User talk:TU-nor

Deleting my edits, and pushing the 103 villages and other war propaganda

Do you care to inform what is your knowledge on the subject that you are so keen on deleting my edits and push POV and other war propaganda, such as the 103 villages one?Jazz1972 (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Jazz1972: It seems that you are not familiar with how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not based on what different editors know or do not know about the subjects. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say. Please read about it here. The mention of the 103 villages is based on the information in the book United Nations Peacekeeping in the Post-Cold War Era. On page 81 in this book it says: "Also, 103 Cypriot villages were attacked and 30,000 Turkish Cypriots made refugees." If you think that the book does not meet the criteria of WP:Reliable sources, you may challenge the use of the source in the talk page in order to get consensus for its removal, but you can not remove the information without such consensus.

Regarding my removal of the templates you placed in the article, it is quite simple: The template says that the sections "may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies". For other editors to evaluate this information, you will need to point out what ideas, incidents, or controversies you think have received undue weight. --T*U (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

FYI; Sources can also be challenged at WP:RSN. (And, are you ever going to start archiving this page?) Cheers - wolf 21:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Do I need to remind you that you were the one that was debating and deleting another edit of mine, saying that there was only one battle (falsely) and now you are deleting my edit, saying that at list another 103 took place? So if I add a few books that are saying otherwise and a few editors agree with me, what is going to be your reaction? Jazz1972 (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome to add reliable sources (but please note that it has to be reliable sources, not just "a few books"). If the sources are in conflict, both views will have to be presented. How they are to be presented will have to be discussed in the talk page until a consensus is reached. That is how Wikipedia works. --T*U (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Jazz1972: Oh, by the way: You have never given any sources for Turkish military involvement in any other battle than the battle of Tillyria. Since it seems that you now hopefully are starting to grasp how Wikipedia works, perhaps it is time to go to Talk:List of wars involving Turkey and present the sources now? --T*U (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

You might be interested

[1] - LouisAragon (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent edits on Balkan articles.

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Have you ever realized how much better is Wikipedia today, thanks to the tireless contributions of yours to the Project? A question however is bugging me: how the heck do you ever spot all these problems? Do you actually read all articles or have you set the entire project on your watchlist? Don't get me wrong, just you are quite the inspiration for the rest of us. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Central Europe

Hi, please check this edit [2], normally I would revert it, as well "see on the map" is untenable, Slovania is mentioned in the next section "alternatively placed in Southeastern Europe"...so what's your stance, full revert, or? Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC))

KIENGIR: Sorry for (too) late answer, but currently real life is interfering with my time schedule... I see that another editor now has reverted it, with which I agree, both for the obvious WP:OR of "see on the map" and for the fact that Slovenia already is mentioned in the next section "Other countries and regions".

Given the lack of any rigid definition, I would prefer to get rid of the distinction between the two lists. It would be better to list them all together, with "alternatively placed in ..." as needed.

I would also want to get rid of lots of country lists in the sections further down, type "Economy", "Education" etc. They seem to take for granted that there is a clear definition of which countries to include, but they all lack inclusion criteria, and they are mutually inconsistent. I have succeeded somewhat in getting rid of such lists in other "X-ern Europe" articles, but I have not found time to attack this article yet. Regards! --T*U (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

You might be interested

[3] - LouisAragon (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hi,

opinion about this edit? ([4]). Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC))

Flags

I don't understand the revert. Why articles concerning ethnic groups from Scandinavian and Germanic countries have them then? I thought that is the standard? Excuse my mistake. Oliszydlowski, 19:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Oliszydlowski: No, it is not standard. It has at different times been inserted here and there by some editors, but there has never been any consensus for it. In most cases, the national flag of a country is not a relevant symbol for an ethnic group. There may be cases where it is appropriate (although I doubt it), in which case it could be suggested in the relevant talk page in order to create consensus for inclusion. --T*U (talk) 09:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification. Oliszydlowski, 19:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Littlier

Hi,

thank you for your edit. I meant, if we see modern designations, only a little part of Eastern-Europe was included to Austria-Hungary. Cheers!(KIENGIR (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC))

KIENGIR: I see your point, but as you know, there are no exact definitions that can tell us once and for all that country A is part of Central Europe and country B is part of Eastern Europe. Depending on what definitions we use, the size of these parts may vary wildly (and is open for intense differences of opinions). In any case, whether 10%, 30%, 50%, 70% or 90% of Austria-Hungary belonged to Central and/or Eastern Europe is completely irrelevant to the article Dual monarchy. --T*U (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is MOS:ETHNICITY on articles about Polish Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Flags of districts of the Bahamas

Santiago RD has uploaded a lot of images of flags to Commons, including flags for all of the districts in the Bahamas. I can find no evidence that such flags exist. I have placed a note about those flags on an administrator noticeboard at Commons, but I don't think I can get them removed from Commons. I have asked Santiago RD to provide a working link to a source for such flags, but he has not responded. I will work to revert the addition of these apparently made-up images to articles as I see them. - Donald Albury 23:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Donald Albury: Just some words in haste: I am quite sure that all those flags (and now also lots of coats of arms) are fake. I first noticed the Greek "region flags" without any credible sourcing. I have sampled the Cuba and Dom.Rep. entries from earlier and and am convinced they are just as fake. And now the attack at Barbados is following the same pattern. The problem is that they use Commons and en-wiki in combination, thereby making it more difficult to stop. What I have done at Greece, is to revert every addition of the fake flags in en-wiki and at the same time marked all the new files at Commons with the "fictitious flag" template. When I have the time, I will rename the category in Commons from "flags of ..." to "fictitious flags of ..." in order to reduce the risk of people adding them to en-wiki (and other wikis) in good faith. Problem is that this takes time that I do not have much of for the time being. A further (and important) step would be to raise the problem at ANI, but that would also need some preparation. Talking to Santiago directly is probably just a waste of time, since they have never used a talk page (nor given edit summaries). In any case, it is good to know that there are other editors that are aware of the problem. Thanks for that! --T*U (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll help at Commons. As I said, most of my experience at Commons has been uploading images, and I was not aware of the "fictitious flag" template. I did start this discussion, but, as long as the images are Santiago RD's creations and not copyright violations, they probably will be left there. Anyway, I'll do what I can. - Donald Albury 11:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Just for giggles, have you looked at the history of List of Dominican Republic flags? The list has been cleaned out after images were deleted in 2007 (enWP), 2012 (Commons), 2013 (Commons) and 2015/2016 (Commons). Santiago RD filled it up again in 2017 with images he uploaded to Commons in 2016, without any claim as to where he found the flags. Creating fantasy flags seems to be popular. - Donald Albury 19:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC) Added 2015/2016. 20:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I just marked the first 28 out of the 189 files at m:Category:Flags of municipalities of the Dominican Republic as fictitious flags. I guess I need to learn how to use automated editing, I'll get back to them as I am able. - Donald Albury 20:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Donald Albury: I have followed up your excellent start by moving a batch of the flags you have marked to a new sub-cat "Fictitious flags...". Yes, it would be nice to have some automated tools, but we are making progress! Then, of course, there is the coats of arms... And then there is Cuba... Anyway, I'll continue when I can. --T*U (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I've run into a glitch. I damaged the power supply for my Chromebook and have had to switch to a slower laptop without a touchscreen, so it's taking me a little while to get back up to speed. I've been thinking about how to structure a request at AN/I, maybe asking for a minimum of a topic ban on Santiago adding flags to articles, although an indef block may be in order for failure to communicate. It also appears that fictitious flags of municipalities of the Dominican Republic have been removed from Commons more than once as "out of scope", so that may be something worth pursuing. - Donald Albury 10:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Donald Albury: There is also this and this, which may be another – and even simpler – path at Commons. --T*U (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I will support a request to delete them all. - Donald Albury 13:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Update to Donald Albury: After having waited several weeks for the first batch of deletion requests to be executed (there is a huge backlog), I finally lost my patience today and sent a new batch. Within a quarter of an hour after my new posting, the old batch had been removed! We are slowly moving forward... --T*U (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: Minor

