User talk:Timbouctou/Archive 3

SFRY

Hello Timbouctou. Regarding this edit[1], I think by that time (from 1990), the SFR was formally dropped from the name. This was amid the collapse of communism and the reintroduction of a multi-party system. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• AFAIK it was called "SFR" (Socialist Federal Republic; consisting of six "socialist republics") right until the Breakup of Yugoslavia. Croatia and Slovenia proclaimed independence from it on 25 June 1991, followed by Macedonia on 8 September 1991 and Bosnia and Herzegovina on 1 March 1992. To put it briefly, the remaining two republics (Serbia and Montenegro) considered all others as secessionist and saw themselves as the sole remains of SFR Yugoslavia. On 28 April 1992 they renamed their federation FR Yugoslavia (Federal Republic), dropping the "socialist" adjective to reflect the end of communism. The former four countries (Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Macedonia) gained international recognition as independent countries in the early 1990s while the latter two (Serbia and Montenegro) continued as part of FR Yugoslavia until it was reorganized in 2003 and renamed Serbia and Montenegro, which in turn lasted until 2006 when Montenegro declared independence, which led to the creation of the present-day separate countries Serbia and Montenegro.
• Now as far as football player infoboxes are concerned, the general consensus for country of birth is to put the colloquial name of the country as it was known at the time. In my opinion "Yugoslavia" (but with a piped link to SFR Yugoslavia) is fine for everyone born there between World War II and the breakup of the country as this is what the country and its national team were referred to as in this period. However, some editors from these countries insist on keeping the "SFR" designation to distinguish it from the later FR Yugoslavia, but I believe that over time this will become obsolete as Serbia and Montenegro is becoming widely accepted as a colloquial name for what was at the time known as "FR Yugoslavia" (1992-2003) and later as "Serbia and Montenegro" (2003-2006) because the two were essentially the same thing.
• With all this in mind, I believe the piped link should reflect this rather confusing history, as Yugoslavia alone leads to an article which talks about the pre-WWII Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918-1941), SFR Yugoslavia (1945-1992) and FR Yugoslavia (1992-2003). The first two versions were more or less the same in terms of size, borders and population, while FR Yugoslavia was significantly smaller.
• In short, players born in Croatia (and Slovenia) between 1945 and 25 June 1991 should be listed as being born in (SFR) Yugoslavia. This also applies to Franko Andrijašević, who was born on 22 June in Split, three days before Croatia's declaration of independence. The issue gets even more complicated as we often get anonymous editors changing the Yugoslavia designation as some other Wikipedia versions prefer to use the present-day country of birth. In any case, ex-Yugoslav locals often get upset when someone mistakenly confuses the SFR and FR versions of the defunct country although I know that this all may seem confusing to foreigners :-) All the best. Timbouctou 23:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I know your intentions are good and I am also aware of the 1991-92 activities. I followed every twist and turn. I just thought that the SFR was removed some months prior to HR and SLO going solo. Apart from that you know that I am one for pro-accuracy and I never push to have modern-day entities replace actual time statistics. Whatever happens, I shalln't be too quick to support SCG over FRY for the 1992-2003 period. Serbia and Montenegro is what the US recognised, and how it was recognised in the UN but the constitutional name was FRY (wholly de facto and potentially de jure). But just for simplicity, in sport, it was accepted as FRY even if not a true successor to the SFRY. I recall Yugoslavia at the Euro 2000 football, and at the 2002 World Basketball which they won. Evlekis (Евлекис) 01:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Kingdom of Yugoslavia football champions

Template:Kingdom of Yugoslavia football champions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Serbian POV

