User talk:Director/Archive 2

Home   Talk   Contributions   Archives Make yourself at home....

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Thanks to you too, for helping me about the article. I got a headache for more than a month because of that monkey. Zenanarh 10:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Republic of Ragusa First, the infobox says that Italian was official, so I went with that. It says that Dalmatian was a vernacular language, but that Italian was, from 1492, an official language (and Latin was official until 1492). That doesn't mean that it was widely spoken, however, just that Latin had become too far removed from the reality of the situation to be useful even as a ceremonial official language by that point. Second, the infobox shows the dates 1358-1808 (the accepted dates of existence of the political entity that we can confidently call the Republic of Ragusa), and so the flags and links on either side must show the direct predecessor and successor states from those dates. Oh, and BTW, do you know what "Republic of Ragusa" would be in Dalmatian? Lexicon (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Respublica di Ragusa, I believe. But I admit I am not sure... It is an extinct romance language so it is not widely known even around these parts... I accept your argument concerning one of the points. But you must realise one thing: the hatred of the Ragusans for their arch-rival the Venetian Republic is epic (why do you think Ragusa has those famous massive seaward walls and forts?) For them to have Italian (i.e. Venetian) as an "official" (there was no such institution as official languages in those days) language is I believe, highly unlikely and untrue, I don't doubt it was frequently necessary to speak it (for the merchants), but "official"? No. DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Latin was ADMINISTRATIVE!!! not "official" language in those ages almost in the half of Europe! It means that documents were written in Latin language. At present we still have situation that scientific researches and documents published by universities have topics translated to Latin everywhere in the western civilization. Every flower or butterfly or mineral has its Latin name! Isnt' it? How is that? Obviously it is our cultural ancestry from those ages when all documents were written and published in Latin language in that part of Europe. So it was not official! BTW some documents in Dubrovnik/Ragusa were written in Dalmatian - it is well known fact. Oh, and BTW, do you know what "Canada" would be in English or French? Zenanarh 14:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Let's not get personal here. It is well known that Latin was maintained for a VERY long period. Italian however, was not "official"". I am sure of that. The country spoke: Latin (administrative), Croatian/Croato-Serbian (the masses), and Dalmatian (the higher classes, the Gospari), Italian was well known, that is certain, but out of necessity and mostly by the merchants, it is too much to say it was "official". DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Administrative language DIREKTOR, as administrative language, I see mostly documents in Latin, as well as some in Italian in Republic of Dubrovnik, but I haven't seen any official documents in Dalmatoromanic language. Have you read any books? Yes, there're books in Croatian. Second, DIREKTOR, you're missing the point. I'm speaking about the title of the article, but you interfere with "language". Put your comments in the sections where they belong. Kubura 06:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Zadar Yes, I am being a jerk and attempting to win the argument with sarcasm. We seem to have moved past any rational arguments, if we ever even began that way. I don't know what else to say; we call it "Siege of Zara", and that's that. Adam Bishop 07:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Edits at Republic of Ragusa The sentence you keep changing from Croatia to Dalmatia refers to modern state of Republic of Croatia. So the sentence "The Republic ruled a compact area of southernmost Croatia" refers to the fact the Republic held the teritory which is the southernmost area of Croatia today. Do you understand? --No.13 11:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC) That does not change the fact that it is in Dalmatia. TODAY. It is already mentioned it is in modern times a part of Croatia. Dalmatia is a much older, more significant category as it describes the culture of the Republic FAR more acurately. It should be accentuated over Croatia, wich is historically only the central part of modern Croatia. Look it up. DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC) No one is denying that obvious fact. It is already mentioned that the city itself is today part of Croatia but it doesn't mention that the Republic also ruled an area which is today part of southernmost Croatia. Thats is the whole deal with the sentence. Now stop with this. --No.13 12:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC) The area ruled by Republic of Ragusa was not and is not "southernmost part of Dalmatia". Southernmost part of Dalmatia is Bay of Kotor. Read the first two sentences on Dalmatia article. --No.13 13:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC) The bay of Kotor AND the Republic are the "southernmost" part of Dalmatia. This is well known. DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Only one can be southernmost and that is the 'Bay of Kotor', do you understand the meaning of the word southernmost? Apparently not. --No.13 13:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC) There is no need to insult my intelligence, I am trying to explain to you that the bay of Kotor and the