:How was the holiday? Great. Went to Haloze and drank too much :-) [[User:AlasdairGreen27|AlasdairGreen27]] ([[User talk:AlasdairGreen27|talk]]) 16:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:How was the holiday? Great. Went to Haloze and drank too much :-) [[User:AlasdairGreen27|AlasdairGreen27]] ([[User talk:AlasdairGreen27|talk]]) 16:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Il signor IP 151.67... sono io: mi chiamo Luigi e scrivo dall'Italia. Chiedo scusa se scrivo in italiano e non in inglese, ma trovo più semplice così, visto che comunque tu parli anche la mia lingua. Ovviamente potrai rispondermi in inglese. Riguardo alla voce "[[Italian cultural and historic presence in Dalmatia]]" chi ha citato il Giustiniani ha scritto un FALSO. Ecco cosa scrive Francesco Bruni nella sua "Storia della lingua italiana", al capitolo che si riferisce al ''Veneziano coloniale'': <<Giovambattista Giustiniani (...) per conto della Repubblica di Venezia visitò nel 1553 le basi dell’Adriatico orientale. Attento anche alla lingua, egli osserva che si parla la "lingua franca" a Pirano, Zara, Sebenico, Lesina; per Traù e Spalato aggiunge che gli uomini parlano la lingua franca, mentre le donne conoscono solo lo slavo (Traù: "hanno ben tutti la lingua franca, ma nelle case loro parlano schiavo [slavo] per rispetto alle donne, perché pocche d’esse intendono la lingua italiana, et se bene qualcuna intende, non vuol intendere se non la lingua materna"; Spalato: "tutti li cittadini parlano lingua franca [...] ma le donne non favellano se non la lor lingua materna"; per Ragusa, poi, il Giustiniani afferma che "parlano tutti lingua dalmatica e franca"; a Veglia l’idioma locale sembra all’orecchio del Giustiniani una sorta di gergo ("calmone"), mentre "tutti... forestamente favellano italiano francamente" (traggo queste testimonianze da Vianello 1955). Dunque si ricavano le opposizioni lingua franca / schiavo (Traù e, implicitamente, Spalato); lingua franca / dalmatico (Ragusa); idioma locale / italiano a Veglia; e dalla testimonianza riguardante Ragusa sembra che la denominazione di "lingua franca" equivalga a "lingua italiana". Si tratta della stessa "lingua franca" con la quale i cristiani comunicavano, nei porti mediterranei, con Arabi e Turchi (si veda il par. 5)? Una risposta negativa è più che probabile, come dimostra la convertibilità di "lingua franca" e "lingua italiana"; anche perché una lingua di comunicazione quotidiana per la navigazione e gli affari mercantili tra popolazioni venete da un lato, dalmatiche (o croatizzate) dall’altro sarà stata diversa. Certo, c’è da dubitare del carattere "italiano" di questa "lingua franca"; probabilmente, per "italiano" si deve intendere un italiano fortemente locale, di colore veneziano, che gli uomini di Zara o Traù parlavano con i forestieri con cui avevano contatti più fitti, e dunque con i veneziani o veneti provenienti dalla sponda opposta dell’Adriatico.>>
Ho notato, caro Direktor, che tu consideri tutta una serie di voci di Wikipedia come "cosa tua", per cui non mi permetto più di modificarle. Certo è che se hai un '''''minimo''''' di metodo storiografico, non puoi permettere che venga mantenuta la falsa citazione nella voce di cui tu sei un buon "guardiano". Vedremo. Luigi
I usually reply to posted messages here, but if the message is important I'll notify you on on your talkpage as well.
If I posted a message on your talkpage I will reply there, but feel free to notify me on my talk if you feel it is urgent.
I'd prefer it if noone removed content here, but naturally I have no objections if it's just grammar.
Please don't revert my edits on this page.
Finally: no insults. I can take criticism as much as the next guy, but outright personal attacks will be reverted and reported.
