Talk:Battle of Pljevlja

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Pljevlja article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from Battle of Pljevlja appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 April 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that after their defeat in the Battle of Pljevlja during the Uprising in Montenegro, many Partisans deserted to the Chetniks?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Pljevlja.

Wikipedia

Montenegro Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montenegro, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montenegro on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontenegroWikipedia:WikiProject MontenegroTemplate:WikiProject MontenegroMontenegro articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Serbia Low‑importance

	Serbia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yugoslavia Low‑importance

	Battle of Pljevlja is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Wikipedia coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Balkan / European / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)
	European military history task force
	World War II task force

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Foreign language quote

This quote "Ка да је, ипак, је дан део пар ти за на успео да се про би је у град, Ита ли ја ни су по че ли на су мич но да бом барду ју град, пљач ка ју и уби ја ју срп ско ста нов ни штво да не би по мо гло ко му ни сти ма. Ова су ро ва, али ефи ка сна ме ра је до дат но по ко ле ба ла пар ти зан ске сна ге" appears to have been fragmented into syllables. Please provide a proper foreign language quote and an English translation. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible fragmented quotes removed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Template:Request quotation, this tag should be added "after an unquoted reference to a source that you think may be inaccurate." Peacemaker67, will you please be so kind to explain why do you think the sources you tagged "may be inaccurate"? Untill you provide valid explanation for tag-bombing of another article I recently created I will remove quote/translation you added.
It would be more appropriate to write this message at your talkpage, but because you threatened to report me if I post a message on your talkpage, I will write it here. Your disruptive rename/delete campaign of articles I recently created ended with your complete fiasco. No doubt that your quote/translation tag-bombing misuse campaign is only a continuation of your attempts to make me feel threatened or intimidated. I politely ask you to please be so kind to please stop with your hostile behavior, and try to AGF and work with your fellow editors. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's you basically. See, first you added two quotes in Cyrillic that were impossible to decipher because they appear to have been cut up into syllables, then you remove them. Then you remove a quote that appeared to be in understandable Cyrillic straight after I asked for a translation. To me, that is an indicator that there might be some sort of issue with the source-text accuracy. Why else would you do it? Of course, you could clarify this by providing the quotes requested. I've happily and promptly provided quotes and several occasions recently from sources I have when you asked me, despite the fact that under WP:V I could tell you to find a library that holds a particular text, especially given this is en WP and 95% of the texts I use are in en, the language of this WP. See, you have extensive form for twisting sources, many examples of which I can produce if needed from the mountains of text on the Djurisic talk page. This is en WP, Ad. If you don't like it, go elsewhere. So, the quotes please. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I politely asked you to explain why do you think the sources you tagged "may be inaccurate". I don't think you explained that. Here is the version of the article before you tag-bombed it. There is no fragmented Cyrillic quote in the reference section. Removal of the invisible Cyrillic quotes of Živković (diff) because it was fragmented does not justify your tag-bombing of citations of Đuričković and Lakić (diff). Peacemaker67, will you please be so kind to revert yourself?
There is nothing particularly disruptive in using Serbian language sources here because the subject of this article has not received significant coverage by English language sources. That is probably why you yourself used Serbian language source in this article (diff) without translated quote.
I, of course, know that your position is about me and my conduct, not about valid arguments. Whenever you don't have argument for your position you sidetrack discussion to me and my conduct. If you think there is an issue with my conduct please use more appropriate pages, do not misuse articles' talkpages to disseminate a false narrative about my disruptive conduct. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said your were being disruptive. I made it clear that the reason I think the tagged sources "may be inaccurate" was because of your past conduct in relation to sources. I can't be any clearer than that. So it actually is about your conduct, which is a valid argument based on two things; your previous conduct elsewhere in relation to twisting sources, and your conduct in respect of the quotes and their removal (as described above), and your now apparent reticence to provide quotes or translations. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You never said I was being disruptive? Sources "may be inaccurate" was because of my past conduct in relation to sources? This is outrageous. You probably wrote more than thousand comments about me being disruptive. You never proved a single misinterpretation of sources although I probably translated hundreds of quotes based only on your request. No doubt your actions here and unnecessarily harsh comments to me (This is en WP, Ad. If you don't like it, go elsewhere.) are aimed to make editing unpleasant for me and to discourage me from further editing. In order to avoid being subjected to this kind of treatment this will be my last comment in this article. This page is removed from my watchlist, like all other pages you chased me away from. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Off you go then. No quotes, no translations, just abandon the article you cared enough about to create, and mark it down on your little list of articles I "chased you away from" by asking difficult questions. Can't wait till that little beauty sees the light of day... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Publisher Opština Pljevalja

If I am reading this right, Opština Pljevalja is the publisher of Lakić's 2009 work. It is completely unclear why ~~Lakic would be a reliable author or why~~ the City of Pljevalja would be a reliable publisher, per WP:RS. I have tagged it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67, although I stated I will not comment here, I could not resist when I saw your latest fiasco here. First unsigned comment (diff), then striking trough your own comment and disregarding one of the basic points of your own complaints here, although nobody replied to it (diff). Let me repeat what another editor friendly advised to you diff:

This is pretty ridiculous. Dude, you need to stick your head in a bucket of ice. This personal feud is starting to impair your judgment.

I think you should take that friendly advice and please stop with your masochistic personal feud against me. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see, break your own rules to make a personal attack, but don't actually answer the policy-based question. True to form. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar issues with this article

I have tagged this article for grammar because the prose is so diabolical, I can't even understand what is meant by some sentences. Others are very poorly written. If you are editing this article, and your English language skills are not great, don't remove the tag, improve your English language skills. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]