Republic both compose a part of Dalmatia wich can be considered "southernmost". The original text denoting this was not written by an idiot. You apparently don't know much about the history and the traditional north-south division of Dalmatia. The bay of kotor and the area of the Republic were connect for a very long period. DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Bay of Kotor doesn't composes anything. It is a geographic location located in Montenegro and constitutes southernmost point of what is today considered Dalamtia. If you haven't noticed there is no Republic of Ragusa since 1806 thus it can't be part of anything. Area of what was once Republic of Ragusa is now part of Republic of Croatia and it's Dubrovnik-Neretva county. If anything it can be called Southern Dalmatia, southernmost definately not. Let me remind you that I supported you and put a good word in your last edit war, so don't make me regret it now. --No.13 13:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC) It's a single word and we have already reached consensus. We should save our efforts for the Italians. However, please note: Split is the capitol of southern Dalmatia, Dubrovnik is the capitol of "southernmost" Dalmatia. Just because Kotor is in Montenegro does not mean it cannot compose an integral part of southernmost Dalmatia along with Dubrovnik. Dalmatia is a category far exceeding Croatia and (especially ;) ) Montenegro. You are right though, I do owe you one for your support. DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC) By the way, may I ask where are you from? I'm curious... DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Dubrovnik is the capital of southernmost Croatian Dalmatia, not Dalmatia in general. Southernmost Dalmatia (as in region of Dalmatia) is the Bay of Kotor not Dubrovnik. And you don't owe me anything, I do things dictated by my conscience and by what I consider good or true. I don't like how you became all aggresive over this small ridiculous issue. This is not the first time, you did the same thing at Zadar article when you didn't even look who you were reverting. You should calm down a bit, thats a friendly advice. I am from Croatia. Regards. --No.13 14:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Oh come on, you can't still be angry about that Zadar thing, it was an accident, ffs. I became agressive? well if nothing else I was not alone. About the capitol, I was not talking about the current situation at all, but about the capitols of the traditional divisions of Dalmatia. DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC) I am not angry nor I was angry, annoyed perhaps. What traditional division? Dalmatia was divided and encompassed various areas from ancient to modern times. From what I gather you refer to the Austro-Hungarian division of Dalmatia, no? That is hardly a traditional division. --No.13 14:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Um, the division of Dalmatia during the Austrian Empire is the traditional one, as Dalmatia then became the province we know today. That division dates even further back, when the Venetians conquered the Dalmatian hinterland and added it to Dalmatia proper ("aquisto nuovo" e "aquisto novissimo"). That is when today's Dalmatia formed, that is when the "traditional" division was established. DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC) The matter is settled. ;) --No.13 09:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Thank goodness... DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:33, 32 July 2007 (UTC) Category "Former Towns of RSK 1991-95" Can you please check this matter out and cast a vote. The link for the actual category is here and the discussion and voting is taking place here. Thanks. --No.13 07:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Sure, I'l take a luke as soon as I find time. DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Warning (or not...?) Direktor, this, what you've wrtitten on Petri Krohn's talk page [1], is discrediting of the user, which is forbidden behaviour on Wikipedia. Kubura 10:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Oh come on, Kubura. People call each other far worse things than "not being indifferent to nationality". I was merely surprised No.13 was accused of being a vandal so I felt I had to say something. Truth is, I don't know anything about that guy... DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Avoid such words. Who are you to judge him? You call him "level-headed", and at the same time you're spreading your POV here. Kubura 12:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Calm down. I did not "judge" him, do you even know what that means? Look I know we have ideological differences but refrain from senseless attacks. Fact is, we are both trying to do nearly identical things, I have been editing wherever there was an infringement of fact at Croatia's expense, just like you. DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Kubura Direktor didn't write anything compromising or discrediting there, he was actually defending me. See defintion for "level-headed" here. I thank him for his kind words. Regards. --No.13 13:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Yes, I see. I understood the attribution "levelheaded" wholly wrong. I've seen soooo many discrediting words recently, that now I seen "hidden" discrediting and insulting, in the places where it's not the case. I've mixed it up with "narrowminded". Sorry.Kubura 12:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Split RQM Please, no hard canvassing from any party. Let's try to reason each point. If you feel the need to get a wider range of views involved, a simple informative note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia or similar Wikiprojects would be acceptable (i.e. "There is a current ongoing debate on whether Split should be turned into a disambiguation page instead of pointing to the city in Croatia."). Regards, --Asteriontalk 18:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Right, right, I may have jumped ahead of myself, but try to put yourself in my position. My home town is in danger of being written off as less important than a Poker play, on the worlds most popular encyclopedia no less. DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC) No worries. I perfectly understand your frustration. I made a similar point myself in the original survey, that is for Split, Croatia, to be considered the most encyclopedic meaning. Regards, --Asteriontalk 21:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC) In any case, I support the current situation. I consider the city not equally important (encylopedic value) as the rest of the disambiguation page material, but more. DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC) HELLO! Hello Direktor, I' am Pippo Franco (your italian friend),how are you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.53.116.110 (talk) 15:24:21, August 19, 2007 (UTC) HELLO!, Pippo, your company was sorely missed. I'm fine, thank you, just returned from an excellent vacation to one of OUR islands (Brač) where I had the opportunity to meet many of your Ferragosto-faring countrymen (and women, hehe)... How are you? How go your preparations for the Croato-Italian war? DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC) fine tanks.But my preparatios are stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.53.115.192 (talk) 14:59, August 30, 2007 (UTC) Oh, you must mean "stopped". How so, Pippo?, did you decide Dalmatia just might be Croatian, or did you realise you would lose such a hypothetical conflict? DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC) A note about speculations Hi! We both edited Serbs in Croatia recently. I think you missed a nuance in meaning which I consider important, so please let me explain. Yesterday, there was a sentence reading: The exact figure from 1991 is disputed since a large number of those who had in previous censuses identified as Serbs, declared themselves as Yugoslavs, a group which at the time numbered another 106,041 people. This was speculation disguised as fact, so I changed it into: Some of those who declared themselves as Yugoslavs, a group which at the time numbered another 106,041 people, may have been Serbs. You see, now it's still speculation, but it isn't pretending to be anything else. Speculations are legitimate in articles if they are justified, i.e. relevant for the topic. Now, this concrete speculation may or may not be relevant, but you removed the same sentence in another part of the article simply because "it's a speculation". What I'm saying is that you shouldn't do that. If you think it's irrelevant, that's another matter, but you didn't say so. I hope I've made the difference clear. --Zmaj 19:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC) I agree, but it is as legitamate to speculate that those Yugoslavs might be Croats. It is extremely meaningless to speculate thusly. There is nothing that indicates Yugoslavs are more likely to be Serbs than Croats. It gives the reader that incorrect impression. As far as I'm concerned you may include the information, but only if it says that they might have been Croats as well. I believe the whole thing is not necessary as it does not say anything, so I removed it. It also may be well to include the naked fact that there were 106,041 Yugoslavs according to the census, and not add any speculation afterwards. DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks ...for the star! It's half yours ;) Zenanarh 12:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC) No problem, you really did deserve it. DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Serbs of Croatia Look, now this article and my changes. Now article is speaking truth and not how Serbian despots has ruled Slavonia. Rjecina 17:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Ok. DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Page has lasted 39 minute before first Serbian vandal (without name). They really like Croatia :)Rjecina 17:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Cry havoc!, and let loose the dogs of war. ;) We'll see about that... DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Huh? --PaxEquilibrium 21:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC) It's from Shakespear's Julius Caesar... Never mind. What I meant was I'll take a look at the Serbs of Croatia article and that if they insist on spreading misinformation it may result in another edit war. DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Story is going in this way. First user read this article about Serbian kings and Slavonia then he read article Kingdom of Slavonia where is writen how Serbs have been majority (and Croats minority) in 1790 census. In the end what will neutral user think ? Slavonia has been always Serbian land which Croats has stolen in near past. I think that you have not seen that article ?? Direktore have you voted on commons about this map [[2]] in which Baranya is part of Serbia in 1918. Do not be angry too much. I will hate to loose Croatian user because of 3RR or something else. Rjecina 16:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC) This is increadible! Actual open support for the greater Serbian idea on Wikipedia. I suggest you go to the Administrators immediately if there is any resistance. Report it on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents first, I suggest. About the map, it is actually what the Serbs demanded of the Versailles