Heads up and my personal apology
Hello DIREKTOR et al. I'm writing here because I know the group of you will get this message. While I cannot support ultra nationalists of any stripe or colour, I write to you to convey my disapproval of the so-called "Italian" side of this coin, especially since I notice my name has been included to suggest I sympathise- I DO NOT! In fact, I have "retired" my account because I'm tired of WP's inability to deal with POV pushers on lower profile articles [that includes your lot, by the way]. Anyways... I cannot help the occasional snooping and, this time, I could not resist intervention. I am certain User:Pannonicus, User:Marygiove and numerous anon IP numbers (for example [1][2][3] and many others, always from Colorado, USA) are puppets of User:Brunodam. He is on this mission of promoting Italian irredentism, including use of Template:Italian Ethnic Groups for this purpose. I am not sure if there is a direct connection with GG and his alter egos, but of Brunodam I am positive (In fact, there is one slipped contribution where he signs as "Mary", but is logged on as Brunodam!). While I will likely continue to snoop from time to time, in future I will not intervene. Ciao, Mariokempes (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The worst part of it is that I somehow got the reputation of an "anti-Italian" activist or something. I go to Italy (of my own free will:) almost twice a year in average, and its not to mine bridges or crash into skyscrapers, either.
Anyway, thanks for the heads up, Mariokempes. Didn't he say he broke his leg or what not a few months back, you don't suppose it was for the purpose of throwing us off-course? Could you report the guy for puppeteering? You seem to know where most of the evidence is --DIREKTOR(TALK)20:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mariokempes, what a breath of fresh air to read your words. Brunodam's already been known to 'speak through invisible friends'. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Brunodam. I'd like to take the opportunity to join this conversation here to say a couple of things. First, we know there are basically three groups of people who edit Wikipedia. There's the out and out vandals, mostly kids, I think, who randomly delete text or add "YOU ARE G*Y!" to articles. Then there are the two main groups. Those who are keen on making a better, more detailed, more balanced encyclopedia. This is the vast majority. Then there is the third group, those who have issues or agendas in their minds, and seek to use Wiki as a forum or platform for them. Mario, these are the people on your mind, of course. Now, in this case, the troubled history of Dalmatia means that there are people in the last group who have strong opinions about Dalmatia's history, and Wiki is a place where they have a chance to put their views across. Dalmatia is not the worst Wiki-area, by the way. If you want to see some real blood on the carpet, have a look at the articles about the Armenian genocide, for example. But there are some who see the post WWII settlement on the eastern side of the Adriatic as a profound injustice. GG and Cherso are the names that spring to mind. Mariokempes, I want to strongly point out (but completely in the spirit of your message, of understanding and friendship) that while you say "the group of you will get this message", yes that's true - Direktor's talk is on my watchlist - I don't see us as 'a group'. I think there are basically four of us (Kubura, Zen, Direktor and me) who have these articles on our watchlists and who regularly contribute to them. But I don't know any of them; I don't know any of their real names; I don't even know if they are male or female. I can absolutely say there is no orchestration involved. If we are a group, we are that because we share an interest in these articles and try to make sure that there is no particular opinion or bias in them. We have naturally coalesced around these articles because we share the same outlook about Wikipedia. I have never once seen an edit by any of this 'group' of editors that I would call 'nationalist' or POV. I would oppose it if I did. Nearly every edit we make is to remove nationalist content. Normally it's silly things, like adding the Italian flag at the top of talk pages, or what places should be called. I don't know. I guess I just want to say that I've read your message to Direktor, and I personally appreciate it very much. I recently got a warning for vandalism because I wrote something on Cherso's talk page when he'd written some inflammatory anti-Slavic stuff there. I don't think any of the admins read what Cherso wrote to inspire my response, but that's Wikipedia. That's what you call "WP's inability to deal with POV pushers".
AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem, if I may add, is the profound bias these guys have. We are talking about either Venetian "nationalists" ("nostalgics" is perhaps the more appropriate name) who are extremely fond of their city's (rich) historical culture and tradition, a vital part of which is control over the Dalmatian coast (the Adriatic sea has even been known as the Gulf of Venice). They simply try to make the Dalmatian region seem as Italian as possible (though Italians/Venetians have always been a minority).
