User talk:AlasdairGreen27/Archive 2

File:00621435.jpg

I speedy deleted this image you had uploaded, it was sourced from http://www.newspix.com.au a commercial image syndication website and reading their copyright policy makes it pretty clear that no rights to this or any other images on the site have been irrevocably released. --Sherool (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Adminship

I'm not terribly intimidated by the prospect, so I'll say yes... if you still are willing in about two weeks. I'm having severe computer issues at home right now and won't edit from my office. That coupled with an almost overwhelming amount of time required to help my students with their final projects has made my editing almost nonexistent these days. However, I'm taking after my students and spending winter break with my family and will have easy access there and if my laptop isn't fixed by the time I return home... I can't imagine that it won't be. So, I should be able to commit time to answering questions on the 17th or 18th of December most likely. How does that sound to you?--AniMate 00:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Alasdair... thank you. I would be remiss if I didn't let you know that in the thankless world of Wikipedia that when someone expresses faith in you it means alot. No idea if this will gain support, but it does feel nice to be asked. Thanks. --AniMate 10:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears you've missed the entire point of my message to AniMate. If his RfA is going to go live, he can be aware of the potential problems of this endeavour. If I wanted to kneecap-whack him, I would not have tipped him off that these potential problems could be raised. RfA is full of gotcha-style surprises -- if you are going through the time and energy to put AniMate's candidacy forward, I would think you'd like it to succeed without drama. Thank you and be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, I will support the AniMate RfA. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth, AniMate can expect my support as well. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my technology induced editing restrictions are no longer an issue, so if you're still up for this, I'm ready. AniMate 20:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

We'll see what happens. I accepted and again thank you for having faith in me. I do have one favor to ask, in your nom you refer to me as he/she. I saw that earlier in the tense exchange that took place on my page over Eco's comments. I'm male, and reading that he/she makes me feel a bit hermaphroditic. Thanks again Alasdair. AniMate 23:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

AniMate RfA

Hey there, I am surprised the AniMate RfA started without me, as I offered (and AniMate okayed) my co-nominating him. I am still supporting him, of course. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this edit. I really think that should be made as a reply to Terse or Leujon. It currently looks where it is posted as a reply to me and I am not opposing based on any POV concerns and by contrast I do provided diffs of AfDs which is why I am opposing. Anyway, I just think it's current location would confuse people. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the comment is perfectly positioned as it is. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay; I commented as a reply to it in the discussion so no one is confused that it has anything to do with my particular oppose. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--A Nobody^{My talk} 02:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for everything

Here's to you! Thanks for the kind nomination, and I hope I don't let you down. I appreciate the faith you have shown in me, and really appreciate everything you said in support of me on the RfA page.
Happy holidays, and here's to next year!

Cheers, --AniMate 03:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem

I am 90 % sure that you are looking only my edits about Croatia in WWII. If you are looking all articles and not only users you must notice that user:DIREKTOR is having problem with Ustaše supporter ?? I have tried everything with that guy around 9 months ago. Because you have started to protect this sort of article now is your turn ?--Rjecina (talk) 05:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Xmas!

Merry Xmas! Sorry I'm late :( Excellent work with AniMate's RfA, what a Christmas present :D
Anyway, as I'm sure you've noticed, things are tough on the Italian front... we're seeing accounts appearing and disappearing. Luigi is at it again, Marco Polo is in trouble, so is Antonio Bajamonti and the Foibe, etc --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Just logged on after the xmas hols to see all manner of fun in my absence ;-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there must be a new pizza-place in the neighborhood cuz I ain't never seen this many Italians... :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

r.s.

I have answered in the R.S. article talk page. Please undo your edit, for we do not need such nationalistic rhetoric. (LAz17 (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)).
So that everyone can see it, I'll answer you there. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Bagration

Kindly look properly at the diff bars on the edit history before reverting. I have the book, the new editor reverted my edits, I was restoring them. Dapi89 (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry mate, your stuff is hopelessly unsourced, and I will revert you again unless you can come up with a quote and page number from a book. Or an online source. Or at least something. I'm sure you are editing in good faith, but there are standards that need to be met. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is really annoying. Firstly it is sourced! If you bothered to look down the German casualty list you will see a citation from Bergstrom. I say again, look properly before reverting. As someone who sources everything they do here it is infuriating. Dapi89 (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, naturally I am aware that your source is "Bergstrom 2008" but I can helpfully point out that if you bothered to cite your source properly then you wouldn't have any problems. I suppose (though I'm unsure) that you are referring to Bergstrom, Christer; Bagration to Berlin: The Final Air Battles in the East 1944-1945; Ian Allen, 2008; ISBN 9781903223918. Although it is rather unclear, as the author also had published in 2008 a book on Kursk, one on Barbarossa and one on Stalingrad. So if you find this infuriating I can merely remark that you have only yourself to blame. Feel free to copy the proper cite (if I have the book correct) from this post into the article. Happy to have been able to help ;-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It is cited properly. This is the format most good articles use; Author/date of publishing/page number. Check out Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War Two), or Hans-Joachim Marseille. So it sourced as should be. And given Bergstrom published the Bargration book in 2008 and the rest the year before it is not difficult to work out. Dapi89 (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Partially true: http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/ AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, fully true. I have all of his books. Barbarossa, Stalingrad and Kursk were published in 2007; I have them. Dapi89 (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Carlo Mattogno

You removed the addition «The fallacies of Mattogno's arguments regarding archaeological research and logistical issues of Belzec extermination camp are addressed in a 2006 article headed Carlo Mattogno on Belzec Archaeological Research on the blog Holocaust Controversies, which contains further articles addressing Mattogno's poor research and dishonesty. Mattogno has recently responded to this article.» although you don’t like Nazis, so I guess it must have been the «Links to blogs and personal web pages (including fansites)» guideline. Correct?Cortagravatas (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely my friend. If you can find something better sourcewise than a couple of blogs for this info I'd be fine with it. It was only recently that the article was dragged up from a piece of unsourced trash, so I think we should try to keep the quality. It's not a great article though, and additions are definitely welcome. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. But when you have time, I suggest you read the "couple of blogs" (if the subject interests you). You may find that there's more behind them than behind many a website, especially the sites where Mattogno's stuff is published.Cortagravatas (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I will, but bear in mind we usually can't use blogs as sources on Wikipedia - and definitely not where living people are concerned. Cheers, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Chetinks page undo