Hello. I have reverted many edits made by anonymous IP user [2] who is pushing Serbian propaganda. However I am not an expert in Croatian and Ragusan (Dubrovnik) history, and it would be better if a Croatian editor could check all these anonymous edits. I neither know whether Ecclestone's wife is an ethnic Croat or an ethnic Serb from Croatia. Thanks for your help. --Csesznekgirl (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert ether so I reverted all edits made by the said user (he also made a number of edits in which articles about members of Montenegrin nobility were re-categorized as Serbian nobility). AFAIK Ragusan nobility is considered a subset of Croatian nobility for all practical purposes. As for Slavica Ecclestone - the jury is still out on that one :-) She was born in Rijeka, it is general knowledge that she often visits Croatia with her husband, and is considered Croat(ian) by the media. I can't find any reliable reference disputing this. However, in 2009 she was apparently featured in a Serbian informal online poll in which people voted for the most beautiful Serb woman ever. The reasoning for her inclusion was that some tabloid tracked down her uncle from father's side who is apparently a Serb and lives near Banja Luka. I have no idea if this was later confirmed nor do I know if it would have any bearing on determining her ethnicity. Slavica seems to avoid going into specifics regarding her ethnicity (if the reports are true she is half-Serb) so I guess we should too. On the other hand there's no doubt that she's Croatian (e.g. a woman from Croatia) and this should be clearly stated in the article. Cheers. Timbouctou 12:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the explanation.--Csesznekgirl (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Stožerni general

Thanks. (That's exactly the sort of thing I was hoping would happen!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry Timbu for not having said to you anything earlier regarding your move proposal at FK Naša Krila Zemun but I have been postponing it because I have been bussy with some other stuff. I agree with you, and your move is correct. You are right about the prefix SK/FK it is just that most clubs (at least from Serbia that I noteced) had been using the SK more prior to and around WWII, and FK more recently. Exemples: FK Vojvodina is usually refered as SK Vojvodina in that period, or SK Jugoslavija is never mentioned as FK Jugoslavija. Another thing, I have founed a very usefull website regarding Prva NHL stats: HHrepka. It is the first (and only one I think) that has the complete league stats for players for all HNL seasons. The other HNL site had only stats from 200 on, or something similar. Do you agree that I use it for sourcing HNL stats? Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Milan Ivkošić

Hello!

It's about deletation of this article, we need references. Can you tell me any, so we can save the article? I searched all over the google, but found nothing. Thx.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Categorisation Barnstar

		The Categorisation Barnstar
		For your remarkable work on pruning, maintaining and caring for Wiki category structure — for raising the standard of Croatia categories in particular — I hereby award you the Categorisation Barnstar! --Kebeta (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it :-) Timbouctou 17:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Commas and Parentheses

I saw you moved Nigerian Federal Ministry of Health to Federal Ministry of Health (Nigeria). I seem to remember - can't find it - a guideline that said Federal Ministry of Health, Nigeria would be the better title. The idea was that putting the qualifier in parentheses implied a subset, the Nigerian branch of the Federal Ministry of Health, where a comma added an adjective to distinguish between otherwise identical names. Examples are Episcopal Church (United States), a subset or example of the Episcopal Church, and London, Ontario, not part of London. This is bugging me. Thoughts? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not well versed in the semantic nuances of commas vs. parenthesis as defined by MoS, but I do know that the existing convention for titles of articles about government ministries is "Ministry of X (Country)". The part in parenthesis is of course optional in cases where a certain ministry has a unique name (which is rarely the case but not unheard of), but it does help when navigating in search of a specific country ministry in categories such as Category:Foreign affairs ministries (for example, try locating the ministries of Sri Lanka or Switzerland in the said category). Timbouctou 01:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Commas are standard for place names like Pittsburg, California, parentheses for people like John Smith (academic). Company names like General Motors Canada dodge the issue. Maybe there is some subtle distinction that I cannot see. It does not matter much. Most people would just enter the search term without any punctuation and select the first or second result. Category lists are often poorly sequenced, perhaps because an article may belong to several categories with different naming conventions. In Category:Health ministries both Nigeria and Germany are listed under "F". The Swiss ministries should at least contain the word "Swiss" or "Switzerland". Just wondering if there was a guideline somewhere. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Directorate General of Civil Aviation (Indonesia)

Hi Timbouctou. I don't have any problem with you moving the article, indeed it was a good idea and I support it. However I think it is customary to discuss these sorts of things on the articles discussion page first. Felix (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Mimi Saric

I can´t figure out this guy... His article and Playerhistory and Transfermarkt say one thing, and HRrepka says he played in 1HNL in 2006-07. Any idea? FkpCascais (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Timbu, I needed your opinion on some occasions, but you ignored me. Are you mad at me, or something? I hope not... Anyway, I have another quick question: is this guy Anton Maglica the son of Nikica Maglica? Here is some info. FkpCascais (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Cascais, I hope you're well. It's no problem, it's just that I have been busy editing some stuff unrelated to football. I briefly looked into the Mimi Saric issue when you messaged me and was a bit confused so I decided to take a closer look some time later. Here are the facts:

