User talk:LAz17/Archive 4

New Fausto Veranzio RM
You voted here on the first RM so I imagine you might be interested in the new requested move as well. Best regards. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 01:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SlovenjGradecMuniFlag.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:SlovenjGradecMuniFlag.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MurskaSobotaMuniFlag.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:MurskaSobotaMuniFlag.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NovoMestoMuniFlag.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:NovoMestoMuniFlag.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Chicagoland riots
Your Template:Chicagoland Riots does not seem to be used beyond one article (the 1919 race riots). I have created Template:Illinois riots, which replaces it. What do you think of it? Fishal (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you do create those articles, can I ask that you just add them to the Illinois template? It makes more sense for the unrest events of the whole state to be grouped together, and it's a template that could be more easily copied for other states if people want. Fishal (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Map
Sure, I'll add the new data on the map the following days. Thank you.Alexikoua (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Inline hokej
Done. I've also found some info on the internet about the ice hockey in Banovina Hrvatska. The information seems pretty OK, high style written. But - major fault of that source is that it's on the forum, not on some credible source. If you're still interested, I can post you the link. Kubura (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Look at this. Sr.wiki. sr:Artur Takač. "Godine 1937, u Varaždinu je sa Dragutinom Fridrihom osnovao klub za hokej na ledu u kojem je igrao beka i koji je 1940. osvojio Prvenstvo Hrvatske u hokeju na ledu i drugo mesto na Prvenstvu Jugoslavije ". They gave no source for that. It seems that that forum has vanished, but I'll check again. Kubura (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, here're the credible sources! . Varaždin had the champion of Croatia before Medveščak. That was in 1941. I'm not sure if this club is the successor of VŠD. Here's the forum. Championship in 1938?? Typo?? Banovina exists since 1939. More (same source?). Source: wikipedia? But, that's not the forum I thought on. Kubura (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, as I recognize the names, it seems that Croatian national inline hockey team is mostly consisted of players from Croatian national ice hockey team. Kubura (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Happy now? Skender-Valuf history, feel free too check out this http://www.izbori.ba/. And stop changing the name ;) --DzWiki (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, dude, my talkpage is not the place for this issue. (LAz17 (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)).

Croatian ice hockey championships
Regarding your edit - I agree if you say that these were part of Yugoslav championship. Here's the similar case. The championship of Croatia that was part of championship of Yugoslavia, which is counted together with "independent" Croatian championships. hr:Prvenstvo Hrvatske u nogometu. That's the championship of Croatia from 1946 (Hajduk was the champion :) ). It was at the same time the qualification for federal Yugoslav championship 1946/47. Croatian Football Federation recognises it as equal with championships of Republic of Croatia. Therefore, the championship from 1940/41 can be counted together with others. With remark "part of Yugoslav championship". About the ex-Yugoslav hockey league in 1980's: yes, I know, I remember when Partizan brought several Slovenian players + few foreigners (Czechoslovakia, Canada, USA). Others followed that. About Croatian league: success in the EBEL league had a big price. Domestic players weren't playing, their development has stagnated, and Croatia has dropped out of the I. division of the world's hockey. But, there's a hope. Some of foreign players brought to Medveščak are Canadian Croats (Andy Sertich, John Hećimović, Mike Prpich, Joel Prpich, Jadran Beljo). None of them is the candidate for Canadian national team, which automatically makes them as candidates for Croatian national team. And this year Medveščak has brought even more Cro-Canadians (Ryan Kinasewich, Jonathan Filewich, Benjamin Michael Gazdić). About inline hockey. The game schedule. Kubura (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No need for edit war. If Croatian Ice Hockey Federation considers those championships as Croatian championships, who are we to judge it? But, currently we're not able to see hshl.hr. Maybe Croatian Olympic Committee... Kubura (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: help
Could not find much data initially. (The inaugural 2008 championship was actually a tournament between four teams and not a league - perhaps Croatian Inline Hockey Championships would be a more fitting title?) I'll try to see if there is more, but I doubt it... GregorB (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thus far, I could only find a confirmation that the 2nd season was really played.. Not clear who won it. GregorB (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ustaše Partizani
Daj mi reci LAzo molimte, odakle ti ovo: "Many of the Croats who joined the Partisans were former Ustashe.''" Ovo su gluposti prvog reda, da ne kažem izravne POV laži. Usuđujem se reći da niti jedan jedini ustaša nije prešao u partizane - smicali su ih po zarobljenju na desetke hiljada. Ali najgore je to šta ti vjerovatno dobro znaš da to nije istina.'' -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ustaše da su prelazili u partizane? Nikad čuo. Jedinice (prisilno) unovačenih domobrana, da, ali ne ustaša. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 23:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To si ti čuo negdje sasvim obrnuto. Upravo su Srbi počeli masovno prelaziti u partizane 1944 godine. Tko ti je god to rekao uzeo je činjenice i samo ih obrnuo. Gledaj: Hrvati nisu teoretski mogli 1944. "masovno ići u partizane" jer je izmedu njih i partizana 1944. godine stojala masovna Njemačko-Sovjetska fronta. Srbija je bila sa sovjetske/partizanske strane pa je u njoj Tito mogao provest novačenje. Ukratko, Srbija je bila oslobođena 1944. te su upravo Srbi ti koji su "masovno odlazili u partizane 1944.". Hrvatska je bila okupirana i pod jakom okupacijom njemačke armijske grupe F, i ti sad imaš hrvate koji trče stalno "masovno" preko Sremskog fronta. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 23:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Pa da, dok su nemci bili tu nije bio nijedan razlog da predju kod partizana."
 * Koji nijemci? Pa nijemci su itekako bili u Hrvatskoj 1944.! Dapače, više nego ikad prije.