Then there's the "other kind", the "esuli" (exiles). These guys descend from people who left Dalmatia after Italy lost WW2. Now, the situation is complex here. The term "exiles" is of course an over dramatization, as no one actually forced them to leave with military power, but they did leave because of the extremely inhospitable environment they found themselves in. The Slavic population that surrounded them was indeed hostile to those they saw as former oppressors, aggressors and occupiers (keep in mind the brutality of the WW2 Yugoslav front). The fact remains that this hostility was almost certainly not specifically planned (there was no need, after all) by the Yugoslav government. This is a complex situation because the emigrants are indeed unfortunate people and a kind of voluntary refugees, even though the search for a better life in Italy almost certainly played its part in their motivation. The experience of being passively forced to leave their homes made them (and apparently their children) extremely racially biased and aggressive against Slavs they see as a culturally inferior but numerically superior people (something like Tolkien's Orcs :). Now with all due sympathy to their family past, such bias is unacceptable on Wikipedia, and must be pointed out to the Admins. --DIREKTOR(TALK)00:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any hint of creating some encyclopedic balance in these articles is crushed when I come across statements like this. You are just as bad as the "Italian" ultra nationalists and your "suggestion" that the "Italians" are aligned with the British and Americans really makes me shake my head. My apology above was an "olive branch" to all of you: an understanding that the two zealots you confront (Yes, I believe there are only two- I'll let you guess which one Cherso belongs to) do not represent a unified Italian voice or even the majority. And, if I may, I think my English is quite good- better than most Americans! Mariokempes (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What?! Calm down Mario! I merely stated accepted fact, its not disputed that Slavs constituted a majority in Dalmatia as a region, even by the irredentists! You are NOT "aligned" with the Americans and British, and that is certainly not what I meant. All I meant was that Italian culture is closer to the English culture than the Slavic culture is, and this is also widely accepted. Italian names simply "sound better" in general (to Slavs as well), and this is also widely accepted. Example: "Zara" sounds a lot better than "Zadar", (and can be a lot more easily pronounced) even though it is incorrect. You really need to calm down, I meant no offence as I was talking about the irredentists. However if you do believe Dalmatia is "rightfully Italian" or something like that then there is no need to offer any olive branches, I'm afraid. --DIREKTOR(TALK)18:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Direktor, I am calm... and where do I say Dalmatia is rightfully "Italian"? I was not reacting to your statement that "Slavs constituted a majority in Dalmatia as a region". I was reacting to the tone of your message. We both agree these guys are supreme idiots (that is not the issue). Maybe I misread these cyber discussions... but I was referring to what I perceive as an aggressive air. I cannot pretend to understand the Croatian spirit (what a stereotype!), but you give me the sense you are lumping all Italians together as imperial irredentists when my "olive branch" was a statement to the contrary. I will say there is a most definite Italian connection to Istria and Dalmatia, and if you see this as imperialsim then we have nothing further to discuss. If you agree, we are well under way to balance and full representation in the articles. For someone who is "retired" I've spent a fair bit of time on WP lately. Ciao Mariokempes (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lumping all Italians together...! I mean no offense, but that's gotta be the most ridiculous thing I heard in weeks, I have a two dozen Italian relatives (I can't even count them anymore:) and at least a dozen friends on the other side of the Adriatic! And I'm anyway not as stupid as to "lump" any nation together. Every country and its people are divided a thousand times over various issues and beliefs, especially Italy (if I may say so). You guys have a hundred parties, and I'm still not sure who is in a coalition with who over there and for what reasons (not that Croatia is much better). Like I've written on my userpage: I AM NOT ANTI-ITALIAN, I just don't like it when Dalmatia's unique mixed culture is "claimed" by these guys and "lumped together" as Italian.
Of course there is an Italian connection to Istria nad Dalmatia, noone is even trying to deny that. FFS, we have a huge number of Italian words in our local dialect down here (piaca, peškarija, riva, etc...). --DIREKTOR(TALK)21:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
I totally agree with what you say that there seems to be somewhat of an anti-slavic stance in wikipedia, and the western world, in general. We have to persist in out efforts to balance articles, and let the truth be told. Slavs aren't just a bunch of primitive, war-mongerers (although recently, we don;t have much to be proud of). The whol italian thing you have been having trouble with, as the same i;m experienceing 'on the other side'- with Greeks about Macedonia et al.