• hrrepka.com and 1hnl.net report that a "Mislav Šarić" appeared for NK Kamen Ingrad in 10 matches and scored 2 goals in the 2006-07 season.
• The official list of goalscorers at Prva-HNL does not list anyone by that name. However it does have a few people with the last name Šarić, and the only one which scored any goals in the 2006-07 season is a certain "Miroslav Šarić" who is on the list with 2 goals in 2006-07, 3 goals in 2007-08 and 5 goals in 2009-10.
• Nogometni magazin has seven people named "Šarić" in its database, none of whom is called Mislav. However it does have a "Miroslav Šarić" and it lists him as the only Šarić of them all who played for Kamen Ingrad (10 apps and 2 goals in 2006-07), but also lists him as playing for NK Inter Zaprešić later and scoring another 8 goals in the top division. This is in line with the official list of scorers, but is contradictory to what hrrrepka.com and 1hnl.net say.
• In addition, the 2006-07 list of transfers at Nogometni magazin says that "Miroslav Šarić" was under contract with Dinamo Zagreb and is listed as having left the club twice - on 23 July 2006 he left for Kamen Ingrad and then again on 23 December 2006 for Inter Zaprešić. So presumably he was at Kamen on a half-season loan and upon his return to Dinamo he was released after which he joined Inter.
• Then I tried cross-referencing contemporary news reports with the games list on hrrepka.com profile of "Mislav" and found this report of the Rijeka-Kamen match in August 2006 in which it mentions Miroslav Šarić and describes him as a "Dinamo player on loan at Kamen", which is in line with what Nogometni magazin and the official scorers list claim.
• In conclusion, we can safely assume that hrrepka.com and 1hnl.net are simply wrong and that their entries for Mislav come from some source which had misspelled Miroslav as Mislav. So their entries on Miroslav and Mislav are really about the same person (notice that their own page for Miroslav is missing data for the 2006-07 season, which is the only season that they say Mislav played). Somebody should point this out to them and tell them to merge these stats :-)
• As for Mislav (Mimi) who currently plays in Australia, transfermarkt says he played for HNK Cibalia until July 2005. It is difficult to confirm this as Cibalia spent the 2004-05 season in 2. HNL and news coverage of second level is scarce (Nogometni magazin only tracks matches from 2006 onwards, the official 2. HNL website was also launched around that time, and it is difficult to find any statistics on clubs' pages). However, it is certain that he did not play for Cibalia in the 2003-04 season because his name would appear in databases, which is in turn consistent with what the Mimi Saric article and OzFootball.net say - that he only spent a single season with Cibalia in the second level before returning to Australia. So in a nutshell, everybody except the databases at hrrepka.com and 1hnl.net are right.
• As for Maglica, I really have no idea. I cannot find a single source confirming that Nikica and Anton are related. A strange detail is that in the interview you linked to Anton, a forward, says that he would like to "score as many goals as his father", but Nikica was a defender who did not score too many goals in his career (something like 25 goals in more than 200 league games in Yugoslavia, Croatia and Germany). Although unreferenced, German Wikipedia entry says that Nikica lives in Dresden and "has two daughters" without mentioning any sons :-) Cheers. Timbouctou 08:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow Timbu, I´m amaised. I mean, you did an entire study... now I simply can´t handle the trouth! Let´s see, I´m not sure where to start. You basically demonstrated that my entusiasm about HRrepka having the entire HNL stats doesn´t mean that they are infalible. However, I did had some resons in getting confused with all stuff different sites were saying on Saric. Now, I reminded about some edit that is with me since the date the guy did it. It´s about this edit. I automatically reverted him, but, now I´m not sure since Osijek was named Proleter at that time... I left a message on the IP talk page but I think that he want go there anymore. RSSSF is not the bible, and can be wrong, and I found that old page that says Zrenjanin was in lower leagues in that period, but that is only a copy of an old website. Since you took care of most of those seasonal articles, what do you think? FkpCascais (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right. According to NK Osijek website and the Croatian wiki entry the club was called NK Proleter from 1947 to 1961 and in that period it had a three-season spell in the Yugoslav First League in 1953–54, 1954–55 and 1955–56. As for Proleter from Zrenjanin, the official website of the Zrenjanin Football Association says that Proleter Zrenjanin's first top level spell was between 1967 and 1969, some 14 years later. This means that not only season tables at RSSSF got it wrong, but that the RSSSF historical table and the all-time placings table are also wrong). This is a big mistake and should be corrected. Perhaps I should mail RSSSF or even apply for becoming a member myself. Timbouctou 17:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It´s great this one is corrected now. Regardind RSSSF, I think we can do similar work here as well. This days people are cooping as much RSSSF stats as en.wiki, many times checking both. If you choose to edit RSSSF as well, you´ll end up not having time for neither one. I also edit some websites beside wp, but there is only one that can be edited with time and dedication, so at some point I had to choose, and I choused en.wiki. I mean, maybe I choused wrong, who knows... maybe you can, but I´m affraid that way you´ll end up doing same thing here and there, meaning, working double. FkpCascais (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Kalman Konrad flag