 * Pitam te opet, kako su to Hrvati '44. "masovno prelazili u partizane" kad su bili na njemačkoj strani fronta?? Dok tamo u oslobođenoj Srbiji Tito masovno novači za Sremski front i Četnici prelaze za partizane... Negdje si nabasao na propagandu, i još k tome besmislenu propagandu. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 00:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC) --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 00:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ma o čemu ti? Šta "prelazili ulazili"? Je li me to ti malo kao vučeš za nos? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 04:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for violating restriction
You have been blocked for violating your topic ban "all edits relating to the historical demographics and cartography of Ex-Yugoslavia." among others discussed on ANI today.

I have little hope that this situation will improve as long as you are free to pursue your feuds around the ethnnicity and demographics of former Yugoslavia and Yugoslavians. I am broadening your topic ban to all articles under WP:ARBMAC to prevent further disruption. This sanction has been logged under WP:ARBMAC and can be appealed through the means described there. Toddst1 (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

problems involving partizan dispute

 * If anyone's interested in things regarding the problem with the Partisan dispute... one should look no further than at "Modern-day myths about Yugoslav history stemmed from Communist indoctrination designed to suppress nationalism. The Communist version of events during World War II was that Yugoslavia's Partisans were the sole liberators against Nazi occupation." I feel that a certain user's views go exactly along the lines of communist myths.
 * People, you must seek mediation on the Yugoslav Partisans page. That is absolutely necessary, to rid the page of the communist POV. (LAz17 (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)).

admin noticeboard
I have tried using, but it does not work. This topic, Draža Mihailović underwent extensive mediation, and Direktor's communist rhetoric was eliminated. The mediation is seen here, - we need something like that for the yugoslav partisans page. It is absolutely necessary. Perhaps I am going about initiating the mediation in the wrong way? This must be done. There is no other way to reason with a one way biased person. On mediation at least he's restrained from unnecessarily prolonging discussion- quite frankly it's the fastest way to get anything done. (LAz17 (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)).

SISAK PROBLEMS
The sisak problem, is about content that has NOTHING to do with the partisans page. Why include an isolated uprising that has nothing to do with the partisans??? That is a serious problem. Yet Direktor goes about threatening me if I dare touch it. I feel that this is extreme harassment and intimidation against me. (LAz17 (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)).

need new article
Remember the partisan butchery of human flesh at the Bleiburg massacre? We need another article kinda related, the Prevalje forest massacre - (LAz17 (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)).

MEDIATION TO PREVENT COMMUNIST RHETORIC
Found the place, Requests for mediation, which nobody seemed to want to help on. Now Direktor's in for a hard time once I get unbanned. Just like his propaganda got ruined in the Draza Mihajlovic topic, so too will his rhetoric be ceased here. (LAz17 (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)).