Thanks for your clarification about "Minor" marking for edits. I assumed updates to data points such as a country's population are considered minor. I figured it is not as major as adding a paragraph or making some structural change. Your point is well taken and I will comply. Cheers.

Foreign_relations_of_Greece.svg

Hey, thanks a lot for your quick response to my problem!!! 🧡 --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Lime and Motorised Scooter

Hi. This vandal is being disruptive, he has reverted my edits even and has provide no explanation. It is sourced.

Lime and Motorized scooter.

101.178.163.19 (talk) 04:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

1960's violence

Regarding this edit summary[5] I can not recall a scholar that does not claim that the GC approach to intercommunal violence is denialist or something similar. I believe we can employ it as a WP voice. Unless other scholars have a different opinion. Cinadon36 14:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Cinadon36: According to Demetriou the approach "parallels denialist strategies". You stated that the Greek Cypriot side are employing a denialist approach, which is quite a bit stronger. A couple of sources for that would be nice... But please take this to the article talk page. This discussion has nothing to do here in my user talk. --T*U (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Will do thanx.Cinadon36 15:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi TU-nor, I 'd appreciate if you could talk at [6]. I think many sources have been provided so we can be confident that about WP voice. Cinadon36 06:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Removal of updated figures on Central Europe

Why did you revert/remove the edits I have made regarding the updated 2018 figures of the Human Globalization Index, Legatum Prosperity Index, and Corruption Perceptions Index? Furthermore, why did you also remove the Baltic states, Romania, and Ukraine from the defintion/lists, yet kept Croatia and Serbia? That is not fair. These reverts are unwarranted. I have reverted them back, you can take your concerns to the discussion on the Talk Page, rather than engaging in vandalism/edit warring. Please do not deliberately remove useful info and engage in a one-sided bias. Thank you. -185.41.130.3 (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Your recent editing history at Polish League Against Defamation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -185.41.130.3 (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

185.41.130.3:Look who is talking... --T*U (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Dates

Well I think in a historical article it is useful to link dates. Kapeter77 (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Kapeter77: Even if you personally think it is useful, you have, as everyone else, to follow the "Manual of style", which is a Wikipedia guideline. See WP:MOS. The specific guideline about date linking is found at WP:DATELINK. It says: Month-and-day articles (e.g. February 24 and 10 July) and year articles (e.g. 1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless the linked date or year has a significant connection to the subject of the linking article, beyond that of the date itself, so that the linking enhances the reader's understanding of the subject. If you disagree, you are entitled to try end change the guideline, but it is not acceptable to break it at will. Regards! --T*U (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

T*U I know it but I think in a historical text(for example the history of a town) it is significant. But if u think no, I won't do it again. Kapeter77 (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

User Pallerti

He is using meat puppets on Hungarian Wikipedia (like user Maghasító) to spread pseudo history and linguistics. He deletes every references and texts to support his meat puppets. HE has racist agendas,he is a neo-cuman minority boy from Kunság region who spread turanist ideas and fringle theories on Hungarian Wikipedia. On English Wikipedia he is often using his meat puppet: Maghasito. It would be better to ban him from English Wiki. Hungarian wikipedia often workd like metapedia and spread fringle theories , conspiracy theories and pseudo science , due to such people like this Pallerti and his meat puppets. --Refreshers (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Refreshers: Still another wiki rule to learn: No personal attacks. --T*U (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you always stalking me?

I feel like 100% of my reverted edits come from you and are reverted very quickly. It feels strange to be followed. --WeNeedWikipedia!^{Wikipedia is essential!!! Can't live without it!!!}(Say what?) 12:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

+1 ? Sadko (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Stop stalking me. MrUnoDosTres (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for correcting my report; I though I had checked it but missed that. Have a good day! Jeppiz (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Vladimir Beara discussion

Hi TU-nor,just wanted to clear some things up. You and I already had a similar encounter on a somewhat related topic (Branimir Štulić). You made an argument which i accepted as solid ground. The argument was that we should keep in mind the self-declaration of nationality from the person in question. Shouldn't the same argument apply in the Vladimir Beara discussion? Peace SerVasi (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@SerVasi: Each case has to be evaluated separately. There are similarities and differences between these two. Both of them were born and earned their notability in Yugoslavia, both of them experienced the split-up of the country. But there are also important differences.

For Vladimir Beara, his coaching career lasted until 1987, when Yugoslavia still was Yugoslavia, so he was always a Yugoslav player and coach. The information about his declared ethnicity has nothing to do in the lede, but it is fine to have it in a section lower down. The sourcing for this could have been better, but I think it is good enough to mention.