Hi. You changed Kalman Konrad flag from Austria-Hungary to Hungary. He was born in 1896 in Austria-Hungary and the flag should thus be the Austria-Hungary flag. What year he came to Malmö FF is irrelevant in this case. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That is nonsense on several counts. Using that logic all present-day players and managers who were born before the early 1990s in the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia or East Germany or Czechoslovakia or before 1970s in South Vietnam should have those flags listed next to their names, which is against the current convention evidenced by literally thousands of articles on Wikipedia (not to mention that by using your logic George Washington and Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela were all British throughout their lives). In addition, in a footballing sense "nationality" is determined by the last national team a player had appeared for. The Kálmán Konrád article says he played for Hungary national football team between 1914 and 1928 (Austria-Hungary dissolved in 1918), which means he actually played for Hungary at least 10 years before retiring. If that's not obvious enough, the fact that his article is in the Hungarian football managers category might provide a hint. It's even more bizarre to insist on the flag in the Malmo FF article when he came to the club circa 30 years after the country the flag represents ceased to exist. Cheers.Timbouctou 08:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Please ease your tone, no need to be aggressive. I understand your point and accept it. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right, an apology for my tone is in order. I don't get enough sleep lately and I occasionally lash out like this. I'm sorry about that. Timbouctou 08:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

HOTO hyphen?

HOTO...

Hi Timbouctou, could you please let me know wheather the name of this tower in Croatian is HOTO toranj or HOTO-toranj? Or does it have an English name, even in Croatian context? Thank you! Fransvannes (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The building was built by a construction company called "HOTO Grupa" (sometimes spelled "Hoto" or "HoTo") which owns the building and rents it as office space. In Croatian it is commonly referred to as "HOTO toranj" (or "Hoto toranj"), which is usually translated as "HOTO Tower" (or "Hoto Tower") in English. Both forms are used in the local media although the Croatian variant is far more common. It is also sometimes informally referred to as "T-Com Tower" or "T-Com Hoto Tower" because it is currently being rented by T-Com. I'm not sure which exact form could be considered as the building's "official" name, but I'm pretty sure that no hyphens are needed to spell its name in Croatian. Timbouctou 16:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Fransvannes (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Second YU league

