or cheating you in any way. FkpCascais (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning my comment on GiovBag's talk page, I sustain my thinking on the matter. If I have violated some WP's policy, do what you consider it is proper to do in such a case. On the vandalism on both his user and talk pages, I think it is quite inadeccuate but I don't know who might have done it. He probably annoyed someone else with his edits in some of the articles on White people.--Pablozeta (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Korea International School
Regarding your revdel on that article, the single revdel was not enough as the name was not removed until later edits. You need to revdel all edits up to the point where the content was removed. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
Faintes, I think that after a year of inane nonsense its high time someone finally explained to fkp that his own personal disagreement is not alone something that should influence discussions. This absurdity has to come to an end sometime. The way the ridiculous, year-long mediation has been (mis)handled is this: unless both sides agree, we can't move on. This unbelievable method has enabled Fkp to simply ignore any and all sources - by simply disagreeing :). The whole thing should have been over after a week. A metric TON of sources stands now listed in the mediation describing in full the MASSIVE extent of the Serbian Chetnik collaboration - yet a couple of Serbian users have been (amazingly) allowed to essentially make a mockery of WP:V and ignore sources at will. The stupidity behind this is staggering, and is the primary reason for my short fuse on this talkpage. Instead of determining the WP:NPOV on the basis of actual sources, the inane personal views of involved users were taken into account.
To put it simply: if the sources say the chetniks collaborated - the Chetniks collaborated. Call me arrogant, but my powers of diplomacy have long been expended in this matter: Fkp is dead wrong, I am right. He "personally disagrees" with the sources, he "refuses to agree"? All I can do is play a sombre tune for him on the world's smallest violin. :). --DIREKTOR(TALK)15:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article protection
Hope I'm not nagging, but if you'll notice the article has not only been sporting the sock's version all this time, but is also continuously being edited by the SPA. Now, while I'm sure the SPA could not care less about a block or 3RR (those being the benefits of sockpuppeteering), this should not be used as a tool for pushing edits through. I could edit war now, and of course get blocked, if that's what it will take to protect the article, but I'm kind of hoping that won't be necessary to help you enforce an end to edit-pushing and restore the sourced version. :) --DIREKTOR(TALK)17:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have protected the article for a week and blocked him for a week. As for him being a sock, if you think you know who's sock it is, make an SPI. You may well be right but SPA does not of itself equal sock. Fainitesbarleyscribs23:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It could be a couple of guys... Socks generally tremble at the sight of my SPIs (I'm rather proud of my sockhunting record :)), but I'm currently not by my pc and it's quite a task copy-pasting SPI diffs on the iPhone. I'll do it when i get back and if he's still editing. Notice he didn't even deny he was a sock, my SPI sense is tingling... ^_^ --DIREKTOR(TALK)23:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fainites, the inter-wiki links you restored are wrong and they were purpously done on behalve of direktor just to demonstrate a point and to support the move request. FkpCascais (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S.: Direktor, he never deniyed he was a sock because probably he doesn´t even know what that is. Want to bet how he isn´t? And, when was the last sock that ever appeared on these articles? Was it ever from a Serbian user? FkpCascais (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Fainites, how was that user blocked for a week because he reverted direktor, that was actually the one that reverted several editors, non of them actually edit-warring? Fainites, you already wrongly reverted me once, now you protected wrong information insisted only by direktor. Please explain yourself. FkpCascais (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A) I wasn't interested in the inter-wiki links. I was interested in stopping the edit war about which column the Chetniks go in. I arrived at this page because of this edit war and stopped it. I reverted you because you changed it again. I reverted the other user because he changed it again. I also blocked him as the very point he was changing is the very point being discussed on the talkpage, which he very well knew.
B) It is not about the "right" or "wrong" version. When an edit war is stopped and the page protected it is protected at that version. My reverts have been to revert it to the version I originally protected - otherwise edit- warriors are "rewarded" for edit warring. Whether it is the right or wrong version is irrelevent. Consensus has to be reached on the talkpage!
C) As you have no doubt appreciated, I am trying to avoid being involved in actual content. I am merely keeping the peace and suggesting solutions to the difficulty. The content is for involved editors to reach consensus on based on the best available sources. No doubt the issues have been discussed ad nauseum in mediation already so they are not new. No doubt you are all also very familiar with each other's sources.Fainitesbarleyscribs12:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But loking to articles edit history, the only edits that User:Слободни умјетник did were these two: first Слободни умјетник edit where he did not edited anything regarding the infobox just correcting the Serbian naming of the article, and the second where he reverted direktors reverting. Direktor was actually the one that begin edit warring again by reverting all other users in this edit and he subsequently reverts again! Basically, and in retrospective, direktor inserts many doubtfull and disputed edits in the article, including purpously removing the right inter-wiki links just to make a point and gain advantage in the move request, then edit-wars all users that try to correct it this way demanding his edits to stay in place due to "pre-edit war state" and having his version on the article during an non-ending discussion on the talk page (note that he escapes to directly answer questions so the dispute can be solved). Now, who is the one getting benefit from edit warring now? Certainly not me, neither the editor that you blocked for one week because he reverted the person who reverted several users and edit-wars constantly on article. If User:Слободни умјетник was blocked for once revrting direktor´s reverting of several users, than direktor has even more resons to be blocked because he reverted several users, and he did it twice. We have to be consistent with this kind of actions so no side ends up being favoured by admin actions. FkpCascais (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't think I got it wrong - but I may be wrong. We are only human. From my perspective, Direktor stopped edit warring and apologised. You also appeared at ANI expressing a willingness to talk. The other user started and continued the edit war. I protected it at the version it happened to be at then. That is the version the infobox is at now. I am not intending to favour one "side", but it is almost invariably the case that when an article is protected it is protected at one "sides" version and the other side feels aggrieved. I am aware of this.
On another point, although it is obvious that there is never going to be agreement about the Chetniks, I have been reading the mediation and have noted the sources produced by Direktor and others. What I have mnissed is your sources. Can you show me where these are set out please? Apologies if I missed them. Fainitesbarleyscribs19:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
here, here, here, here. Then you and Direktor had a go. Then here. Now you may say - everyone was edit warring. But the policy is WP:BRD. That's Bold (C's first edit), Revert (that's Direktor) Discuss. Not Bold, Revert, revert, revert, revert, revert. Direktor was reverting to the original. You and Direktor stopped edit warring and started discussing. C then made the same change right in the middle of the discussion on the talkpage. If you have a complaint - take me to ANI.
To take you to ANI I need to clarify things here first, and I am giving you a chance to rectify you eventual error. When I asked you to be clear regarding User:Слободни умјетник´s edit-warring you responded me by including all his reverts on that article, which includes four reverts he made until 8th January and for which he has been blocked by you already on that day. Now, as all we know, nobody can be blocked twice for same reasons, and I knew that, so that is why I asked you which exact edit-warring was the one that made him being awarded with another (this time much heavier, one week) block? The last one? P.S.: We are talking about the sources on articles talk page, so please leave this conversation free of article content subject, so we don´t unecessarily double the same conversation. FkpCascais (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, he reverted direktor´s reverting of several users without discussion. Then, and by your words, direktor is the one that "edited the infobox" by making the previous edit (the one that Слободни умјетник reverted). FkpCascais (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about the infobox or the re-directs (another ongoing argument situation in which I am not involved - partly because I don't speak any of the languages). The Chetniks were in the Axis list with nominally allied 1941-3 after them for a long time before C posted this. That is Bold. DIREKTOR reverted. The C reverted back again. And so on and so on. Fainitesbarleyscribs12:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fainites, the content is not so important here because Direktor reverted many users that made several different edits. User Слободни умјетник rightfully saw that as provocation and restart of an edit-war and reverted him. How do you differenciate the two edits (direktor´s reverting of several users, and Слободни умјетник´s reverting of direktor)? FkpCascais (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the bit where in reverting C, DIREKTOR also reverts some inter-wiki links? They were put back by TheWanderer. Are you saying that in reverting C, DIREKTOR was also conducting a covert edit war against the inter-wiki link edits? C was continuing an edit war for which he had already been blocked.Fainitesbarleyscribs12:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Fainites, direktor reverted all other users as well. And, no, C didn´t edit-warred this time, he only reverted direktor, who actually started edit-warring again, just as he continuosly does in other related articles, as here where he even ignores a recomendation of yours, and names a user "sock" knowing that he can´t do it until confirming it. FkpCascais (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since others may be exhausted, I'll point it out for you yet again: 1) he re-introduced his edits, 2) I reverted him, 3) he reverted me - thus starting an edit war to push his edits. I cannot concieve that you find this too "complex", but I do find it quite insulting that you think others do. --DIREKTOR(TALK)13:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am responding to you Fkp. Please provide diffs of what you mean as at the moment I am not getting it. C started the process by adding the Chetniks into the Allies. Fainitesbarleyscribs19:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have already provided you many times diffs and other comlains regarding disruptive behavior by direktor, but strangly you never "gett it", but no problem, I will again. Слободни умјетник has donne only 2 edits in the article after the block he receved from you: the first one where he didn´t edited the infobox, but only corrected the Serbian language version in the other languages section, and the second one where he did not edited the infobox, as you conveniently and wrongly want to show, but has just reverted the reverting of several users done by direktor in the previos edit, as seen in the same diff. Anyway, if you consider this two edits worth a one week blocking of the user, how is that you don´t consider worth blocking direktor´s behavior? I´ll number all complains I donne to you regarding direktor: you fogive him all edit warring done on January 8th, as seen in article´s edit history, thus, he was not carefull and he reverted 4 users and one bot in this edit, following another revert (clear edit-warring) just next! Adding to this, an edit war he made on a related template against, again, several other users with this reverting (joining ethnical prejudice comment with it, plus a much more serios phalse acusation of "socking" totaly ignoring your previos advice regarding the sock issue provided by you to him here), followed by more edit-warring. If we join all this to several acusations of ethnical nature provided by direktor on the discussions taking place on Talk:Yugoslav Front that I asked several times to be stoped that you allways ignored, plus clear CANVASSING that he made [10], well, how is that you find direktors behavior forgivable and worth ignoring, while you had used your administrative tools in a severe way against User:Слободни умјетник for a reason I still can´t see? FkpCascais (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't agree with you Fkp. Sorry you feel that way. From my perspective, C was renewing an edit war. Edit wars are when people keep adding/reverting the same thing. That was the chetniks in the info box. As for civility - you and DIREKTOR (and several others) are equally uncivil and accusatory towards each other but then you have all been arguing for a very long time. A certain degree of blunt testiness on both sides is only to be expected. People who edit on topics of hot, nationalist import needs must develop thick skins. Rest assured I shall intervene if it goes beyond what is acceptable.Fainitesbarleyscribs22:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last one are new, controversial, opposed, undiscussed edits, in blatant contradiction with half-a-dozen listed refs, which are being continuously pushed into the article by edit-warring. The first two merely restore the pre-edit war version. You know this full well, Fkp. --DIREKTOR(TALK)11:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs are there for all to see. I can't add any more to what I've said already. I blocked him for continuing an edit war when he knew well the issue was being extensively discussed, in detail, on the talkpage following the earlier edit war.Fainitesbarleyscribs00:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rather fascinating, isn't it? This thread may serve as a good general example of 1) why noone wants to take the time to put an end to this particularly nasty Balkans nationalist problem, and 2) why my demeanour is so abrasive, and my patience so thoroughly worn. Imagine a year of this... o_O
P.S. Fkp seems to be itching to edit the article. The sock likely could not care less if he gets blocked. I expect the disputed edits will be promptly restored upon the article's un-protection. --DIREKTOR(TALK)13:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another baseless acusation of socking. Fainites, you are actually providing protection and giving incentive for further disruptive behavior by this user direktor. FkpCascais (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Fkp. Now. I have said to DIREKTOR that SPI is the place for sock accusations should he think he knows who it is. But I did not block C for socking but for edit warring. We need to agree on the talkpage about what is going in the infobox before anybody changes it. On the issue of disruptive behaviour - both you and DIREKTOR are actively discussing on the talkpage - all be it a little testily. What I would like to know from you is - do you or do you not agree the Chetniks collaborated extensively and if so, from when. If you do - what do you think of DIREKTORs latest version on the talkpage? I am not pre-judging this. There may be perfectly good reasons to object for all I know. I would like to see what sources you rely on for your answer. Thanks. Fainitesbarleyscribs20:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
A quick read?
Fainites, I'm assuming here you may be willing to get into this obscure issue independently and a tad more thoroughly. You may get a better understanding of "where I'm coming from". In order to gain some insight into the full extent of Chetnik collaboration (and form an opinion of your own regarding its extent), you may want to read Chapter 7, "Chetniks and the Foreign Enemy" of The Chetniks by Prof. Tomasevich - you can find it here: [11], its in English, and, if I'm not mistaken, its entirety of it is available for free. The chapter deals specifically with the subject of this discussion.
As for Tomasevich, you may note that The Chetniks is the only detailed work of comparable quality focusing exclusively on the (relatively obscure) matter of the Chetniks. His are reliable, peer-reviewed (Stanford) university publications, very detailed, and of very high quality. They are a delight to read to anyone mired in the frightful bog of Balkans history, as they are teeming with primary sources - I feel safe to say that virtually nothing the author states is without direct backing.
I have included this in my talkpage post, but consider this a personal link service. To be perfectly honest, an admin willing to do a quick read into the Chetniks mess would to me feel like winning the lottery. ^_^ I'm thoroughly exhausted trying to reason with these folks, and my patience has been ground wafer-thin (as you may have noticed). --DIREKTOR(TALK)13:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have read some of the sources such as Ramet, - though not Tomasovic as yet - including one which sees the Chetniks as the wronged victims of a Partisan misinformation campaign with the British as almost equal baddies and the BBC full of communists. I am however trying to avoid becoming involved in content as that makes me an involved editor and then I am not in a position to use adminly powers to prevent edit warring/block edit warriors and the like. I can see where everybody is coming from. Dealing with incivility and edit-warring is the easy bit though. Dealing with POV pushing and disruption requires a thorough knowledge.Fainitesbarleyscribs19:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I may have described my proposal inadequately. What I suggest is that you review whether the sources do indeed support the inclusion of the Chetniks into the Axis column (as was the case in the long-standing infobox). Ramet and other sources do indeed describe the issue in detail, but never nearly as comprehensively as Tomasevich. His work, The Chetniks, and more specifically its Chapter 7, are the main source the infobox relies upon.
To be clear, the current (old) infobox, while accurate as a generalization, admittedly could use some refining (though an infobox by its "nature" could hardly escape generalization). A third column is indeed warranted for the Chetniks in the initial period of the conflict (roughly 1941, 1942), however afterwards they become both dependent on the Axis and subservient to them in entirety (since the Partisans materialize as the more present threat to their leadership's vision of post-War Yugoslavia - one that needs to be eliminated at all costs before the arrival of the Allied front).
In short, I propose a two-part combatants column: 1) three-sided (1941-42); 2) two-sided (1942-45), and I believe that the sources (Tomasevich in particular) support this version. I should very much appreciate your view on whether that is indeed the case.
Could you give me advice on how to deal with a troublesome IP? An anonymous IP on the Croat–Bosniak War article and talkpage continues to deny a university publication as a reliable source and simply reiterates his own opinion on the talk page. He continues to remove referenced information and replaces it with his own POV. I'm wary on how to deal with such situations since I received a block for reverting what I thought was blatant vandalism in a previous incident. --◅PRODUCER(TALK)12:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I did not uploaded that file at commons! This is done by someone else[12]. I am the file placed on sr-wiki and there is a the permission (GNU Free Documentation License) for this file [13].--Свифт (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be advised Fainites, User:Свифт (who may or may not also be User:Слободни умјетник) is here selecting those images he does not personally approve of. User:Свифт is a Serbian user, a friend of User:FkpCascais, and another proponent of the Chetniks. We have here photos of Partisan troops, Chetnik commanders meeting with German commanders, photos of the Partisan commander Josip Broz Tito, alone and with JFK etc. If I didn't know better (and I don't), I'd say the user is trying to see how much history he can censor :) --DIREKTOR(TALK)17:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have permission to download materials from the site looked, specifying the sources. I hope that the right to revise the material means that in this case, we will not remain as a source? Eg. our source is that the Chetniks defeated at the Battle of Neretva. If someone to edit and write that the defeated partisans, should not remain that this is our source.