Regarding Branimir Štulić, his notability stretches into the period after Yugoslavia was divided, so it could have been pertinent to mention a later nationality in the lede, but since he has denied taking any citizenship, which is covered in the article, there is nothing to mention. The only possibility I see, would be "Yugoslav, later stateless", but I am not sure if that is correct. It would have to be sourced that he really is regarded as stateless. My simple solution was to avoid the problem by just saying he was a singer-songwriter. That would imo be enough, since he is mentioned in the same sentence as headman in a Yugoslav rock group. I see now that another editor has added "Yugoslav", which in my opinion is a poorer solution, but I have no intention of edit warring over it. --T*U (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Handke/Austria

Since I... don't think my continued presence will be particularly useful on that talk page, and I said I wouldn't post again, responding here. Imo, the point is not to "get at Austria"; it's just a fact that he was born in Nazi Germany. It's not "using his infobox" to make a statement about Austria anymore than Gerhard Schroder's infobox has been coopted to remind us that Germany was once Nazi, or that Vladimir Putin's infobox is being contorted to remind us that Russia was once the Soviet Union. What all of these have, is just common policy that you say the state entity the person was born under. Some day, if Wikipedia lasts so long, we perhaps will have an infobox for some X al-Y who for all we know could be a lesbian who will help spread Canaanite polytheistic neopaganism, and her infobox will say "Raqqa, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", not because its some ploy to remind people she was born under a hyper-Islamist theocracy that would despise her future existence, but just because it's a fact.

On the other hand, imho, removing the baseline practice of stating what state entity someone was born under specifically when it's Nazi Germany tends to involve some awkward contortion. Like in this case. If we go with Resnjari's idea of Carinthia, nobody knows what that is. If we say "Austria", well that's just false because it's anachronistic. If we say "present day Austria", that's a rather tortured way to put it, because it begs the question of "but... what was it then?"; for people (most) who know the history, it just looks like evidence of Wikipedia being held hostage by people's "feelings", which is not professional. Two of these were suggested as compromises, I think both you and Resnjari were operating under the normal Balkan scenario where the fight arises from everyone not AGFing and you just have to find something that doesn't look like one side "wins". But this is a different scenario. I won't deny there's merit in a view that some editors are fans of Handke and getting defensive about what they see as attempts to accuse him of being a fascist, while the other side perceives a whitewash. I understand that since I side with Ktrimi often people will think I am coming at it from that angle, but I didn't know who Handke was until I followed Resnjari to this page, and on this specific case Sadko does have a point -- I see a lot of criticism, which I do think is notable, but he could be given a place where his responses to accusations were stated to, and I don't see that. But sometimes the compromise deal isn't worth the externality it imposes.

Ironically, Khirurg accidentally brought up a good point on BLPN aobut the relation of Handke to his family's past and attempts to use it against him, because the other side of the coin is an overreaction that serves to erase information that is relevant. A quick google search reveals that Handke's notability does come in part from being born under Nazi rule, and this was the case before the Yugoslav Wars started. For example, consider this piece from 1988 on his work by British commentator (of Austrian Jewish origin) David Pryce-Jones, published in the NYT [7]. He has this to say, among other things, Peter Handke is an Austrian, born at a time when his country was part of Hitler's Reich. To dwell on that period and its aftermath does not make for popularity there. Unlike Germany, Austria has done nothing to atone for its Nazi past. This has created a special atmosphere of silence and evasion, carefully cultivated in a population that aided and abetted Nazism with almost unanimous enthusiasm... Austria's failure to deal with its Nazi past has promoted in a number of intellectuals... rejection of others and to plain lack of humanity. It is this novel's melancholy achievement to show such sentiment for what it is, not cleansing but deepening the moral confusion of the world the Nazis left to their descendants.. From Pryce-Jones' view, yes, this is relevant to his literature. I am not saying we should adopt this POV necessarily. But it's weird to pretend it's not part of who he is, and bizarre contortions to evade basic facts should not be the sacrifice on the altar of compromise on what certainly not the last Balkan squabble on that page. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Back down

Accusations aside, take a look at the sentence and the way it is written, read it carefully and than return to talk about dishonesty and whatever is on your honest agenda.Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sadko: I was talking about your edits to the sources. You removed the actual quote about crematoriums from two sources (Shaw and Ibrahimagić). Then you combined the two sources into one, thus attributing Shaw with the quote "Serb soldiers opened the register of colonial killings", which is actually from Ibrahimagić. The result was the removal of Ibrahimagić and a false attibution to Shaw. Such treatment of sources is an unacceptable falsification.

Regarding the content of the section "Epilogue", I have some reservations about the current presentation. I hope to find time to look deeper into it. If I do, I will raise my conceerns in the talk page. --T*U (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

That was not my intention. I work on my computer and I sometimes edit rather fast, which can be seen from my typos, here and there. The information in the book is not presented as acctual events - and they are not. The other work is just repeating after Tucovic. He used apostrophes. Show good faith and undo yourself. I will pay close attention if anything like that is going to happen. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sadko: What exactly do you want me to undo? In my last edit here, the only thing I did was to repair your erroneous edit to the quotations. --T*U (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I am speaking about this part, which is not presented properly, because he is not talking about real events and that is how that material is presented in the article.

Tucović also wrote that the Serb soldiers burned hundreds of Albanian women and children alive in crematoriums. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Among the sources used presently, the only reputable source here appears to be Karadjis, who is a university professor. Les Shaw was a spokesman for the Croatian Australian community during the 1970s who also represented Croat terrorism suspects in Australian courts. Ibrahimagic is a physician and poet (and in no way qualified to write about history) and the Howard Clark book was printed by Pluto Press, a Marxist printing house.

As for the literal veracity of the "crematoriums" claim, Central Serbia did not get its first crematorium until 1963, when one was built in Belgrade. [8] Why? Because cremation is frowned upon in Orthodox Christianity and the demand for one was thus low. After World War I, the most ardent proponent of the practice of cremation in Serbia, Dr. Vojislav Kujundzic, lamented the fact that the Serbian military did not have furnaces with which to cremate the remains of its fallen soldiers rather than leave them to rot in fields (see Mates 2016, pp. 84-85 ). So, yes, I'm inclined to agree with Sadko that Tucovic's "crematoriums" reference was figurative and not literal. In the Western consciousness, mention of crematoriums and atrocities inevitably conjures associations with the Holocaust, so it's not surprising that individuals who might wish to draw a parallel between the Holocaust and atrocities in the Balkans have latched on to this particular quotation. I believe that any mention of crematoriums should directly be attributed to Tucovic. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Sadko: As I have already said, I have some reservations about the current presentation in the section "Epilogue", but that discussion has nothing to do in my talk page. Please take it to the article talk page. --T*U (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Donji Kraji