I was with insomnia and I ended up bringing from Serbian and Croatian wikipedia the article: Yugoslav Second League. It was needed a long time ago. I allways touth you may have some idea when you touth about making it, but in same time it was also not fair from my part to leave all the hard work for you. Anyway, here it is now, so please feel welcome to improve it in any way you feel necessary. The Serbian article has some interesting table copied from RSSSF and basically they did on sr.wiki was making a table of the top 40. But, I noteced 2 facts that Croatian people may found unfair: the first is that the table includes also the 1991-92 season that I beleave Slovenian and Croatian clubs didn´t played already (I may be wrong, but I´m tired now to check it), and the other issue is the one you mentioned that the Proleters may be switched and Zrenjanin one may be favourized over Osijek one. I left it out until I hear your touths on this, it´s on the talk page. Also, I was really tired of wikilinking all clubs, so I left it half-way... Well, I hope you´ll like it, and we can work the second league as well now. :) Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 07:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• [3] Great correction! FkpCascais (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I´ll try to help you over them this days, altough you already did some of them in the meantime. Can I ask you just something? In some articles you left just BSK, can we agree to add the city name after, like in HŠK Građanski → Građanski Zagreb? It is because this is English wiki, basically the most international one, and for all our countries from the region giving the city name would allways help people to better locate geographically the club... Not sure I expressed this the best way, but, you know what I mean? I even tried to use Partizan Belgrade but Serb editors seem not to like it. It´s just that people there are not aware of the low percentage of people around the world that actually know from where Partizan is. The majority just have some clue about being from south-eastern europe. The city name at end provides a bit more info and helps on that issue, so I try somehow to use it. BSK wan´t mean nothing to people, but if we writte BSK Belgrade (or BSK Beograd, whatever) people may have a much better idea. And I am in favour of doing this for all similar cases from whatever country, see my point? FkpCascais (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I disagree for the most part. I don't mind adding "Belgrade" to clubs like OFK/BSK because the acronym alone doesn't mean much, but usually the city part is added only to distinguish same-named clubs (the habit of always writing Dinamo Zagreb and Hajduk Split became customary in the 1980s to distinguish them from Dinamo Vinkovci and Hajduk Kula). I've recently expanded articles on several seasons in Yugoslav football in the 1970s and I used team templates used for modern-era templates to get tables similar to those you can see at 2010–11 Prva HNL, 2010–11 Serbian SuperLiga or 2010–11 Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina - like for example 1974–75 Yugoslav First League. Most fbteam templates used in tables use the shortest possible way of referring to clubs, which is to me alright and makes sense as West Ham United F.C. is never written as "West Ham United London" nor is Juventus FC ever written as "Juventus Torino". Besides, the name of Yugoslav clubs' home cities was for the most part not part of the clubs' official names - the local press just had a habit of adding them in Yugoslavia as there were many same-named clubs around the country. For example, FK Partizan is not officially called "FK Partizan Beograd" and there's no practical reason to add it as it is unlikely that any confusion might occur, plus it may be seen as misleading as it is not its official name. Likewise, in my opinion clubs like FK Sarajevo, NK Rijeka, FK Novi Sad and so on should be written without the prefixes, just like Liverpool F.C. is always written as just "Liverpool". There's no reason in my opinion to add "Tuzla" next to "Sloboda", "Skopje" next to "Vardar", "Novi Sad" next to "Vojvodina", "Sarajevo" next to "Željezničar" and so on. The exception of course are clubs who are likely to be confused with each other - like "Proleter" from Osijek and Zrenjanin, or Radnički (Niš, Belgrade or Kragujevac), or numerous clubs named "FK Rudar" or NK Rudar (although a handful of clubs may be an exception to this as "Borac" is almost always written as "Borac Banja Luka"). As for readers - well, the clubs are usually mentioned in articles which mention these clubs and the prose is enough to place them geographically - we usually write something like "Portuguese side Benfica" or "Belgrade-based Partizan" whenever referring to them. Timbouctou 20:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I know Timbu, but this BSK case is obvious. The Partizan issue was because many times it is refered in English language media as Partizan Belgrade, and it happend long time ago when I wrote that... Don´t warry, I wasn´t meaning everytime, just for these obvious ones. :) FkpCascais (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, and btw we´ll need to change Crvena Zvezda with Red Star as you already started doing. Some editors prefer CZ, but it was decided at articles talk page that en.wiki uses RSB (compressed RS). FkpCascais (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Great to see this article. I mostly agree, but i thnik, that Sloboda should have Tuzla (there are other Slobodas ass well, užice for instance) and i really prefer crvena zvzda to red star. about the seasons, maybe those when the league was actually not second league, e. g. 46-47, 51-52 and 52-53 should be excluded?Linhart (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The article name is Red Star Belgrade and we avoid using redirects. Renaming the article to Crvena zvezda had failed because most English language sources use Red Star, and English speaking world knows the club by that name. This is en.wiki and it´s not a question of preference but a principle. FkpCascais (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

block for edit-warring on Croats

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Season articles... and stuff...