Hi :) Well, I wouldn't call it a deliberate "anti-Slavic stance" (though even here we may find exceptions), its just that Anglo-Saxon culture(s) are understandably "closer" to the Romance ones, than they are to the Slavic. Its incredibly hard for Americans, for example, to pronounce most South Slavic (Serbian/Croatian) words correctly (this I know from many a personal experience). I imagine the situation is less so with Western Slavs, and more so with Eastern Slavs though I can't say I'm exactly an expert. I remember one guy in LA remarking that "Zagreb" sounds like some Klingon word or something, the same guy found it hilarious that I come from a city that's called (a) "Split". Anyway, I agree that people have a "legitimate" reason (of sorts) for perceiving us as primitives when we slaughter each other over what basically amounts to religious differences, on the eve of the 21st century no less.
Yeah, I've always been annoyed that the Greeks are forcing Macedonia to keep that FYR prefix to their country's name. They had no objections when the Republic was part of a far more influential political entity. I suppose they fear invasion or something... ;) Anyway, don't get me started on the irredentists.
Well, Watson dared to state publicly that people of the Negroid race are scientifically proven to posses somewhat lower intelligence than Caucasians. Now I believe that the mentality of the modern society is greatly restricted by an ever increasing egalitarian stance. I am always in favor of unlimited science, and I cannot abide it when it is diminished to suite the needs of society. For example, IQ testing all over the world has proven beyond question that the sociological group with the highest IQ over all are Caucasian males, but one must not say this in public or in the media for fear of being socially branded a nazi, or racist, or who knows what. Even now that I've written this I may be attacked, just for stating scientific fact. --DIREKTOR(TALK)02:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. You're a funny, and correct, man. I too am frustrated by all the PC rubbish that goes on today. Fact should be told as it is. I hate all the left-wing quasi -intellectuals who try to impose equality when clearly there is no such thing, just so they fell more self-righteous. ANyway, i won;t get started. Goodluck Hxseek (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, congradz on your specialization (I'm hoping to be accepted for an Internal medicine specialization myself). Surgery is particularly difficult, I hear. R.A.C.S. is noted even up here, I know of a couple of colleagues hoping to get a specialization down under (on account of their Aussie cousins, I've heard). Good luck yourself. --DIREKTOR(TALK)04:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your most recent edits don't read very well. For instance did you mean to say that the NDH regained de jure responsibility for areas that had been annexed by Hungary? Elsewhere too the English is rather clumsy and potentially ambiguous. I could try to sort it out, but as English is your native language you mightprefer to do it yourself? Regards Kirker (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you will notice that someone removed "puppet state" from the intro. The new version may be technically accurate, but without saying enough about NDH's subservient status. On the other hand "puppet state" will always be contentious as it is so blatantly derogatory. You said somewhere that Germany dictated the composition of Pavelic's cabinet etc, and if you have a source for that I would like to see it in the article. With that kind of detail added, the terminology would not be too important, since anyone could then see the NDH for what it was. Kirker (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SPA accounts
I do not see points in discussion with nationalistic SPA accounts. User:Mike Babic is created with only intention to write about good Serbs and bad Croats. Similar to that is User:AP1929 which is writing about Ante Pavelic which has not made anything wrong. They both are nothing else but new versions of SPA accounts user:Votec, user:Justiceinwiki , User:Brkic .... Ulmost every month we are having new nationalistic SPA accounts which are knowing real truth. In my personal thinking User:Mike Babic is puppet of User:Procrustes the clown which has rewrited Serbian version of Yugoslav wars but even if this is true it is not possible to block him because he has not broken any rules (OK he has vandalized my user page). After my blocking of 3 users in second half of February I have expected little peace but ....--Rjecina (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he looks pretty moderate, his edits are pretty much ok... He didn't write anything radical or expansionist. I'm aware of the large number of Serb nationalists editing Wiki all the time, but I'm going to keep an open mind with this guy. The info he added was pretty much correct and he merely removed that text because of its poor quality I think... --DIREKTOR(TALK)03:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now you know problems created by SPA accounts. All historical data which I have added is from other wiki articles and we will not rewrite 10 articles because of nationalistic SPA account--Rjecina (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not worry about user:Mike Babic . He is having so many warning on talk page (must are my warning but there is administrator warning) that his edits days will end very soon.