Please, could you explain me why my edit of Chetnics page is vandalism? I tried to be more precise in defining source of picture, because that can change some aspects in article. Furthermore I suppose that your undoing is nationalistically, politically or ideologically motivated. --Čikić Dragan (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It is vandalism because "Page from some book containing facsimile of..." is disgracefully unencyclopedic and, moreover, rather poor English. Furthermore, it is presumptuous for you to "suppose" anything at all as the motivation for my revertion of this crappy edit. I would respectfully suggest that you take some time to read up on Wikipedia policies and guidelines before you edit again. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Look men! You make me reeeeaaaaally angry. English is not my mother language. Translation you reverted seems me incorrect. In this case I will believe you, because as you stated, English is your mother language.
So, did you studied copyright information of those images? I did and they are not appropriate for putting on wiki. If you think that there is any reason to leave them - state here and at page with images proposed for deletion.For both images did not pass 70 years from dead of their authors (in case that author(s) of book which page is scanned here is already dead). So, I have a right to remove those images from this article. If I had right for remove them from wiki commons I will did it also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cikicdragan (talk • contribs) 21:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Dragan, how you feel, angry or otherwise, is of no concern to me. You are right that English is my mother tongue, and having read your posts at my talk page I sincerely hope for your future in the employment world that English is not your strongest subject at school. Thus if I revert your "correction" of a phrase or sentence you ought to have the good sense to realise that it is linguistically appropriate for me to do so. Regarding the images, well, your removal of them is highly likely to have been motivated for reasons of your own POV rather than the wellbeing of this encyclopedia. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Let put aside those English phrases. As I said I will let you to do it in your way. But, images... What is your POV here, men? Removing of copyrighted images is not for wellbeing of Wikipedia? Think again. I will not say so. What the motivation has to do here? Those are facts.
For cooling down situation I will explain you why I doing this. First, I was interested in history of Chetniks movement and in facts of their activities. I do not negate that people belonged to Chetnics did war crimes. In that case I should changed/removed body of article if I wanted. When I saw this section of ethnic cleaning I ask my self what are resources for those statements. And what I saw? Those copyrighted images. Moreover, one of them is from, in my opinion, irrelevant source: "Zbornik NOB-a", written in spirit of communism. As communist partisans were winners in WW2 in this part of world. In those times in Yugoslavia was not so many diverse opinions (regarding this subject) because almost all WW2 history facts had must been approved by potentates. Something like state controlled history. And, of course, as I find, those images violate copyright.
ALL I WANT HERE IS TO KNOW TRUTH. And it can be reached from some different and good licensed source - American, English, Italian, French.... I don't care.
How I feel it can be concern of you because WE communicate here and WE have troubles here.
What do you care here for my employment? This is not place for discussing about. Nor what was my strongest subject in school. Let talk about Wikipedia subjects.
I think that I will include someone else in this case (probably some more experienced and respectable at Wikipedia). --Čikić Dragan (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Dragan, I am singular, there is only one of me, thus, rather than "Look men!" as you wrote yesterday, or "What is your POV here, men?" as you have just written, you should say "man". Before you thank me, there's no need, I'm happy to be able to help. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't used to be thankful to anyone except God. And, this kind of conversation I can perceive as personal attack.--Čikić Dragan (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not interested in your superstitions. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Over the sea, let's go, men. We're shovin' right off, we' re shovin' right off again... xD --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Jakša Račić

Heh, "Governor" isn't right but he did become Mayor of Split for a period around the time Alexander I announced his "January 6 Dictatorship". That would be 1929, and since the term was usually four years, I think he was in office between 1929 and 1933 (I could be mistaken, though). He was a medical doctor, had a pretty famous clinic, and even started the forestation work around Marjan. His family name was well known in Split (not anymore, though)... and that's about all I know, I'm not sure about his involvement with the Chetniks. I'll look into it over the weekend, in the meantime I'll add the infobox. Thanks for the heads-up :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Formatting

Thanks for the message on my talk page. I had issues with formatting, and the only way to see the overll impact of the whole article was through saving it. I found another way, so formatting should go quicker next time. Onyxig (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Just don't forget to log in, that's the most important thing ;-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

NP :) Onyxig (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Go to ANI you say

Here you go, I'm sure you can explain your behaviour. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please at least be civil in an edit summary, even if you are frustrated at another editor? - Mailer Diablo 21:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi MD, thanks for your msg. I am normally very civil to people; I agree it's very important, but the silly stuff at Pula yesterday led to me being more direct than usual. I enjoyed reading the ANI thread BTW ;-) Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

RE:John

I was entertained. It is a sad thing, though, that it was clearly a attack, and yet he denies it. In the end, he asked if I was 14. Some admins can't see that they still have to follow guidelines. Simon^KSK 23:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

List of cities by GDP

I see you have been reverting some edits by 76.66.140.26 I have no problem with that, but I wondered why you revert without putting an explanation on the talk page. His edits were not trivial, after all. Debresser (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Because IP anons fool around with these figures on a daily basis. If they cannot come to the talk page to point out why they see the need to change information that comes from a specific published list, I see no need to discuss before or after reverting them. The list is the list; it should not be changed in any way until an updated list appears. In addition, in this specific case, the IP is a POV-motivated Taiwanese editor that has done nothing helpful in any of his/her edits so far. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I see. In this case. In general though I see no problem with people adding a city to the list if they provide a reliable source. Debresser (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, in this case, in fact, no. This is an unusual article in the sense that it should not be edited. It is a list from a single source. We are reproducing information that does not bear amendment. If you allow amendment or addition, the idea that the data is comparative goes out of the window. The page should be protected against editing. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, but you seem to make a mistake. Wikipedia is not an archive but an encyclopedia. We do not keep lists "as is". We add any relevant information (and take out any irrelevant information). Debresser (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are not quite correct in this case, my friend. If this list is to have any purpose, it is that the cities should be comparable. That means that the data has to come from the same source at the same time using the same methods. That's why the 2005 data from one source is being used. There are various methods of compiling such statistics; if this list is to have any purpose, it must be single-source based. The alternative is an absolute porridge of incompatible semi-data. I am going to copy this correspondence now to the article talk page, as it seems to be a more appropriate forum. See you there. Respectfully, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. See you there. Debresser (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you may thank me for deleting that collumn. :) Debresser (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oskar Schindler

Just because you are a biased leftist atheist who cannot understand Russian and German, does not mean you can go around reverting other persons' articles just because you do not agree.Smith2006 (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why Leave me a message

Curious. If you are just a user on Wikipedia, why leave me a mesage about not changing the Chely Wright photo??