↑↑↑???↑↑↑ Your cp must have been abducted for a while, cause this is not yours. ↑↑↑???↑↑↑

The season article looks great! But regarding those seasons I just can´t find anything from 1992 to 1997 regarding football there, and I needed it several times for several stuff. I supose with wars and so people had no interess... or, I don´t know... I´ll search for it and I´ll let you know if I find anything, but I promess nothing. FkpCascais (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

James Donnelly

Hi there, if I remember correctly there was a discussion at WT:FOOTBALL about Donnelly, and somebody mentioned that he managed them...if you believe that they are wrong, feel free to revert. Regards, GiantSnowman 12:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Balkans

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/topic ban. Thank you. Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

There is a post that concerns you on WP:ANI (here). Regards, --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you checked how direkrot has been refering to you on his talk page? Direct PA of the worste kind. FkpCascais (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it. He is not sinking glamorously but gloating over his fate would be inappropriate. He will be back and hopefully he will use this month away from wiki to learn the importance of consensus and civility. If not, he will be gone for good next time. Btw I recently stumbled on the Serbophobia article (from Serbs of Croatia) and I must say I was a) appalled by the entire article and b) disappointed by some of your comments. I don't think that thing is encyclopedic at all and I'm thinking about how to approach the issue. At first I thought it needed a thorough re-write but I'm afraid that once you remove the practically hopeless section titled "Instances of Serbophobia" all you will end up with is the dictionary definition of the word and the criticism of the concept. It is chock-full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and based on what I've seen arguments to keep it in previous discussions and on the talk page were all WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'll probably be putting it up for AfD and let's hope it does not turn into an all-out flame war. Timbouctou (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I just saw your comment on Direktor's talk page. You really didn't need that. As much as Direktor was abusive to others, gloating like that will be frowned upon and you can expect Fainites to reprimand you. Own goals all day every day. Sad. Timbouctou (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Direktor, well, you had this with him once, I had it several times, and with him posting comments on my talk page with me exclusively having said to him not to post comments on my talk page. You can do whatever you want, but calling you that after all that happend, well, what can I say. Btw, you could have been blocked too, because you were all but exemple of cool temper, so it´s ironic to hear this from you...