All the best, editor, Miloslav Samardzic
[Edit] Original message
Dear Sirs,
as the editors of Wikipedia (http://sr.wikipedia.org), we engaged in the preparation of this talk page. In this encyclopedia accessible to everyone we'd like to incorporate the material from your site.
Your material would be released under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or later, which was published by the Free Software Foundation (in English GNU Free Documentation License, GNU FDL short, http://sr.wikipedia.org/ wiki / Project: GNU_Free_Documentation_License). In short, under these circumstances, anyone could feel free to download, modify, use and disclose the text and images provided quoting the source / author and to provide electronic versions of the text of the license.
We also invite you to freely use texts of articles from our fund, which is constantly growing and are modified.
If we allow the inclusion of your material as described above, your site will be on our site to be listed as the source. To your site can increase the rating because Wikipedia is one of the most visited Internet sites (and one of those with the most dynamic growth), while its articles are often among the first hits on search engines.} -
Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
What the hey, I'll try petitioning you directly. Could you pls revert the latest edits by an IP at the Chetniks article and semi-protect it for a short while? A persistent IP user has arrived, altered sourced text without discussion and is attempting to keep his changes in by simply edit-warring. The text in question is a direct representation of the listed references, and has been long-established by user consensus (after gruelling, grinding discussions). --DIREKTOR(TALK)01:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Christ, not this again. I already attempted to explain you what really happened, so I'll repeat: I removed repeated internal links, I changed the layout a lot for better (I mean stuff shuffled around), I removed 1 dead link, and a superflous pic or two, did some copyedit work, I added more info about what kind of Chetniks Bora Đorđević identifies with (he made clear in this interview he's not hating on the other nations). That's all. Okay? No major content changes. A cleanup. The same article, but better. Get it? Also a secret: I did this with a few of "your" other articles, too. Now chill, Jesus. (Seriously, what.) --94.246.150.68 (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And bah, I just realized I'm now kinda stalking you. Whee, how creepy. Anyway ^ still is true, also I'm f-g good at cleanup job and it's just a fact - Fainites you can go and compare just this article before and after. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just having a look. 94 reverted all the pro-Chetnik material added by Ganderlog and put back the material Ganderlog had removed. Then DIREKTOR reverted 94. I can clearly see what the issue is with Ganderlog. What is the issue between you two? (Apart from an edit war and accusing each other of vandalism I mean).Fainitesbarleyscribs13:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic user
Hey there Fainites. First off, thanks for dealing with User1389 over at the ANI report. Unfortunately as you've already noticed there have been a string of recent IP address "users"... probably User1389 judging from the edits, reverting the same content. Assuming User1389 continues their disruptive ways after their block is over, what other course of action can be taken? Frankly I can't keep up nor do I want to engage in an edit war with anonymous IP addresses over the same 4 (1,2,3,4) articles over and over. Buttons (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't tried the heraldry project yet, but probably will ultimately. The Serbian flag\'s topic is laden with issues more so than just the current one. At the moment however, the problem isn't so much the source so much as its interpreation. FOTW is a pretty reliable soure as far as websites go and as I mentioned before User1389 used it himself (albeit wrongfully interpreted). I don't know if he is doing so accidentally or intentionally and I can't know because they wont talk about it. Therein lies the dilemma as well as the general lack of interest from other editors. Buttons (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I quite understand why people want to run a mile from nationalist disputes. If you think this is bad - you should see the British Isles naming dispute. It even has it's own article. Fainitesbarleyscribs22:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm cracking up..
Every months there's another one... If someone wants to preserve what's left of these Chetnik-related articles, he's supposed to engage in these nonsense discussions and repeat the same basic stuff over and over and over again. They're gonna lock me up.. I'm gonna end up like Nicholson in The Shining, writing on my typewriter.. scholarly sources, scholarly sources, no links, no links, scholarly, published, no OR, no links, scholarly.... xP --DIREKTOR(TALK)21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now d'you see what I meant when I said there's one every month. And if I didn't try to do something we'd have, oh just for example, two FORKS on the same thing. And they'd probably stay on for months. BalkansWiki. --DIREKTOR(TALK)18:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of insult is that, DIREKTOR? Is term "Chetnik-related" somehow your description of "Serb"? And if you refer to me as to "one", I have to remind you that I came to Wikipedia long before you and that you was the one who changed name of article about WW2 Serbia without consensus with anybody. You behave like you believe that you own that article. As for sources, you did not presented a single source that could support your claims or your actions. PANONIAN20:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I did not know that. "Chetniks" is a typical Croatian nationalistic insulting name for Serbs in general, so it is hard to distinguish what was meant by that term if it is used by someone from Croatia. PANONIAN07:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your help in this. In fact, I would ask you for advice how to proceed with this issue - I do not want to be involved in revert warring with user DIREKTOR, but he clearly behave unreasonable and his claims are completely unsourced. He claims that these sources are confirming that "Nedic regime" was a name for puppet state. I examined these sources and it is clear that these sources are not using that name to refer to the state, but only to regime that ruled over that state. Please examine these sources by yourself and tell me is there any basis for conclusion that term "Nedic regime" was used as a designation for state? DIREKTOR either does not understand these sources either pushing his personal POV, attempting to twist history of Serbia from that time period. Also, he firstly supported proposal for compromise name "Nedić's Serbia" and then opposed it after only two days. I really do not know how to have reasonable discussion with somebody who behaving like this. So, how this problem can be solved by your opinion? PANONIAN08:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you okay, Fainites? After weeks of your responding within hours to everything I wrote on the Talk page of Attachment theory and now four whole days have passed...! I have found on p. 244 of Bowlby's Attachment a summary of what he was saying earlier in the book in which he includes crying and calling in attachment behavior. (see AT Talk page).
After puzzling over these last 2 months I've realized that systems theory--what JB called "control" systems theory--is what's missing from most of the secondary sources. (the index makes clear he is talking about feedback as a form of control). Explaining systems theory is a major problem--Bowlby dedicated over 2/5 of the book to it and Gregory Bateson spent many more years than Bowlby in trying to define systems theory/cybernetics. But it's hard to translate nonlinear thinking into linear language. It's an entirely different way of seeing and analyzing. As a nonlinear cross-disciplinary thinker myself I've seen up close the difficulties all my life. (So I wasn't misunderstanding what Bowlby was saying--I was hearing more of what he way saying).
Systems thinking can be compared to a tennis match--one doesn't watch just one player, but watches the ball and how the two players interact with it. That's one reason why Bowlby goes back and forth between humans and animals--he's comparing similarities AND differences, drawing parallels and differentiating.
In systems theory--
One doesn't define the child as the sole seeker of proximity. Both the infant and the PAF (primary attachment figure) maintain proximity.
The infant is a subsystem, the PAF is a subsystem and the two interacting together are the whole system (or metasystem). Infant attachment and adult caregiving are reciprocal parts of a larger attachment behavioral system.
The infant's attachment behavior system is ready to be activated at birth. (p. 265) Bowlby describes in various places in the book how this system develops (see for eg. pp. 145-147).Margaret9mary (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine thanks for asking. Just been a bit busy though I usual fiddle with Wiki most days as it makes a change from working. I always think that's one of the interesting things about Bowlby - the cross-disciplinary bit. He was a pioneer in so many ways. George and Solomon quietly point out that the main research in the 80s and 90s was around representations rather than systems - which they did their best to correct! They complain that the way in which the infants behavioural systems (attachment, exploration, affiliation) interact with each other and with the caregivers system are "as yet largely unexplored". The section in the article on this is a bit thin. They cite the caregiving system's behaviours as including retrieval, maintaining proximity, carrying, following, signalling, calling , looking, smiling etc etc. The childs attachment system is terminated by proximity or contact when the caregiver responds to the needs in a satisfactory manner. They propose the caregivers system is terminated in a similar manner. George and Solomon would certainly be a suitable secondary source on interaction between the systems. There is also the issue of competing systems of course. Fainitesbarleyscribs09:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Handbook of Attachment
The Handbook on Attachment has finally arrived. I took a first look at articles, etc. and then looked in the index. Under "systems theory" 4 pages are listed; under "feedback"--nothing; under "cybernetics"--nothing. So there you have it--the scientific paradigm Bowlby considered central to understanding Attachment has been left out of the Handbook. I've waited for years and seen how difficult it is for people to understand--and to define--systems theory. It's because it is a paradigm that is automatically omitted by the paradigm of classical science. See this article--Gregory Bateson, Cybernetics and the Social Behavioral Sciences; Lawrence Bale 1995 (connect on the Bateson page under Further Reading which explains the difficulty(see the first 8 pages). But then I checked the SUNY website and printed out 3 articles--Becoming Attached by Robert Karen; When Strangers Meet: J. Bowlby and H Harlow on Attachment Behavior; Bowlby's 1958 article The Nature of the Child's Tie to His Motherand a pamphlet written by Bowlby in 1958--Can I Leave My Baby?. Lots of interesting things found--in 1958 JB comments that fathers can care for a child perfectly well, and that if you leave a baby with a nanny the nanny "will be the real mother-figure"Margaret9mary (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! The father bit I had to argue for ages on the Maternal deprivation article with this chap who insisted Bowlby said it was natural mothers only. (And all part of a conspiracy to deprive men of their rights - women being all powerful world rulers of course). What did you think of the George and Solomon chapter? Fainitesbarleyscribs11:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Fainites. Now, today we have a new situation regarding this same issue. I mean, this is really childish, speacially after this. He´s really abusing and playing with the patience of all of us. FkpCascais (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean in Chetniks talk page comment, however, regarding the issue I asked you here, nothing has been donne despite all evidence. The user direktor is being clearly disruptive, constantly edit-warring, and my good-faith and restraining from going into this edit-war are prooving to be fruitless. You have shown much patience and provided much tolerance towards direktor and that has been quite negative for me, being me the one on the "loosing side" for no reason. That shouldn´t be the case. FkpCascais (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually moved DIREKTOR's post up since he was addressing PANONIAN and not Fkp's down. I didn't think people would actually complain over something so miniscule as moving a post. --◅PRODUCER(TALK)11:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - regarding the closed discussion on Noticeboards, it appears to be continuing past the closure. I posted a reply right after it was closed and before I noticed it and would be happy to delete it and, obviously, refrain from further posting since the discussion has been closed. However, Bugs is now posting multiple comments about me that are patently not true (e.g. "posting a userbox threatening to report other editors that he considers to be anti-Gadaffi") and I feel compelled to defend myself against since they will become part of the permanent record. I don't even know what to request at this point. I'm at a loss at what to do about Bugs. My participation in Wikipedia seems to attract him through some force of compulsion despite the fact I never initiate interaction with him. Felixhonecker (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re Reminder
Did you send me an e-mail? If so, thanks for the reminder. Question--can I delete something I wrote on another person's user page? It would take me ages to find the answer to that.Margaret9mary (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
reminder
Did you send me an email? If so, thanks for the reminder. Can I delete something I've posted on another person's user talk? I don't know where to find out the answer to that.Margaret9mary (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - that was my e-mail. You can delete something you've written but it will still show up in the record if anybody looks. If you have a good reason for wanting to remove it permanently it can be "oversighted", ie removed permananetly. This is usually for things like disclosing personal information about people or libellous remarks or that kind of thing. You shouldn't delete things people have already replied to generally though. You can e-mail me and tell me what the problem is and I'll have a look. Cheers. Fainitesbarleyscribs10:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't my December 29 comment, written before I became acquainted with Editing conflicts. The issue was that Jean Mercer wanted to send me her article, Attachment theory and its vicissitudes: Toward an updated theory (which went a long way toward clarifying your statement that Attachment theory has changed). Jean asked for my e-mail address which I left on her talk page. I deleted it but don't know anything about oversighting..Margaret9mary (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LoL, I tend to agree agree with this fella. Restore the pre-edit-war version? You know I'm still pretty confused as to what exactly Tim's complaint is. To top it all off I told the guy I don't mind any changes.. I think he's just angry the whole vote he organized didn't work out the way he planned and the article simply remained the way it was. Wasted effort. I can relate. --DIREKTOR(TALK)21:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I quite liked the lots of photos box. It's tempting to say - take it in turns to pick a photo - but I suppose that's not in accordance with the policies. Anyway - page protection does not validate any particular version. It's only to stop edit-warring and the general rule is - you protect whatever version is there at the point at which you decide to protect - known as the m:The Wrong Version.Fainitesbarleyscribs
You have no idea how much I hateWP:WRONGVERSION. I despise it with a passion. I mean, fine, no version is the "right version", but protecting the page so that it displays the new contested edits is a way of validating edit-warring as a means of pushing new edits.
If I had it my way, Wikipedia would institute a simple anti-edit-warring system (and let's face it, its a plague):
First establish a time limit after which an edit, any edit, can be considered to have been "accepted" or "long-standing".
In case a new edit is seriously disputed, a revert should be the recommended course of action. A discussion should then be started to determine user consensus (based on sources). (Essentially WP:BRD as official policy.)
If an edit-war erupts, an admin should simply protect the article on the "long-standing" version until some kind of consensus is reached. Additionally, the user who started the edit war should be warned, then blocked, while the guy who was restoring the "long-standing version" should not be blocked. Teh edit that starts the edit war is the second introduction of new edits (i.e. when a user introduces his new edits in spite of being reverted). "It takes two to edit-war" is another bull#%&t phrase. Teh two people edit-warring are NOT the "same": one is introducing new edits (99% of cases without consensus), while the other is restoring the old version.
Its what I would recommend based on the experience of years of constant conflict. What does a guy think when he's edit-warring? He thinks "an admin will be here soon, I have to revert as fast as possible to make sure my version is the one he protects". This is how things are. And no, I'm not saying all this so you would restore the infobox, I'd just like to hear an admins opinion of The System. :) --DIREKTOR(TALK)01:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In broad terms I agree. I do know how infuriating it is when you have a gang of POV pushing sockpuppets who "vote" for consensus and revert in rotation, and then you all get slapped on the wrist and ticked off by some passing admin who knows nothing and cares less. That's what happened to me on all the attachment articles. However, the difficulty is - it requires a great deal more time and research and knowledge than you generally have to start trying to protect the right or even established version, which also exposes the admin to the accusation of partiality or bias. I twice protected what happened to be your version, by chance, on Balkan pages and was accordingly accused of bias by the "other side". It's not as easy as you might think to work out what the established version is when it is not an area in which you have been involved in editing. And anyway the established version might be complete tosh - maintained there by POV pushers. I also agree that "it takes two to edit war" does not seem fair when applied as between someone trying to discuss and maintain a sourced, established version and someone just reverting. Groups of POV pushers and socks will try and tempt editors into 3RR. You will see that not everyone gets blocked for 3RR all the time. My only solution is to try and watch over particular areas so that I get an understanding of the subject and the issues.