I am having many experience with SPA account and my only point: discussion is not possible, because they do not listen. They are ulmost always puppets of banned editor because of which compromise about article is not possible (in my thinking). After blocking or banning of SPA account I revert article to last version before his editing,--Rjecina (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last night he has recived administrator warning about edit warring. After that he has reverted users Aradic-en , DIREKTOR , Kubura in article Serbs of Croatia and has writen POV stuff in article Republic of Serbian Krajina together with SPA account Procrustes the clown. In my thinking Mike Babic is puppet of Procrustes the clown but because I have tried to connect Procrustes the clown with Velebit I will not try this again (it will look like I am attacking this user). All in all I am sure that he will be blocked :) --Rjecina (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Babic story has ended :)) He has used sock (IP address) for reverting articles. I will start action for his blocking today...--Rjecina (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is semi-protected and he is blocked for short time period because of 3RR rule. Now I only need to wait because I have reverted 3 times....--Rjecina (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To tell you truth I am little depressed ...For me must important wiki thing is to revert ban. About problem in article NDH I must say that this IP address is writing OK stuff if we look other wikipedia articles. For begining you must change article Axis powers and move sections Slovakia and Croatia from minor axis powers to German puppet states.--Rjecina (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You second important thing is to revert user:Velebit puppet in article Neo-Nazism. This time he has "worked" from IP address 153.39.144.157 . If you look this article you will know about what I am speaking.--Rjecina (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AE report
A report was filed on you at the arbitration enforcement board yesterday, by someone who might be an inexperienced editor. I just noticed that you hadn't been told. GRBerry14:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on VK Gusar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Triwbe (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Messaggi di servizio
Ciao. Per favore, non scrivere voci notoriamente non enciclopediche e, di conseguenza, non cancellare i messaggi dalle tue discussioni. Grazie, MOJSKA666 (msg) 11:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In your user page you written that you can speak Italian. I am happy to talk with you by my language, but if you don't talk it very good, the meaning of my frase is the following. Hi. Please don't write unencyclopedic articles and don't delete warning messages from your user talk page. Bye, MOJSKA666 (msg) 11:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can speak Italian rather well, but I'm careful about using other languages since I've been warned to use English several times. What I meant is what warning are you referring to? I wasn't aware that I received warning messages (only notices) or that deleting them from your talkpage is a breach of Wiki policy. --DIREKTOR(TALK)11:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:TALK it is permissable to remove warnings from your own talk page. Indeed, it is considered an acknowledgement that you have read and understood the messages. Therefore, nothing to worry about here Mojska. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed not, but I thought I'd phrase it like that for the benefit of friend Mojska, for whom harmony seems not to be the highest priority, judging by his own talk page... :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs some major work put in. Firstly, citations and references for the most successful club bit. Perhaps adding an info box with important information like dates and such would help expand the article. Maybe look at other "team" sport type pages for some ideas. Otherwise, I fear that the article will be up for speedy, prod, or other form of deletion. If you are still working on the article User:DIREKTOR maybe put an "underconstruction" tag on it while you are expanding it. Just attempting to be helpful, hope it comes across that way. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bed? who hoes to bed?! Gotta fight the good fight on Wiki don't I ;) Seriously, I just downloaded the 3rd season of Battlestar Galactica and I can't stop watching (help!). I swear, that show is the only science fiction series I can bear to watch these days... I think I'm finally starting to get old and irritable (mommy told me that'll happen). Its not like there's much to do around this backwater anyway, I'm staring out my window on one of the most important city thoroughfares and there isn't a single car on the road, damn depressing :( --DIREKTOR(TALK)00:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Galactica? Easily the best SF series ever. By a distance. I too am thoroughly addicted...
Regarding your cmts at Bleiburg today, I wholeheartedly agree. I saw the sentence regarding some TV phone in and couldn't quite believe my eyes. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without question, I can't wait to see the ending Olmos and his buddies cook up. I get the feeling it could turn out to be a spoiler, though, the plot is getting too complicated. The show was on TV around here about a year and a half ago, and I didn't watch it, so now I'm making up for lost time before season 4 airs.