Wikipedia is a free service and anyone can remove a photo.

Someone on Chely wrights board said they added a new phot. Was that you?? Curious to know why you would say you removed a photo after I said I tried?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paupol (talk • contribs) 16:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Tenente revolts

On March 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tenente revolts, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

New solution

I will always welcome the input of others. As to bringing in a fuckbusting firefighter, isn't that what WP:ARBMAC was for? I think the bigger problem is that "outside", "uninvolved" won't touch this personal nastiness and everyone who gets involved is accused of craziness. That and the problem of an inability to really stop the IP vandals on a technical level since almost all the editing is coming from a few common locations (schools, universities, etc.). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

PIO again?

I never noticed this... Guy0307 (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that one came up a few weeks ago. S/he got blocked on behavioural rather than technical evidence as far as I remember. S/he's over at itwiki under the same username protesting her innocence & the injustice of it all. However, this account was also, it should be pointed out, the person that got sternly reprimanded there in the autumn for trying to use itwiki to organise some kind of co-ordinated Italian nationalist assault on articles at enwiki. C'est la vie. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sei una merda anti-italiana e ti spazzerò via da internet!!!! Capisci benissimo la lingua italiana ma sei talmente fanatico che hai eliminato l'avviso della tua conoscenza dell'italiano dalla tua user page: dunque, stai sempre a leggere i messaggi che gli utenti italiani si scambiano, quindi sei forse di un servizio segreto fallimentare???? Fattelo mettere in culo e vai a succhiare cazzi duri come quell'omosessuale comunista slavo di tuo padre!!!!

Welcome. Thanks for dropping by. Would you like a drink? Beer perhaps? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Comunica in italiano con me: conosci meglio l'italiano dello sloveno!!!! Ma di quale nazionalismo italiano vai blaterando???? Luigi28 sarebbe un nazionalista???? Barba Nane sarebbe un nazionalista???? Nikel Chromo sarebbe un nazionalista???? Pio sarebbe un nazionalista???? Se davvero fossero nazionalisti, dovrebbero organizzarsi per controllare articoli ogni giorno ma non lo fanno evidentemente!!!! Tu invece con quell'altro maniaco DIREKTOR tenti di controllare articoli ogni giorno ma tanti utenti italiani vi considerano co-ordinated users evidentemente!!!! Yes, it is Slav anti-Italian nationalist assault on articles at enwiki.

PIO just added a sockpuppet template to my userpage. Am I allowed to remove it per WP:RPA as a blatant personal attack? Guy0307 (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Guy, it's always OK to remove nonsense like that. Cheers, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Stalking allegation

Hi, do you know what this is about? Is it against you or someone further back? I've started another discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rjecina_again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Back to work...

Looks like I'll finally be able to resume my activities here... All peaceful and quiet here, I imagine... :P How're you? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine mate. Very busy. Rarely have enough time these days to do much except run through my watchlist each day and revert the crap. Not much new during your absence, except that a variety of newbies have turned up, none of whom are friendly or co-operative, as you've seen at the NDH talkpage today. Anyway, welcome back. How were the exams? Have you got your results yet? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm not quite done yet, but the bulk of the work is completed thank goodness... I'm getting sick of sick people, think I'll try and be the first physician that only treats the healthy ones ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Very wise ;-) Looking forward to working with you again now you're back. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

V.A.C. and Anti-communist volunteer militia

Alasdair, haven't you read the discussion comment I posted ?

the two articles needed to be merged not deleted

Cunibertus (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Bruno buddy, haven't you forgotten something? My dear old friend, you are banned, remember? That means you are not allowed to bother us anymore. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to get Cunibertus blocked as a sock of a banned editor before you go about reverting his edits and getting his articles deleted. You can request a checkuser be run at WP:SPI, or if you won't want to wait for that, start a post on WP:AN/I requesting it and maybe a friendly admin will drop the hammer. Make sure you provide evidence that supports your claim that Cunibertus is a sock of a banned user. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I'm aware of that. Bruno and I are old buddies (actually, to be honest he might not describe me in such terms) and 100% this is him ;-). He is also socking as Sabanglana and DuilioM and a couple of others I've been aware of for a while, and if I had enough time I'd be able to get a checkuser to put these to bed. I'll sort it tomorrow. In the past, this [1] kind of thing has proven sufficient to get Bruno to close down each account himself, but he always pops up elsewhere. The maddening thing is that he's not such a bad contributor, if only he could keep himself to one account. C'est la vie.AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks a lot for your welcome message. I think inside there it isn't too different from it.wikipedia, and that we would collaborate as good as we Italian-speakers do in it.wiki to gain better quality articles. Cheers, --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I'm looking forward to working with you. I've seen your edits to Giacomo Matteotti; remember to add inline citations to your changes. Anyway, best of luck, and see you around ;-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for the obsession

Obsession can be paranoia in a few months or years. Many other Italians will pop up, be sure of this.....

PS:Enjoy this repetition from above in your talk page:

Capisci benissimo la lingua italiana ma sei talmente fanatico che hai eliminato l'avviso della tua conoscenza dell'italiano dalla tua user page: dunque, stai sempre a leggere i messaggi che gli utenti italiani si scambiano, quindi sei forse di un servizio segreto fallimentare???? Conosci meglio l'italiano dello sloveno!!!! Ma di quale nazionalismo italiano vai blaterando???? Luigi28 sarebbe un nazionalista???? Barba Nane sarebbe un nazionalista???? Nikel Chromo sarebbe un nazionalista???? Pio sarebbe un nazionalista???? Se davvero fossero nazionalisti, dovrebbero organizzarsi per controllare articoli ogni giorno ma non lo fanno evidentemente!!!! Tu invece con quell'altro maniaco DIREKTOR tenti di controllare articoli ogni giorno ma tanti utenti italiani vi considerano co-ordinated users evidentemente!!!! Yes, it is Slav anti-Italian nationalist assault on articles at enwiki.