conference after WWI, I think their army even occupied these lands after that war. In what context is it placed? DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC) On map is shown territory of "Kingdom of Serbia" on 25. november 1918. Like you have maybe seen this map is put for deleting on commons. About that I am little angry because vote is around 15 : 5 for deleting and administrators are refusing to delete. Reasons of them for not deleting is that this discussions about deleting are going and going few months before they are closed (and map deleted or not). More of demanding of map deletion for us is not possible to do (and wait, and wait..) Rjecina 17:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for trying to talk some sense out of UstashkiDom. We will see how it goes. --Asteriontalk 19:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Totally hopeless. I feel like if I was wasting my time and was being taken advantage of. I would not be surprised if he turns out to be someone else's sockpuppet. Well, going offline now. I had enough. Thanks, --Asteriontalk 20:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Believe, me there are a lot like him around here, I almost feel like I know the guy... :P DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 13:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Chetnik and Italian irredenta You know the truth as much as I. What sources? Sources to prove that GreaterSerb/Chetnik revisionism is GreaterSerb/Chetnik revisionism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UstashkiDom (talk • contribs) 19:42, August 23, 2007 (UTC). I know what happened in Croatia and the rest of SFR Yugoslavia during the war, if that's what you mean. I was there, and I read several books on the subject. I am sorry, but it is just how it works: you need sources (references) and include them in the article (read up on that), without them your edits will not last a single day. That's just how it is. (sign with four tildas) DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Your comment on User talk:UstashkiDom Hey, DIREKTOR. Just as a heads-up, I did remove your last comment on UstashkiDom's talk page. I know you probably meant well, but you might have noticed he's got one heck of a short temper, and I'd rather not see the guy blocked indefinitely. Hopefully the block will give him some time to calm down, or something. Thanks, and happy editing. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Right, thanks, good thinking. DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Arbitration request You have been named as a party in an arbitration request here. Please consider making a statement there. Regards,--Isotope23 talk 16:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC) I hope tomorrow afternoon is not too late, I'm little bit tired now. Zenanarh 21:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Siege of Leningrad Dear DIRECTOR, I am an MD from Leningrad, now living in LA, CA. Thank you for your attention to the article Siege, your input is appreciated. However, you changed my line: "Along with the Battle of Stalingrad, the Siege of Leningrad was the most important battle on the Eastern Front, and the deadliest siege of a city in history." Your comment says: Kursk? Bagratian? I believe that you want to improve the article, so I'd like to help you understand the facts. 29 months of the Batlle known as the Siege of Leningrad are comparable in magnitude with 6 months of the Battle of Stalingrad. Each of thoes two giant battles are equally important. Leningrad was the LONGEST PROBLEM on the Eastern Front, exhausting the Nazis in every way: military and human resources, political and moral failure. The losses of about 1,5 million in each of those battles and their duration were greater than any other operation in WWII. The Nazi forces were stopped at Leningrad for 2,5 years, which completely destroyed their ability to move all armies to take Moscow. Hitler's plans were destroyed in Leningrad, then his next plans were destroyed in Stalingrad. Losing Leningrad means automatically losing Moscow, because huge Nazi armies could join the attack on Moscow next day. And that would be the end of war. But the Nazi forces were stopped and were seriously weakened by their failure in Leningrad - THEIR LONGEST FAILURE. That's why Russians had such resistance and tenacity in Leningrad - the city was key to end result, it's control was about victory for either side. That is why the Battle of Leningrad lasted HALF OF THE ENTIRE WAR. It was the strategic key, that was holding many bad problems from happening for the Soviets. Both sides knew that, so Hitler's propaganda tried to downplay their failure in Leningrad. The failure made some Nazi officers want to kill Hitler. Hitler's written invitation to loot the Tsar's palaces and celebrate the victory had documented his big failure. The damage done by the Nazis in Leningrad is impossible to calculate even today, when some of the losses are partially repaired. No other comparable city (about 4 million people with suburbs) in the world had ever suffered such a damage and destruction, loss of human lives, loss of immeasurable values of blown up Palaces, looted art collections (the Amber Room, gold statues, paintings and more). Big industrial infrastructure was destroyed, tens of suburban cities were leveled along with palaces, thousands of suburban homes were looted and burned by the Nazis. The story repeated at Stalingrad, but much faster, because it was a city 6-7 times smaller, than Leningrad in population and industrial power (no valuable palaces or museums). Still military resources and manpower in both battles led to comparable human losses and strategic effect. Each next effort of the Nazi machine was smaller