Orphaned non-free image File:Medvescak.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Medvescak.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

HK Alfa
Hi LAz, even though you seem to be blocked currently, I would like to inform you that the abovementioned article, which was created by you, does not cite any references. So, maybe you could arrange for them to be added? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI Notification
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - See Ani. Exxolon (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been suspended for 3 months
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Violation of ARBMAC, specifically WP:NPA "Comment on content, not the contributor." You seem unable or unwilling to abide by these restrictions, but in the hope that you may yet do so I am making this a finite sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I was already punished for this. (LAz17 (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)).
 * How can you punish me for something that happened BEFORE I got unblocked??? I was already blocked for this jeeze. (LAz17 (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)).
 * You appear to have posted more personal attacks after your block expired. Even now, you seem to be edit warring on your talk page to include a fairly specific personal attack on another editor.  I'll remove it again for you.  Further usage of this talk page for any reason other than to ask questions specific to your block will lead to the page being disabled again.  Thanks.  Kuru   (talk)  22:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Material that was on my talk page should stay there. I edited it a little to remove the offensive language - calling him a commie. (LAz17 (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)).

-- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 23:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @"I was already punished for this." No. You were blocked on 15:23, 7 September 2010 . You posted these attacks well after you were blocked. I cannot believe nobody noticed them, your talkpage is HUGE man.
 * @"How can you punish me for something that happened BEFORE I got unblocked?" Obviously being blocked does not mean you're allowed to post attacks on other users on your talkpage.


 * Wrong again. Kuru further blocked me for that. Now please don't visit my talkpage and stop harassing me. (LAz17 (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)).
 * The talk page may be huge - but when doing some nasty math problems involving induction at the post-calc level, other students and I complained to the professor that they were nasty and messy too... and he told us what I am going to tell you now, "that's the beauty of it." True say. (LAz17 (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)). lulz. (LAz17 (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)).


 * Ha, reminds me of my professor's comment on a three-day old dead fella during an autopsy (if you'll pardon the mental picture :D).
 * I hope there's no hard feelings man. You understand I can't just sit by while you call me a "commie" and insult people all over the place. I really am not, far from it (won't post again). -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 00:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Your persistent postings in the topic are the same opinion that the commies have - as that quote a bit above that you wanted to remove says - the commie view is that the commies were the only ones who resisted the nazis. This view is held by many. But it is the commie view, and is not full. You support this view on the yugoslav-ww2 related issues. That is why I called you a commie. There is nothing unusual there. There is nothing wrong with being called a commie. I do not take offense at that when people call me that. If I said "person of the commie view on that issue" - would that have made things more proper?
 * I do not insult people all over the place. Cease your slander. Only a stubborn american can figure that a commie is an insult. I have to stop using that - I did stop using that - and I got banned after I stopped. Nice. Really nice. Congrats.
 * 2) I do not believe that you deal with dead guys no matter what you say. I on the other hand had to touch them in the anatomy/physiology 1 lab. Nasty stuff (omfg are you gonna report me because I find that me touching dead guys all over is nasty?!- well I do find that nasty, and it was a horrible experience for me - and I do find that nasty - but omg nasty is a bad word isn't it?). Damn muscle test. I didn't do too good on that one... the bone was was better. But the muscles... ugh...
 * 3) I do not mind you posting on my page - I have a problem with tampering with my previous edits. My mess on my page is my personal stuff. You know how when people have their mess they do not want others cleaning it up because then they do not know where what is? That's kinda how it is here. Don't tamper with my mess. But feel free to make it more hectic.
 * Got any good youtube stuff? :/ (LAz17 (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)).
 * So if I were to write a section on my talkpage entitled "LAZ17 IS A FASCIST SERBIAN NATIONALIST SPREADING HIS PROPAGANDA" instructing Croatian users to follow you around and revert you, you would not mind? That would be "my personal stuff"? Be honest now. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 12:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * CEASE AND DESIST, DIREKTOR. STOP BAITING. Lunalet (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * LoL... -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 12:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reported Moon Unit for being a fairly obvious sock or impostor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ty. There's so many of those around I've stopped even caring. :P -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 13:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

question for admins
So I have to email to be unblocked, or to not be topic banned, or both of those? Same email or? (LAz17 (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)). Response please? (LAz17 (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)).
 * I would focus on having them review your block first.  Kuru   (talk)  22:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, makes sense. The same email however should be used for both things- they deal with it all? (LAz17 (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)).

SPI case
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/LAz17. Thank you.