What's the point?
You asked for a month to finish the RfC, I expected that you'll be the one who will formally close it?
We have to versions of the article, mine which has been changed to apease everyone, and to which there are no known critics, and the current one which lacks... Everything. --Čeha (razgovor) 12:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Ceha I cannot close the RfC, since I have been involved in the discussion. Also, I have no experience in closing such discussion. I have told you how to ask for closure. --T*U (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I've done so, is it good? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Talk:_Donji_Kraji#Version_of_Article --Čeha (razgovor) 17:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ceha: I saw that, and made a few adjustments. Then we can only hope that someone soon is bold enough to go into this. Not everyone is happy with getting involved in Balkan issues, for obvious reasons. --T*U (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Great, tnx :) --Čeha (razgovor) 18:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Week after, nothing happened. We have two versions, and I would like to return the most voted one. Why is that an issue? This can go one like this for monts. --Čeha (razgovor) 18:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ceha: I can only ask you to be patient. Wikipedia has no deadline. --T*U (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Great. And why is user Mhare permited to change the main article as he wishes, while my changes are disregarded? What shamefull and blunt breach of all of wikipedia rules. --Čeha (razgovor) 19:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

1RR

I reverted the version, but the last edit was not an revertion, it rephrased all the quotes. That is also not allowed? --Čeha (razgovor) 23:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ceha: Yes, the description in WP:3RR says A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. --T*U (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

A question

What do you think is the best way to deal with this sort of renegade deletion of sources? [9] [10] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: The general answer is WP:RSN and talk page discussions, if necessary dispute resolution (and absolutely not edit war). --T*U (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Nightenbelle (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Josip Runjanin

Would you start RfC, maybe you have more experience with that procedure, thanks.Mikola22 (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mikola22: OK, I will start an RfC on your behalf. Can you please specify the exact text you would like to have added, so that I get it correct. --T*U (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

"Josip Runjanin did not consider himself Serb or Croat since there is no historical data who talk about it although Runjanin's daughter Wilhelmine Runjanin for their ancestors from father's side claimed that they considered themselves Croats". Mikola22 (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Rudeness

You know you are a bit rude Yes I made a mistake don’t be rude about it and just fix the article don’t be rude Please apologize Tee wew28 (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tee wew28: I am not sure I understand what could be interpreted as rude in my comments, but if it came across that way, I apologise. --T*U (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Alright apology accepted Tee wew28 (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Stepanakert Coat of Arms

Hello. I saw your recent edits on Stepanakert article. Don't want to meddle in this topic too much myself and wanna know your opinion regarding official coat of arms of this city before making any move. The city is officially under Azerbaijani jurisdiction and it has different Coat of Arms than in the article. Please note that all UN countries, including Armenia officially recognize the city being part of Azerbaijan. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Verman1: Hi! I am also not a regular editor in the topic area, I just came there by chance as a spin-off from somewhere else. (I usually get my fair share of drama from editing in Balkan-related topics, so I do not have need for any more excitement.) Just off the cuff I would say that both COAs (with proper, neutral captions) could be presented in the article in a similar way as the "Country (de facto) / Country (de jure)" solution. Regards! --T*U (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Verman1: As a precedent and in terms of maintaining consistency; please note that the other three "states with limited recognition" in the Post-Soviet region (Transnistria and it's capital Tiraspol, Abkhazia with it's capital Sukhumi and South Ossetia and it's capital Tskhinvali) do not include the de jure Coat of Arms. Also note, that the main pages of all four of these articles (including Artsakh) do not include any de jure emblems either, ie. the flag of Georgia or Moldova, etc... Regards, Archives908 (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908: Parallels are not correct. As a matter of fact, all these mentioned cities don't have de jure COAs, also in de jure country language sections. Unlike Abkhazia or S.Ossetia, which are recognized by several countries, N.Karabakh is recognized not by any single UN member. --Verman1 (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Verman1: I don't think you understood my earlier comment. Not one of the four Post-Soviet disputed republics have any de jure emblems. That includes Transnistria, which like Artsakh, is not recognized by any UN state. Archives908 (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908: You're correct regarding recognition, but I disagree in terms of COAs. Tiraspol doesn't have a different COA under Moldovan jurisdiction, but Stepanakert does under Azerbaijani jurisdiction. This is the main point that needs to be reflected in the article to give it more neutrality. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Verman1: You talk about "neutrality"; if that is your argument then you would also have to add former Georgian emblems to the capitals of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, and then all the other capitals of states with limited recognition like Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, Taiwan, etc.. I'm afraid this will open up a Pandora's box full of edit wars. Archives908 (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908: Please don't accuse me of something that I am not intended. Parallels between N.Karabakh and the above-mentioned countries are not valid since their capitals simply don't have any different emblems by respective de jure countries. --Verman1 (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Verman1: I haven't accused you of anything. What you don't seem to understand is that all of these disputed states used to have former emblems in some capacity. Example: South Ossetia's flag was the flag of Georgia. Northern Cyprus's COA was the COA of the Republic of Cyprus prior to the Turkish invasion. So, if you are going to update one capital of a disputed republic- then for consistency- all should be updated. And this task will result in lengthy talk page discussions and countless edit disputes. Archives908 (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908: The key word in your argument is "former". Azerbaijan doesn't have any former emblem for Stepanakert/Khankendi, the emblem used by Azerbaijan is contemporary and official, recognized internationally since the international community accepts the city being part of Azerbaijan. Former emblems of other cities are irrelevant, they can only be used in the History section of respective articles. This won't result in any kind of edit war or whatsoever. --Verman1 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Archives908, Verman1: My talk page is the wrong place for this discussion. I will copy it to Talk:Stepanakert. --T*U (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Moved down from middle-of-nowhere

How will there be consensus? when you teamed up and you are nationalist, how going to get a consensus, Just look at communication from local hero, uses offensive name for Albanians (Šiptari) (Шиптари) instead of sanctioning , you are removing the box Vestacka Nacija (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vestacka Nacija: One thing is certain: You will not get any consensus for your infobox through edit war, see WP:EDITWAR and WP:CONSENSUS. Nor will you get any consensus through attacking other editors, see WP:NPA. (By the way, since you are calling me a nationalist, it would be interesting to know which nation you believe I represent.) The only way you can get a consensus, is to use the talk page to convince other editors that you are right. If other editors disagree, you may get help through dispute resolution, see WP:DISPUTE. If you want input from more editors, you can try opening a request for comments, see WP:RfC. There are several routes to choose from, but you will only have a chance to get anywhere if you follow Wikipedia rules, like the ones I have linked to here. --T*U (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry really, sorry for my reply, i don't speak good english, i used google translator 😁 I thought of some other administrators who also used abusive terms in their communications so I called them nationalists