The other useful policy is BRD. You have an established version. Someone boldly changes it (E1). An established contributor reverts(E2). Then you discuss. The difficulty with this is the maths. E1 wrongly changes it again without discussing. E2, understandable miffed, reverts again and says please discuss. E1 reverts again. E2 reverts again. At this point, E2 is up to 3 reverts. E1 is not. E1 - who is more in the wrong, will only be up to 3 reverts at his next revert. E1 reverts so they are both on 3RR. At this point, E1 would argue that it would be wrong to block E1 for 3RR, but not E2 who reached 3RR first. On the surface though, the problem is caused by E1 changing an established version and not discussing. However, lets suppose the "established version" is arrant nonsense, protected by edit warriors for years and E1 is adding basic, necessary well sourced information. No admin can always get to the bottom of this on the spot. I suppose that is the thinking behind the strict liability approach to 3RR. Or indeed 8RR as the case may be.Fainitesbarleyscribs13:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dalmatia
Congradulations. With that post on Talk:Fausto Veranzio you just officially entered the old abandoned battlefield of Dalmatia. Where ghosts of edit-wars past still haunt the living.. A strange, upside-down place, where you are bound to see me called a "Croatian nationalist" :). No, Dalmatia is not a dog, its actually a small region of Croatia (yes that's right, its a small region of a tiny country :)).
In all seriousness, you're seeing the tip of the iceberg there. Dalmatia is a region that was populated by South Slavs since the 8th century AD, the hinterland in particular. However its cities on the Adriatic Sea preserved tehir Roman legacy for some time afterwards. Afterwards the cities were ruled by the Venetian Republic for a long time. In essence what that translates to is a place where the lower classes are Slavic, but the higher classes were Romance by ancestry and were increasingly absorbed by the Slavs. A typical noble from the period speaks Slavic at home but is very fluent in Italian and Latin as well. Now as you can see this is a very fine line. The Slavic argument is that these boys were Slavs since they lived and intermarried in a overwhelmingly Slavic area for hundreds and hundreds of years, while the Italian argument is that they are "Italians by ancestry". Of course, those people are indeed Slavic, are the Monarchs of England Germans then? But the matter is complicated by the fact that these people were known to the outside world by their Italian names (e.g. "Fausto Veranzio"), and that error is only being corrected in scientific usage since WWII. Add to that the fact that, well, Slavic languages are damn near incomprehensible to your average English-speaker :) and you have Italian names out there for people who wrote the first dictionary of the Serbo-Croatian language (Faust Vrančić).
(Incidentally Italy entered WWI on the side of the Allies primarily because the latter had promised them the Slav-poulated region of Dalmatia, they did not get it because of Woodrow Wilson, and the outrage contributed quite a bit to Mussolini's rise to power. Fascist Italy then occupied and annexed Dalmatia during WWII.)
The edit wars and disputes about Dalmatia were.. very bad. We lost a lot of good men there, and PTSD is rampant among the former participants. In the end most of the names are now in Slavic form, and the "Italian side" is indeffed almost to a man. Its been quiet for a long time now, and "Fausto Veranzio" is the only remaining hotspot. --DIREKTOR(TALK)14:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, no. Reason why I added this list of persons is to show other users who has the most views, and this could show us who is the more "famous". I didn't propose them to infobox, you can read what I wrote. Second, Mile Budak, he was just an example, we can add Jesus Christ. It was not my attention to extend the discussion. Not at all. DIREKTOR thinks I'm a fascist, but I don't give a damn. I just whant to say that Ivana B.M. should be replaced with more "famous" person, since I think that you are adding her just because of her female organs. That's my point. And as you can see, I agree on every person wich you choose, except her. And my oppinion should be considered.
Second, why I wrote "clean" Croats, this means they are Croats from both sides, nothing to do with "aryanism", just DIREKTOR told me that Malkovich is half French, so I wrote for perosns who's Croatian ethnicity could be disputed, that they are "clean" Croats, from both sides.--Wustenfuchs09:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time: I do NOT think you're a fascist, man! I just think you like them too much for your own good. Judging by your name I'd say you are confusing the Ustaše with the Wehrmacht. I mean, nobody who read about WWII can help but admire the impressive fighting skills of the German army, Rommel, for example, was a great general and a great guy (though von Manstein was a better general :)). But to transfer all that into admiration for the utterly incompetent Ustaše and their cronies, who never won a battle in the entire war, who managed to alienate their own people (outside Herzegovina :)) into joining the Partisans en masse, who's only achievement was to slaughter innocent people by the hundreds of thousands - that is superficial thinking, to say the least. --DIREKTOR(TALK)11:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NLW
I have to ask, what's your current take on the RM at Yugoslav front? Hopefully I've shown that the term does indeed encompass teh entirety of the conflict. Frankly I can't imagine any part that might hypothetically be considered "separate" somehow. Its a very tangled, intertwined war. Fkp is just looking out for the Chetniks' "interests", its what he does. He's also being deliberately vague in his concerns so as to avoid getting immediately proven wrong. On the one occasion he did specify he was talking about the Chetniks (quelle surprise!), it became evident there appear to be more than 250 sources that discuss Chetnik actions as part of the National Liberation War. He says its "like Mars and the Solar System" (how colourful), but he can't seem to show that "Mars" and the "Solar System" are the same thing.
In light of the fact that NLW is not only the most common, but that there really is no other name for the conflict in scholarly use, how can a move possibly be opposed on the grounds of one (clearly very biased) person's uncorroborated claims? Can one really just "proclaim" a title invalid? --DIREKTOR(TALK)21:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! Haven't managed to snaffle much computer access today. I was thinking about it. I don't really have a strong opinion. I can see both sides of the argument and was just trying to clarify it. Certainly it doesn't seem as open and shut to me as it does to you. Anyway, I can't be an involved editor and an admin. The problem is - there is so much repetitive and bad tempered argument on the pages on these issues that keep coming up again and again that I doubt any knowledgeable and interested third parties will want to take part in the debate. That leads to stalemate.Fainitesbarleyscribs21:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:FkpCascais has an uncanny and incrdibly annoying ability to confuse and cloud even the most straightforward issue. In this he takes advantage of the total obscurity of these discussions. He should not be allowed to do so. All he really does is post some random argument he thinks of himself, repeats it over and over again - and presto presento:
1) admins do not want to step in because they're put off by all the empty arguing, and
2) because they're unfamiliar with the issue, they simply take the "middle ground" in spite of the fact that Fkp's incessantly repeated theories and fake arguments have absolutely NO support other than his own claim.
For example: can you tell me why exactly the article should not be moved per commonname?
We'll see what happens. If the article does not get moved, I certainly won't sit quiet, and will bring this up on the admin noticeboard. Someone needs to put a stop to this nonsense, because its just getting ridiculous. Do we follow naming policy around here or do we let politically motivated personally-invented claims present themselves as some sort of a vaild "argument" because of the obscurity of the article subject? --DIREKTOR(TALK)17:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise Fainites, but I need your help. User:PRODUCER is "having fun" by adding the mentioned category and labeling as "Collaborators" a series of biographies that are actually dependent on the outcome of the Mihailovic mediation. The least he could do is respect and wait for the outcome. Can you please help me to stop this rushed "in panic" nazification of several figures. The user should have participated in the mediation, instead of having fun all around editing the same articles. FkpCascais (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That mediation concerns Mihailovic and the Chetniks article not every fucking individual Chetnik article in existence. In reality this has nothing to do with the mediation just Fkp's emotional attachment to this subject and his nonsense reasons ("lets all go back to blind nationalism and write all the worste about eachother." "nazification") used to remove categories that are backed by sources. --◅PRODUCER(TALK)12:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Fuckin´", exactly, that describes your neutrality when editing the subject and refering to them. And yes, the article IS related to the mediation. Again, your intervention on the article was about the addition of "collaborator" in the lead and the inclusion of the category. Later, after I confronted you, you edited more. Now, I still don´t see that the article actually allows you to highlight in the lede the "collaborator" neither to include him the nazy category based on Tito trial. You are well known for your nationalistic attachment to articles related to the region. And, to tell you the trouth, I am not attached to the articles, at least not as much as you fuckin´ hate them (did I edited the article, don´t think so). Live and hate, but not here on WP, and go call nazy and talk "fuckin´" someone else, and in the face rather than hidding behind a cp. This is not the place for you to amuse and name nazy who you want and talk obcenities. You´re in a wrong place. FkpCascais (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "confronting" me I'll be adding more regardless. In fact, I'm planning on expanding on the antisemitism of the Chetniks which you may enjoy. :) Yes, please continue going on and on about how everyone is nationalistic and how you're the epitome of neutrality. You're apparently so emotionally attached to this subject that you feel the need to write about your struggle with helping the Pavelic article and feel the need to bring up your ancestry in the mediation.
"Live and hate, but not here on WP, and go call nazy and talk "fuckin´" someone else, and in the face rather than hidding behind a cp." Wow, words escape me for nonsense like this. With statements coming from participants like this no wonder the mediation is a sham. --◅PRODUCER(TALK)13:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don´t see the point of your comment. Yes, I try to be as objective as I can, and for time being I think that I can be proud of most of my edits on wiki, specially the ones on polemic areas such these. Yes, I may feel heated sometimes and tell some personal stuff, but at least I don´t call people nazy´s around and talk obscenities. And yes, Pavelic article can perfectly be used as exemple for the other war leaders from that period in the region. And you are free to write whatever you want, but you need much more for dearing to constantly name nazy´s historical figures. You can make neutral edits, but such hard acusations need to be much more sourced before inserting them. Perhaps you don´t feel ofended for being called nazy, but many people does. And if you don´t have a strong, or better, a group of sources, and some academic agreement on it, you are not doing anything else but insulting. FkpCascais (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am apparently unable to have a private discussion here. I have moved the post to my talkpage, Fainites. I have also reported User:Timbouctou for WP:HOUNDING and truly numerous personal attacks [22], something I should have done immediately instead of enduring such unprovoked, continuous abuse. --DIREKTOR(TALK)02:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no wish to bicker over anything with anyone on talk pages of third parties such as Fainites. However, let it be known that I too can and - should the need arise - will provide quite a substantial amount of evidence about the long-time disruptive editing the above user has engaged in. I would like nothing more than an admin or two to look at edit histories of both me and him over a longer period of time and identify any patterns which might occur and if what is found merits equal treatment. I never had a conflict with anyone in over five years on Wikipedia, while DIREKTOR is universally known as a difficult editor and has built up this reputation by engaging in constant edit wars where he displayed time and again total unwillingness to contribute to this project in a collaborative manner. It is true that this thing blew over Talk:Croats, but it is entirely untrue that it was the sole reason for it. I've been watching what he is allowed to get away with for months now and the bizarre squabble over at Talk:Croats was just a point at which I could not bear myself to tolerate it anymore.
I have witnessed him being downright abusive to other editors, not stopping for one second to assume good faith; I have seen him chase away novice editors with his aggressive attitude, I have seen him grossly misinterpret wiki policies and I have seen him aggressively insisting on being the only one who's right about something even when facing a huge body of arguments and evidence which prove otherwise. And as much as he likes to represent himself as a very knowledgeable and useful editor, from what I have seen a great majority of his edits consist of tinkering with info boxes, succession boxes, article title moves and/or vehemently insisting on slapping unencylopedic labels such as "war criminal" in articles of people who were never convicted of any. Although he often claims that the resulting conflicts are due to some some fictional "grudge" that people have against him on a personal level or that "this is what it's like when you edit Balkans-related articles", this is totally untrue. I cannot speak for the Balkans as a whole but I can say that the large majority of Croatian and Serbian editors I happened to meet were reasonable people open to discussion, while the usual small minority were passing-by POV warriors who could have been handled in a way more diplomatic manner. His excuses that it is all "because of stress" or that he gets tired every now and then is hardly any justification for his outbursts of personal attacks and belittling remarks. We all get stressed and we all unavoidably have our points of views - but no editor I ever had the chance to work with had such a short temper and was so quick to degrade the talk page into a flood of aggressive attacks.
The difficulty of dealing with Direktor is widely known and many articles he shows up on end up stalled simply because nobody reasonable wants to bother with him and his arguments based on grossly misinterpreted policies. He often uses these to propose changes which are against the consensus, but insists stubbornly on them. Recent examples of this include:
Talk:Yugoslav Front - which he unsuccessfully tried to rename twice. Notice that the largely reasonable and well-established WP:Croatia editors such as User:TheWanderer and User:Joy had put forth a number of objections to his reasoning in the first poll in January, but simply didn't care enough to show up again in the re-run in March. I actually took a closer look at the Google results he used as an argument and pointed out why they are plan wrong. You can assume where it went from there.
Talk:Ante Pavelić - where he started a pointless edit war over two weeks ago over the idea that the info box should include Ante's largely non-notable children. User:Wustenfuchs (a relatively new editor who is still learning the ropes here but who is genuinely interested in improving the article and has done a lot on it recently) rightfully removed the line as the children are mentioned in the body but was reverted by Direktor who opined in the edit summary that "It is not for us to decide what is "relevant". If there's an entry for it in the infobox - the info shall be included." - a policy which simply does not exist anywhere on Wikipedia. Needless to say, Direktor did not even attempt discussing it in the talk page and the thing was "resolved" when Wustefuchs simply agreed to Direktor's poorly argued case on Direktor's talk page just so that the protection would be lifted. So this was no consensus, it was Direktor (a rather uninvolved editor) bullying the somewhat naive Wustenfuchs into agreeing to his whim, which was in turn based on a complete misunderstanding of policies regarding info boxes. Btw, this topic was maybe one of the first ones in which I got to observe Direktor's "editing" style firsthand, because - quite ironically - he invited me to drop a comment at the talk page in November 2010 about the proposed lead changes. I did my best to normalize the discussion at the time but it soon became apparent that Direktor is doing more work destroying constructive efforts by User:Wustenfuchs than actually contributing to it. Points of contention were Direktor's insistence that the lead must say that he was a "war criminal" and squabbles over info boxes, succession boxes, etc. Belittling of Wustenfuchs by Direktor included.
Talk:Josif Runjanin (a Serb Croat best known for composing Croatia's anthem) which he recently moved to Josip Runjanin (the Croatian version of the name). A discussion followed, in which Direktor again proclaimed the superiority of his methodically flawed ideas about Google testing. Of course, in spite of reasonable objections by two other experienced editors, he never changed his mind. However, he did not miss the opportunity to end the discussion with a small offtopic chauvinist rant directed half-jokingly at a Serbian editor.
Talk:Prime Minister of Croatia - where he rejected a reasonable proposal by me to split the list into prime ministers 1945-1990 (when Croatia was a federal unit of Yugoslavia) and 1990-onwards. The discussion stalled and ended with another editor describing Direktor's opinion as "extreme".
Talk:Aloysius Stepinac which looks like a festival of Direktor's time-wasting tactics. I did not participate in the discussion myself but highlights include User:Fainites explaining to him how WP:OR works and User:Jesuislafete still waiting for a response from Direktor to an 18-point summary of allegedly controversial bits of the article. Name-calling and belittling was also included.
Talk:Croats which is a long story itself, but suffice it to say that after a long and winded discussion and the resulting poll in November 2010 editors collectively reached some sort of consensus on who to include in the infobox, after spending an obscene amount of time on debating about Tito (championed by Direktor, of course). By the time it was over the discussion got stale and nobody was interested in actually composing a collage for the infobox. Enter March 2011 and Direktor's own creation called Template:Croats, which differed significantly from what the consensus was. Needless to say, even before I joined the discussion there was a considerable amount of belittling by Direktor directed towards User:Wustenfuchs, in which he used German phrases and referred to the former as "Herr Feldmarschall", again, not stopping to assume good faith. When I showed up and asked why isn't the former consensus honored all I got was explanations of Direktor's pseudo-scientific methods through which he arrived to a list of 16 people. Needles to say, the method produced a list in which 11-12 out of 16 people were politicians, which I'm sure didn't bother him, a politics-obsessed editor. Insults, personal attacks and pretty much the entire catalogue of what does not belong in talk pages followed. He did not even want to discuss the selection initially. By this point I was sick and tired of him and I intentionally provoked my first ever edit war to draw the attention of an admin and start a discussion because by then I knew what his editing pattern was (see below). We know how that turned out eventually.