As you are currently blocked, you may place a note here and it will be moved to the casepage for you.  N419 BH  20:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's my note. I am no sock. The only reason I have not appealed to be unblocked is because this is december, a month where one is swamped with course activities and such stuff. The block actually works in my favor and I am actually enjoying it.
 * Do tell the guy who reported some profanities for me.[/joking] Clearly he has nothing better to do than to try find straws out of a haysack. Accusing me of this is basically like him saying AHA I FOUND A STRAW, but in fact he's just wrong. (LAz17 (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)).
 * And No such user is wrong btw. The chetnik stuff was a small portion of my edits. It has been increased as of late because of the extreme POV that Direktor has been pushing there. But he is right that much of my edits have been geographical in nature... things such as geography, sport leagues, infrastructure, etc... (LAz17 (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC))


 * I am the person who filed the SPI case, though I am not the one who found the linking evidence (the other account was created 4 hours after your last edit, and posted to your talk without any apparent prior interaction or editing overlap). It could be mere coincidence or the other account could be intentionally trying to frame you. We'll get to the bottom of it. Thanks for your note and if you have anything further to say post it here and I'll repost it at the SPI case.  N419 BH  07:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it might not be bad to check direktor... my bro doesn't like me man! So it might be him. :( (LAz17 (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)).

Nomination for deletion of Template:Chicagoland Riots
Template:Chicagoland Riots has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Bosniaks: Images of notable Bosniaks for the Template:Bosniaks infobox
Please, join the discussion.