in duration, in human losses, and had a less comparable impact on the outcome of the war. Still very important battles, but they were all AFTER, so sides were better prepared to deal with each next battle. Kursk battle was the last big effort of the Nazis to reverse the course of war, big but still a local battle in the same direction as was Stalingrad (both are way south of Moscow). It was the biggest tank operation in history, albeit still smaller than Leningrad and Stalingrad in general size, duration, human losses and strategic impact. It was between smaller cities than Stalingrad, and much smaller that Leningrad, many tanks in the open field, big casualties, but no precious art destroyed, and overall - too late for the Nazis. The Soviets had 254 thousand killed, the Nazi archives show 165 thousand killed, total number of documented deaths on both sides is under half a million. Many POWs. Still not comparable with Leningrad or Stalingrad. For 2,5 years all other (shorter) battles were swinging the frontlines south of Leningrad and Moscow, and those two capitals were originally the MAIN GOAL declared by Hitler, but the Nazis failed. All other operations were AFTER the main failure. "Bagration" (Prince Bagration was a general who ousted Napoleon) was an operation led by Zhukov in Belarus in the endgame of the war. It was a broad and strategically important operation, but still it was AFTER the other big ones, not comparable to both Leningrad and Stalingrad in its influence on the course of war. Thanks for your participation. Please restore my original phrase, and let's help Wikipedia in every reasonable way, including this one. Regards, Steveshelokhonov 01:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Re: Removal of my edit OK, I sincerely apologize. I just thought it was something that vicious troll (User:Afrika paprika) added. In 1202 Hungary (under King Emeric) invaded Serbia and imposed as Grand Prince its Catholic protegee, a pretender to the throne named Vukan. It then included in its name "King of Rascia" (later turned to "King of Serbia") and it was in the title of the Hungarian rulers actually until Habsburg ruler Karl I stopped ruling the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary in 1918. And Rama, Bosnia (and yes, Dalmatia) and many lands were too usually found in the title of the Crown of St. Stephen. --PaxEquilibrium 19:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Well, he did rule in 1202, with Vukan Nemanjić as his vassal. It is in 1204 that Stefan Nemanjić ran off Vukan and restored independence. And Ban Kulin was a Hungarian vassal (who acted independently, though), as the Bosnia was introduced into the crown already in the 12th century I believe. --PaxEquilibrium 20:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC) No, not really. I'm just trying to understand (and failing). --PaxEquilibrium 21:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Marc Pol Please be patient, the source is well referenced by international scientific literacy. It's coming. I wonder what our gnome is doing here with his kind of discussion... in general... Zenanarh 22:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Mostar I think you should be interested in this. A user is saying Mostar isn't majority croat even though there are sources to prove it. That user is Visca el barca and he is a sockpuppet. That user has been banned 7 time because of his nationalsit propaganda views. visit category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hahahihihoho —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.134.213 (talk) 07:29, August 29, 2007 (UTC) At the moment I'm pretty busy with the Italians, so I probably won't be able to really participate, but will have a look. DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia Hello, An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Workshop. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 20:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC) We've been reported Laughin Out Loud pause Laughing Again pause Rollin On The Floor Laughin What a rocket... What is he using? I want it Zenanarh 23:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC) I want a truckload of the stuff, could help with medschool ;D DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC) User:Votec Have you seen what this user is working. I am trying today to block him forever because of personal attacks but ....Rjecina 15:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC) I have given this like reasons for blocking: My statement:"All sources from site 13.heritagewebdesign.com (you must visit Statement of Principles of this site) are bad faith sources because this is bad faith web page". Answer "Web page named 'Jasenovac research Institute' hardly can be 'bad faith Web page'due to the fact, that with the arrguments and names, elaborates the horrors of the human history". Again about cp13.heritagewebdesign.com. My statement is that web page with goal of "To mobilize the Serbian people, and all progressive political forces worldwide, in a political struggle to end the war currently being waged against the Serbs." Answer is:"be so kind in your 'sweet' intention and do not quote 'goals of foundation' separately and without context" My statement "Average prisoners life expectancy in the camp was not longer then 60 days. There is no source because of which it is deleted". Answer:"data comes from the accumulated human knowledge and certanly not only that we should be addressing another web pages...otherwise Wikipedia would turn into the mediocre copy machine" In his answers he has made personal attacks on me with words that I am holocaust denier (4 times), that only "sick-minded or genuine retards" persons do not understand importance of