Talk:Serbs of Croatia - a shortened version of the whole mess at Talk:Croats which quickly descended into mud-slinging. Direktor still insisted on his own inventive way of "objectively" using Google to determine who should be in it. Then Momčilo Đujić and the "war criminal" label came up and we had the same exchange as we once had over Pavelić, only this time it was heated from the onset due to the mess as Talk:Croats and it ended nowhere.
A lot of the times his editing has been described by others as POV-pushing and certainly there is some reason to this - a fine example is him inserting a now-deleted image of Tito in the article about HNK Hajduk Split, Tito's favorite football club, as well as adding an overly detailed section about the club's Partisan roots, in February 2011. Other symptoms include an obsession with the phrase "fascist puppet state" on which he insists every time and any place the Independent State of Croatia is mentioned, him insisting on the phrase "National Liberation War" for the Yugoslav Front article, his absolute insisting on the continuity of Croatia's governments and superficial changes the system went through from 1945 to 1990, to the point of edits such as this one - which absurdly details each and every change in the name of the official title of the prime minister. FYI, most people in Croatia have no idea who most of the prime ministers of Croatia were up to 1990 and all the official state-published chronologies begin with the year 1990. So this is not disruptive per se but it does say something about his obsessions. Another symptom is painting Alojzije Stepinac in overtly negative light completely needlessly (like a statement on Talk:Croats in which he opines "What exactly did Stepinac do? (Besides pray constantly for the heavens to guide (quote) "our illustrious Fuhrer Ante Pavelić" and get locked up for it for 5 years?". True, Stepinac is a controversial figure and nothing here is black-and-white but he is set to be beatified by the Pope and is regarded in a fairly positive light by most Croats today, many of whom would be offended by such a statement. He knows this very well. He is also slightly paranoid about the term "communist" which he perceives as derogatory and is known for playing a victim when someone calls him that.
Now I do not have a problem with his POV - I think we both share pretty much the same anti-fascist views and I am an atheist like he is - and besides, we are all human and are bound to have our opinions which sometimes get in the way. But I do have a tremendous problem with his attitude and misuse of Wikipedia policies. I could even understand and tolerate his mistakes if he were willing to learn from consensus or even if he was willing to put in an effort to achieve it. Alas, he just seems too short-tempered to be able to learn. He has been on Wikipedia for some 3 years now and I tend to think that if he hasn't learned the principles of communication, the ideas behind WP:OR and WP:COMMONNAME and importance of consensus by now, he probably never will. By now it seems to me that his editing has fallen into a pattern: he usually has a few article in which he keeps a flame war temporarily on hold (like most of the articles above), he then picks an article and provokes some sort of a conflict over something marginal, knowing and in fact almost hoping that others will react. Usually this is based on some distortion of wiki policy. This is followed by a discussion which usually takes the form of "Direktor's way or no way because Direktor knows better" and soon descends into him belittling others. If somebody loses it and responds in the same manner (especially less inexperienced editors), he immediately reports it and plays a victim. When it turns into a full-blown mess he will get a ban or a warning and he will lay low for a couple of weeks, after which the whole process will start over. Unlike me, he is very well informed about the inner workings of Wikipedia and the way admins (do not) operate, and uses it to his full advantage. You will see him kissing up to admins, you will see him becoming polite when he knows he's being watched, and you will see him descending into a very stubborn rage-filled little monster when they are gone. In short - he is a troll gaming the system.
There are at least three little tragedies here:
1. The tragedy of him rarely actually contributing to Wikipedia since it is not really his goal. He likes posing as an established editor but he rarely, if ever, works to actually improve articles and make them stable. Ante Pavelić is a fine example of this. He spent days debating details of the info box on the talk page but the majority of the text you see in the article was written only after User:Wustenfuchs arrived and survived the initial round of provocations by Direktor.
2. The tragedy of trolls being replicated this way - I assume Direktor was once a normal editor who became like this because in his earlier days there may have been nationalist trolls and Direktor had to become one to battle them as admins didn't really do much about it. And now in Talk:Serbs of Croatia you even see Direktor commending Wustenfuchs' imitation of Direktor's flawed pseudo-scientific and pseudo-objective methods which Direktor truly believes are the cutting edge in scientific rigor but are anything but. Furthermore, I have to almost become a troll myself in order to battle Direktor's bad influence and disruptive ways. It is not something I enjoy.
3. The tragedy of other established Croatian editors (far more experienced than me) who know the score and who tolerate him even if they think that his ideas on less controversial articles are bizarre. I may be wrong but it does seem to me that they see him as useful for combating trolls of other extremist inclinations over articles such as the ones about Chetniks, and thus promote the idea that if he is representing the "good" side then trolling is tolerable. Or as one comment I once saw by a Croatian editor put it - "Direktor is a difficult editor with POV but it is often the right POV".
Now I don't intend to paint myself as an angel and I admit that in spite of efforts to keep calm I did resort to insults and that I did lose my temper in the last few days at talk pages of several of the above articles. Yes, I did provoke an edit war at Talk:Croats because I realised Direktor simply would not listen otherwise. And I did visit articles which I knew were on his watch list because I figured that he is in no position to stall constructive editing at the moment, so why not take advantage of that. However, I do not plan to apologize for it because I was grossly provoked. If I added a list of his belittling posts and arrogant remarks this essay would probably be twice its current size. But I will say that Direktor's activities on Wikipedia are way beyond what any reasonable admin would tolerate if he followed him around closely and just kept an eye on what he was doing.
I've been here almost five and a half years, much of it spent out of harms way editing and creating articles on all things Croatian from football and film to companies and museums. I have tried my best to be helpful in any place I dabbled in and I generally avoided articles I knew were hotspots of warring. I deeply resent that an angry kid such as Direktor forced me to stoop to his level, even describing me as someone who "does not do any work around here". I am deeply saddened that his actions may have chased away god knows how many local people from editing the English Wikipedia as maybe some of them would have stayed, adopted polices and turned into useful contributors. To me that is just horrible as I believe that no one deserves to be treated the way he treats people, regardless of their views and even if they come here with hidden agendas. Yes, he is right about some things some of the time - but he is also very belligerent and disruptive almost all of the time.
But I am also terribly disappointed by Wikipedia. I am a firm believer in the Wikipedia cause and one would expect that there would be some system which would be able to detect the likes of him and deal with them. Unfortunately, there is no such thing. Well I am not putting up with him any longer. I refuse to just move along and pretend everything's fine when it is not. If I have to get myself banned in order to prove it to the world then so be it. Users such as Direktor are the main reason why Balkan-related articles are in the state in which they are and why the whole region is being treated on Wikipedia as if it consists of uncivilized barbarians. Again, I would be more than happy, almost ecstatic, if no one believed me and if someone neutral took the time and investigated if what I said here is really true. I am also prepared to suffer any sanctions if such an investigation shows any faults on my part. Being a useful editor is not a glamorous job and all we have to show for it at the end of the day is a nickname and an occasional barnstar. I'm not big on barnstars - but it is very important to me that no one on Wikipedia will ever be able to say that Timbouctou did him wrong or said something he did not mean. So far I have kept a perfect track record.
Of course, I have no doubts that this post will be ridiculed because of its length and some of its content, and I really wonder if anyone, including Fainites, will actually read it. But I must also add that I feel so much better now because 99% of the time one feels like there's nobody out here willing to listen, even with (or because of) the immense bureaucracy this project has built around itself. So I suppose it served some purpose after all. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Timbouctou I have read it. I have been involving myself for some time now in attempting to bring some order to Balkans pages. It is too easy in contentious areas to simply jump to conclusions and tick of everybody without getting to the root of the problem. I put warning notices on both your pages, not as an exercise in equality but because at the time you were descending into abusive exchanges. Suffice it to say I have been giving considerable thought about the conduct of some editors in this area - including DIREKTOR, and have only not been more active in the last couple of days because all the kids are ill! Fainitesbarleyscribs13:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Truly sorry if I sounded offensive. I was speaking out of frustration because of the entire situation and I never meant anything towards you directly. I saw your comment over at WP:ANI and I fully support your observations. From what Direktor posted there it seems that his intention is making things as complicated as possible for you in the hope of chasing you away from Balkans-related articles. Please do not let this discourage or deter you. This area is clearly in desperate need of a sensible admin willing to stick around and at least observe what's going on. Regards. Timbouctou (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Apparently Direktor reported me for WP:HOUND and WP:NPA. I find that quite ironic. Also, from what the instructions say on top of the WP:ANI he "should have discussed it with me on my talk page". Which he didn't even attempt. Ah well. I might also add that he saw some reason to withdraw his comments from Talk:Serbs of Croatia before reporting me. Did he regret them or is he manipulating again? I guess we will never know. Timbouctou (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your question about sources at Serbs of Croatia talk page
Hi Fainites, I apologise not having answered to you when you posted your question to me at Serbs of Croatia talk page, but since other wiki and non-wiki issues came up both you and me ended a bit accupied these days. Regarding your question, I think my position is not fully understood. For exemple, we have a text:
Chetnik Chetniković, was a Serbian Chetnik commander.
Now, the already existing sources source the fact that he was the Chetnik commander. I don´t need to search for more sources. Now, if someone edits and adds this:
Chetnik Chetniković, was a Serbian Chetnik commander and a collaborator. further adding to it a category: Serbian nazy collaborators
well, we see the sources if they source the addition. The person that added the nazy and collaboration acusations is the one needing to have sources to confirm that, and in this case those sources need to be at least clear and reliable (strong) because we are talking about a polemical heavy accusation, couvered by WP:REDFLAG. Now, as I know wikipedia doesn´t prohibit anywhere a person to be simply acting as a defence lawyier, right? I don´t need sources because I am not ading anything, but I can challenge the edits considering that the sources don´t allow the editor to make those additions. That is pretty much my position at Chetniks related articles. There is a difference in the approach. I haven´t been having much time to search more sources and stuff, but also have in mind that I don´t want to leave the impression the sources provided by that user couver his acusations. The editor adding content needs sources.
P.S.: Thank you for finaly making the right decition about an editor that was failing to receve the message when fogiven. If necessary please fell free to contact me in case you need evidence of disruption by that user. I really hope you´ll finaly see that the former Yugoslavia related articles are not full of uncivil editors. If ou notece, when removing the discussions where that participant commented, you´re left with quite normal discussions and mostly normal and civil people. FkpCascais (talk) 08:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean from your example. However, there are lots of good sources describing collaboration in varying degrees. My concern is the black and white nature of how these things are portrayed whereas in fact the sources are full of nuances. JJG's draft makes extensive use of a source that is scarcely ever mentioned on other talkpages.Fainitesbarleyscribs12:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly because they don´t serve the purpouse of some other users :) I lack time to go into details, and my point here is really not to allow editors work like JJG to be sabotaged, and no exagerations in form of nazification to be added. I´ll really have to find time for the mediation to dive into sources because seems all others have left. If you notece, very few had patience to tolerate endless debates with direktor and just gave up. FkpCascais (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the exemple, the source sources some collaboration with Italians, now it is just a case of considering it enough for that edit in the lede and the category, or not. The question is that this editors use any source saying something like this go directly to the lead and use the most acusational sources on that area. FkpCascais (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have issued a short block (which can be lengthened should they return to it) and rolled back the edits per WP:BAN. If you (DIREKTOR) note any other obvious Ragusino socks you can report them to me on my talkpage as well as here. I would comment that the restriction enacted by Fainites would not preclude the reporting of such matters of blatant vandalism or ban evasion, since these are not topic related. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for you intervention, Less. He'll be back, though, he always is. The proud owner of some 16 or so indeffed socks does not just go away.
Thankfully I am indeed left with some options. Unfortunately you good folks are unlikely to be able to help me with less obvious POV-pushers more intelligent than old butt-your-head-against-the-wall Ragusino. --DIREKTOR(TALK)19:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Fainites, I just asked direktor about his words naming Timmy-"Bull***t" a fellow editor of ours, hopping he will remove it and understand his mistake, but instead he left the PA and deleted my comment. Seems a lost case. I´m out. FkpCascais (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Admins really are just janitors, and you need to use another of the avenues for dispute resolution to address issues that are more nuanced than simple vandalism, block evasion, disruptive editing and personal attacks. An RfC would be pointless in this instance, because it would quickly example the issues of nationalist pov, alleged cabalism, and poor communications that would be the subject. Perhaps mediation or WP:3O might be an avenue to explore? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Not sure what you two are actually discussing, I apologise from myself and leave a note here) I apologise to all about my commets on direktors talk page. I admit my childish mistake of trying to make a point where really isn´t anything to prove. Direktor should also take in consideration that by being topic banned that doesn´t mean he can´t edit other subjects and that he can limit himself to make unfair comments about other users, including actual insults, on his talk page. However, wrong is not fixed with further wrong, or semi wrong, or whatever wrong, so I apologise for my own conduct and send regards to all. FkpCascais (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like "synchronized swimming"? Fkp has learned that by prostrating himself he can get away with almost any amount of abuse and gloating. He uses this amazing "ability" frequently and without substance. Lets watch how it achieves the desired result once more... --DIREKTOR(TALK)22:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually apologising you, despite that you haven´t removed neither showed any regreat for any of the ugly things you said about me, or the other participants. I apologised to you and to other intervenients, you didn´t apologised, and you seem not to even intend to. A difference? Definitely. These were my last words on this, and I can´t be clearer. FkpCascais (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it was Gavrilo Princip he'd be extremely well preserved if not editing on the "ether"net. No, I just assumed the name and date (1914) was a homage to the original.Fainitesbarleyscribs20:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see you´re having good eye for these things, nice one. However, Gavrilo is not so rare name, and 14 may be his favourite number. But, Mr. Princip just killed me... You gave him green-light, lets see if he´s the "Gavrilo 14 lucky number", or the real one. If it comes to be the second you better hide. These people started world wars, just for fun! Oh, Jesus, by belly still hurts... FkpCascais (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are now involved on teh Chetniks article, I'd like to take the liberty of posting Ramet's brief description of the Chetnik movement she uses as the lead for the relevant chapter. The Three Yugoslavias (pp. 145-146) [24].
"Both the Chetniks political program and the extent of their collaboration have been amply, even voluminously, documented; it is more than a bit disappointing, thus, that people can still be found who believe that the Chetniks were doing anything besides attempting to realize a vision of an ethnically homogenous Greater Serbian state, which they intended to advance, in the short run, by a policy of collaboration with the Axis forces. The Chetniks collaborated extensively and systematically with the Italian occupation forces until the Italian capitulation in September 1943, and beginning in 1944, portions of the Chetnik movement of Draža Mihailović collaborated openly with the Germans and Ustaša forces in Serbia and Croatia. Moreover, as already mentioned, the Chetniks loyal to Kosta Pećanac collaborated with the Germans from early in the war. (...)
For the Chetniks the war provided an excellent opportunity to put their program into effect, and between autumn 1942 and spring 1943 the Chetniks carried out slaughters of Croatian [and Muslim] civilians in a wave of teror (...) Roatta [General Mario Roatta], commander of the second army, protested these 'massive slaughters' and threatened to cut off Italian supplies and money if Chetnik depradations against noncombatant civilians did not end.."
Mind you, some of these facts are gainsaid by Tomasevich who can (by way of actual records of collaboration agreements) show that the Chetnik-Ustaše collaboration took place since early 1942 in Bosnia, as opposed to after September 1943. --DIREKTOR(TALK)14:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Fainites, Chetniks were collaborating with Ustase (the ones making Greater Croatia), but in same time Chetniks were killing in mass Croats (does this make sence?), then Chetniks wanting to create Greater Serbia by "collaborating with Axis" (the same Axis that reduced Serbia to minimum, and the German anymosity towards Serbs was well know since even before the First WW), what else, yes right, then Italians "feeling sorry" for Croats being slaughtered by Chetniks, when we all know that the main goal of Italians was actually in collition with Croatia regarding the coast, so... Ah! And notece how Ramet (a trou expert) actually enters into direct POV by saying what it says in the first sentence. Oh direktor, your Maradona´s are just ordinary POV players... FkpCascais (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the short run, Fkp. Its called opportunism. If the Axis won the war they're done in any case, but if the Allies win the war then their greatest threat are the Partisans. To destroy the Partisans is, in fact, by far the smarter thing to do than to desperately fight the Axis with no hope of actual victory (on their own). This is not just a Yugoslav mode of thinking, we can find it also in occupied Poland, Greece, and France.