Regards, --Wusten fuchs 11:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:JSDPartizanLogo.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:JSDPartizanLogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban
Hi. I see your 3 month block has expired, but wasn't there an indef. topic ban to all ARBMAC related articles? Has this been lifted? Fainites barley scribs 17:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My topic ban was specifically to anything related to any sort of ethnic maps or ethnic discussion in the former yugoslavia. Ridiculously long ya know. I am not aware of an ARBMAC ban? I didn't have any issue with those before. All my discussion there was constructive and did not cause problems. What caused problems was that the topic ban was so ridiculously broad that some pricks decided to interpret it as "any aspect of ethnicity". Please correct me if I am wrong. In the case that I am wrong I will immediately appeal this draconian measure - this ban is because some person was making BAD ethnic maps on a controversial subject - instead of being prized for my efforts at blocking POV ethnic maps I got punished. The thing however is that I do not edit much and do not have any intention of being in any lengthy discussion. So, the topic ban doesn't bother me for the time being. My recent edits have nothing to do with "maps or discussion of ethnicity". I simply added some sources that suggest that something is wrong and let them deal with it. I also begged them to have the page go through mediation, as it has been changed over the past years a ridiculous amount of times - mediation is the only way to resolve the annoying controversy that emanates from the never-ending disagreements on that page. As you can see all my edits are constructive. If you feel that you should punish me for that go ahead. But, if you believe that it is possible to solve that problem without mediation, you are dead wrong. I do not want to be part of the mediation at this time - but it is extremely necessary. (LAz17 (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)).
 * It was this here. Toddst extended it to all ARBMAC related articles. Maybe Toddst can help.Fainites barley scribs 17:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, I guess you're right. I didn't get what broadened ban meant. Oh well, I had no bad intention and did no harm - but tell you what - you have the opportunity now to lobby for a multiyear ban on me. Too bad for me. (LAz17 (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)).
 * You can ask for a topic ban to be lifted by going to the original admin, Toddst1, or ANI or the Committee. Using a phrase like "some pricks" is probably not a good start. Whatever route of appeal you take you will need to demonstrate that you can discuss and edit in accordance with policies. As for mediation, the Mihailovic mediation is ongoing and as I understand it they are nearing completion of a draft. I would agree that other WWII articles in this area need a lot of work. If you want to work in this area you are going to have to learn - very fast - how to communicate with those with whom you disagree without losing your temper and being offensive. Fainites barley scribs 18:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought I gotta email some people, that no individual user can remove a ban? (LAz17 (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)).
 * I agree on the talking part. My initial ban came because I was going about the problem the wrong way. I just needed to get a better map - and we had one - instead I was led to believe that the other user has to agree to remove theirs, which they were not doing. Hence problems resulted. Oh well. All the other stuff is minor and stems from that. I think I'm a good user, but for at least a month or two more I am not in a position to engage in significant discussion. Though, I gotta email them, right? (LAz17 (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)).
 * I was looking at this. Another admin like me can't lift it. You need to either go to Toddst 1, or ArbCom (e-mail I suppose), or ANI.Fainites barley scribs 18:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I laugh at your meek admin powers! Muahahaa. Kidding of course. :P :)
 * Could you give me the exact email that I should email? I think it changed before and as you see my talkpage is a disaster (so cluttered that it's just nauseating looking at it) that I hate to look for it. :( (LAz17 (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)).
 * I believe it's this one; arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org If it's not - I'm sure theyll tell you which one it is. They may tell you to try Toddst1 first. Fainites barley scribs  20:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Toddst1 is generally skeptical and would want to know what has changed and why he should believe you. As I said previously, I have little hope that this situation will improve as long as you are free to pursue your feuds around the ethnnicity and demographics of former Yugoslavia and Yugoslavians. Toddst1 (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hm, Toddst, I actually do not find you to be one of the bad ones. The one who gave me the initial topic ban is the one who I find to be the bad one. The dude snapped at me for adding official census data - that is how ridiculous the topic ban was. Things that are not controversial whatsoever were banned.
 * I did get out of hand sometimes. I admit that. It can get frustrating sometimes. But, I've learned to be better than those who have other opinions, or to be precise, to not fall down to their level.
 * One of my bans was for calling a guy a commie - and it happened right after I got unbanned, for something that happened before the ban that I just got done with. I do not think that was right on your guys part, because I do not see the word commie to be an insult. But, yeah, I guess I learned the hard way not to call anyone anything good or bad - asides from the dude who gave me the initial ridiculously wide topic ban.
 * My initial ban was regarding some ethnic map. It was not discussing ethnicity, just the factual census stuff. This one user kept making bad maps, and I went after him aggressively. I got some of his obscene wrong things deleted and that gave me motivation to go on a campaign against him - today I feel that my actions were right, as the guy was doing bad things on purpose, but, yes, I do realize that my accusations on him did get out of hand.
 * I never had any feuds around ethnicity and demographics. I had feuds regarding ethnic maps. I also had feuds with the guy direktor regarding some ww2 stuff - but that stuff was of a totally different nature - currently that is under mediation and I think it's going along nicely. I tend to have good relations with direktor - asides from the part that he does not like being called a commie. Yet, that has nothing to do with ethnicity and demographics. My discussion with him has been for the most part constructive and we fell down to discussing sources - that is the current hold up with the mediation. My problem with my involvement with direktor was that I did not go for mediation. I discussed things with him too much and it got out of hand.
 * I am not sure if this what I wrote above is enough to demonstrate that things have changed. In general I guess that I should try to be as much to point as possible, and have as little discussion with anyone as possible that is not related to the topic itself. This way there is no reason to have any fits or stuff. If someone does not want to accept sources that are factual, then the step is not to argue with them but to bring a second or third opinion, and if that still does not convince the person then perhaps mediation will. Therefore there is no chance that I can have any problem with direktor. As for the map controversy, which is what my ban was about, there's simply no reason to fear of any problems there. What I know now, that I did not before, is that the better map wins out. Had I known that earlier, there would have been no reason for that big argument. One just shows the person why their map is wrong - if they're a hot head I should not take the bait and simply bring another opinion in, and they're out of luck. I have never had an argument over a map that is good - only maps that are appalling - and they are for the most part not on wikipedia anymore. If one shows up I can deal with it better than I have in the past.
 * Could I be unbanned? (LAz17 (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)).

Offer
I will reduce your ban to the original one (I can't undo someone else's ban) on one condition: Continued disruption relating to any WP:ARBMAC related topic or civility issues will result in an automatic indefinite block. That means unless such a block was made in error, there will be no appeal. Do you wish to strike such a deal? Toddst1 (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fair from your side. I just don't get one thing - what is "ARBMAC"??? Basically the link there isn't quite clear to me. I get that I have the topic ban - but I'm still not 100% sure what this "extended ban" is supposed to be. Just please clarify that for me. (LAz17 (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)).

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you continue with the behaviour on article, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you.