The real question is should we start including phone in "poll" results from all the second-rate TV shows from various ex-Yugoslav channels? It could turn out to be quite an interesting collection of "information"... --DIREKTOR(TALK)23:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moving articles
I can't claim not to have made the same mistake... Well, that's 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 6th. The 4th and 5th had names, so that's all then?
—WWoods (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Official caution
These comments by you were not helpful.[7][8] You are still personalizing your edits too much, saying that someone must "have some agenda", or sarcastically referring to anyone, even yourself, as "anti-Italians". Let me be clear, you must stop the personal comments about other editors. I do not want to have to issue sanctions against a longterm editor, but this is a volatile situation that I do not want to see further escalate. So please stick to discussing the article, not the other editors. --Elonka07:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I'll try to be more courteous. My post did concern edits after all, but if a person obviously does not follow WP:NPOV am I not allowed to say so? I really don't think what I said constitutes a personal attack. --DIREKTOR(TALK)08:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that in some contexts it might be okay, but I'm lowering the boom, I want everyone strictly civil, because I honestly believe that it'll focus the discussion. Also, I should advise that I am in the Working group on cultural and ethnic edit wars. We are actively brainstorming ways to deal with these kinds of conflicts on Wikipedia, so I'm choosing a few disputes here and there as "test cases" to try out some new techniques. So trust me, my close supervision is being done for the best of reasons. Just stay excruciatingly civil, keep your edits extremely well-sourced, stick scrupulously to WP:NPOV, and you won't have any trouble. And if you have suggestions on how these kinds of disputes can be better dealt with (all across Wikipedia), please feel free to give me open feedback on the process. And lastly, as I've mentioned before, please consider refactoring earlier posts of yours. It would really help a great deal. Thanks, Elonka08:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vote
Sorry, DIREKTOR.
"Dalmatia being part of Montenegro as well.". Dear Direktor, we don't have article: "Croats in Pannonian basin": these belong to articles "Croats in Serbia", "Croats in Romania", "Croats in Austria", "Croats in Hungary". We don't have article "Croats in Baranja": these belong to articles "Croats" (or we'll make "Croats in Croatia") and "Croats in Hungary". We don't have "Croats in Dalmatia": these belong to articles "Croats"/"Croats in Croatia" and "Croats in Montenegro". We don't have "Croats in Burgenland" (but "Burgenland Croats"; they are too specific case): these belong to articles "Croats in Austria".
Articles about nationalities are made according to country, not according to region.
So, according to your argument, those 'll be two articles, Italians in Croatia, Italians in Montenegro.
Look further. What Dalmatia are they talking about? Mali Lošinj? Rijeka? This has gone way over original boundaries of Dalmatia.
"Italian minority in Dalmatia"? I'm not intending to fall into that trap. "Dalmatian Italians" are NOT some special ethnic group. These are Italians that live/lived in Croatia. Don't your recognize the pattern of Italian irredentists (and all others that claimed Croatian territory for themselves)? Evading the name of Croatia at any price. How many times the Croatia is mentioned there? Uninformed person might think that those people are from some other country.
Also, the tagging of article is not goodintentional. Dalmatia is not the part of Italy, so the tag "Wikiproject Italy" has got nothing with it.
Foreigners do not understand and they do not recognize this iredentists' game. Foreigners see this too romantically, and they don't know for all the crap, that we see/recognize it coming.
They don't understand what we feel and think, they don't know how it is, when the political leaders (as well as scientific circles) from the neighbouring country (in this case Italy), with population 12 or more times larger then your country's (or 50 millions more), speak about portion of territory of your country as "Italian soil", and when they speak about "reitalianization" of those areas. As a preparation for particular measures for implementation, "scientist" are being engaged, so the pseudoscientific ground is being layed, as well as propagandist measures. In this case, Wikipedia is being used. After being encouraged by their politicians and scholars, ordinary users write *&%!@.
Uninformed, naive and "everything seeing romantic" users and admins don't see this as problem. They don't have such problems at their home (they are from too big countries, they don't know for the threats of imperialists from larger country in neighbourhood), so they are wondering "what these Balkan savages are talking about".
Finally, regarding article itself: move that image of crap in front of Diocletian's palace (there used to be Riva). I hope that NATO 'll use that ugly airplane runway (runways that has gallows on it) for target practicing. We don't have to present our shame to the whole world.