On the one hand we have Ramet who explicitly states that they "intended to realize a vision of an ethnically homogenous Greater Serbian state, which they intended to advance, in the short run, by a policy of collaboration with the Axis forces". And on the other hand we have Wikipedia User:FkpCascais who thinks this is impossible because he personally does not find it logical. Truly a dilemma. An excellent example, endemic for this entire dispute.
The interesting thing is that Ramet actually responds to the possibility of nationalist dissenting voices contradicting the "ample, voluminous documentation" about their collaboration. We now have an actual source that explicitly describes Fkp's position as "more than a bit disappointing". I tend to agree with the scholar in that characterization. --DIREKTOR(TALK)15:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we discussing this here in first place? Why are you trying to convince Fainites about it? Why did you give up convincing Sunray? Why you take one or two sources (your "Maradona´s") and blindly ignore everything else? Why you don´t even bother to de-bold the words you actually searched from google search (collaboration, Chetniks, Mihailovic)? Why all this? Is this some desperate move to convince anyone? FkpCascais (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fainites, please keep an eye on the articles of Momčilo Đujić and Pavle Đurišić. Fkp is constantly removing information and categories that are backed by reliable references under the false pretense that it's somehow "lead missinformation" or that it's involved in the mediation and non-editable. --◅PRODUCER(TALK)19:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How would you break the deadlock?
One side posts a source. The other side either ignores or refuses to accept the source. An edit-war starts over the removal of these sources, and a mediation is started. For one year the mediation carries on in the same pattern: one side posts sources, the other side refuses to accept them ("communist sources!", Ramet, e.g. has already been "dismissed" there before). The mediator, as you say, is not an arbitrator and does/can not really do anything. How to break the deadlock? --DIREKTOR(TALK)21:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense in old Chinese translations, ho yeah
I have not seen a translation of that particular book, but Mao-era PRC translations contain some of the most arrant nonsense you'll ever see in print. But it wasn't considered nonsense; the translators and editors thought they were correcting the texts to add information that the religion-addled capitalist running dogs censored out. And the next translation, if there was one, might allege the sheer opposite. (Mao's era was known for wild swings between anti-Western intellectualism and pure anti-intellectualism - many translators later ended up in labour camps charged with counter-revolutionary sentiments simply because they could understand English.) A claim that doctors or scientists were controlled by the Christian church would have been run-of-the-mill, as it denigrated both Western medicine and Western religion and implied that Western science was neither as free nor as scientifically based as Chinese medicine. It's not that I wouldn't be surprised to find that in a PRC translation, it's that I would be very surprised if such claims didn't show up once or twice a chapter or even page in any Mao-era translated scientific text. --NellieBly (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh. I knew about the "Chinese invented everything" bit but I didn't know it was part of their propaganda that we were all madly religious! Still - Foghlopy can always come and talk and explain. Fainitesbarleyscribs08:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you need to know? I'm off to the Winnipeg Public Library's main branch next week to return a book and they've got to have better local slang dictionaries there than at even an excellent university library in Portland. I can also see if there's a dictionary of Newfoundland slang if you need it, since Newfoundland English is a different dialect from the rest of North American English. --NellieBly (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to do so and I'll be at the library on Tuesday at the latest. However, I've run into a snag: it appears that there is no such thing as a scholarly book on Canadian slang. Searching through Google Scholar, Google Books, amazon.ca, Chapters Books, and a general Google search, I can only find three books of Canadian slang in existence: "Dictionary of Canadianisms", a satirical mass market paperback; "Slangalicious", a juvenile mass market paperback; and "Western Canadian Dictionary and Phrasebook", publication date 1912. The second and third are available at the local library so I'll give them a look for you, and I'll also check the numerous standard Canadian and Newfoundland dictionaries in the reference section. I'll scan anything I find relevant to your queries and e-mail the scans to you.
In retrospect this doesn't surprise me. It's a common belief among both scholars and the general public that Canadians don't use as much slang as other anglophones, so it's less likely that anyone would study the issue. It may be that slang makes communication more difficult given so many Canadians speak English as a second language, but I suspect it's the fact that slang has traditionally been seen in English Canada as low-class and uneducated. Also, none of the terms you suggested are familiar to me as slang, and I asked one of the girls across the road (age ten) and none of them are familiar to her. She says they'd call a truce "timeout" or just simply "time". --NellieBly (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should add (as if this wasn't tl;dr enough): if you know the name or publisher of the book you referred to let me know. It may not be available, just not classified under the search terms I used. --NellieBly (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great. Maybe I was thinking of the Oxford Canadian Dictionary. There is also one called the Dictionary of Canadianisms on Historical Principles (Dictionary of Canadian English). It's published by Gage and written by S. Walters. The editor-in-chief is Avis. It was published in 1967. The 1912 one sounds promising. I would anticipate they only use time-out now - from televised sports, but the original ones would have come over from Britain and then up from the US.Fainitesbarleyscribs20:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fainites. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
POV wording
The words "seems to" you removed from the Aloysius Stepinac article are the exact words of prof. Bernd Jurgen Fischer, and represent his assessment of the credibility of such claims of private criticism based the fact that they are founded entirely on unsupported testimony from the archbishop's friends. Such claims should, in fact, probably be removed altogether should we wish to avoid unencyclopedic wording by dabbling in hearsay.
Contrary to what you may have come to believe (and unlike many of my Balkans "colleagues"), I do strive to represent the sources to the best of my ability when I write on Wiki. Belligerence in itself does not mean bias, and a belligerent attitude in defense of sources and objectivity (in an environment where that seems necessary) should IMO be lauded. In any case, unless you are accusing Fischer of POV, I suggest you restore the wording he chose, as opposed to asserting something more strongly than the historian dared. --DIREKTOR(TALK)15:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that sentence is sourced to somebody called Richard West, a journalist, and is a very vague and badly worded sentence all round. Defending sources and NPOV doesn't require belligerence - or threats. Fainitesbarleyscribs16:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Threats? What "threats"? I do not "threaten" people.)
Then somebody removed the reference I posted when I wrote that. I recommend you easily verify my above statement by viewing the Fischer source on the listed page (I believe I provided a link in the article).
Admins do not indeed require more aggressive debating, as opposed to editors left for the most part to their own devices in dealing with constant vandalism in a belligerent topic of Wikipedia. You could not be more wrong. Simply because a fact is sourced, does by no means mean it will not need aggressive support when faced with mythical beliefs such as e.g creationism or rabid Balkans nationalism.
Re my topic ban. You may rest assured I have no intention of editing on Balkans articles. I wont even protest in the slightest as I said, mostly because of experience with such appeals I've seen others post, but also because I could use a break and may even have deserved it after all. I will take the opportunity to take break, though, as I said, so while I do intend to rejoin the mediation discussion I should like to do so when I can edit fully elsewhere. The mediation lasted a year, it can wait a dew more weeks. Should you wish to prevent me from posting anywhere on Balkans topics regardless, you can of course expand the sanction to a complete topic ban.. --DIREKTOR(TALK)16:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) ...because at this point I'm so busy the ban may well translate into better grades in the coming finals :). Alas! for I was not alway this swamped and had a lot more time for Wikipedia. I will then, with your leave, take this opportunity for a Wikibreak. I'm sure the mediation will not suffer overmuch if its duration is extended from 44 to 47 weeks. --DIREKTOR(TALK)17:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Up to you. I suppose they may decide to proceed without you. I don't know. Anyway - regarding Stepinac - you added that sentence here and it has at all times been cited to West. The adequacy of this source was raised on the talkpage I recall. Fainitesbarleyscribs17:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I followed strictly Wikipedia rules: even-handledly presenting the facts and neutral point of view. As to the 3RR rule, did not think that I violated it. Painting a war criminal as a national hero is yet another nonsense (which Wikipedia rules, certainly, do not support) I tried to counter.
But, if you are eager to exercise your admin power, i.e. to block the IP address I'm using now, go ahead. It will be yet another proof that Wikipedia is ruled by idiots, for idiots do not have to follow any rules. --71.178.115.169 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you will note I didn't block you - hence your ability to come and complain about it here. I was warning you as 3RR is a strict liability offence. Experienced editors know this and will run it to the wire so that inexperienced editors cross it and get blocked. (I am not saying this is what was happening here.) Fainitesbarleyscribs16:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fainties, the argument was made in scholarly texts too, and the reference was provided by someone else in the heading paragraph. I reworded my text and provided this different reference. Btw, though I'm no expert and personally certainly have few sympathies with those who want to portray Tito's Partisans as equally criminal to the parties they fought, I see this as a legitimate interpretation which IMO needs to be included to fully appreciate the complexity of the situation in Yugoslavia at the end of WWII. – MirancheTC01:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, Fainites, you allways insist how I better not respond when wrongly acused of something, but once I don´t respond and hope you´ll see things wright by your own, you fail. So seems that it is better after all to clarify allways things... I left you an answer on this on my talk page. FkpCascais (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I may make an altogether detached remark. Fkp has a rather bad habbit of following people around and immediately swamping any conversation with his own posts. Just here for example, Producer addressed you yourself, Fainites, no doubt intending to have a (presumably two-sided) conversation with you. Yet very quickly Fkp arrives essentially spreading the debate from some article or other to someone's talkpage. While I am not implying this is anything more than the most basic instinct at work (as opposed to some premeditated "scheme"), what this does is it draws attention from what the original post intended and creates an air of petty conflict discouraging any involvement. It makes it nearly impossible to address anyone with regard to any conflict Fkp is involved in. --DIREKTOR(TALK)02:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Direktor, why are you commenting this? Were you involved in any way? No, you didn´t, and I actually intervene when I do, so you are talking about your behaviour here.
Now, I was talking exactly on the oposite. I saw PRODUCER´s (manipulated) complain here to Fainites inmediately, and I didn´t said anything. It was Fainites who posted on my talkpage afterwords, and it was only then that I posted here. Right Fainites? FkpCascais (talk)
Please do something about the Kusturica article. I have asked Fkp to revert his version and he has not. His behavior should not be condoned. --◅PRODUCER(TALK)13:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't jump to it for the telling PRODUCER and who is to say you are right in this consensus-driven environment? However, I have been thinking about it. There doesn't seem any point protecting the WP:WRONGVERSION. On the other hand - agreement was reached on the talkpage in February and according to WP:BRD, there should have been a discussion after your first revert. I was proposing to contact the editors who took part in the earlier discussion and invite them back to take part in a further discussion. Mind you - this kind if thing does not engender confidence.Fainitesbarleyscribs16:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BRD and WP:WRONGVERSION are indeed in contradiction. According to WP:BRD, the new disputed version is in fact the wrong version. Frankly, WP:WRONGVERSION is both rather insulting, overly simplistic and in fact goes against good editing etiquette. Essentially an excuse for a superficial approach to conflict resolution. --DIREKTOR(TALK)16:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the problems with WP:WRONGVERSION. We discussed this before remember? My view is that it makes sense given that it is generally impossible for most admins to fully analyse a dispute before acting to protect, but in an ideal world it shouldn't be necessary. I also think there are problems with WP:BRD - see our discussion above.Fainitesbarleyscribs16:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realize that and the consensus was to maintain that in the lead, but why do you insist on me following BRD if you aren't going to enforce it and tell me to follow a fringe rule that is contradictory to it.
What I actually did, PRODUCER, was not block you for 3RR but opened up the discussion again on the talkpage. You were quite right that you were reverting to the agreed, established version. Howver, it is Bold, Revert, Discuss, not Bold, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert. WP:BRRRRRR. However, the final reverter, Fkp, has a point with WP:OPENPARA. Fainitesbarleyscribs22:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise needed
Hello, can you please see talk page at Josif Runjanin article?
Not disputing it has political connotations - so therefore didn't quite understand your "not quite James" correction - the silliness does exist on both sides because regardless of what politics one associates with it, the rationales put forward for both add and delete have achieved truly absurdist proportions. I don't enter into critiques of the gaming that goes on generally though - I am appealing for a rules-based approach. If you and other admins would support that, the sniping could be rounded up. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right
I didn't follow up on your reply on ANI, but you're absolutely right and I was slightly confused by what you wrote. Thanks for clarifying things on my talk page: I am in total agreement with you. Sorry that there was any misunderstanding. I'll add a note on ANI. Cheers, Mathsci (talk)
Hello. I am sorry to bother you, but I am having a real problem trying to discuss the matter on the Iranian Space Agency page. The new editor, who I suspect is the same as the anonymous IP address, is extremely aggressive, and prefers to make threats and accusations, rather than to simply discuss the material presented. I recognize this editor's writing style as well, and I think he is a banned editor. I don't want to fight over edits, but it is difficult to have any constructive input with someone who repeatedly calls you a racist, etc. Any thoughts? The Scythian21:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have already put up this for discussion: [30]. Scythian's behavior is very accusative and not sensible. Trying to lobby support for one's erroneous position by throwing accusations around to muddy the environment is very unhelpful to say the least. Claiming to be a writing style specialist and trying to rally support on emotional ground as opposed to rationality, citation and rules is not civil. He/She "thinks" I am banned. What does that supposed to mean? He/She has deleted cited material. I have added to the sources. He/She still wants to delete. According to what wikipedia rule? The last I remembered Wikipedia had a citation tag.--Irooniqermez (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article (like a number of others) suffers from constant sporadic "attacks" by socks of blocked editors (there are very many blocked Italian users that used to frequent these articles). User:Ragusino alone is known to be reponsible for at least some 30-40 socks over the years. Its become a constant chore to check for "clever", thinly-disguised POV. Much of the stuff over there is even now based on non-scholarly publications, essentially Italian right-wing political books, who go so far as to mention figures of 30,000 people. The rest is based entirely on Raoul Pupo, a professor from Trieste itself, who represents the most extreme end on the scale scholars have used on that subject. His rather dubious figure of "5,000" (along with his liberal use of the words "concentration camp") have been criticized by scholars, the "concentration camps" seem to be some sort of a counter to the (non-fictional) Rab and Gonars concentration camps Fascist Italy established on annexed Yugoslav territory for its Slavic subjects. Pupo responded that the figures he use are his estimates on the whole "foibe phenomenon" (which he does not define), and his casualties actually include persons who were deported from Yugoslavia. See e.g. Italian fascism: history, memory, and representation by R. J. B. Bosworth. --DIREKTOR(TALK)17:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article used as a source said hundreds to thousands but firmly put the twenty thousand in the "claims" category rather than an estimate. He also makes the point though that there are too many groups interested in not exhuming all the bodies. It's a standard thing for apologisers for extremeist regimes to make a moral equivalence of any atrocities they can find committed by the "goodies". And of course there always are atrocities. Hence the obssession with Dresden amongst neo-fascists. Of course it was an atrocity and was controversial at the time, but like the fascists really care about hundreds of thousands of civilians immolated in a bombing raid.Fainitesbarleyscribs18:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I'm sure the pro-right-wing section of the Italian public really does care, since there is a real stake (of sorts). The region of Istria is a traditionally Italian region that for some 600 years has an overwhelming Slavic majority. During the Cold War Italy had no hope of exerting influence over Yugoslavia, the country had a very strong "diplomatic immunity", and even a military that was (from the 1970s on) judged to be decidedly superior to its Italian counterpart. Now the far weaker, reputedly more "corrupt", governments of the tiny Montenegro and Croatia are a different matter altogether. Croatia's Istria County, though populated by only about 6% Italians, now has enforced bilingual names for most of its cities, and Italian is often the mandatory second language in the school system (being placed above English, even). So this is a very real cultural issue that is recently being revived by the Italian right.