Stepinac words, screaming again that I am "GUARDIAN OF THE HOLOCAUST DENIAL" and playing with my user name (with his playing I am becoming little river). In the end I believe that you have here enough information so that this user can be blocked for long time. Sorry for taking so much place on your discussion page. This is all writen on discusson page of Jasenovac. I hoping that this will be enough. He is writing how in Jasenovac has been killed 700 000 person and 20 000 children. Now what you think if he is or not Chetnik supporter ? In my thinking he is sockpuppet of user Velebit which is again blocked. Rjecina 15:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Is he another Chetnik supporter? (i.e. does he write to support them anywhere?) DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Administrator User:Bibliomaniac15 know that something weird is happening so I will wait his decision this night. I have raised alarm when Votec has started to make 100 changes on Jasenovac article in 8 hours ?? Rjecina 15:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Istria In your edit "wars" you have maybe forget this Free Territory of Trieste . I have made few changes (question about sources). Rjecina 17:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Many others states are having local notice boards so that interested users can know everything about article problems (edit wars and similar). With this Wikipedia:Croatian Wikipedians' notice board we will like Serbian, Hungarian and other users know when there is problem in article and we will not fight alone revert wars. It will be nice if you will send this message to other users which write about Croatia or Croats. Rjecina 18:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC) I will, thanks for the heads-up. DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Marco Polo Hi DIREKTOR, Regarding your recent edits, consider this as a friendly warning, in place of a short cautionary block. I have protected the article for a week, which should allow you and the other parties in conflict to work out your differences on the article. Please note that it is not my role to rule on any content conflict but to avoid further disruption. Regards, --Asteriontalk 18:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC) THANK YOU! That whole thing was starting to seriously annoy me. DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Istria Please try to maintain somewhat more civility when dealing with this topic. There are a lot of hot tempers on the matter, and editors such as User:PIO who aren't following policy, for whatever reason. Also, please don't violate WP:3RR. The best option is to let other editors pick up on something - I've learned that one the hard way, by miscounting and getting short blocks. Michaelbusch 16:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the advice. Its just that one loses his temper more than often when faced with persistent irrational behaviour. I will try to confront them with more civility. DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Direktor are you logged in Cro Wiki? Zenanarh 16:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Nah. The English Wiki is the one that matters. DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Neke stvari ne moraju svi čitati ovdi a nije uputno koristiti naški. Zenanarh 20:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC) DIREKTOR; you must calm down. Control your temper. Otherwise, you're giving arguments to opponents' side. Even if they are the worst and most perfidious kind of POV-izers, propagandists, vandals, trolls, disruptors... Sometimes you ran into such situations (or your behaviour took you there), that I suspected that you're a strawpuppet. Kubura 20:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC) What? This is a little unexpected... I do control my temper, Kubura. When did I really go on an insult-frenzy, like some users in these disputes? A strawpuppet? I'm gonna have to ask you to give me an example, because I really don't know what you're talking about. (To be exact, I know what a sttrawpuppet is, I just don't see myself as one. Give me an example.) DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Marko Polo That contribution of Giovanni Giove you gave me, is an evidence about his anti-Croat attitude, or, in the mildest form, his total lack of information. Croatia wasn't a possession of Hungarian crown, but a kingdom in a personal union with other kingdom, through a person of a king. At the time, the king was from Hungarian dinasty, house of Arpad. How would he describe Croatia and Hungary, when their common ruling dinasty was house of Anjou? Were they possession of Neapolitans, French or English (Anjou-Plantagenet)? Or, later, when Croatia and Hungary got another common ruling dinasty, house of Jagiello? What they were then? A Polish or Lithuanian possession? Kubura 13:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC) You are right, of course. However, let me correct you in one detail, wether the dinasty was Polish, or Neapolitan or English is not important, but the title held by the King. The Kingship titles of an Anjou king make him the King of Hungary and of Croatia. The fact that he's from Naples is immaterial, and it certainly does not make Croatia-Hungary a Neapolitan possesion (or vice versa). He might not even speak Hungarian (or Croatian). DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC) We agree. Similar case as with personal union of Hannover and England, Poland and Lithuania... Kubura 18:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Riva? Hi Direktor, I understand you are from Split. Is this the Riva? --Asteriontalk 23:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Hi Asterion, no that definetly