Cheers/Primonino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.14 (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Brunodam

I say we leave Mrs.Maria alone for now. If that account makes disruptive edits in the future, then I'll go ahead and block the account. Duilmodena (talk · contribs) is now blocked. The account's activity was stale, which is why I didn't pick it up in my CU sweep. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for looking into it. I'll keep an eye on Mrs.Maria and let you know if anything problematic crops up. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Caffe Tommaseo

Dear Alasdair, thanks a lot for your care about me and some of my friends.

I always have used, and I always will use, inline citation. I'm from an harsh school of scientific storiography, so don't worry about it. Be almost scientific in your inline citation as I try to be, and no matter will be in future if we would have a collaboration in the same article.

Don't forget that Wikipedia is not "our own property". So before said things like "I will delete his additions" remember this. There is an useful tool called {{Unreferenced}}, let's use it! Maybe someone could simply have forgotten to place an inline citation, or for many people some sentences are so natural or obvious that they do not deserve a citation. Using {{Unreferenced}} tool you will help them to understand that there's a needing of a citation.

I don't want know anything about your favourite ideas or philosphical\political\religious way of thinking. As mine, there are personal and private, and they must not pollute the Encyclopedia. So don't bring them into Wikipedia. And - above all - do not bring mine, as you can just guess about them.

Last, but not least: don't worry about "our plan". Contribute to Wikipedia by your own, with rightness and simpleness, using scientific method rules (= to Wikipedia verifiability and NPOV) and don't forget the Holy Gospel of Luke, 6,41. Love, --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, when you want to interagite with me, reply on my own talk page, since if you do this, I hardly understand that you are trying to communicate with me. I don't use to watch the contributes of the other wikipedians, for I'm not the Big Brother. There is an useful reading. --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Toponyms

Hi Alasdair, care to join the discussion on a standard for Istrian toponyms? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Dickens Characters

Since my posting of 27th Jan as follows 'With reference to earlier postings I have a complete list of Dickens characters (not 989, which must include those which didn’t appear in book form – mine is 838) as a two-column spreadsheet (a)code for book and (b)character with description as it appeared in early editions; thus Biddy appears as ‘GE BIDDY, an orphan, later Joe Gargery's second wife.’ I would be happy to supply this to anyone with the expertise to replace the existing inadequate entry. A second spreadsheet lists book code (BL Book of Life to UC The Uncommercial Traveller)' I see that 20 odd characters have been added. I should point out that it still over 700 short of my list which has the added advantage of the character descriptions being those of Dickens or his editor rather various contributors' versions. Any suggestions?Tonyk1000 (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

NPA

Must I consider it a personal attack? --Yuma (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What part of it would you consider a personal attack? In the highly unlikely event that I were to make a personal attack on another user, you can be sure it would be rather more spectacular than that. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

They don't teach 'em manners like they used to, eh?... I suppose 'em was including me in some group... Can I know the meaning of it? Since you was commenting the contributor (me) and not the content, I hope you would explain the reason of it, or (if there's no reason) you will excuse. --Yuma (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The meaning is perfectly clear and needs no explanation, nor apology. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Very well. --Yuma (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Al, you may want to ease up on Yuma here. He's been careful in keeping his tone civil and Wiki-like, and I feel he ought to be conversed with in a corresponding manner. I'm not saying you "attacked" him, nor that you should withdraw from your position, I just think we should all remain "professional" and detached. Nevertheless Yuma, without presuming to assume the role of a "mediator" or anything, I feel your tone may be perceived as "slightly arrogant" at times, and that you should strive to respond to other users' arguments more than you did up to this point. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Vergarola

Never read before, the article in the Italian wiki. However, what part of this article is "garbage", for you? Help me to change every fake or simply unsourced word. Another thing: do you understand Croatian? Read this: "U nedavno objavljenom članku u tršćanskom listu "Il Piccolo" prvi put je izneseno ime navodno odgovornog za smrt i ranjavanje 332 osobe na pulskoj plaži 18. kolovoza 1946. godine[1]. Po pisanju "Il Piccola", koje prenosi pulski dnevnik "Glas Istre"[2], u tajnom dokumentu pod nazivom "Sabotage in Pola" iz 19. prosinca 1946. godine Englezi donose pojedinosti o djelovanju Riječanina Giuseppea Kovacicha, pripadnika Ozne, kojeg talijanske obavještajne službe terete da je namjestio eksploziju koja je prouzročila pokolj na plaži u Vergaroli". This incredible "garbage" is in the article of Croatian wiki. Only in this WP is impossible to speak about this kind of "garbage". Very, very strange indeed.--151.21.253.123 (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If you cannot see for yourself what is wrong with the appalling itwiki article then I have nothing to say to you, as saying anything at all would very obviously be pointless. Now, rather than wasting your time here, be a good chap and make a start on some improvements to it. "I sospetti che dietro la strage si nascondessero mani jugoslave". The whole thing is an utter disgrace, and a stain on the reputation of Wikipedia. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You have to read the whole phrase: "I sospetti che dietro la strage si nascondessero mani jugoslave (cut) anticipò (more correct: "anticiparono") l'esodo di 9 decimi della popolazione polese che, sui 40.000 abitanti si ritrovò ridotta ad appena 4.000." This is absolutely true, because from the day of explosion the Italians of Pola accused the OZNA and the Yugoslavs. And the fear accelerated the esodo. This is simple a fact. You can speculate about the "hysteria" of the Italians of Pola, but this part of the article is absolutely correct.--151.21.249.227 (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No, this is absolutely, positively, unquestionably correct, because our hysteria-o-meter readings from 1946 clearly indicate an increase in acute naval mine-induced panickyness of the Italian population in Pula. Hence, we are able to use extremely confident phrases (like "absolutely correct") in our ridiculous statements which will surely convince other people far more successfully than ordinary, non-paranoid expressions.