That is the standard ARBMAC (Arbitration related to some Macedonian and other Balkan countries) warning. Still interested in accepting the deal? Toddst1 (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would accept the deal. There's nothing for me to lose - I gotta be really dumb to screw things up, so basically I think that you shouldn't worry.
 * Please just tell me the difference between the block that I had and what you gave. I don't get that. You basically blocked me from all balkan related pages, or controversial balkan pages? (LAz17 (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)).
 * You were blocked from all Balkan-related pages. Toddst1 (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Acceptance has been recorded
Per your agreement above, I have reduced the restriction that I added, so that you are now only topic-banned from all edits relating to the historical demographics and cartography of Ex-Yugoslavia.

'''Continued disruption relating to any WP:ARBMAC related topic or civility issues will result in an automatic indefinite block. That means unless such a block was made in error, there will be no appeal.'''

This has been recorded here. Good luck and let me know if I can be of assistance. Toddst1 (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hej
Hi LAz, thank you. I hope you finally understood that we agree on a number of issues that are wrongly presented by mostly one or two editors. I am not interested in glorifiying neither demonising any of them, because, after all, I had both in my blood. But, some things need to be corrected. I will use as much sources as I can in the mediation, so a neutral perspective of the events is presented. You know the way the articles are unbalanced now, so any help is welcomed. If you find usefull sources feel free to post them in my talk page. I still need sources for the US Congress trial on Mihailovic... Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Andric
Laz, according to his article, Ivo Andric is ethnically a Croat born in Bosnia. Is this not correct? Is there any reason for suggesting to Wustenfuchs that he should go in the Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina infobox other than as a wind-up? I know he was a pan-Yugoslavian, wrote in Serbo-Croat and in a version mainly spoken by Serbs and declared himself a Serb when he was aged 67. All this stuff is a nationalist flash-point. He does not need to be in every info-box. It would be helpful if editors could try and agree a group of people for these Balkans infoboxes instead of using them as an excuse for constant point scoring and ethnic-based wrangling with no end in sight. Fainites barley scribs 09:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well he's a controversial person, isn't he? Under such conditions he should not be in any infobox. If the croats can claim him, then so can the serbs. Afterall, he has been on the serbian paper money. Case in point - . It is well known that this guy is a prize to anyone who claims him - it's not fair that the croats claim him rather than the other two groups. It's well known that he identified with serbs the most. (LAz17 (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)).
 * What does "it's not fair" mean in this context? The point is to try and reach a sensible consensus on a fair representation for the info-box. Not everyone can have everyone they want. So what? Proposing someone who you know is going to put the cat among the pigeons and quite probably result in extensive nationalist argument is hardly keeping to the spirit of your deal is it? Or are you going to tell me that it's deeply, deeply important that he goes in the info-box?Fainites barley scribs 16:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am simply saying that the serbs can claim him as much as the croats can. Therefore there is this potential for conflict, and so the controversial figures should be excluded from infoboxes. What doesn't make sense? (LAz17 (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)).
 * Nonsense. You proposed him on the talkpage. Nobody else had. Then when nobody bit, you went over to Wustenfuchs talkpage to raise it there. Fainites barley scribs 21:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but, why you wrote on my talk page... I don't have nothing to do with that, as I remember. Don't involve me in discussion I don't want to discuss.--Wusten fuchs 19:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This issue was continued on Fainites' talk page... nothing was achieved for either side. (LAz17 (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)).