Vestacka Nacija (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vestacka Nacija: Well, if your command of English is not good enough to communicate in talk pages without the help of Google Translator, perhaps you should not edit in English Wikipedia, see WP:CIR. --T*U (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Грција нема право за вето во ОН, но има во НАТО и ЕУ. Како во април, Грција ја блокира Македонија, и истото ке прае во ЕУ. Тука во Америка, Барак Обама ке биди пресидателот, и тој е со Грција на спорот за името. Македонија има поголеми проблеми од спорот, како бедност и (шиптарите). Поздрав. --Local hero 19:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC) This is what he calls an offensive name of Local hero Vestacka Nacija (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not a language I understand. But if you think that a comment from Local hero in their own talk page in 2008 gives you the right to use personal attacks in 2020, you have misunderstood something. --T*U (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

With whom to reach consensus, You're not realistic, if you don't want to help, don't even interfere Vestacka Nacija (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vestacka Nacija: Actually, I have, at Talk:Republic of Ilirida#Dispute resolution, offered to help you start a Request for comments, which is your best chance of getting input from more people, thereby possibly get some support for your infobox proposal. The offer still stands, provided you stop your edit war. --T*U (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I will not change the site again, thank you for your help, Do it if you can Vestacka Nacija (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flags of Asia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Turkish Croatia

And your edit in which you returned the other, unsourced version is objective by how? Čeha (razgovor) 06:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ceha: I have no opinion about the content in your version or in the version I reverted to, I am just responding to your attempt at restarting edit war. The article has regularly been protected against editing because of edit warring, no less than six times in less than a year. Your edit summary an old version of article, before edit war seems to indicate that you return to some kind of neutral version. That is not the case, you have simply reverted to your preferred version in the edit war. The only way to improve this article goes through creating consensus through talk page discussions, if necessary with the help of dispute resolution. Edit war will only result in another period of article protection. --T*U (talk) 07:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no intention of starting edit war. But this version, the one which was protected is the one that started edit war, santasa edits. Why we can return it to the neutral version, the one before santasa edit war? Please, check article history. Čeha (razgovor) 01:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ceha: Again: I have no opinion about the content in your version or in any other version. Again: The article has been blocked six times in less than a year because of edit war. Again: The only way to improve this article goes through the talk page. End of story. --T*U (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

And in all of that times, it was frozen on the first page of edit war. And every time was a talk that all of the versions were equal. But they are not, aren't they? Look for yourself, the article is in contrast to every possible wiki rule (conspiracy theories, blunt nationalism, pov...) and it's a shame that such a thing exist. Author of its current version, only made it so that due to its no worth it could be merged with other article... Have you even read the talk page? Čeha (razgovor) 00:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ceha: Read my lips: 1) No.Opinion.About.Version. 2) Talk.Page. --T*U (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

You do not need to have an opinon. You just need to check the dates. It should be a small job, right? But I perfectly understand you if you are not willing to do that. I'm going to open another part in discussion if no one is against the return of pre-edit war version, in an week, that should be enough for returning it,right? Čeha (razgovor) 04:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ceha: Thank you for taking this to the article talk page. Unfortunately you have made some mess with the formatting there: 1) The template {{editwar}} is not meant for use in the way you have used it, it is meant as warning to be used on user talk pages only; 2) New talk page entries should be placed at the bottom of the page, not at the top; 3) You have not signed your entry.

I will try to help sort it out on the talk page. You will, however, have to state exactly what version you suggest reverting to. You can do that either with a link to that version or by giving date and time for the version in question.

Regarding your comment if no one is against the return of pre-edit war version, in an week, that should be enough for returning it, I will remind you that there are no deadlines in Wikipedia, so you can not interpret one week of silence as support. More to the point, you will have to consider what your next step should be if A) someone declare (within one week) that they are against returning to the version you suggest, or B) someone revert you after you have returned the article to your suggested version. In both cases, you will have to avoid an edit war, or you are back to square one. --T*U (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Let them put their changes on talk page then. Tnx for edits... Čeha (razgovor) 22:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reposting

Hi, thank you very much for reposting the ethnic map of Yugoslavia. Kreshnik Prizreni (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Donji kraji again

Santasa is again starting an edit war. Without talk, without anything. I would expect of you to warn him, and return the page into previous condition. Čeha (razgovor) 22:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ceha: I have seen what is going on. I have not found time to do anything, and I am not sure I will do anything at all. I am completely fed up with the whole article. Having spent so much time trying to reduce the edit war without any visible result is rather frustrating. I will see if I can make a last attempt one of these days. In the meantime I ask you to do one thing:

Please read again my comments (in small text) here and here as well as Eggishorn's comment on your talk page here. Then consider your edit here where you for the third time does exactly the same thing again. Will you please fix it yourself this time? --T*U (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Look, I asked you for one small thing. There was a consensus, and I expect for everyone to uphold it. Try to put yourself in my shoes. Working hard on one article just to find that there are not the same rules for yourself and others. Čeha (razgovor) 00:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The thing you asked me may is not a small thing. In contrast to most other editors on this article, I am not willing to enter an edit war. Therefore I cannot just return the page into previous condition without giving a thorough explanation. I do not have any more authority than any other editor, so my explanation will have to be good, or I will certainly be reverted. However, since you seem to believe I can make a difference, I will make a last attempt today or tomorrow.

But I am a bit confused. You say that there was a consensus. What consensus where? Please explain. --T*U (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

PS. What about the thing I asked you to fix? --T*U (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

What thing, I didn't get you? As for consensus, it was in the version before ew... Čeha (razgovor) 19:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ceha: The thing is that you three times have placed new comments inside the closed discussion. The two first times I moved it out with a comment directly to you here and here, and you were also explained the same on your talk page here. I had expected that you would read messages directed directly to you. When you did the same again here, I asked you to fix it yourself. Since you did not, I have today moved also your third comment out here.

Just now I see that you have done it again. Don't you ever look at the things people try to explain to you? --T*U (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm on my cellphone, and it behaves differently than a laptop. I read your messages, but didn't get the point. Čeha (razgovor) 02:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ceha: If you still have not understood, please just try to read the talk page Talk:Donji Kraji and see where your last comment (this one) is placed. Please do not give up until you have understood the problem, because this time I will not try to help you moving it. --T*U (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, as I said before, my smartphone acts funny. I edited the comments Čeha (razgovor) 02:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC for discussion you were part of.