PIO, you are the one speculating. How the hell do you know what effect the explosion may or may not have had on the decision of Pula Italians to emigrate to (non-communist) Italy? Alasdair why, pray tell, are you dignifying the fanatic with a chance to get off on Wikipedia? Thankfully enough, we don't have to put up with his arrogance and overbearing attitude any longer... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

For you, I suggest Bromazepam. PS I'm not Pio, and you know it. PS2 About the effect on the decision of Pola Italians to emigrate, you could read:

• L'Arena di Pola, then the Italian newspaper in Pola.
• Some books, like C.Belci, Quei giorni di Pola, Goriziana 2007 ISBN 8861020194 (Belci was in Pola in 1946)--151.21.249.227 (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Bromazepam, eh? Witty. Wait, you're saying you're not PIO? Wow, that's a shocker! Here's what you do: keep saying it, that'll make everyone believe you. What's more, why don't you say that you are absolutely, positively, unquestionably NOT User:PIO, and write it forty times. I'm not sure that will convince me, but hey, its worth a shot. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• That means that the newspaper was doing what newspapers do best: writing sensationalist speculative nonsense to increase profits (all the more because they were about to be nationalized by your friendly local Slav communists :). It does not serve as a "poll" for public opinion. Sorry.
• I'm sure he was, now you have one opinion and just need another 9,999 to make it significant :)

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just said: you could read. And learn something.--151.21.249.227 (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the superior attitude, toned down by mild desperation. Do you expect me to say: "I am inferior to you, please share your wisdom for the betterment of man kind, I shall prove my worthiness, etc..." Ah... PIO, I forgot how much fun these little chats were, and I'm feeling exceptionally sarcastic today. I just don't get one thing, though: I'm doing this for the light evening amusement it provides, but why are you wasting your time? I mean, surely it would be better spent plotting and lying to try and convince serious editors that there is a "Slavic/Communist takeover" taking place on enWiki? Plot away then... and end this futile activity you are engaged in. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

From Presbite to Al

Presbite, having been watching your contributions at itwiki pretty closely (as you are aware), I was thinking very recently very seriously about going to AN about you. Your efforts to rein in the hotheads have been good. The initial checkuser test about you was a false positive. You are not PIO, I know that. PIO was infantry, you are officer material. Your language style is different from PIO, your contributions are different, your ability to use sources is different. I'm not anti-Italian, I'm not anti-anybody. I was willing to see what the community opinion was about an unblock for Luigi28. You see, despite what you irredentists babble about on your forums, I am happy to see Emanuele here, even though we would probably disagree about most things. I'm a tolerant man. However, you have lied to me today (you know what the lie was, Presbite), and that is absolutely unacceptable. Deal with me truthfully or not at all. And your defence of the atrocious shit at the itwiki article - entirely unsourced propaganda that, as I said above needs to be rewritten root and branch - demonstrates that your interest here is purely political. You've disappointed me. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is the first time I like your words. Yes, I'm Presbite in the Italian wiki, and of course I'm not PIO. I'm still rewriting all the article about Vergarola in the it.wiki: wait for tomorrow. Really, I don't know when and where I lied to you. Maybe for this? I'm very, very sorry, but it's true: as it may seem incredible to you, I added the links without having read the article. And as it may seem incredible, I'm not an irredentist.--151.21.249.32 (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you not? Well, you could have fooled me. In either event, the numerous block evasions, breaches of privacy policy, unbearable arrogance, general hatemongering and outright insults (personal attacks) have characterized you to a sufficient extent as to render that question unimportant. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, Presbite, you can stop any stupid fucking idiot games right now if you want to open a dialogue here. I am trying to do just that and you are throwing in more stupid lies, lies lies. I cannot deal with liars. We are trying to build a good encyclopedia here. You said "Never read before, the article in the Italian wiki [2]. But you were the last person to edit that article [3]. Are you a liar normally or occasionally? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Presbite, the door is open to dialogue. Please, let's talk.AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want, you can say "liar, liar, liar" for days and days. I know what is true, about myself. This is a lie. This is the lie, here. You know it. You can request the block of my accounts, but not for SP! PIO is a real idiot: it is shameful to be compared to him. Last but not least: it is true that we are trying to build an encyclopedia, but you must recognize this fact: there are some contributors who do not know the facts, not even mentioning a source, yet they rise to the judges of the contributions of other people. This is intolerable: there isn't in the scientific community the "truth of the majority" or the "consensus truth", but a method called "hermeneutics". Someone here thinks that "hermeneutics" is an ancient Aramaic, or Arabic, or Turkish word. Sorry for my poor English, as usual.--151.21.249.32 (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

A block of your accounts!? You have more? Oh dear... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As usual, you don't understand nothing.--151.21.249.177 (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As usual... :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Presbite, this [4] is obviously better, but I'd suggest further improvements. "Le notizie apparse nei primi giorni sulla stampa straniera secondo le quali fra i morti si contavano anche due militari inglesi non trovano conferma nelle fonti successive" isn't correct. The report says two British soldiers were among the injured, not the dead. The last section L'inchiesta inglese e l'impatto sull'esodo is just unsourced speculation and POV and needs to be removed. It's also a bit of an exaggeration to say at the beginning "Le responsabilità dell'esplosione, la dinamica dei fatti e perfino il numero delle vittime furono e sono tuttora fonte di aspri dibattiti", as there isn't much of a debate. Just a few irredentists trying to pin the blame for something that may well have been an accident on either the Yugoslavs or the British. You shouldn't really say "Ai bordi dell'arenile erano state accatastate ventotto mine antisbarco" as the mines were not buried. They were piled up awaiting disposal. Otherwise, it's better than the trash we were both reading yesterday, although you still need a few more inline citations. Cheers, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait for a moment, please: I'm still writing! "Accatastate" in Italian is not "buried", but "stacked" or - better - "piled" together. As for the British soldiers, thank you for the info.--151.21.255.230 (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

...ah, OK, my mistake on the "Accatastate". Sorry ;-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brunodam

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brunodam. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

:)

