User talk:Director/Archive 3

Jajce
I noticed Visca el barca on the jajce article deleted the census of 2004 (where croats were majority) and replaced it with his estimate in 2007. I looked at the reference given: 6.571 bosniaks, 16.046 croats, 1.086 serbs, and 1 other. I'm new to wikipedia but is the rule that you should not delete sources and not to push POV's. Can you do something about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ante The great (talk • contribs) 03:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look. DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 12:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked in the history of the Jajce article and found this link http://jajceportal.com/modules.php?name=Content&pid=145 for the 2004 census. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ante The great (talk • contribs) 13:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I rewrote the section. I removed non-referenced claims and restored the 2004 federal estimate. DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 14:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. The current wording is good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ante The great (talk • contribs) 14:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Visca el barca has deleted your edits on Jajce relating to the 2004 census. Is it me or this guy hates croats soo much. I noticed he has been warned for attacking another user. Not good at all.Ante The great 12:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The guy has a serious problem. He is deleting sourced info, I am on a Wikibreak (exams), but you should definetly report him on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I will have a better look into the matter when I return. DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 17:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreement
We have finally the proper end for this situation. I have no problem in an "agreement", by I wonder if you will be able to respect it. Anyway you can post the request in the arbcom page, that the proper place to discuss it. I basically agree.--Giovanni Giove 14:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, I wrote something. What about you? --Giovanni Giove 16:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm on a Wikibreak, exams and such... I will return as soon as possible. DIREKTOR ( TALK ) 17:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)
The September 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

My edits
I'm surprised by your comment. In Polo I've respected the original meaning. I've deleted the claim that "half of historian" trust.... because it is incorrect, and some weasel words such us "strong arguments", "estimated historians" and so on... but that is all. You can see that, edit after edits I've respected the original meaning, just some weasel word is missing. Anyway, point out what is wrong in the present version. ... about Ragusa. Well...I can not believe.... do you "really" trust in this story of Dalmatian?!?--Giovanni Giove 15:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I pointed out the grievances (concerning old Polo) in the new discussion section I created (here ).

Concerning the Republic of Ragusa business, I hope you see that it is irrlevant at this point what I believe (trust), we agreed not to touch the article, did we not? In any case, I removed all reference to an official language from the article, pending verifiable confirmation of the Italian official language thesis. There should be some way to verify matters of such importance before they are included, don't you think? I created a discussion section for this problem as well (here ). DIREKTOR ( TALK ) 18:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Language
We have to "cover" ourselves for other things. Giove tries to misrepresent things here. I've read somewhere in my sources, where the author explicitly says which language whole Dalmatia speaks (Croatian). Have in mind, that old Republic of Venetia had to use bilingual proclamations in its posessions here (dvojezične proglase), because local majority population, Croats, didn't understand Italian (except high social classes, which made very small percent of the whole population). For the same reason, La Serenissima had a translator for those things. Kubura 19:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm out of time at the moment, until soon... Zenanarh 14:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What the...?
The "Macedonians wanted to turn Bulgarian because of this"? Don't be foolish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.164.151 (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No no no no, you misunderstood. I said I don't think the Macedonians wanted to turn Bulgarian because of this. Have another look (here ). DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 08:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Noticeboard
After fight with administrators I have created Croatian Wikipedians' notice board and they have accepted that we have right on that. I am sorry that nobody until now has used our notice board. I must tell you that because my discussion with administrators they will look what we (and serbian notice board) write. -- Rjecina 18:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda and boogie-man
Malo si manje ovdi od mene, a i puno manje si pročita od mene. Ne želin strašit sa babarogama, i pi*dit bezveze, ali ja vidin podle igre. Nisi ti vidia kako su sve izgledali članci. To je bila obist i izdivljavanje u njihovim željicam. Danas su podmukliji i lukaviji, pa neupućeni in lako nasidnedu. Ali ja vidin puno veću sliku, pa se ne dan priveslat. Primjeri: Spominjanje nas Hrvata se izbigava ili umanjiva, a nazočnost ovih drugih se priističe i priuveličaje. Malo šaljivo ću ti reć: godišnje su nekad, kroz čisto hrvatske krajeve, jednom ili dvaput prošli dva kamiona iz Srbije sa gudinima, i ovi ti to odmah prikazuju ka' njihovu vikovnu nazočnost. Vratimo se na ozbiljnu priču. I onda, šta će inozemac pomislit? Da nas nima nikako ondi, da šta mi hoćemo, još će ispast da išćemo višje nego nas zapada.