Note: I am not on a side LAz17. I am concerned that so soon after the tentative lifting of your topic ban you are pursuing an issue almost guaranteed to stir up ethnic wrangling - based on endless circular arguments about yugoslav ethnicity.Fainites barley scribs 13:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but I am not taking part in any circular arguments. Adding information that undesputably justifies him being on the serb page as much as on the croat page is not stirring up ethnic wrangling. I did not even edit a page to add him or take him off. I simply added a wee bit of information that may help in the discussion. Yet, from what I conclude, you feel that things should stay as they are - that is that the croats get to have him on their page while the serbs do not. And so you accuse me of stirring up trouble by saying "hey, there are double standards." That's basically what I have been pointing at. It's not stirring up trouble, it's pointing to a serious issue that should be addressed. (LAz17 (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)).
 * You are not reading the posts. This isn't about the croats get to have him on their page while the serbs do not. This isn't about tit-for-tat or "it's not fair" or "sides" or "if one side can't have him then the other side shouldn't". Either the sources justify his inclusion on any of the pages or they don't. Feel free to provide sources rather than running around talking about "sides" and then saying you can't be bothered to read the discussion when others provide sources.Fainites barley scribs 13:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My problem is that he is only on the one page.
 * Perhaps I am wrong - but I was under the impression that a person is allowed to be under only one page, that they should not be mixed. I think I saw that mentioned in the bosniak discussion. Hence I interpreted that meaning "andric was not a serb." (LAz17 (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)).
 * Well unless you can point me to a guideline that says otherwise I can't think of any reason why, for example, someone of dual nationality or ethnicity can't be on two pages. (Your belief isn't on the Bosniak talkpage as far as I can see and that goes back to August 2009.) Fainites barley scribs 22:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Tito, who is both slovenian and croat is on the croat page - he's an example of a dual nationality person.
 * On the bosniaks talk page you can see the guy saying okay, I will not include muslim croats. Those people are bosniaks, yet the guy excluded them because they had some croat origin, hence he did not want to antagonize croats. I interpreted that as people are not allowed to be on more than one page. See the post by Zrin22 on 18 February 2011. In all honesty I don't his rationality in saying that Mehmedalija Mak Dizdar may not be on the bosniak page. (LAz17 (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)).
 * I supose it would be cool to avoid using same person in different nationality infoboxes for the simple reason that for non-involved people may seem confusing. However, it does sem that we can´t treat this matter as sportspeople contracts ("If you have a contract with one team, you can´t play for another.") so if really necessary, the exceptions of having the same person in more infoboxes can happend... right? FkpCascais (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no hard and fast rules on this issue for infoboxes. It is a matter of sources and consensus. It does not help to approach it with a battleground mentality. Stop thinking of sides and start thinking of "does this person fairly represent Croats/Serbs/Bosnians/Yugoslavs or whatever. Fainites barley scribs  19:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I noteced in my watchlist the last edit on Andric page, and it was about the adition of an Albanian wikipedia correspondent article. It is funny to see that Albanians, who are known for generally not having simpathy towards Serbs, categorize him as "Serb", as seen in the article itself: Ivbo Andriq. Responding to your point Fainites, well, he does pritty well represent Serbs, as he was closely link to Serbs in his middle and late life. As curiosity, in fact, he doesn´t represent that well Croats, since Croats are usually proud of their ethnical belonging, love their nation, and you would very hardly see a tipical Croat deciding to be considered Serb... I really hope this words of mine are not missunderstood, but this is quite trouth. FkpCascais (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe that has to do with the sources available to the Albanian editors. I didn't mean "represent" just in the sense of "typical of". It's nice to think that readers might click on the infobox pictures and be interested by the articles they then find. He mostly wrote about Bosnia. I suppose in a way he represents the complex ethnic and national conflicts and difficulties of the region. He seemed to be one of those who were pretty keen on the notion of "yugoslavs" - perhaps as a way to end all the warring. Personally I don't mind one way or the other - as long as additions are properly sourced and consensus is sought without talk of sides or all or none.Fainites barley scribs  20:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

sdfsagshlgj
jslgjslgjsf?! dfj sidjfdisgjgks sfjskfjskjs sflksdlkfs! (LAz17 (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC))
 * djfksjf,sd sjdfkd dfjk-efssssffffsdfsdfsdf (LAz17 (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)).

Re: Belgrade Metro
I did not "ruin" anything, the article used a purely speculative name and phrasing, as opposed to a completely valid, real-world name and phrasing. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and that is a policy. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (I've answered on the relevant talk page. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC))

Hi
Thanks for greetings.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 07:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BlocParty-Tulips.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:BlocParty-Tulips.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