As for the "interested groups", I assure you that is simply conspiracy nonsense, and I may add presented without any understanding of the political or sociological setting. In fact the majority of Croats are very likely to support any evidence that the Partisans commited war crimes - and strongly at that. Right-wing, conservative Croats (the definite majority if elections are any indicator) tend to identify with the NDH rather than the Partisans, many simply consider the Partisans to be "Serbs", and very very few comprehend that the overblown figures are being pinned on the (Croatian) 8th Dalmatian Corps of the Partisan military.
A very interesting article Croatian ethnic cleansing was created some months ago, by a bunch of socks if I recall (it was of course deleted after an AfD as a POVFORK). It explained how Croats have conducted ethnic cleansing as fascists (the NDH), as communists in the foibe, and in recent years as well with Operation Storm. It need not be said that the article was very offensive to both Croats as a whole (the "ethnic cleansing nation"), and to the victims of the horendous slaughters and industrial-scale mass murder of the NDH by equating them to the Italian nationals who peacefully emigrated from an impoverished communist country in the late 1940s, all the while actually encouraged in every way by the Italian government itself (indeed Italy at that stage was very careful not to antagonize Yugoslavia with its the 800,000-strong, battle-hardened and lavishly equipped military). It did, however, also paint a very vivid picture of the kind of propaganda some elements of the "exiles" community are trying to push on others, both on the moderates in their own country, and elsewhere (i.e. here). Balkans politics.. --DIREKTOR(TALK)19:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
problem is of valid sources and in web there are a lot of sites which make only propaganda! In Italian books, victims of foibe are all prisoners of war who were tortured and killed in concentration camps so then somebody estimate also 30.000 victims: in Italian version of article you find this number it:Massacri delle foibe#Quantificazione delle vittime in second line of section, but important historians assert maximum 20.000. Scholars are waiting results by Commission on Concealed Mass Graves in Slovenia. Sure in Croatia never a book was published which filed documentation of massacres or Broz Tito's intention on ethnic cleansing but in Slovenia is different: new democrat Sloven authorities collaborate with Italian historians and politicians and available books you can find in Sloven language but not yet in Croat language. But now in Croatia also democracy go on and later neutral and valid books you can find.--Zellino (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This guy? This is User:Ragusino's sock no.37. :) After 2 years and 40 socks I can practically smell the guy. Plus his trademark English is a dead give-away every time.. A checkuser can confirm it but its not really necessary. The modus operandi is a quick block, this guy is one of the worst sockpuppeteers on Wikipedia, and has been persistently disrupting his way across articles with virtual impunity for years now. A real "zealot", you might say. --DIREKTOR(TALK)19:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See what I mean about "zealot"? When his IP got blocked by Less some time ago he simply started editing from a library :). And, believe it or not, this is not the first time either. See, he's "16 people" now xD --DIREKTOR(TALK)09:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fainites, but really may you believe bungler opinions of
this guy who is in persistently edit warring? Sure you know, but remember we did this edit removing 30.000 Italian citizens were killed despite we know sources which assert this number but we know also controversy over this point so better don't focus on all estimates which are only conjectures. Sure we read talk and this guy is present in majority of sections always reporting same bungler opinions: in this example he foils user:JdeJ who is Svedish and not of supposed Italian fanatic bunch; no Italian editor has a fanatic POV but he foils every different opinion from his dogma: but dogma is forbidden in neutral article! We don't live on Mars planet and we know politic-cultural situation in Croatia: we know communist propaganda during Broz Tito's regime wich denied all titoist crimes against prisoners of war and triple ethnic cleansing against Germans, Hungarians and Italian but now
Committee for the Marking and Maintenance of Graves from World War II and the Post-war with Sloven and Serb commissions will focus over these matters. Questions are:
is user:Miranche a Croat Ustasha or Serb Chetnik 103 years old?
Our opinion is: in this project many guys find a battleground for propaganda and conjectures! You are admin and you have a responsability here: sure for us wiki is not very important but we can honestly collaborate. Good luck!--Zellino (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh this is fun. I'm "persistently edit-warring", eh? Possibly, I'm a pretty annoying and aggressive guy, but how would you know that if all you good 16 people only started here on Wiki a week ago? And anyway how is it you've managed to form such interesting, in-depth opinions about myself and all these fellas like Less and Miranche, you new editor you? xD
Fainites, but who is this figure? We are not 16 people: we are 16 years old! Furthermore in past we read a lot of articles and we know situation here! Other question:
a) I do not block on demand.
b) you are obviously not a newbie student collective (all editing with the same voice).
c) it doesn't matter on these articles whether Direktor is a medical student or not. It might matter if he were editing medical articles. I don't edit in my professional area either.
c) I work full time. I will look into this in more detail when I have a moment.Fainitesbarleyscribs11:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a) I know, I know, just thinking aloud I suppose (and then writing it down :)). c) I'm actually an insurance salesman cleverly mascarading as a medical student, haha! Everything is going according to plan. d) If you're working full time you'll understand that when you get back home and sit behind your computer, the last thing you want is more of your work. I get more than enough tumors and icky hospital patients in my day, thank you very much Ragusino :). --DIREKTOR(TALK)11:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
we are obviously not newbie students but we study in group: they found books in library and I only edit with suggestions by others. Furthermore our edits have honest behaviour and no edit wars involved our account. As well also us can request ban of this account for suspect socks but we have no time to spend in this strange pastime.--Zellino (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you also get into arguments and make sock allegations against other editors with suggestions by others? The general rule with sockpuppets is "either put-up or shut-up". If you say Direktor has socks - produce evidence and file a report. Otherwise it's just blowing in the wind. However, as far as you are concerned - it is obvious you are not new and you know a great deal about the ins and outs of players in the Balkans articles. Your story of being a collective of 16 year olds editing with one voice sounds inherently unlikely. I shall look into this. Fainitesbarleyscribs11:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
if you assert it doesn't matter on these articles whether Direktor is a medical student or not, we can assert: it doesn't matter on these articles whether we are a group of students or not! Other question
If "they" are not socks, then they are meatpuppets - but that is really stretching AGF - which for the purposes of banned editors are counted as the same. As DIREKTOR says, not only concentration upon a very few and specific topics utilising exactly the same source as Ragusino was apt to but also a very clear understanding of WP:SOCK from an account of only a few weeks. I also see attempts to hide edits behind bland edit summaries. Unlike DIREKTOR I have no opinion upon the WP:Due weight to be afforded to the source used (but note that none of these new editors are inclined to discuss these edits on talkpages or elsewhere.) I block on behaviour, which is consistent with Ragusino who is a banned editor. On one or two contributions, outside of the "Italian/Yugoslavia" topics, I have allowed the edits to stand, otherwise they have been rolled back. Review would be welcome. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks LessHvU. I'm not familiar with Ragusino so I was just about to gird my loins and work through it all when I see you've done it already!! Splendid. I will look at remaining edits.Fainitesbarleyscribs11:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of weeks ago. It's about the truce terms things you asked me to look up. I didn't hear back so I wasn't sure if you got the email or if you dodppidnt need the info any longer. I have scans of pages to send too. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well he's a controversial person, isn't he? Under such conditions he should not be in any infobox. If the croats can claim him, then so can the serbs. Afterall, he has been on the serbian paper money. Case in point - [31]. It is well known that this guy is a prize to anyone who claims him - it's not fair that the croats claim him rather than the other two groups. It's well known that he identified with serbs the most. (LAz17 (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
What does "it's not fair" mean in this context? The point is to try and reach a sensible consensus on a fair representation for the info-box. Not everyone can have everyone they want. So what? Proposing someone who you know is going to put the cat among the pigeons and quite probably result in extensive nationalist argument is hardly keeping to the spirit of your deal is it? Or are you going to tell me that it's deeply, deeply important that he goes in the info-box?Fainitesbarleyscribs16:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply saying that the serbs can claim him as much as the croats can. Therefore there is this potential for conflict, and so the controversial figures should be excluded from infoboxes. What doesn't make sense? (LAz17 (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
You jump to conclusions very fast. That's unfortunate.
You say that nobody else mentioned Andric. I saw him mentioned in April, on that same talk page. I didn't bother read it all, just wrote what I felt. Only sometime after that did I notice that he was on the Croat page. That really made me go huh, that's messed up. The bosniaks have gone to great strides to exclude a number of people from their own list. So if others are not willing to do the same, I see no reason why they should be nice to other groups who are not going to do the same.
Andric's ethnicity is questionable. It's too controversial for a group to outright claim him as solely their own. If any group does, it should be the Serbs, not the Croats. You may agree, you may disagree. Yet it is a fact that he was the closest with Serbs.
You seem very jumpy over this issue. I suspect that you are a croat and want him on that page because he has good reputation for winning the nobel prize. This discussion should not take place on my talk page - is your goal for me to withdraw my statements? I shall not. This is an important issue. As for why people have not responded - it's clear that they do not care. Feel free to discuss his matter on the talk pages - thought I am not sure which is most appropriate, perhaps the serbs regarding including him there, or the croats one for taking him off. (LAz17 (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Actually I'm English with no links whatsoever to anything Balkan related. I'm an admin trying to bring some order, consensus and actual source based editing to Balkan topics rather than the everlasting, tedious nationalist wrangling. In so far as I have sympathies they lie with the editors who would like to improve these articles rather than refight old wars. My concern is that editors should accept they can't have everyone they want in info-boxes and agree a broad range of sample notables. Your proposals seemed likely to produce an unecessary degree of conflict.Fainitesbarleyscribs12:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I am wrong, but Andric is an individual whom serbs and croats can claim to be of their own. As I mentioned - the serbs had him on their paper money. So, it's not a matter of producing conflict. Tell me in all honesty now, how can one of the two sides claim that he was not at all serb or not at all croat? We should not have double standards for people of disputed ethnicity - either they go on multiple pages or are removed from them, is what I think is best. You may not address it now, but it will come back again and again - because it's hard to tell a group to not say that he belonged to them if he had at some point identified with them and when many sources back those certain opinions. (LAz17 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Fainites, unless something's changed that I'm unaware of, User:LAz17 is "topic-banned from all edits relating to the historical demographics of ex-Yugoslavia". See here. --DIREKTOR(TALK)10:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So he can discuss the ethnicity of individual hiitorical persons within ex-Yugoslavia, but not their historical demography as a whole? O_o --DIREKTOR(TALK)13:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It says all edits relating to the historical demographics and cartography of Ex-Yugoslavia. I didn't read that as including whether any individual Yugoslavian is a Martian or a Venusian. Fainitesbarleyscribs17:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Direktor old buddy, how goes life out there in the fresh sunlight? Did you hear about the latest conspiracy about Tito? Supposedly he wasn't human. XD (LAz17 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
You guys don't follow basketball do you? You might see something very peculiar in this picture from tonight's mavericks win... [32] XD (LAz17 (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
How about you all give it a rest and try, I don't know, improving articles for a change? Fainites' tolerance threshold could seriously use some lowering. Timbouctou (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this reply directed towards me, Timbouctou? If you look at my entire history on wikipedia, you will notice that my edits are for the most part about creating and improving articles, not vandalizing and wasting peoples time. (LAz17 (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
That is not in accordance with my recent experience of you. Your editing life here is hanging by a thread. Please go and do something else other than argue here before the thread snaps.Fainitesbarleyscribs16:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do tell me how my recent experience was? In general I have contributed well. There have been disputes - and the disputes are very well disputes - that's why we have mediation in some such disputes right now. Others are dong what I did, but slightly more politely. That was my only problem - I did not go to mediation and overreacted to things that I felt were not appropriate. (LAz17 (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Hi LAz. :) Not human you say? Well I suppose it is difficult to believe a human can get that fat, but lets not get carried away..
No need to get all "above-the-common-squabblers" on us, Tim, I'm sure the "naive Fainites" can speak for himself. --DIREKTOR(TALK)14:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully Fainites doesn't mind us chit chatting on his talk page... 's how we continue our quazi love-hate relationship. XD (LAz17 (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Hey man. Check this out. [33] I am wondering under what license can his official document be uploaded. What more can we want other than that, it explicitly says that he was a Serb. Therefore, I feel that there is some logic in having him labeled as a Serb. I am not a troll, or something who wants to disrupt the peace - but that source, his official document, speaks for itself. Does it not? (LAz17 (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Comment - for those who do not understand Serbian, Laz is referring to an article in the Serbian media which shows a photo of Ivo Andrić's identity card issued in June 1951 in Belgrade. The entries are filled out in handwritten cyrillic (assumed to be Andrić's own handwriting) and in the "Ethnicity" line (narodnost) it says "Serbian".
@Laz17: If you want to upload it I believe you can put the image to Commons tagged with PD-Yugoslavia and PD-Serbia templates. It might be a nice addition to the "Classification" section of the Ivo Andrić article as it might illustrate the mess which his legacy is, considering that there is already this image of a Krakow University document on Commons in which he stated he was a Croat circa 1914 (37 years before the aforementioned identity card). But this will hardly have any bearing on the rest of the article. It is also hardly a "final verdict" on the issue if that is what you are aiming for. Timbouctou (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is no final verdict. Though, one side clearly claims him as solely their own - see the croats infobox, or the croats of bih infobox. My point is simply that it's not fair to expect to have him in that infobox but not in others.
I figure it's okay to upload it to wikipedia commons? I suppose I will. Not immediately, but somewhat soon.
The article should fairly reflect any genuine controversy or confusion on this issue rather than be the product of one side or the other "winning". Is there any argument over the fact that he was born ethnically a Croat, identified himself as a Croat in his early years, wrote in both the more Croatian side of serbo-croat and in the more Serbian version, and chose, late in life to self-identify as a Serb? All this whilst being a Yugoslavian. It would be absurd to insist that the article presents him solely as one or the other. It is also nonsense to suggest that simply because the Croats article has him in the info-box, "one side clearly claims him as solely their own ". There is no reason why he should not be in the Croat info-box. If you want to stick him in the Serb info-box too then make your argument on the Serbs talk page rather than trying to poke people on the Croat page. Anyway - hardly anybody in the British Isles is pure ethnically anything. So what? Why don't you do what normal people do and call people "Scots-English" or "Anglo-Irish" or "Dutch-Welsh" or "Indian-Irish" or whatever.