And one more thing: Dante Alighieri association has nothing specifical with Italians in Croatia, AFAIK, it's just another one of many government sponsored-cultural organizations, that promote the certain culture and language... worldwide. Kubura (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get some sleep. Tmrw's g'na be a busy day. The Rab article gets unblocked. Me? I'm homeless. Sleeping on the streets. That's how come I'm still awake. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that photo is one that all our Italian co-editors should have in the forefront of their minds. That's why I used it here [9]. Mate, looking forward to meeting you in person for a few beers sometime. ;-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was embarrassing :D. Didn't even notice that(!) I just dug up the link in an old discussion page a few minutes ago, thought it was forgotten or something... --DIREKTOR(TALK)22:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Off to bed now. G'night :-)
Diacritics-arbitration
Hi
I intend to send this argument about spelling the south Slavic names (Franjo Tuđman ,Novak Đoković etc. )
here:
Re: Rab, seems the problem's over, for now at least. If there's any benefit to a situation like that guy Gennarous turning up, the article's much better now than it was a month ago. So that's cool.
Namely WP:Canvassing allows informing the users who were involved in the article or the discussion. I have not strained from that. Only authors who would contribute to the discussion have been invited to join. -- Imbris (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user I informed has been participating in the discussion before and also opposed. Your actions to smirge my communications are void. -- Imbris (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who implied such statements. Please stop clouding the discussion with your emotions. Also If you wanted a real discussion why haven't you notified all the participants of the recend rename crusade. Some of current participants have been on wiki for a meere month or so. Is this the discussion you want to create. -- Imbris (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
King?
I'll stay aside for the moment. My knowledge about this guy is poor, almost none. All that I know is that there was some gazer who was supposed to get title, which never really happened. I'll see if I can dig out some relevant data. Zenanarh (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For me is not possible to change vote. I have voted in this way even on croatian wikipedia.
In my thinking very good compromise is Tomislav II of Independent State of Croatia.
Maybe I am mistaking but Croatian parliament has voted for Rome agreements and point of Rome agreements has been Tomislav II--Rjecina (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hajduk
I wrote that about hajduk many years ago...my English is poor. Ok to leave it but please fix wording or delete OK
I want to delete if possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.185.84.181 (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have lost patience with discussion on talk page. Discussion has started because of SPA account which has wanted that Veritas become source for article and now we are having discussion which source are good for this article. On talk page I have declared that today is last day of my discussions and that somebody will take my place. I am asking you and 1 another editor.--Rjecina (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In last 12 days talk page of Operation Storm has passed from 102,000 bytes to 235,122 bytes (discussion in last 12 days). I have lost patience for futher discussions. Article has recieved 42 tags (citation needed, unreliable source, verification needed, clarify, dubious). I agree that few of this tags are OK but 42 ???? Because I am looking for sources I can't continue discussion about which sources are OK and which sources are not OK. Somebody from Croatia need to continue this discussion because in my thinking we are having typical bad faith SPA account which like to write about bad Croats ( evidence )--Rjecina (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No mate. Let it run. Someone'll be along to shut it down quickly enough. Unfortunately, with a proposed move like this and similar stuff around Wikipedia you only need one or two with loud voices and there's not much chance of getting anything changed. It's easy to block, very difficult to do anything positive. But at least you tried. :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Serbs/Craotaia
I do agree that Tudjiman had to comply with restrictions from the US. The outcome at the end proved to be an Croatia that was clearned from the Serbs.
Mike Babic (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please tell me why you think that United Nations General Assembly and Helsinki Watch are not NPOV source ?