Hello there is an RfC for a discussion on the Talk:Ante Pavelić talk page involving a topic discussion you took part of. Please have a look. OyMosby (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Second opinion

I ask editor @Ktrimi991 [11] for opinion, editor @Peacemaker67 said his opinion[12]. Now I ask you too. Is it possible that this article Bookocide in Croatia exists on wikipedia. Some events from new Croatian history are compared with events from World War II and Nazi NDH? And this is proven by political pamphlets. Croatia is at war, communist, Serbian etc books are being thrown out of libraries and it’s actually same thing when the Nazis burned Jewish books. Okay if there are serious books and scientific papers which talk about it, but political pamphlets as evidence brings us into twilight zone as we read this. What can be done in this case? Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mikola22: I am afraid I cannot be of much help here, since none of the sources seem to be in any language I can read. That in itself may be indicative of notability issues (see WP:GNG), but not necessarily conclusive. I think @Peacemaker67 has given good advice about taking it to WP:RSN. --T*U (talk) 10:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Please take a look

There seems to be one big ongoing dispute on Bulgarian occupation of Serbia (World War I). ty, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: Thanks, but I think I will keep social distance to this one. It is a bit outside what I know anything about, and I have enough drama for the moment. But I will follow the discussion at a safe distance. --T*U (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Janusz Korwin-Mikke

Edit warring, original research

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Please don't start edit wars and engage in a biased matter. If you have [legitimate] sources to back up your claims, please present them on the talk. The article you attempted to use as a source is not a credible organization, especially when citing an author who holds anti-Polish prejudices. You also claimed that he is generally regarded as far-right, when that is not true at all, given his Monarchist views (Monarchists do not fall on the far-right spectrum of politics). -69.121.10.105 (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

References

The pot calling the kettle black! --T*U (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Eastern Europe

The image used in the inbox covers the whole area that comes under Eastern Europe. (including Central Europe, the Baltic states, and the Balkans), with the countries of the Caucasus, and the transcontinental countries of Turkey and Kazakhstan.

Everything east of Germany and Austria is generally considered the Eastern part of continental Europe. And the image was a visual representation of what there is clearly written in the article itself about what countries come under Eastern Europe.

As Core Eastern Europe is generally Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova. Sometimes the countries of Central Europe, the Baltic states, and whole of the Balkan peninsula is also included in Eastern Europe. The image used in the inbox had the Core Eastern Europe, the extent of Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and the transcontinental countries partially falling under Eastern Europe. And the inbox was better than the useless image of an apparent computer rendering of "Eastern Europe" where even Western Europe can be seen. So it was indeed appropriate for the article to have the inbox and the image used in it. Danloud (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Moving this to Talk:Eastern Europe and will answer there. --T*U (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Anti-Polish sentiment‎‎

See page history. Looks like anon sock. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

List of countries by population (UN or National Figures)

Hi,

Thanks for looking at and trying to update the estimation of Venezuela to 2020, but 2019 instead (the national webpage authority current HTML static attribute on that page). Why it is not quoted the reference and link for Venezuela national authority as for the other countries adding this information of 2011-projection ? (Read "Población Proyectada al 30/06/2019 - Base Censo 2011") The current page is partially unavailable, for some browsers or locations, you have to turn ON/OFF cookies or do private navigation in some browsers to avoid the bugs on that webpage. That's why. In such case of partial unavailabity: Why don't we put for the case of Venezuela an UN projection stat since access is more stable and current one (2020) ? Please visit https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Files/1_Indicators%20(Standard)/EXCEL_FILES/1_Population/WPP2019_POP_F01_1_TOTAL_POPULATION_BOTH_SEXES.xlsx and see that the current estimation is different: 28436066.

Please note the projection of Venezuela that was made on 2011 by the goverment was a static projection until 2050, this disrupts factual information. (see the webpage file http://www.ine.gov.ve/documentos/Demografia/SituacionDinamica/Proyecciones/xls/Entidades/Nacional.xls)

Best regards, --Santelli 08:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardollovera (talk • contribs)

Baklava

Thanks for removing the ridiculous calorie figure from the baklava article. As far as I can tell, it is almost never useful to include calorie or nutritional information on composed foods, since recipes vary quite a lot. I wonder if we have an explicit policy about that... --Macrakis (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

EastMed Pipeline

I noticed that, in your edit on EastMed pipeline, you removed the pp-sock template. I'm not sure if this was intentional or not, but the page is currently in its first day of a one week semi-protection state. The template must remain at the top of the article. Thanks Curt ^内蒙 21:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC).

@CurtNeiMeng: Oops, that was absolutely not intentional. Thanks for correcting my mistake! --T*U (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

For reverting vandalism ― ISL fan|✉   13:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Minor

Majorly understood, so no more minor edits from me! :D --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Balkans bla bla...

My friend Iranian writers in Wikipedia are writing chauvinist-minded articles. On the other hand, I cited Sami Frashëri's "Kamus-ı Türkî" as a source for my information in the Balkan debate. How can you see this work as "unreliable"? Ulpionz (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ulpionz: Frashëri was published 120 years ago, see WP:AGEMATTERS. The Erepublic site is a blog, see WP:BLOGS. The possible Persian roots are sourced to modern scholarly books, published by University publishers. If you want to discuss this further, please open a discussion at the article talk page. It has nothing to do in my user talk page. --T*U (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

My friend, I didn't put the blog page you referred to as Frashëri? I added that source for "Balkan Region in Turkmenistan". If it were as you mentioned above, you could delete that post, but why can you delete all the information? Why can you delete information without looking at proper resources? Please review the sources of what I wrote there. If a problem occurs with a resource, I would like to indicate that I will fix the problem Ulpionz (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ulpionz: Beside adding a weak source (Frashëri, too old) and a useless source (Erepublic, a blog), you also deleted information from modern, scholarly sources. That is disruptive and was my main reason for reverting. And to repeat myself: If you want to discuss this further, please open a discussion at the article talk page. It has nothing to do in my user talk page. If you, after your block has expired, continue this discussion here, I will not answer. --T*U (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

This IP

They came back with furry. I saw your dealings with them on the List of wars: 1000–1499 article. Seemed to return again, blocked and probably will pursue another IP. Tried to reason with them on their talk page but... [1] and here [2] . It never ends does it? OyMosby (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Infobox for WWII in Yugoslavia