You're less here than I am, and you've read less than me. I don't want to scare with boogie-man i bulls*it around, but I see perfidious games. You haven't seen the articles the way they looked before here. That was orgy of their wishie-wishes. Today, ther're more perfidious and more clever. Those who don't know things easily buy what they say. But I see the "big picture", so they cannot fool me. Examples: Mentioning of us, Croats, is being avoided or decreased. The presence of those others is overaccentuated and overpresented. To say it in comical way: during Yugoslavias, once or twice a year, two trucks from Serbia (that were selling pigs) would pass through purely Croat inhabited areas. These new smartas*es from en.wiki find that as reason to say that they were always present here. Now, let's get serious: what would foreigner think? That we weren't there at all, that what we want at all, someone may think that we want more than we're supposed to get.

Open your eyes. Kubura 13:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Dalmatian Italians
Do you really think that the coat of arms of Zadar has anything to do with this article? I'm little bit surprised. You know, St. Krševan was a symbol of Zadar resistance to all foreigners. It's really not logical to put it there. Dalmatian Italians in Dalmatia should be presented by some other symbol, I believe. This symbol would be much more suitable for some other article, maybe one named "Dalmatian fight for indenpendence and resistance to foreign influences" Zenanarh 17:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're the expert on Zadar... I really don't know much about medieval Zadar heraldry. As for the article, such a name would be immediately attacked... DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, such named article would be definitely attacked, although a lot of Dalmatian history was nothing else, but that was just my sarcasm or joke. Now seriously, do you have anything against my deletion of it and is there any other suitable symbol? Zenanarh 19:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I did several edits and I've shortened a lot the article. I've tried to do a neutral article. Of course I am not perfect. I'm sure you will not do some massive revert (like some notorious idiot).--Giovanni Giove 22:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a notorious idot?!!! DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 18:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not you! (the idiot). I've not so much time. But I wrote "Latins" and not "Italians", before the year 1000. What is the difference between "Romance" and "Latin"? I'm just asking (you've changed it).--Giovanni Giove 17:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I should suppose that you agree with the my last edits in Marco Polo.--Giovanni Giove 17:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't suppose anything, I'm very busy in real life right now so I didn't have any free time to take a look, but I'll do so now. DIREKTOR ( TALK ) 08:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The Korčula "thing"
I was referring to the repeated use of "Curzola (Korčula)" many times in a single paragraph. It seems clear to me that every sensible user by the end of the article should understand that Curzola and Korčula the same place without the need to repeat it again and again. Britannica 1911 has a large bibliography: the scholar who redacted the article used a number of 19th century works and apparently couldn't find any mention of the presumed birthplace of Marco Polo having been Korčula. By the way, that article is way more detailed that this one here and well researched; it includes also a massive section about the philological study of the book of Marco Polo. GhePeU 20:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Marko Polo
I saw that insult. Kubura 09:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The "Italian origin" is a mainstream theory in (at least in Western) historiography, but the "Croat origin" theory isn't some "crasy theory", but the theory with serious grounds, and cannot be easily rejected. Kubura 09:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