As a matter of interest, I have also semi-protected the Ivo Andric page which has been suffering a sort of slow motion edit war from IPs and new accounts changing "Croat" to "Serbian" since this issue came up on the Croat info-box. It lasts two weeks so that gives you plenty of time to seek consensus to stick him the Serb box if you want to. Why not go for the complete set? Serbs of BH and Croats of BH, Serbs of Croatia and Croatians of Serbia? Hasn't anybody got an old document somewhere in which he claimed to be a Bosniak or a Slovene or an Italian from the Venetian Republic?Fainitesbarleyscribs12:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ARBMAC
What have I done to be alerted in this way? I just came back change that you delete. I thought that you are the vandal! From this article should not be anything to be deleted before it is completed mediation. There is no reason that we in such a way threaten me, because I did not nothing wrong.--Свифт (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a plainly POV recent addition and recorded such in my edit summary. The paragraph already includes information that the judges were all communists and ex-Partisans. Adding statements like "so the court was ... biased ... as in all communist countries" is plainly a POV and OR addition. There are, however, cogent and comprehensive secondary sources which deal with the political nature of the trial.Fainitesbarleyscribs20:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS logged in again and still didn't discuss while reverting the text yet again. They added a new ref which appears to be a wiki of some sort. Strangely, none of the refs (poor or otherwise) used by PS have ever backed the interpretation PS wrote of the Export Land Model (you can see that back in February PS inserted the same OR to that article with no refs as well). I wonder if this isn't some banned user or a trickster of some sort. The other option I see is that this person is trying to redefine the ELM for some reason. Please help oversee this issue, as I will be unavailable for the next 4 weeks. Many thanks. 206.188.61.213 (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same exact behavior has continued for yet another cycle. Please comment on the talk page and/or ban this user. Given the little cutesy games they are playing, I'm guessing it's a sock. 24.216.240.41 (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ахаха, we are all humans! And its not that bad! :) :) And this barn is not for that one comment, but for the all other ones! I am really happy that some admin takes care about Balkan articles, and in such a way. That is all that matters. Anyway, regarding your post, see Ivo Andrić talk page. I added some sources, and my attitude, so we will see what the rest of people think... I hope that my proposition will give some peace, as all views will be fulfilled. --WhiteWriter speaks19:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Fainites, I haven´t been much around lately cause I had some off-wiki matters and I was also a bit of nostalgic about my football stuff. However, I was bold at Yugoslav Front article and after checking all sources I gathered by now I think it is easily conclusible that some things seemed just out of place. I didn´t wanted to go into details because that would obviously mean going into text and adding all what sources say, most of what would mean some major changes in what the current text looks like now, and I simply wanted to postpone it for some other time in future... However some facts are very clear and easily and logically fixable: the fact that Chetniks can´t ever possibly be added to the Axis column, and that simply can´t happend because they were never Axis. The entire words game cleaverly invented by some of the "officially" and "de facto" is just an excuse for not having anything official to use. Also, if there is the addition of the mentioning of collaboration for them, then obviously that the mentioning of resistance is fair for having an POV view on the matter (the previous version uses the already known strategy of saying, in other words, how they were initially resistance however soon they became Axis. Well, wrong, they actually never became part of Axis, and also they never stoped being Allies). But actually, I am not doing anything more than leaving the Chetniks as third party side, even thus possibly failing because they were obviously Allies until 12/1943 ("officially" and "de facto"). We can discuss nuances, but removing everything without explanation seems precipitated and wrong. FkpCascais (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Chetniks are listed in that column because that is the side they fought on (for the perid described). I'm assuming your claim that "they were never Axis" is based on the fact that the Chetniks, as a movement, did not actually enter into the Tripartite Pact? However that is not necessary, their placement in the infobox is done in accordance with their role in the conflict, not their on-paper statements. Also, even if we were to follow your definition (and we should by no means do so), there are numerous accounts of formal signed Chetnik-German, Chetnik-Italian, and Chetnik-NDH agreements.
While fighting for the Axis (under Axis command and with Axis supplies) the Chetnik leadership consistently claimed their alliegance was to the Allies. However, once again, their placement in the conflict infobox should be done in accordance with their actual role in the conflict, not whatever side they claimed to be on. "De facto" is not a word game. Their false allegiance was indeed the primary reason why Churchill and the Allies stopped supporting them. The fact that Prime Minister Winston Churchill was forced, forced mind you, to shift support to a communist movement, is another testament to the extent of the pro-Axis Chetnik activities.
P.S. please list your sources, with page numbers, so that your statements may be verifiable (WP:V). Based on past experience I must express my doubts as to whether you've actually researched the matter, though if you have, I look forward to finally having a proper debate on the issue. And please take this to Talk:Yugoslav Front --DIREKTOR(TALK)10:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
What is unconstructive or disruptive, if removing invented names attributed by Italian medieval people? Is Wikipedia free or just a tool for nationalistic propaganda?
Hi Fainites. When you find yourself with time I would really apreciate if you could spare me a litlle time and give me your view about where things stand. I already asked you in my previous post if you could help me but I´m not sure you noteced it, so here I´m doing it again. I´m not sure what else is needed for the 3-side infobox to be implemented. It seems clear that Chetniks had animosities, at least, beside actual fights, with Germans troughout the war, and they were allways very far from being allies as some would like to present. Despite everything direktor mentioned, I still see no reason why we should separate time periods in infobox. It should be simplifiyed for the benefit of WP and their readers, because despite the X times that Chetniks fought Axis, and X times they agreed against Partisans, they were allways a 3th side in the conflict. Direktor also reminded me of the fact that Mihailovic had his head hounted until the end of the war, so that is another strong reason why it is wrong having them in same side. Allied head-hunting eachother? It doesn´t make sence. Also, I have a similar situation as in Yugoslav Front article with regard to short informative sentence about Chetniks in another article: Bleiburg massacre with User:Kebeta. He is edit warring there, despite me having initiated discussion in his talk page. Regards. PS: @Direktor, I will like to ask you to please don´t add posts here, I would like to have at least one free channel to talk with Fainites, and I´m talking here about the way I am personally adressing this problem, more than discussing article content. FkpCascais (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Am I reading this right? You don't want to discuss the matter properly, you don't want to read my posts, so you just want Fainites to push your edits for you?
All the stuff you've posted is an accumulation of everything "anti-Axis" about the Chetniks, and it amounts to a few minor raids and skirmishes and quoting Chetnik wartime propaganda. The fact that few incidents of anti-Axis activity did occur has been well known and accepted for quite some time. We're trying to assess the role of the Chetniks as a whole, and to that effect the sources are very clear: whole regions held by the Chetniks under Axis control, tens of thousands of Chetnik troops holding ground and fighting battles alongside the Axis. In the words of Sabrina Ramet, Chetnik collaboration has been voluminiusly documented, and what you are essentially doing is trying to ignore the sources by "going over the heads" of the users that oppose your edits. --DIREKTOR(TALK)05:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The Soviet invasion of Yugoslavia"
You might want to know that there are currently entire sections of the Draža Mihailović article that are, quite simply, fairy tales. I cannot emphasize enough the degree to which the text therein has lost all connection to reality and/or history. For the best example, see the "Soviet invasion of Yugoslavia" section, describing a completely imaginary event that did never, and could never, transpire in this universe. The sheer absurdity of the content is way, waay beyond any kind of debate or discussion. We are talking complete "Tolkien history". The "references" quoted in support of such nonsense are either misquoted, misrepresented, or are laughable gibberish themselves - I assure you. Its like the text is about a weird upside-down parallel universe where the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were not allies but enemies. Without any exaggeration, I can say that this kind of content, completely detached from all history, is a disgrace for all of Wikipedia's WWII coverage (or at least it would be if any significant numbers read these backwater articles).
Fainites, can you please intervene. First direktor trolls the other user about his language skills, which not being perfect, are however perfectly understandable for any user having a minimal level of English language skills. Then, he also wrongly drives him to talk another language, which is against wiki principles. Then I am unecessarily attacked with all those "red attack" words. I think I couldn´t have been more polite. This is the responce I got: [36]. FkpCascais (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly could not understand the sentence "You was involved in previous edit wars: may you to wait 3 or 4 weeks for any discussion?" Can you? I'm sorry, but I can only guess at the meaning. So I asked the guy to please say it in Serbo-Croatian, and being aware of enWiki policy on using other languages in discussion, I offered to translate if necessary for other users.
For the umpteenth time FkpCascais assumed bad faith, imagined hostility where there was none, accused me of trolling, and responded aggressively in-line with his weird perceptions of non-existent "attacks". This is typical of User:FkpCascais's posts, the user percieves an imaginary "evil scheme" on my part and responds to my posts with completely unnecessary hostility. His manner constitutes the most extreme example of assuming bad faith. --DIREKTOR(TALK)17:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please be kind direktor and read my exact words there to you? It really seems you´re having some major understanding issues today. FkpCascais (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Fkp old buddy, I already told you this a million times: I am not some "evil genius" plotting against you all the time. I COULD NOT understand what he said to me! And yes I said his English is "rather bad" - and it obviously is. Your English is not perfect either, and mine still has flaws I'm trying to iron-out, but you're virtually bilingual in Serbian and Portuguese. Now please stop talking about these irrelevant incidents and start discussing the real issue. "Soviet invasion of Yugoslavia"??? What's up with that? You're not seriously behind that are you? --DIREKTOR(TALK)18:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I´m not sure what are you talking about. I only offered myself to explain to you anything unclear there. You ridiculously attacked me inmediatelly after. Honestly, I do not understand what is that you didn´t understood in a sentence with one verbal flaw, so that is why I asked. You are basically bitting newbies there by your "I don´t understand you" attitude, and that is not cool. Honestly, I offered myself there to help you, and to give a chance to the newbie. Regarding the issue itself, I´m not sure what any of you stand by, but I will offer myself to assist the discussion and inforce, if necessary, the wp policies. Just that. PS: I´m trilingual, not bilingual (you forgot Spanish, which I use every day since primary school). FkpCascais (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, initially I had written the note also saying "...before returning to this hell", but then I removed it and left the rest. I recognise that what was left of the message is a bit borring, but what can I say, I actually beleave that is never too much being simply polite. And, after all, Fainites was kind to let us know about it, so... why are you bothered about it? FkpCascais (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
..I'm asking you to look past my obnoxious overbearing personality, and please be honest with me. Nuujin I understand, he just wants to enlist people to help him write his draft. But will you please tell me, how will going completely off-topic yet again for months help us discuss the topic? I assure you, there are no disputed points apart from the WWII collaboration and there never were any. If you think I'm wrong there, prove me wrong, but if you can't - please tell me why we are avoiding the subject? --DIREKTOR(TALK)15:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Fainites. A content dispute is developing at Talk:Croats#Unnecessarily involving User:PRODUCER, User:Jesuislafete and me over whether the article should include a rather detailed summary of people killed in WW2, Mihajlović's role, ethnic composition of Partisans and the like. Admin attention - or at least a third opinion from an uninvolved editor - might be needed. Regards. Timbouctou (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fainites! I usually don't complain to admins, but I have come across some statements of pro-fascistic, or more specifically ustashoid nature in this discussion. There I warned User:Tommy1441 not to use disparaging terms such as "quasi-Serb", but in his next post he went on by calling Serbs outside Serbia the "so called Serbs", further implying that ijekavian-speaking Serbs (i.e., those outside Serbia) are actually Croats (see the final two sentences of that post). This is quite reminiscent of a policy towards Serbs implemented by the fascist Independent State of Croatia, postulating that the Serbs in Croatia and B.-H. descended from Catholic Croats (by which they justified the policy of conversion of Serbs to Catholicism and erasion of their Serb identity). I think some measures should be taken against such behaviour of user Tommy1441. Thanks. Vladimir (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look. I have left an ARBMAC notice on his page. I do appreciate your concerns, however, I also think saying someone has "pro-facistic tendencies" as you did in your edit summary is probably going a bit far given at the moment it is inappropriately disparaging remarks. Nationalist interpretations of history are not uncommon in this area as you know.Fainitesbarleyscribs17:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand your position regarding this case, though I cannot but reassert what I said about that user, as the indications of a total negation of the Serb ethnicity outside Serbia are too obvious for me. And those who cherished such views in not so distant past, when they came to power, did not confine themselves to words only (I suppose you know what I mean). Anyway, thanks for your involvement, and keep up the good work. Vladimir (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recent quotations
Frankly Fainites, I don't see the point of the recent quotes you added. Radical nationalist propaganda in Croatia is as bad, if not worse, than the one in Serbia. Its all the same trash, really. Croats demonize the Chetniks by emphasizing their collaboration, trying to depict the Chetniks as equivalent to the Ustaše, which is nonsense. Serbian propaganda does not really need to additionally demonize the Ustaše, as they were really quite horrible in fact, but instead whitewashes over any collaboration and atrocities of the Chetniks and depicts them as heroes. I want to make it perfectly clear that I myself am utterly disgusted by the nationalist nonsense in my own country, and under no circumstances do I, or any other sensible Croat, consider the Chetniks to have been equivalent
I hope you see the difference: the Croats really have no choice but to reject the Ustaše, as they were fascists with an open policy of collaboration and genocide against the Serbs that lived within their borders - thus the Ustaše are and have been denounced by all Croatian scholars and political parties since 1945. Chetniks, however, have seen a rehabilitation in their status. The Chetniks used to be denounced by all Serbian scholars and politicians up until Slobodan Milošević came to power in the late 1980s. At present the largest single political party in Serbia, the Serbian Radical Party (SRS), openly supports the Chetniks, whitewashes over any collaboration (often depicting it as supposedly having been committed by the Pećanac Chetniks), and its Party Leader publicly considers himself a Chetnik "Voivoda". Due to the fact that the Chetnik collaboration and war crimes are lesser in scale than those of the Ustaše, Serbia has rehabilitated its WWII ultranationalist movement, while Croatia has not (or could not have).
P.S. The second quote from Balkan holocausts? is very strange: "Even though there is clear indisputable evidence of Cetnik massacres of Croats and Moslems throughout the NDH, there was no concrete proof that the Cetniks aimed to exterminate the entire Croatian nation - nor would they have had the means to do so." This is clearly an erroneous assumption on the part of the author: noone ever said they wanted to exterminate whole nations. Even if Mihailović's instructions are an accurate description of the Chetniks goals, they do not entail the "exterminate the entire Croatian nation" - merely their removal out of the areas they considered Greater Serbia. The same is true with the Ustaše: neither movement ever suggested their goal is to exterminate the entire Serbian or Croatian nations. Refuting that seems to be redundant. --DIREKTOR(TALK)19:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fainites, please note that WhiteWriter has, around an hour ago, simultaneously added a new map of his own making on the Serbia under German occupation, Invasion of Yugoslavia, Yugoslav Front, and Independent State of Croatia articles. This new edit was reverted by myself. PANONIAN has now restored the disputed edit on all articles. I request that you please revert these articles to the status quo version, in order to prevent an edit-war. I'd do it myself, but I get the feeling the new opposed edits and the map might well find themselves protected in place. The alternative of course, as always, is a frantic edit-war between two users with the goal of making certain that the preferred version gets protected, i.e. the standard exploitation of WP:WRONG. That is something I am completely sick of and would like to avoid.
I also must point out that I had no intention of edit warring on the Serbia under German occupation article, as seems to have been your assumption, my only revert was done with the purpose of tying-up a few grammatical errors. The reason why I posted the whole thing in the first place, is essentially to best present my proposal for the article lead and infobox.
P.S. Just in case you care about being fair in your capacity as an admin, I'll point out that you did not quite protect the status quo version of the Serbia under German occupation article, but also reverted my removal of WhiteWriter's disputed new edit (i.e. the entry of the new "This is Serbia!" map) --DIREKTOR(TALK)16:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell you how incredibly frustrating this whole issue is. The whole thing is such incredible nonsense. It seems it does not matter how that territory was organized, whether one has researched the issue in sources, or whether it actually constituted a puppet state - as long as PANONIAN has his two or three authors that in one sentence simplify the matter for their reader and use a slightly erroneous term to depict the status of the Nedić government. Now supposing I wanted to expand this article, how do you suppose I should get past the people who do not understand the complex state of affairs in occupied Yugoslavia, but roam the encyclopaedia protecting what they perceive as the interests of their nation.
The reason for this mess is that this territory is colloquially referred to as "Nedić's Serbia" (the term originates with post-war Yugoslav authors), suggesting the existence of a "puppet state", while its a matter of the most basic and obvious facts that the government was not granted the status of a puppet state by the Nazi hierarchy.