I seem to be followed my infobox edits undone concerning NDH specifically with a history of focus on NDH it seems in past months particularly naming. HERE Could you take a look to see if my edits were so off? Was NDH not a sebordinate of Germany? Putting them separate maximizes instead of minimizes their power and self sufficiency. Tomasevich notes they were installed as a Puppet state and were a quasi protectorate that would exist without German occupancy. Yet Chetniks were listed under Germany as well as other regimes. Yes they are not all equal. But we should go by classification not views on who is more involved or had more autonomy than others. OyMosby (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby: At first glance, I tend to lean towards your point of view, but I am afraid I do not have enough knowledge about the situation in the Balkans at different times during WWII to give any kind of valuable input. The right place to discuss this, however, is in the article talk page, if necessary through a WP:RfC. I suggest you raise the question there. I may chime in when I have seen arguments on both sides. --T*U (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I see. Though there are only two other users that likely oppose my view but I will Bring it to that talk page. By the way I have some questions about Wikipedia standards. Instead of bogging down your talk page. Could I email you? OyMosby (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I prefer not. As I see it, I prefer all my dealings with Wikipedia to be above board and visible. --T*U (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, I wanted to ask how one archives their talk pages and archives inactive talkpages of various articles? Is it a program used? OyMosby (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not the right person to ask, since I have been extremely lazy regarding archiving, but you will find info at WP:ARCHIVE. --T*U (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay I will. What elareas are you mainly focused on then here on Wikipedia? OyMosby (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Curacao

Hi, read your adjustments to the page. I’ll move back then to mainland NL, it was just an offer. Cheers Vincent Vincbern (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vincbern: Your "offer" being getting yourself mentioned in a Wiki article plus obstructing Citation bot from doing its job? I suggest you find a more constructive way of editing Wikipedia (or alternatively not editing at all). --T*U (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Can i ask you why?

It was better explaining Tarik289 (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tarik289: Simply that your proposed version is confusing, ambigious and incorrect. There was no unified Serbian state at the time, so it is not correct to say that Serbia was annexed. Also, the word "they" as you have used it, could point to both OE and Serbia, so if confuses the matter of who gained independence. If you think the current text could be improved, I suggest that you make your suggestion in the talk page in order to gain consensus. --T*U (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Dutchy of Croatia

Why did you remove the Midevil Principality Dutchy of Croatia but leave it in Serbia? This is well established an separate from the 7th century claim. It was founded later in the 9th century as is backed by many sources. The early 7th century foundation is this questionable one. Also DAI nor RS here but RS when you used it in the namaing of Serblia [Here]?OyMosby (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby: My intention was to remove the dubious claim about 7th century, but I guess I should have left the Duchy in. I am quite happy with your corrective edit. I made the same removal in Serbia here. --T*U (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby: Regarding DAI, it was not used as a source in the diff you give. The source was this book, which is a scholarly analysis of DAI. Anyway, I did not introduce the Serblia naming. The diff you give is actually, as the edit summary says, a self revert. I made a mistake, then I corrected it. How about WP:AGF? --T*U (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor:I was simply asking why you removed the Dutch of Croatia which isn’t controversial and well known to exist as a first form of Croatia. I didn’t say anything about bad faith editing. I was questioning you reasoning for the removal of content. You should assume good faith in my questions as they are simply questions. DAI is a new subject to me and I didn’t see what was Controversial about the Dutchy of Croatia. An actual entity who’s existence is discussed in said article, it’s own article and multiple RS. So was wondering if there was issue with it’s mention. Being it was the first existing entity and all. The dates was all that was questionable. I’m surprised it was listed as 7th century so many years before being examined. Anyway I hope you do not take my questioning in a negative light. OyMosby (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby: Actually you need not ping me at all when you write here, since I get an alert every time you edit my user talk page. (So I have just got 8 alerts!) However, the pinging did not work. The ping only works when you save it in the same edit as your signature. If you make a wrong ping and want to correct it, you have to sign the message again.

As for the Croatia article, it certainly was the date that was the problem. I am also surprised that the 7th century has been there for so long without anyone reacting. But perhaps we should not be surprised. There is a lot of "mythological editing" in Balkan-related articles. For some it seems to be important to show that "my people" have a long and glorious history. The longer and gloriouser, the better! Regards! --T*U (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for all the alerts. I didn’t know it does all that. And didn’t know pining only works when signing the signature. Noted. Thanks! And yeah see [Here1] and [Here2] where we sea use of translation of primary sources to claim certain lands belong mainly to certain people.!OyMosby (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Question about formatting

Do you know how to insert tags in articles without having to type out the coding?

Also side note it seems your edit [Here] is met with reactionary edits [Here too] OyMosby (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby: I am absolutely no coding expert, but most tags seem to have a template. What kind of tags were you thinking of? --T*U (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Like sources needed, or tags for expansion of ideas in a sentence. I see them all the time and would like to tag some content to bring attention to other editors who might be able to help. You seem like a long time editor so figured why not ask you. What is your main area of Wikipedia? Also how do you archive pages? OyMosby (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby: The tagging templates I have used, I have mostly learned from seeing how others use them, and if necessary, I look up the documentation page of the template. I saw that people inserted {{cn}} in order to say that a citation is needed. If you put that in, a bot will automatically transform it to "citation needed" and add a date. But if you want to learn more about how to use it, you can go to Template:cn. There you will find out what more you can put into the tag, like giving a reason: {{cn|reason=This does not look plausible}}.

Another time I saw someone use {{SectOR}}, which I found useful. By looking up Template:SectOR one can learn more of how to use it, and one also find links to other similar tags, like {{OR}} for inline use.

I prefer this way of learning by doing (or in this case, by copying others), but it is also possible to learn about templates in a more structured way. You could start with the quick guide or go deeper into it at the how-to guide. There is also a template about templates! You might find that useful: Template:Inline cleanup tags.

As for archiving, I am mostly lost at sea, since I never have felt the need for it. I know that some are very keen on archiving and are making nice archiving systems, but that is not me, I'm afraid. You can probably learn a lot at WP:ARCHIVE. --T*U (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I think I just had a duuuu moment realizing there are wili oages about wiki tools haha. Thank you Tu-nor. OyMosby (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

What is your main area of expertise on Wikipedia if I may ask. Like what subjects are you most into? Also thanks for taking the time to explain!

EU in country related lists

Please, stop anti-EU campaign in Wikipedia. That reversion doesn't makes sense, there's no active debate on talk page because it was archived (forced archiving because interest to close promptly the debate), that promptly vans everyone's say in the article. As the EU's resolve in the article is invalid because most country-related lists appear EU figures. Its clear you and I have a conflict of interest because you are on the opposite side and I in the aprovative. So I can revert your reversions until a neutral, third person can interfiere.--Manlleus (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Manlleus: There is no active debate on the talk page because when the matter was discussed earlier this year, there seemed to be a rather clear consensus against including the EU. No one beside the proposer supported the inclusion. Also, there was no "forced" archiving. The thread was archived automatically 7 September, four months after the last entry.

I am not sure why you believe that you have any special right to revert your reversions until a neutral, third person can interfiere. Please take a look at the Wikipedia policy WP:CONSENSUS. It explains how editors are supposed to work in order to get consensus. One tool for this is the "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" explained at WP:BRD. You made a Bold edit when you included the EU in the list. Then I Reverted your edit. The next step from you should then be to Discuss by opening a discussion in the talk page. Instead you pushed back your preferred version, which is what in Wikipedia is called edit war, see WP:EDITWAR.