AGFKGKShdssdffhdsk .sdg.(sdg) sdg .. !
Hay, too! :) Pa we will add it by time, dont worry! Also, look at this. We should add few more sentences... :) -- WhiteWriter speaks 21:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ma tek sam sada ukapirao!! Kakva glupost! :) Obrisao sam.... Će nađemo neku, od naških... :) -- WhiteWriter speaks 22:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Translation
 * Ma I just now figured! What nonsense! :) I wiped .... Will find some of ours ... :) -- WhiteWriter speaks 22:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Aahha, no, its just pointless, same as map! :) I will create ours tomorrow, no need for that Canadian again. Also, man, delete those unblock requests at the top of this talk. You look like vandal... :) Good night, i am off. -- WhiteWriter speaks 22:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In the name of that, Sign my guestbook. :) -- WhiteWriter speaks 22:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, signature, and a few kind words... :) -- WhiteWriter speaks 20:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Serbian parliamentary election, 2012
The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:WhiteWriter, you may be blocked from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Gibberish
And, please, in the future, gibberish should be followed with real language... At least, link, or word or two... :) All best. -- WhiteWriter speaks 13:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked
On 04:20, 29 April 2011, you agreed to a deal that you would be unblocked on the condition that "Continued disruption relating to any WP:ARBMAC related topic or civility issues will result in an automatic indefinite block. That means unless such a block was made in error, there will be no appeal." With your edit warring on Yugoslav Partisans, you have violated that deal. You are now indefinitely blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple undoings do not constitute an edit war. Have you not done a thing to punish Producer?
 * I believe that you are not aware of a number of things. I was trying to continually be in dialogue to resolve problems. How then am I considered disruptive? I wanted dialogue. Producer did not want dialogue. I also went about starting an appeal to get mediation going as the guy simply does not believe in sources even if they are cited. Because of his troubling behavior you chose to punish me and thus give him the green light to do whatever he wants. It's a shame that this is how you enforce power at wikipedia. I feel that you are abusive with your power. (LAz17 (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)).
 * Also, here is an example of what I am talking about. The disruptive Producer guy, whom you take a very great liking to, has claimed that I falsified information. He claimed that I do not have some article. Well, after posting proof that I have it he again did not want to accept that reality because the guy has some issues. Does he hate me or what I do not know. One thing is clear. He does not assume good intent and therefore should be punished. But anyways, I am worried that perhaps you agree with him. So if that is the case, here is one more part of the literature which he claimed I was fabricating. So I ask you, who is the disruptive one now? Who? This proves that Producer is causing problems and that your actions only let him off the hook and encourage him to be disruptive. (LAz17 (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)).

Talkback
WhiteWriter speaks 20:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, alas I am blocked. (LAz17 (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)).
 * You may try with unblock, but with sincere apology's, and complete attention to the restrictions in the future. But you disobey Toddst agreement, so... If you are lucky, and really honest... -- WhiteWriter speaks 14:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Before anything, the question is why did he not look at the deeper picture? I went to the talk page, I tried negotiating, I even tried filing a mediation request. I clearly showed intent on reaching a solution in a civilized manner. Producer showed that he did not care whatsoever over reaching a civilized solution. I suppose that one can say that two sides are always guilty in any conflict. But I feel that Producer should have more of the blame and so I feel that it is not fair that I get all the punishment. Sigh. (LAz17 (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)).
 * I've become very skeptical... I don't think there is much use in asking that admin for anything. (LAz17 (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)).

Unblocked
per request. Happy holidays. Toddst1 (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
An SPI report has been posted at Sockpuppet investigations/LAz17 that concerns you. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Still doing your utmost best to have me removed? That's a shame. (LAz17 (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)).


 * LAz, I fully support you and I beleave that you have good-faith. However, PLEASE get fully familiarised with all WP:POLICY´s, specially the behavioural ones (you´ll find them at bottom inside a template). Also, please don´t unswer to provocations (it is difficult, I know), but that is the only way how an active participation is allowed. The only important thing are sources and article content, and those are really the only areas which need your entire focus. I also wanted to thank you for your wishes, and wish you also happy Hollydays! FkpCascais (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But what if the other side does not want to look or consider the sources? What if they write them off completely? If I change their edit they just put it back. If I don't do nothing nothing happens. So what then? I try to discuss but it doesn't work as the guy says he does not believe the source, and such things. When I tell Direktor for example that his source does not say what he claims it does, and that this should be removed he threatens me. The options are so limited man, it's hard. (LAz17 (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)).
 * I fully understand you, beleave me (I mean, you know it), but all options we have are in WP:POLICY. It is allways better not responding and reporting, then doing something off rules. Lets be patient and see how things go. FkpCascais (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * FKP, send me an email so that I can scan some more material and send it off to you. Hopefully you will be able to do the mediation without me in case I do not get unblocked. But, I would like to provide you with the sources that they do not like. I suppose you might be able to get some of them, but some are harder to come by. On top of them some sources which I have put in a long time ago are deliberately mis-cited by these edit warriors. (LAz17 (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)).