User talk:Calapone

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Calapone, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! jonkerz♠ 09:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Croatian coat of arms
In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the Balkans. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice is issued in view of your edits to Coat of arms of Croatia. It is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part, merely to warn you of the Arbitration Committee's decision. Thank you.

The red vs. white first field issue is contentious, please don't change these without references. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the simple answer is - no, because random anonymously posted Youtube videos are not reliable sources, so a sole reference to these cannot really support any contentious claim. The comments below the video say it's something made in 2001, but it doesn't even say if it was legal to post to Youtube. Did it ever air to a wide audience and was it reviewed by anyone? If so, you could cite those secondary sources. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And, perhaps more to the point, if this was footage of an official event, then there's probably both official and widespread mainstream media record of it that can be referenced instead of a Youtube video. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, that's much better, I guess you can format that with cite video and link Croatian Radiotelevision. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Have a look at Citing sources/Example edits for different methods. That example uses cite book, but cite video is very similar. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's much better, thanks. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring
I will repeat myself for the third time: YouTube is not a reliable source (per WP:RSEX). I'll even provide you with a link. Another thing you should look at is WP:BRD, which basically says you should not edit-war after having been reverted while introducing a new edit, and that you should discuss instead (as opposed to making empty threats). You were already warned for your edit-warring, and were put on notice with regard to WP:ARBMAC for exactly this kind of WP:POV PUSHING. I will revert your edits only once more. You should start a discussion thread and propose your edits properly. Should you continue edit-warring I will write-up a report.

I'll also add that your apparently baseless insistence on the white-field-first Croatian coat of arms, often associated with ultranationalism, smacks very strongly of political motivations. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 18:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Problem
Please follow the steps outlined at Dispute resolution. AFAICT it's the same discussion about that 1990 footage. I suppose the opposition's contention is that the clip is not original, rather that it is doctored? I have no idea, but it looks like you have to discuss ways to prove it is in fact original. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Doubt about Youtube videos is warranted because there is no guarantee whatsoever that they are authentic. The policy says that the onus is on you to prove that the video is legitimate. I thought it seemed authentic, but others can freely disagree. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest you explain that in a new section at Talk:Coat of arms of Croatia. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

July 2012
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Operation Trio. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. ◅PRODUCER ( TALK ) 09:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources in the lead are there for a reason, they support the fact that it was a German-Italian-Ustaša-Chetnik offensive. The rest of the article is unsourced and likely a simple translation of the Serbo-Croatian version. -- ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 11:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please join the discussion on the Operation Trio talkpage. You too PRODUCER. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

COA
Hello, I've fixed the problem with the Croats of Serbia coat of arms. Henceforward, please do not edit-war, but instead use for the Croats of Serbia symbol. However, please don't try to push the modern-day Croats of Serbia symbol into a historical context. Why? Because its just the modern coat of arms of croatia without the crown: it has a double border and is "Iberian" in shape. Whereas usually that is not the case with Croatian historical coats of arms. Thank you, and Merry Christmas! :)  --  Director  ( talk )  01:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All of that has been reverted. The File:Croatia, Historic Coat of Arms, first red square.svg is the *"Historic"* coat of arms, whereas a double border was only introduced in 1991. See prior versions and notice that what I did - was restore the image to its proper single-bordered state.


 * The only use of a double-bordered coa, without the crown, is (apparently) by Croats of Serbia. Usage outside that context is inappropriate, regardless of period.


 * Once again: stop pushing the stupid double-bordered, 1991 coa in contexts other than where it belongs. Reply here, please. And please do not push this further: the double-border coa is a very specific symbol. In particular your edits on Coat of arms of Croatia and Independence of Croatia are so patently incorrect, that I am astonished to see you edit-warring over it. Indeed, I find my holiday spirit fast disappearing in this regard.. if you persist in edit-warring across several articles to push an obviously incorrect symbol - because you like it - I will request assistance from the community. -- Director  ( talk )  16:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)