I suggest that you self revert, and then start a discussion in the talk page. You will never "win" through edit war. Edit war will only lead to you being blocked. --T*U (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The debate or short-lived thread was there just months, none of the main authors or contributors to the article were aware or informed of the issue. This article is by no metric different from other country-related list articles. The main debate was in Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries and this article is highly related but the outcome is surprisingly ingored here, not just that, modified the article WITHOUT references to remove EU figures in the list and stating anti-EU arguments in the text not in line with the main debate opinions and conclusions, why? The discussion thread is restored in talk page, contributors will be informed. Edit wars come from two or more sides and not only 1 will be blocked.--Manlleus (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Manlleus: Sorry, I've been busy in real life, and I see that the discussion has now moved to where it belongs, the talk page of the article. Just to wind up this fork of the discussion, I will only say that you need to learn how English Wikipedia works. As for your arguments, what you call the main debate is more than ten years old, and it did not end up with a consensus, so taking your evaluation of that debate as gospel, is – to put it mildly – nonsense. --T*U (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The month-lived debate has not a consensus too. It needs way more time and persons involved.--Manlleus (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Manlleus: That discussion was open from 23 April til it was archived 7 September – that is four and a half month, and there was 1 – one – editor supporting the inclusion of EU. Everybody else were opposed. How is that not a consensus? --T*U (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mal:Tirana bydelar

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Mal:Tirana bydelar, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 14:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@TheAafi: I am sorry that I managed to create the template in the wrong Wiki. I was just now trying to find out myself how to get it speedy deleted. Thank you! --T*U (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor: 😃😃😃─ The Aafī on Mobile (^talk) 14:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

List of countries and dependencies by population

I see that you reverted a rogue editor who wanted to rank-number Taiwan in the List of countries and dependencies by population because he had not obtained a consensus in the Talk page first. I found that curious, given that the State of Palestine was rank-numbered despite never achieving a consensus in the Talk page that it was a generally recognized sovereign state and should be given preferential treatment to what, for example, Kosovo and Taiwan get. I recall that the changes that Palestine was given a rank number because it was listed in ISO 3166-1, but I just visited ISO 3166-1 and found that both Taiwan and Palestine are treated in the same way: As entities that are not listed as "Independent" in ISO 3166 and that have "disputed sovereignty." If Palestine is number ranked, what NPOV reason is there for not number ranking Taiwan or Kosovo? I don't think that any of the three should be number ranked, as they are not generally recognized sovereign states, but if Palestine is to be number ranked then all similarly situated de facto sovereign states with limited, but substantial, recognition (which includes not only Palestine but also Kosovo, Taiwan and arguably SADR) should be as well. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@AuH2ORepublican: Sorry for late answer. As you can see from my contributions, I am not currently very active in en-wiki, since I am rather busy elsewhere. My reason for reverting was simply that such change has to be discussed before implementing. I am not for or against any of the states Palestine, Taiwan, Kosovo and possibly others being numbered, I am mostly concerned about there not being clear criteria for the distinction between numbered and non-numbered entities. This was last discussed a little over a year ago without any clear consensus. Feel free to start a new discusion, only please make sure that the question for discussion is clearly stated to avoid the same chaos as in the discussion just over a year ago. I will try to find time to participate in such a discussion if raised. Regards! --T*U (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that you undid edits meant to clarify why Luhansk and Donetsk are not listed, as per the current discussion on the talk page for List of countries and dependencies by population. Could you please explain your reasoning on the talk page? Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Southern Europe, Western Europe etc.

Hi TU-nor! FYI, I have filed an SPI[13]. Enough is enough. –Austronesier (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Good shot! --T*U (talk) 08:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Russian Population

I decided to post a message here to try and figure this out. Currently the number of Russian people you say is 146.2 million but there is no way they lost that many in one year. The death rate would need to be at least 3 times higher than 162,000+ and so far these numbers look very exaggerated. I'll investigate this but just understand that Russia's population has halted decline naturally but there are death tolls there, at least not as high as people claim it to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCPdude629 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

About the flip-flopping.

There doesn't seem to be a consistent consensus on this site whether the British Isles are part of Northern Europe or Western Europe. The List of World Heritage Sites in Western Europe includes them as part of that region instead of Northern Europe despite otherwise following the United Nations definitions of the regions of Europe, but the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage elements in Northern Europe includes them in that region instead, and when I tried to add the cultures of the people of the British Isles to the Northern European cultures list, they got reverted as they are usually considered Western European instead of Northern European, but when I tried to remove the British Isles from the geography of Northern Europe and the list of countries there, it gets reverted and I get told off.Vesperius (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vesperius: Yes, I am very much aware of this issue, which is a general issue common to all use of "X-ern Europe" across Wikipedia. Many editors have strong feelings about "Country A [usually their own country] is certainly [or certainly not] part of X-ern Europe". I have even seen edits like "Country B is 52% part of Y-ern Europe". The problem is that there are no universally agreed definitions of "Northern Europe", "Western Europe" etc. Various sources use various definitions for various purposes. The most sensible answer to your question about whether the British Isles are part of Northern Europe or Western Europe is "Yes!" or perhaps "It depends." Any attempt to "force" the answer one way or the other may (rightly) be opposed by counter examples. The solution may often be to avoid making an explicit categorisation. There was a discussion some years ago about whether the Balkans should be described as being in "Southeastern Europe" or in "Central and Southeastern Europe" (Slovenia being the example for Central) or in "Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe" (Moldova being the example for Eastern). The solution was to say that it is in "southeastern Europe" (lower case "s") with no links to any "X-ern Europe" article. This is undeniably correct and vague enough not to create a storm of protests.

I will suggest that you should not be too eager to put countries into boxes, but if you really feel that it is necessary to do so in a given article, try to solve it in the talk page before doing anything rash. There are a lot of feelings around... Regards! --T*U (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Sourced text deleted repeatedly

Hello. Can you please check these revisions as a neutral person? (1 2) Different users delete the neutrally sourced text repeatedly with the same comment. --Verman1 (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Verman1: It is a bit strange that they both use the same edit summary, but the point raised by both editors is valid. A strong claim like this will need a strong source. I am afraid I cannot evaluate the source, since I cannot read it, but by the look of it, it does not give the impression of being strong enough (or neutral enough) for this kind of content. Perhaps you can find a better source, preferably in a language not connected to any of the conflicting parties. --T*U (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)