They often make mistakes, that "Croat origin" theory was a results of "emerging Croat nationalism during Tuđman's era". That's a lie. Even our parents during the times of Yugoslavia learned that. We never excluded the international mainstream theory, but we always learned, that there're circumstances and good grounds that point towards Polo's possible Croat origin. There's a good reason to believe that Polo is a Croat. Kubura 09:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm out of time recently, sorry. Concerning G.G. his behaviour must be recorded and reported like Kubura did it for ARBCOM evidences. I believe his last 15 days was nothing different from his previous behaviour. In Polo question we should make a sum of all presented evidences with references. Then if it's needed arbcom again. References are the best important. Their discussion in the talk page is extremistic orgy, no use from getting into emotional debates with them. Zenanarh 16:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Visca el barca
E direktore, jeben te u dobrotu, izvini na izrazu. Pa jesi li ti uopšte gledao šta je na Viscinoj korisničkoj strani dok si mu pomagao da je popravi? Još će i tebe optužiti da radiš za al-Kaidu. Ja sam doduše Bosanac, koji malo sporije kapira, pa mi je trebalo 7 dana da se uopšte sjetim da je pogledam... a imalo se šta i vidjeti. U svakom slučaju, blokirali su ga zauvijek i obrisali stranicu, pa smo se riješili bijede... 'Ajd ćao. Duja ► 06:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Tražia je da mu dam ruku, i pomoga sam mu."
 * Dobro, preporučiću te Srpskoj Otadžbinskoj Gardi "Car Lazar" ako budu pripremali kakve akcije u Splitu... Dobro je imati nekog spremnog da pomogne :-)). Duja ► 08:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I should add that a certain user (his user page also deleted) was trying to convince that the oldest Code of Law was Dusan's, and that the remainder (Hammurabi's Code in particular IMHO) are a result of Western propaganda and "Serbophobia". :))) --PaxEquilibrium 11:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Da, u pravu si...User:Bormalagurski, User:Emir Arven i User:Afrika paprika ce svima biti na oci, ali takvih ce uvijek biti...evo npr...ma dobro, i sam znas na koga mislim, pa ne smijem pominjati jer nije pristojno...no sacekat cemo da ga (evo sade uskoro) ban, pa cu se ondak "izjasniti". Pozdrav! :) --PaxEquilibrium 20:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The main problems "decent editors" (if there is such a thing ;) face, are 1) the obscurity of the region (and its history), and 2) the recent wars.
 * The obscurity makes the disputes uninteresting, confusing, and (therefore) annoying to most admins and serious editors, while the recent war creates tensions, fanatics, and gives the uninvolved and (because of said obscurity) uninformed observer the idea that "they're all the same", which is, of course, a drastic, and potentially very annoying, oversimplification.  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: ARBCOM Dalmatia decision breach
Breaches of Arbitration remedies don't normally need to be reported to us directly; just list them on WP:AN/AE, and they'll be taken care of. Kirill 22:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think DIREKTOR might have posted to the arbitrators because AE has been backed up a little bit lately. I will try to nudge things along there. Newyorkbrad 23:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Newyorkbrad. I posted the report there. In general I thought it might be decent to let you guys know about the recent developments on the ARBCOM subject. Sorry if I turned out to be something of a nuisance. DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 01:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)
The October 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 13:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Your revert in Boscovich
I'm rather impressed by you recent and unexplained massive reverts. You have deleted even correct, logic and refrenciend data, such us the correcti infobox with its info. Do not do this again. I have opened a discussion, par. List your problem there, in good faith. No personal attackss, plz, do not even mention my name, we are discussing of Boscovich. --Giovanni Giove 09:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Look this
This is old stuff but you are popular between Italian editors  :))  --Rjecina 08:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Bleiburg
Things have gone very quiet around Bleiburg since I pointed out how unreliable Tolstoy was as a source.

Would it help if I started a new article on military graves in Slovenia, including all those from the Soča Front? Then the section on Mass Graves could be removed from the Bleiburg article, with, of course, a summary of current knowledge of what happened in 1945.

I was in Split a few weeks back. Should have looked you up.

AlasdairGreen27 20:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, just an English boy who dislikes revisionist 'historians'. Living in Lj, which helps in the research. AlasdairGreen27 22:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems I'm blue now. Elevation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlasdairGreen27 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Ljubljana... though am moving to Brussels shortly. My partner's got a job at the EU. At which point travelling south for the summer (and at all other times) is going to seem even more wonderful. AlasdairGreen27 13:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement of the obvious
Sorry about explaining Arbcom. I just realized that you said where is the new Arbcom, not what is the new Arbcom. Best, --Gp75motorsports 00:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Just checking. Gp75motorsports (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)
The November 2007 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 01:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)