I'm just having a look at it. By the way - no way is this "tying-up a few grammatical errors". You are quite right that I did miss the fact that my revert reverted the map too, my main concern being to nip a possible edit war in the bud as it were. Apologies for that. Fainitesbarleyscribs17:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fainites. I forgot that you are an administrator, but it is nice that you are, so let me explain issue with DIREKTOR's maps. As you see, DIREKTOR is involving himself in revert warring and he including these maps into various articles in English Wikipedia: [41], [42]. I will now show you that these maps are his original research and that they are completely unsourced and that, therefore, they should not be used in English Wikipedia. First, please see this original map created and uploaded by me in 31 October 2010 Then please see this list of references that I included on that page concluding with 3 November 2010. What then happened? DIREKTOR modified my map and uploaded his modified versions here: [43], [44]. Then, instead to post references that are supporting his modifications DIREKTOR simply copy-pasted my references from original map: [45], [46] Problem is that my references are not supporting his modifications in these maps. If you examine some of these references (those that are available online), you will see that they all using name "Serbia" and not name "Government of National Salvation". Also, speaking about second map that show political situation in 1943-1944, my references are not supporting these borders of countries since they all show political situation in 1941-1942 (i.e, before capitulation of Italy). We can just make a simple comparison of this: here is DIREKTOR's map that show Dalmatia within Independent State of Croatia and whole of Slovenia occupied by Germans and here are references that are allegedly supporting info in that map: [47], [48], [49] (It is clear that these references showing Dalmatia and part of Slovenia under Italian occupation, and not under German one or under NDH). I tried to ask DIREKTOR in Wikimedia Commons to provide his own sources for his map modifications, but he did not done that. Then, I tried to change reference list and to include references that actually showing political situation in 1943-1944: [50]. However, an IP (presumably DIREKTOR), reverted my edit and returned false references that do not supporting info which is presented in this map: [51]. So, Fainites, I hope that you agree that DIREKTOR should provide references for his map modifications and that he should not use references that are not supporting these modifications. Since DIREKTOR is trying to use these maps in English Wikipedia, you, as administrator, should be concerned about usage of these files with abused references. What you think that we should done about these maps and problem with their references? PANONIAN05:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding personal accusations that DIREKTOR addressed towards me (claiming that I "roam the encyclopaedia protecting what I perceive as the interests of my nation"), I can answer with my opinion that DIREKTOR maybe trying to protect what he perceive as the interest of his nation (Croatia) by disruption of some parts of Serbian history (it could be evident from his involvement in some other Serbia-related subjects such are Chetniks, Draža Mihajlović, etc). Also, how can I "protect interests of my nation" through an Wikipedia article about WW2 puppet state? I am certainly not that stupid to think that "interest of nation" can be protected through Wikipedia article. What I try to do in Wikipedia is to make Serbia-related articles accurate and written in NPOV manner, which is nothing less than what Wikipedia policies are requiring. There is, however, general problem with some users from Croatia who trying to disrupt this accuracy and neutrality of articles about Serbia-related subjects in Wikipedia and DIREKTOR is not an exception from this. PANONIAN05:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fainites, the new user butchered the article and removed some very well sourced info (NOT by Cohen). Care to restore the status quo? --DIREKTOR(TALK)19:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I protected it from edit war for a week. We have had this discussion about the Wrong Version before. I also notice the new user and another editor invited editors to discuss Cohen on the talkpage a while ago.Fainitesbarleyscribs13:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ustaše (guerilla)
Hello!
Well, in discusion page, ther is no sign that this article is part of WP:WikiProject Fascism or similiar. And as I remember categories put it as anti-communist. So, I thought I brake no rule by this, but if I risk my contribution here on Wiki, then I won't edit any more. --Wustenfuchs17:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has category Ustaše... didn't see that. Well, I didn't made significant changes, so... and I won't edit this article any more. Is it ok?--Wustenfuchs17:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wustenfuchs - the topic ban was for subjects or people related to fascism (broadly construed). wikt:Broadlywikt:construed in this context means loosely or liberally interpreted. I think you would find it impossible to argue convincingly that an article about a Ustasha post-war splinter group was not related to facism. There is nothing in your topic ban about specific WP categories. The article actually had "ustasa" in the title when you edited it! A lot of your previous problems related to Ustasa and other Balkan fascists and crypto-fascists. I have notified the admin who arranged this topic ban with you for his input.Fainitesbarleyscribs20:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While it is certainly not any of your concern whether I do or do not research and edit an article, since you have brought it up six times up to now, I will point out that I terminated my involvement on the Aloysius Stepinac article as I did not wish to start another major, extremely controversial discussion while concurrently engaged in two others of similar (or greater) difficulty. Had you and your group of editors on Talk:Draža Mihailović had not pushed me out of the discussion by force, upon completion I would have turned to the other difficult nationalist-POV issue (yes, "your group": since you all agree on all subjects and argue in concert, I take the liberty of referring to Sunray, Nuujinn and yourself as a group). Indeed, my eagerness to end that perpetual debate is a manifestation of my desire to move on and resolve other difficult issues, such as the Aloysius Stepinac article.
I do not mean to imply you should particularly care about any of the above, but I feel the need to clarify the reasons for my withdrawal from Talk:Aloysius Stepinac so that in future it may be shown that you were informed of them, and may not use the affair to your profit in the form of what is essentially "character assassination". Regards --DIREKTOR(TALK)11:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am honoured to be placed in the company of two such fine editors, but methinks you see a "group" where none actually exists. Hummmm, I wonder if there could be another reason the three of us, and so many others, are of the same opinion about your topic ban... Could it be that it is justified? Sunray (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DIREKTOR I don't think it helps to post here like this. There is no group. As you know, I had nothing to do with the mediation until after the article was coming back into mainspace. Fainitesbarleyscribs21:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough re the above, ie getting drawn into content and the banning DIREKTOR myself. But has anybody got any more advice on where the borders are in general? I mean - on the basis that it wasn't OK to express an opinion on "which version", was it OK to post five different versions of a lead sentence until one which everybody agreed was found? Was it OK to post the results of the sources I found? Is it OK to protect the page for a few days and try and get editors to restart a discussion? Regarding sources, presumably it's OK to act if someone specifically mis-cites a source, but what about failure to source assertions? Was it OK to keep requesting that they do? I mean this in the context of being an admin. I have no interest in actually editing content and thus becoming involved in the neverending nationalist POV pushing but I would be interested in contnuing to try and mediate/moderate discussions to enable normal, collaborative editing if possible. Fainitesbarleyscribs13:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, and of course I'm not an admin so this all may be worthless, I think the only thing you did that could be considered inappropriate was the actual topic ban itself. What I would ask is that you continue the good work that you've been doing trying (and largely succeeding, although I can readily understand that those who are not familiar with how badly things were going last year on this article would not be aware of that) to stabilize the discussions, assuming you're not sick to death of the whole thing. I'm in for the long haul regardless--for better or worse stubbornness is woven into my genetics. But I think we've been making steady (if very slow and painful) progress since you started helping out on the Mihailovic article. DIREKTOR is on vacation now for a while, and it is my hope that he will come back refreshed and will have had time to think about some of the comments made by others on his conduct, and we'll see how things go when he gets back.
If I'm understanding the policies and the points being made by various admins, it seems that being involved is fine, but having been involved means if you think a ban is needed, you'd need to ask uninvolved admins to review the situation and make the decision rather than taking action yourself. That being said, my personal suggestion would be simply to take no administrative actions in this particular article space for the time being--that way you could avoid even the appearance of misusing the admin bit. But making suggestions, asking for sources for assertions made in articles or talk pages, mediating and moderating discussions, producing sources, anything that any editor can do, seems fair game to me and of positive value. I've said it, but haven't followed my own advice, in that I think we can bring issues to some of the more specific noticeboards like RSN. In retrospect, doing that with Karchmar, for example, would have likely saved time and mental strain. Of course, I'm not that experienced and could well be wrong about any of this, and if that is the case, I hope someone will correct me. Thanks for all the fish, --Nuujinn (talk)20:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure people will have different views on this. When you feel yourself getting out on a limb, it may be time to ask for other opinions. This might happen if you decide to protect a page where you had been active in trying to resolve a dispute. In that case a review of your protection at a noticeboard could be worth doing. Regarding DIREKTOR. In my opinion, it is risky for a single admin to enact a discretionary sanction unless it is an open-and-shut case or a recurrence of something previously discussed. Anything involving a long-time editor like DIREKTOR is unlikely to be considered an open-and-shut case. On the matter of sourcing, anyone who repeatedly mis-states the content of sources is risking a block for disruptive editing, in my opinion, or having a topic ban imposed at AE. I agree with most of things that Nuujinn said. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I haven't left. Thanks for your concern. It happened to coincide with me having about 3 weeks holiday from work. Since then I haven't really got back into the swing of things as it were. You know what it's like. If you don't follow what's going on most days it's difficult to work out what's going on. The thing is - I'm not sure what help I can be on Balkans articles any more if I can't use my admin powers to try and keep a bit of order! I don't really want to get involved in actual content - though I've read enough of the sources by now to do so. As for your complaint to the admin noticeboard - I doubt it will help. It will probably be dismissed as "six of one - half a dozen of the other" with advice on WP:DR. One really needs to read talkpages going back some time to see what is going on. The admin noticeboard is not suitable for that. It needs a form of DR that requires production and analysis of evidence. Fainitesbarleyscribs15:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh apologies, I just read your response here to PANONIAN about Balkans articles... that is not fair, as you are familiarised now, and that is definitely a plus for all these situations. FkpCascais (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to I'm not sure what help I can be on Balkans articles any more if I can't use my admin powers to try and keep a bit of order!, you should not underestimate yourself. Jack Merridew, for all of the oddities of their personae, had some quote regarding the "voice" as being the important thing, and I took that to mean that due to the nature of the community, real authority comes from reputation and the ability to convince others and build consensus. The bit's just a bit that enables you do some minor things. I'm not sure it would be to your taste, but my thoughts on this kind of thing are largely informed by Aichinger's The Bound Man. Far warning, Kafka and Faulkner are favorites of mine, and I'm told my world view is rather dark (whereas I think I'm a realist). Whatever you decide to do, all the best! --Nuujinn (talk)00:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fainites, as you are an admin and are familiar with the topic I'm hoping you give me some advice on this issue!
You may remember the work I did digitising the Coat of Arms and Flag of Serbia 1941-44? Well as you probably also know both DIREKTOR and PANONIAN created their own derived versions of my SVG version and are currently in an edit war trying to get the other's version deleted!
But the issue is neither of them are describing their versions as coming from mine. Instead they refer back to the JPG versions and claim they created the SVG version. Quoting from the description:
This is a retouched picture, which means that it has been digitally altered from its original version. Modifications: Created SVG version. The original can be viewed here: Flag_of_serbia_1941_1944.JPG. Modifications made by DIREKTOR.
Mine are either not mentioned or are listed as "alternate versions", when they are really the source.
Surely the source for a derived fx should be the file you used, not the file that the previous one was derived from? Can you give me some advice? Am I correct? If so what can I do about getting it fixed? I tried correcting the descriptions of the two files but DIREKTOR reverted my changes. Here is an example DIFF,
Mihailović: Draft for new section on "Collaboration"
During the Mihailović mediation, we agreed to discuss two additional topics on the article talk page: 1) Ethnic conflict and terror tactics, and, 2) Collaboration. The former was completed some time ago. Nuujinn has now drafted a proposed section on the latter subject. I am contacting mediation participants, and others who commented on the article talk page post mediation, to see if they wish to comment. The draft can be found here. Any comments would be most appreciated. Sunray (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hi fainites, can you please cast your fairly skeptical eyes over the Neuro-linguistic programming article and the editors. I don't think has been much of an effort toward creating a page in line with WP:NPOV. It appears that a couple editors have just taken over the article and discussion to push their own POV. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Hi Fainites. I have joined the discussion you created on the Attachment theory talk page regarding the edit I made to the article. I have tried to explain my reasoning in making that edit, and hope that you might find yourself able to agree with the broad gist of it. I would be grateful if you could take a look on the talk page there and give your thoughts, and suggest a way to proceed. Many thanks. DMSchneider (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Fainites. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:
It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.
At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).
Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
DEAR FINITES! I have posted the following on the talk page of Attachment theory. Clarifying the issue of attachment would greatly improve the article. It would make the meaning of attachment much clearer.
I refer you to Chapter 11 of Bowlby's Attachment--The Child's Tie to his Mother: Attachment Behavior. Specifically the first two subheadings.
The first--Alternative theories--briefly describes psychoanalytic writings on a child's response to separation or loss and states his is "a new theory" (p. 177)and "The hypothesis to be advanced here is different.." (p. 179). But he does mention sucking and clinging as "closest to the hypothesis now proposed.." He then mentions "five patterns of behavior--sucking, clinging, following, crying and smiling, which between the ages of 9 and 18 months, "usually become incorporated into a far more sophisticated goal-corrected systems" Maintaining proximity is the goal.
In the next subheading--Attachment behavior and its place in nature-- he draws an analogy between birds and mammals and between imprinting and attachment. He specifically describes ground dwelling birds compared to tree nesting birds--and herd animals that maintain proximity by walking shortly after birth and most primates that can sustain their weight by clinging in comparison to rodents and carnivores that are blind and helpless at birth, gorillas that can't sustain their weight at birth and humans who are "born so very immature." All of these latter must depend on their mother figure to maintain proximity at first. Bowlby mentions in various places throughout the book that the mother also seeks and/or maintains proximity, especially in response to danger or to the infant's distress--not just to danger but also pain or hunger. This was true for many thousands of years and only in the last few hundred years have large houses, cribs and bottles become common, allowing the mother to walk away from their baby, leaving them in a safe place.
The problem Bowlby faced was that, although most people--even casual observers--had seen human and animal babies following their mother, they did not relate those other behaviors--sucking and crying at birth, and smiling and clinging, as liable to promote the mother seeking proximity. In fact these behaviors have been left out of the definition of attachment and the definition of attachment has been restricted to the infant physically seeking proximity when they develop mobility. But in the above cited chapter and in other places in the book Bowlby mentions that attachment behavior in seeking proximity is a reciprocal behavior.--Margaret9mary (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)I will edit this later to make it briefer and clearer.--Margaret9mary (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)--Margaret9mary (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Psychology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. Acalamari11:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fainites. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I have nominated Attachment theory for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Beland (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Attachment disorder has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:2._ravnogorski_korpus.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
![[14]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Meeting_between_German,_Chetniks_and_Usta%C5%A1a_commander.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IV_crnogorska_proleterska_brigada.JPG){kind=link}
![[16]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Slavonski_Korpus_1943.JPG){kind=link}
![[17]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tito_i_prva_proleterska.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Josip_Broz_Tito_left.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LekaTitoDjido-1_in_colors.jpg){kind=link}
![[20]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Members_of_the_Central_Committee_of_the_SKJ.jpg){kind=link}
![[21]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marshal_Tito_Greeting_President_John_Kennedy.jpg){kind=link}
![[31]](http://aes.iupui.edu/rwise/banknotes/yugoslavia/YugoslaviaP115-5000Dinara-1992-d_f.jpg){kind=link}
![[32]](http://l.yimg.com/a/p/sp/tools/med/2011/05/ipt/1304741194.jpg){kind=link}
![[43]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Axis_occupation_of_Yugoslavia_1941-43.png){kind=link}
![[44]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Axis_occupation_of_Yugoslavia_1943-44.png){kind=link}
![[45]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AAxis_occupation_of_Yugoslavia_1941-43.png&action=historysubmit&diff=55001128&oldid=55000851){kind=link}
![[46]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AAxis_occupation_of_Yugoslavia_1943-44.png&action=historysubmit&diff=55001130&oldid=55000854){kind=link}
![[47]](http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/194145fc.gif){kind=link}
![[48]](http://www.svetskirat.net/slike/razbijanje/zazbijanje_jugoslavije_1941.jpg){kind=link}
![[49]](https://www.marxists.org/subject/yugoslavia/images/maps/1941-dismemberment.jpg){kind=link}
![[50]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AAxis_occupation_of_Yugoslavia_1943-44.png&action=historysubmit&diff=56161948&oldid=55929246){kind=link}
![[51]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AAxis_occupation_of_Yugoslavia_1943-44.png&action=historysubmit&diff=56641480&oldid=56161948){kind=link}