A lot of stuff's been going on, but now its mostly over... had a stupefyingly dull debate with another, hm, "logically challenged" nationalist, Bosniak fundamentalist this time (what can I say, thought I'd try something new :). He got indeffed just a while ago me, he and his two or three socks naturally (they all have socks), though not before he got me 24hrs blocked for reverting his obvious nonsense... Good old Imbris is stubbornly refusing to accept everyone disagrees with him at Talk:Hey, Slavs, but the article's been blocked so now he's quiet (don't look - its a scarred battlefield. As always: Imbris doesn't let up - I don't let up). All is quiet on the "irredentist front", Ragusino is being very careful not to make it worth anyone's while to file a checkuser on his obvious sock ("User:Solitudo"), but that's about it. I figure I'd look for some more trouble right about now. :)

The biggest active concern seems to be LAz's Serbian POV-pushing on the Yugoslav Partisans article. Its been a while, and I promised I'd be back to have a thorough look at the nationalist concoction he seems to have desperately cobbled together. Have a look.
(I'd let up on the statements of the obvious, you may get reported xD)

Welcome back :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Improve your behaviour

Comments such as these [5] are completely out of line. Regardless of your personal feelings for a user, you have no right to call him/her an idiot or pathetic. Further violations of this kind may lead to you being blocked.JdeJ (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

quote from Zakelj

Please do not quote from my web page without my permission

Zakelj (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)John Zakelj

User:Sir Floyd

Hi Al, you've had tons of experience with the type of sock I'm talking about, what's you take on User:Sir Floyd? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

He started editing as IP 123.2.59.195. He's not Bruno. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Who is he damn it....? I feel like I've talked to him before --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Message from your old friend

Hi Al. I hope you are well. Since you're smarter, could you please explain to the kid that I have never used sockpuppets? You know, I write always with the same IPs range. I'm this. I know exactly who are the gentlemen who are turning around "my" articles, but the young student is getting hysterical, and would be a great loss for the medical community in Croatia. Thank you.--151.21.250.42 (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.21.252.97 (talk)

Requested move of World War II evacuation and expulsion articles

I recently began a centralized discussion for the renaming of population transfer or forced migrations relating to WWII. You have shown interest in the topic in the past so I wanted to bring the discussion at Talk:World_War_II_evacuation_and_expulsion#Requested_move to your attention. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI notification

You're mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Communist_Croat_gang. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

PIO

What do you think of Special:Contributions/151.95.253.173? Sock? MuZemike 20:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of cities by GDP

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of cities by GDP. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities by GDP. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Answer

I answer you in the talk page. --AndreaFox (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Just a courtesy: Hello, AlasdairGreen27. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ciao

Hello Al. Please, before you get blocked, can you explain that I am not a sock? Thank you. Luigi--151.21.248.50 (talk) 08:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Al, I'm very sad for your block. What do you think about your false accuse of sock? I put my trust on you. Luigi--151.21.255.107 (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tan | 39 14:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Misdirected mail?

Please stop sending messages to and making edits to my user page. I have no idea who you or Brunodam are Buistr (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC).

Sorry

I already apologised on the talk page of Tito, but I'll repeat it here. If there's anything I dislike, it's when editors claim that somebody said something and then attack the editor what they clamed, not for what the editor said. To my huge embarassment I did exactly that today myself. The explanation is that I read your post much to quickly, but that is still not an excuse. I should simply have left it and replied when I had time to read more carefully. You made a long and reasonable criticism of several sources, and although I disagree about some points, it is thanks to your criticism that the sources and claims I removed got removed. It is likely we may disagree in the future as well, but I hope I will never make a similar mistake again!Jeppiz (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hello, AlasdairGreen27. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Tan | 39 22:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool it Al, you'll just get blocked... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Explanation please

I have now deleted the sock puppet tag on my user page accusing me of being someone called Brunodam, as well as your message informing me that you are preparing a sock puppet investigation "over the weekend". As I have not had the slightest contact with either Brunodam or yourself over the three years I have been contributing to Wikipedia this bizarre and threatening behaviour leaves me bemused. Please provide an explanation. Buistr (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you gone with the wind?

Gosh...another 'cevapcici' gone to hell....what a loss for our wiki! Hope you'll find soon your beloved friend Ivan Rumora in Tito's heaven :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.71.14.50 (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Who cares, stupid Slovenian nicknamed Alasdairgreen27....keep archiving :) and archiving :) and archiving :).....sincerely, you are really stupid! Like your boyfriend Ivan Rumora. Are you already tired? are you gone with the wind? :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.24 (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

I filed the request for mediation on Draza Mihailovic article that needs your acceptance(signing) Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Draza_Mihailovic. BoDu (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Vojska.net

BoDu says you are "lying" about the Britannica entry, Kanchan Gupta, and Vojska.net. :) Could I trouble you to respond?

To be honest, I have no idea why I perpetuate the pointless discussion. The two guys do not have a single source opposing the ones in the article - they do not have a single source. Yet, I'm not sure if I can count on the community to protect them here in the wild Balkans...

User:BoDu has gotten it into his head that there is "no consensus", and he'll keep repeating that over and over again :P regardless of whatever I write, regardless of how many sources are in the article, and regardless of the fact that he has NO sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, AlasdairGreen27. You have new messages at Nuujinn's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ANI notice regarding your behaviour

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about this for a moment Al. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Good Humor

'been browsing through some of the past discussions, I think this one's yours :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		This barnstar is awarded to Alasdair for his unique informal style of conversation that has on repeated occasions lifted the spirit of the discussion. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks man. I'll pin it to my coat and wear it with pride :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI/I

You were mentioned on WP:ANI/I. Please view the section entitled "WP:NPA & User:FkpCascais". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep requesting blocks.....meanwhile you have already collected one block and soon or later you and your MEATPUPPET Direktor -who has already 6 blocks- will be banned forever......It is only a matter of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.133 (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Removal of posts by other editors

You should probably report User:FkpCascais for this --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice regarding your behaviour

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This [6] really is not cool. Being right doesn't make it ok to be nasty. As I stated at ANI, it would be best if the two of you endeavored to simply avoid/ignore one another. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously Al, cut down on the "ass" stuff. Filip is just waiting for any excuse he can find. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

lols

PRODUCER just linked it. Get a load of this :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for information

Thanks sir for showing me what happened in the past. I read carefully all the page, how the case was opened and which were the opponent position. I want to reassure you, sir, regarding my different positon and my different way to act. I'm not interested in silly nationalistic disputes, cause I'm not moved by any kind of nationalistic feeling. I'm just an editor, sir, grow up reading and learning lots of nformation about history and geography of Adriatic Sea and all States, regions or population (since prehistorical periods until modern days) conceirning this wonderful multiethnical corner of Europe: that's why you can meet me often on these articles.