isn't the Riva. Among other things, the Riva is much wider and much deeper inside the city. That isn't Split, but it's Dalmatia for certain, probably one of the island towns. It looks damn familiar... DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC) OK, thanks. I was not quite sure, as I was only in Split for a few days five years ago. On a different issue, someone recently gave me some old photo slides in a box titled "Yugoslavia Holiday 1976", which were passed on to him by a now-deceased relative. I am not sure if I will get a chance to scan them somehow. If I do, I will upload them and would then let you know, in case you can identify any of them (they are from some kind of cruise, so there are a few from Dalmatia). Good night, --Asteriontalk 00:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Sure, just let me know. At one time or another I spent a lot of time in Dubrovnik, Zadar, Šibenik and on the island of Brač (more specifically, Bol, a town on the island). BTW, went to Spain (Catalonia) three years ago on a one week vacation, fell in love with the place (I realise Barcelona ain't Seville, but what can you do, eh? :) Cheers DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC) It's probably one of the cities in the islands in Split area. Brač or Hvar I suppose. Zenanarh 07:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Yeah, it looks real familiar... DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Herzegovinian Rebellion You do know that all weren't Croats there... right? --PaxEquilibrium 01:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC) I do. I merely wrote most were Croats. DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC) How sure are you? And how big could this majority be? I've seen in Croatian sources how most claim that it was a mostly Croat rebellion and in Montenegrin and Serbian that it was mostly a Serb rebellion. Also, why are you making those double-spaces? --PaxEquilibrium 18:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Here's the thing: I didn't know there was another uprising in Nevesinje by Serbs. I suppose it was by both nationalities in approximately equal measure, anyway I am not too knowledgable concerning the whole issue, so I intend to back away. Concerning your second inquiry, I sometimes make double spaces to make it easier for someone to distinguish between posts when I leave a space within one, like this for example. DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Ah, I get it. But you said I didn't know there was another uprising in Nevesinje by Serbs. The Croat rebels didn't raise a rebellion in Nevesinje (it's due westwards). Also, I think that it's notable because the (Serb) rebellion caught entire eastern Herzegovina and half of Montenegro. They also elected Nicholas of Montenegro "Prince of Herzegovina", planning to join him. --PaxEquilibrium 16:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC) DIREKTOR, remind me, on which Herzegovinian rebellion you're discussing. I may be able to give you some interesting data. Kubura 18:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC) We're discussing the Herzegovinian rebellion of 1875. It has its own article and is also mentioned on the Ustaše article. Both articles could use some more info. DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Serbs of Croatia What the heck is this supposed to mean? You now have me completely confused? --PaxEquilibrium 16:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Take it easy, Pax. I want to get to the bottom of that map before including it. Answer my inquiry on the talkpage. DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC) No, you have me completely confused. First you remove one map and then dispute it, and then you remove another map, writing in the edit summary No offence, Pax, but lets wait until the issue is completely resolved.? What's that supposed to mean? --PaxEquilibrium 16:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Marco Polo Can you give me short version about Marco Polo revert war. My italian sources are telling that he is born on Korčula and that his family is from Dalmatia (or Dalmatian islands) [3] and Italian historian Alvise Zorzi. Ulmost nobody question fact that his parents has lived in Korčula in minimal few months of 1254. He is not from Croatian origins but from Roman-Illirian origins. OK Italians like to say that all Romans in Dalmatia are Italians but this is another story. To finish this story tell me about what is problem and if you need Italian sources which are telling that he is from Korčula or Dalmacija. --Rjecina 02:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Re: Alternative solution proposal for the Dalmatia issue I'm very sorry, but given that the two of you have just been blocked for further edit-warring, I'm somewhat skeptical of the idea that it could be brought to an end without the need to restrict your editing. It's not necessarily impossible; but, in all honesty, the two of you would need to come up with some really convincing evidence of peaceful cooperation to bring me around. The other members of the Committee may view the matter in a different light, of course. Kirill 12:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Removal of some additional funeral info Why did you remove the additional info on the funeral of Josip Broz Tito? As far as I can tell, it was referenced. DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Very sorry, it was an honest mistake. Not my intention at all, don't know why but I thought I put the information back, but I see now that it was not the case. Thanks for reverting. --Christoffer 07:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC) No problem. DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)