Thank you for bringing the matter to my attention. I believe User:Kubura and AlasdairGreen may be interested in this as well. --DIREKTOR(TALK)07:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Tomislav
I have responded to your comment on my talk page. Once again, my apologies - late night editing after a long day. Take care, JPG-GR (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have once again closed the move request as "no consensus". There are no doubt valid arguments on each side, but the fact that each side is arguing so strongly and has been for so long shows that there is no general consensus for either side, unfortunately. JPG-GR (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decision
A decision was made the RM was closed, just because you don't like the outcome you shouldn't hassle the person who closed it. Moving the article will go against published sources and WP:NC the arguments for a move are based on peoples own unsupported opinions that is clear. You should accept the decision unless you can provide sources to saying he is a "pretender" or that he was never king of Croatia. - dwc lr (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt you will point out "mistake's" to everyone until you get it moved your actions are disgraceful. He made a decision, the support votes are all peoples own pov where are the sources to support your argument? Why would someone move the article to an incorrect title according WP:NC Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta would be the correct title if he was a "pretender" which we know he wasn't. - dwc lr (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fair enough I'll look at the talk page. Where can I find the sources that dispute he was King of Croatia and say he was a pretender. - dwc lr (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm prepared to be convinced that is why I've been asking for sources that call him a Pretender etc. If the reasons for the support votes were added into the article they would be removed as unverifiable as their are no sources. At present I don't see why the article should be moved when there are no published sources (which is what wikipedia uses) to support that he is a pretender etc. goodbye. - dwc lr (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IP 151.67...
Buddy,
Had a bit of a break for a week or two. Holiday then work. How are you?
Il signor IP 151.67... sono io: mi chiamo Luigi e scrivo dall'Italia. Chiedo scusa se scrivo in italiano e non in inglese, ma trovo più semplice così, visto che comunque tu parli anche la mia lingua. Ovviamente potrai rispondermi in inglese. Riguardo alla voce "Italian cultural and historic presence in Dalmatia" chi ha citato il Giustiniani ha scritto un FALSO. Ecco cosa scrive Francesco Bruni nella sua "Storia della lingua italiana", al capitolo che si riferisce al Veneziano coloniale: <<Giovambattista Giustiniani (...) per conto della Repubblica di Venezia visitò nel 1553 le basi dell’Adriatico orientale. Attento anche alla lingua, egli osserva che si parla la "lingua franca" a Pirano, Zara, Sebenico, Lesina; per Traù e Spalato aggiunge che gli uomini parlano la lingua franca, mentre le donne conoscono solo lo slavo (Traù: "hanno ben tutti la lingua franca, ma nelle case loro parlano schiavo [slavo] per rispetto alle donne, perché pocche d’esse intendono la lingua italiana, et se bene qualcuna intende, non vuol intendere se non la lingua materna"; Spalato: "tutti li cittadini parlano lingua franca [...] ma le donne non favellano se non la lor lingua materna"; per Ragusa, poi, il Giustiniani afferma che "parlano tutti lingua dalmatica e franca"; a Veglia l’idioma locale sembra all’orecchio del Giustiniani una sorta di gergo ("calmone"), mentre "tutti... forestamente favellano italiano francamente" (traggo queste testimonianze da Vianello 1955). Dunque si ricavano le opposizioni lingua franca / schiavo (Traù e, implicitamente, Spalato); lingua franca / dalmatico (Ragusa); idioma locale / italiano a Veglia; e dalla testimonianza riguardante Ragusa sembra che la denominazione di "lingua franca" equivalga a "lingua italiana". Si tratta della stessa "lingua franca" con la quale i cristiani comunicavano, nei porti mediterranei, con Arabi e Turchi (si veda il par. 5)? Una risposta negativa è più che probabile, come dimostra la convertibilità di "lingua franca" e "lingua italiana"; anche perché una lingua di comunicazione quotidiana per la navigazione e gli affari mercantili tra popolazioni venete da un lato, dalmatiche (o croatizzate) dall’altro sarà stata diversa. Certo, c’è da dubitare del carattere "italiano" di questa "lingua franca"; probabilmente, per "italiano" si deve intendere un italiano fortemente locale, di colore veneziano, che gli uomini di Zara o Traù parlavano con i forestieri con cui avevano contatti più fitti, e dunque con i veneziani o veneti provenienti dalla sponda opposta dell’Adriatico.>>
Ho notato, caro Direktor, che tu consideri tutta una serie di voci di Wikipedia come "cosa tua", per cui non mi permetto più di modificarle. Certo è che se hai un minimo di metodo storiografico, non puoi permettere che venga mantenuta la falsa citazione nella voce di cui tu sei un buon "guardiano". Vedremo. Luigi