I want also to underline sir, that, due to my neutral education, IMHO my edits shouldn't appear POV to anyone. If they did appear POV to you, please let me know how and why, let's talk about it and let's try to find a point of convergence.. or something like that. You also know better than me, that history of Dallmatia, for example is hardly disputed by slavic point of view and romance one. I saw very few people editing on this matters and I'm sorry about that.

At the end, sir, please note how my edits are almost always supported by reliable sources and accompanied by long and exhaustive edit in talk pages. Thanks anyways for informations you gave me.

Sincerely --Theirrulez (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Beginning mediation

We are ready to begin the mediation here. Sunray (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Italian Mare Nostrum

Hello! You might be interested to know that 2Lauderdale (talk · contribs) has recreated Brunodam's Italian Mare Nostrum here : Kingdom of Italy's Mare Nostrum (allegedly as a Google-trans of the Spanish article, in reality a full copy-paste). I have redirected it to Mare Nostrum, but since this may be the work of a Bruno sock, I thought I'd give you a heads up. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 14:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

WHO CARES.....of the RAT PACK of the silly slovenian....

--2Lauderdale (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

KEEP WRITING TO YOUR FRIEND JPGORDON...WHO CARES, SILLY SLOVENIAN...WHO CARES OF YOU AND YOUR RAT PACK... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.137 (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Bleiburg massacre . While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2010 (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 engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Toddst1. I'm not sure I would characterise my actions as "inappriopriate behaviour" or "editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way", although perhaps I am not the person best placed to judge this, so I'll politely defer to you on that. It is my understanding that once a proposed change has been reverted, it is for the editor who wishes to make the proposed change to justify it via discussion on the talk page rather than starting an edit war. This policy seems to apply. Moreover, I reverted a controversial change, that the editor had not at that stage taken to the talk page, just twice. I am, however, more than willing to leave the other editor's edit in place, and have now done so, even though the sources used expressly contradict the POV that the editor seeks to impose. Perhaps you could advise me, as a very longstanding editor in the Balkans area, when, if ever, you would consider it appropriate to revert an edit such as this which the sources used do not support? Is the burden of evidence now on the reverter to justify this, as appears to be the case from your message, or is it for the person proposing the change to justify their amendment? It would really be most helpful if you could clarify this. Many thanks in advance, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, nationalist POV-pushers incessantly use edit-warring to place their views in articles. Discussion is useless, mediation ineffective, and such cases are very frequent. Because of this, WP:ARBMAC to my understanding gives admins the freedom to act quickly and efficiently in countering this. I believe using it against those who oppose such activity is not appropriate. Rather, ARBMAC should be used to enforce strict adherence to two major rules: "if you're reverted, achieve consensus on the talkpage" and "everything must be sourced". Its this detrimental egalitarianism, the "fair and equal treatment", that's simplistic and wrong. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with any of this. Yes, it's usually appropriate to undo (not revert) an edit such which the sources used do not support, but it's never appropriate to WP:EW. If the originator of the edit disagrees and re-instates, then it needs to be escalated to the appropriate board, WP:ECCN, WP:NPOVN, WP:ORN, WP:CNB etc, depending on the nature of the issue. Thanks for standing down on the WP:EW. Toddst1 (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Mihailovic draft

Hi, I'm several days late on my schedule (shame on me) but I have added more info on my draft, which has progressed quite a bit, I think. Please tell me what you think when you have five minutes. Cheers, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments on new draft

I am asking for participants comments here. If you haven't much time, would you be able to just look at the lead and provide comments? Sunray (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Tolstoy

I don't care about Tolstoy. I'm simply saying that if someone writes that no single source directly accuses Tito, he lies. This article about Tito is simply ridiculous. Not even records what is gained in Yugoslav historiography (from 1983!!!), starting from the fundamental study "Party Pluralism or Monism: Social Movements and the Political System in Yugoslavia, 1944-1949", which disintegrates the myth of Titoism. This study is highly regarded by historians, and here it is totally ignored. Of course.--151.21.251.43 (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Another thing: I could write the same things for the Ballinger's "History in exile". Maybe here - between me, you and the young Direktor - I'm the only one who read this book. Since this book is in Google (not full) then you can quote only what you can read. Ridiculous, if you think about it. Are you interested in some more thorough quotes?--151.21.251.43 (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are serious, why do you quote Tolstoy??? I don't understand you. Really I don't. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is based on a selection of sources, such as to not report any voice critical of Tito. Where is the devastating criticism of Djilas, for example (Wartime, 1977 - Tito: The Story from Inside, 1980), that put Tito in direct relation to all the massacres in 1945-46 and - some years after - to Goli Otok? Furthermore: do you want to know what said Pamela Ballinger about the postwar massacres (p. 108 of her book, not present in Google Books)?--151.21.251.43 (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AlasdairGreen27. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
Message added 00:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Toddst1 (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

$100

There are US internet companies that can give me your full address and name for just $100, but I think it is going to be a loss of time and money....anyway, think about the consequences.--Old1980s (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This is just a website we've been debating at, Brunodam. Words are "weapons" here, not primitive physical threats. The police are not stupid, Sig. Bruno D'Ambrosio. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sig D'Ambrosio, I have thought about what you're saying. I like to think I'm not a stupid individual, and I do take you very seriously, but I just can not understand: if I were blocked on some website do you think I would be stalking someone and making threats across countries? Its completely incomprehensible to me. This is one of the most benign well-meaning places on the internet, a place of intellectual discourse and debate, however flawed - and you're using it for primitive mafia-like physical threats. I can be extremely aggressive in debate, I can be obnoxious and overbearing, but I cannot imagine anyone I know doing what you're doing over some petty dispute over worthless half-written pieces of text on some website... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected your user page for a week after drive by vandalism by an dynamic IP. If you want it protected longer or not at all, let me know. AniMate 02:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm

I'm talking to Direktor on its user page. I hope you would not be offended, but, simply put, it's none of yor business. Use your sarcasm to bully some one else. AndreaFox2 (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The article wasn't deleted, it was included in an other article. However, it's more usefull to write an article such that than trolling on two user pages. Or not? AndreaFox2 (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The last time i talked to you was 6-7 months ago. Now, out of nothing, you start sending messages to me acting like a troll ("a person who willfully, through obscene, offensive or hateful actions (a.k.a. "trolling"), attempts to disrupt a community or garner reactions, attention and controversy"). It's curious it has happened when i was discussing with Direktor about why he has accused me of something i didn't do. Can you explain me this? AndreaFox2 (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you please stop trolling on my user page? It's becaming annoying. Maybe you should considered apologising too, because of all you have said. AndreaFox2 (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As you hadn't stop, i reported you. AndreaFox2 (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Meares

Very baaad source, indeed. Question: who is the first here, who inserted Meares as source? Answer: You. Hi Al.--151.21.252.145 (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI ANI

You have been mentioned oin a thread at the ANI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:AlasdairGreen27 thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'd already seen it though. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you leave AndreaFox2 alone, please? That kind of sarcastic mocking message is not an acceptable way to communicate. Fences&Windows 01:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah dude, you know he's looking for any excuse, real or no. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:11saricnazipavelic.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:11saricnazipavelic.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

Hi. On November 7th, an anonymous contributor noted problems in the article Winston's Hiccup at the talk page of the copyright problems board. Investigation shows that it closely follows the identified source. I have blanked the relevant section, which was added by you in 2008, with the copyright problem template. More information is available at the article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Draža Mihailović Mediation

There is an initiative to reinvigorate the mediation here. Would you be able to indicate your willingness (or not) to participate? Sunray (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sunray. Thanks for your dedication to the task. On this mediation you are left with Nuujinn, a thoughtful encyclopedist who seeks the best for Wikipedia, believing it can actually, really, become a source of knowledge, and a hardcore of renegades who seek to use or usurp Wikipedia for nationalist revisionist purposes. In terms of how you go about balancing the serious encyclopedist with the fruitcakes with tattoos, well, I'm sure there is a consensus, or middle way, that can be navigated. I'll be watching eagerly. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Slovenia invite

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Slovenia-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Slovenia? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's Slovenia-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. Please see our list of open tasks for ideas on where to get started. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! Eleassar my talk 11:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

--Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Tag at Rožman

I would ask you to respect the conventions of wp communication. Thanks, Viator slovenicus (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear AlasdairGreen27. I think you know very well why that article has serious NPOV problems: it's pretty obvious even to someone who doesn't know much on the matter. Please don't take the tag as an attack on your editing work: it's a way to inform the reader that the article's NPOV has been challenged. We discussed this already extensively some time ago, but the article has stayed the same. I'll be glad to continue the discussion on the issue (time permitting); I'm afraid I cannot do so unless you conform to the rules of civilized communication. Already at the time of our previous discussion, your comments were off topic and frequently offensive. Ad hominem attacks (like the last two you left on my talk page) are unacceptable; I won't respond to these kind of comments any more. I urge you to read the following page: Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Viator slovenicus (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd also suggest you to check out this page and reflect on it. Please don't take this as a personal attack on your editing work on the article: I understand everyone tends to defend the articles that one has contributed to so extensively, but please try not to act aggressively in defending "your baby". Pozdrav, Viator slovenicus (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Erwin Rösener

great job Decora (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Mihailovic mediation

The time is now approaching for us to bring this mediation (or at least, this phase of it) to a close. I would welcome constructive comments from all participants as to what could reasonably be dealt with before closing. Please respond on the mediation talk page. Sunray (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I note that you have not been around for awhile now. The draft article is finally to be moved to replace the article. First, some mediation participants are working out terms of discussion on the article talk page, so as to increase the odds of a focused dialogue. As soon as that is completed, we will unlock the article and proceed. Please join in when you are back. Sunray (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Mare nostrum

This article, the merger of which you were involved in, has been re-constituted here. There is currently a new merger discussion here; your comments are invited. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new section for Mihailovic article

We have two proposals for a section in the Mihailovic article:

• Ethnic conflict and terror tactics. - First proposal, drafted by Nuujinn.
• Terror and cleansing actions. - Second proposal with additions (in red) by Direktor.

Would you be able to indicate which proposal you prefer here? Thanks. Sunray (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

RATTUS SLOVENICUS IS GONE?

Oh my gosh....rattus sloven...excuse me:AlasdairGreen27 is gone? May be to Hell? Probably he will find there his beloved criminal Tito. Hope you'll be in good company, RAT!

RATTUS SLOVENICUS, alias AlasdairGreen27

—

GONE....GONE....GONE (:D) ....GONE TO HELL TO MEET HIS BELOVED TITO.....GONE! (;D) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.87.189 (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. He is gone! Rats don't live too much, thanks God.....B.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.243.143 (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new section for Mihailovic article

We have two proposals for a section in the Mihailovic article:

• Ethnic conflict and terror tactics. - First proposal, drafted by Nuujinn.
• Terror and cleansing actions. - Second proposal with additions (in red) by Direktor.

Would you be able to indicate which proposal you prefer here? Thanks. Sunray (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

RATTUS SLOVENICUS IS GONE?

Oh my gosh....rattus sloven...excuse me:AlasdairGreen27 is gone? May be to Hell? Probably he will find there his beloved criminal Tito. Hope you'll be in good company, RAT!

RATTUS SLOVENICUS, alias AlasdairGreen27

—

GONE....GONE....GONE (:D) ....GONE TO HELL TO MEET HIS BELOVED TITO.....GONE! (;D) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.87.189 (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. He is gone! Rats don't live too much, thanks God.....B.D.

Someone is thinking that he is not gone, but only suffered a car accident. In this case: "Get well soon" (;D)

Proposed new section for Mihailovic article

We have two proposals for a section in the Mihailovic article:

• Ethnic conflict and terror tactics. - First proposal, drafted by Nuujinn.
• Terror and cleansing actions. - Second proposal with additions (in red) by Direktor.

Would you be able to indicate which proposal you prefer here? Thanks. Sunray (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)