Regarding Serbiophobia, I don´t understand what you mean. I had never edited the article except just recently for first time, simply adding exactly what the source says about Sarajevo incidents, I critised it, and agreed that a non-involved party should review it and basically totally rewrite it. So? Why did this came up now? FkpCascais (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, this is all I ever edited there, and I literaly copied what the source says. "I even asked who edited this article?" Now, could you be more specific. I removed the stupid "defence" of Serbian coach, how he was "unprovoken" (the words doesn´t even exists, and its stupid since he wanted to say he was not provoking, but as mather of fact he had a Serbian dress, so I removed it even being an anti-Serb edit, and I wikilinked both Croatian television and Serbian B92, two TV stations, what is wrong? Please explain it to me cause you left me quite intrigued now. FkpCascais (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, it was just a coincidence that I stumbled across it today because I was reading Serbs of Croatia more closely due to the ongoing info box poll. I was referring to your recent comment which I read to imply that the article is supposed to have a Serbian POV. I might have read too much into it so nevermind. I really don't want to provoke any bad blood but I'm afraid that article needs to go. I was mostly appalled by the fact that all the entries in the middle section lack any context and that the quality of sources is very poor, consisting of tabloids and conflations of facts. I could write a more detailed review abou almost every point in that section and post it to the talk page but I'm afraid that a) it will probably be ignored and b) there is probably not much point to it as I don't see this article ever becoming better. There's not much encyclopedic stuff one could add to it other than random incidents and spats which are interpreted that way by the not-so-great media outlets. The whole Ustaše thing belongs to the ustaše article. The thing with Kerum caused a public outrage in Croatia plus he said it in a long interview to a very popular TV journalist who happens to be a Serb. The thing about the monument to Pavelić was a very marginal event by an extremist group of people who are laughed at publicly for the idiocies they say. The thing about football chants is just exaggeration - I mean yes, I'm not denying the factual accuracy of the event but things like that are normal in the Balkans and even more often you get chants about "Ubi tovara" (Kill the Dalmatian) and the like. I could go on and on. Do you see my point? Even if these things wee fixed it would still be a random list of events which were interpreted by some sensationalist commentator to be ethnic-based when in fact any one of these could have been something else (Kerum is just a primitive guy, the right-wingers are more like a comedy act than a real party, the football thing is pure hooliganism, and so on). I'm not saying that there is absolutely no hostility towards Serbs or anything but the article makes it look like these are symptoms of a larger problem which I don't think they are. Yes there are some incidents every once in a while when ethnicity is identified as a factor but these are becoming very rare in Croatia and when they do happen the mainstream media is very quick and adamant in criticizing it. This collection of factoids pulled out of context construes the case that there is some sort of widespread persecution of Serbs and that is simply not so. Yes, there are some unresolved issues at present, especially regarding the Serbs who fled in 1995, but the article portrays it all in a way more sinister manner than it really is and thus promotes ethnic hostility much more than it reduces it. I also took the time to read deletion discussions and frankly I have no clue how it managed to survive to this day. Timbouctou (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Timbou, I´m sorry to tell you this, but you seem to dislike the fact that Croatia is mentioned several times, and I understand you, but I´m not sure you´re fully aware that we Serbs have houndreds of articles where we feel just like you did, and you actually found 1 and see how you reacted! I was kind of mad because you throw this to me completely unnexpectedly basically without any reason. I didn´t created the article, until then I had never edited the article, and I clearly said that someone non-involved should review it. The edit I made was expanding the only serious historical part. You talk like if I am responsable for it. That article was done I beleave in response to Albanophobia and was edited mostly by editors involved in the Serbian-Albanian edit conflict, where I don´t participate. That article is week. I just voted to keep him so he could be improved, but I actually never got time (neither interess) to return to it. Are you sure you didn´t missunderstood some part of my comment or edit there? FkpCascais (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You are right and I apologise. I just felt saddened that you seemed to have jumped on the bandwagon to keep the article which in its state basically has no place on wikipedia. I was wrong. I understand if it was written as a response to Albanophobia and it makes sense that it was probably made when the tensions were running high. My problem is not the fact that it talks about Croatia but the selective way in which it does. Does that mean you wouldn't mind an AfD? Timbouctou (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Timbou, I honestly think that everyone should do whatever feels best. Everyone of us can even fail sometimes, after all we are not machines. The kind of editors I most respect and the type I seek to meat are the ones that do whatever their judgment is, without having any consequences whatsoever in the , lets say private, relationship between editors. What I mean is something like if you made your AfD on that article, for exemple I´ll opose it, we´ll discuss, and at the end we peacefully go on, because after all, it was just work (wikipedia). If we limit ourselfs to discuss content, we can have a normal discussion where our differences can be seen even as a plus (really) and who ever looses has no right whatsoever to be ungry with the other one. I know this sounds maybe strange, but we usually did this at school and I certainly know I can do it. Real good lowyers do it all the time, and they go for drinks minutes later after fighting eachother in the court. But, we have to limit ourselfs to discuss content, that must be allways clear! If we start with personalised acusations everything is ruined. And definitelly, no hard feelings. The worste thing we could do would be, for exemple, for me to say to you now "Oh Timbou, don´t do that, please!", and then you don´t do it because I asked you, but you feel I ouw you something, I don´t understand it that way, then our relation is totaly ruined. Does this make sence? I enjoy discussing polemical issues, but when people personalise it, and make personal remarks in it, it is hatefull. However, it is allways nice to ask opinion first as you did, that is just perfect to start. Just one minor issue about it, you made an invitation to participants at WP:Serbia, so if you do the AfD now, some may have unnecessary animosities towards you because of it (hypoteticaly, but probably). Not that I want to gain advantage by you postponing it, but I think this was worth enough to remind you... :) FkpCascais (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I fully agree. It's just that I've spent maybe the entire day sitting behind the computer and following several Yugoslav articles and discussions and I really feel burned out at the moment. It's been several stressful days and I really feel frustrated and exhausted when I see firsthand how much effort is needed to do something useful around here about anything other than football and such. I'm not talking about that article in specific but the whole atmosphere in the Balkans in general. As for the article - yes I hear you fully and I agree. Everyone should do what they feel is right and not let things get personal. Ever. As for the AfD I don't know, I don't feel like dragging myself through the whole process and dealing with all the negative energy that it is bound to provoke. I have a splitting headache and I need a good night's sleep. I hope at least the info box discussion will be somewhat productive though. I'll talk to you soon and don't worry. Timbouctou (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean. In the Serbophobia article something similar happend to me, where I precipitated myself into arguing to keep it (without even knowing well by then the actual content) and after that I tried to improve it, and I simply abandoned it... You probably touth I went trough the article, and that was what I was standing for, but it was rather different, and I basically only expanded that historical section and looked at the points the other user mentioned. Needless to say that by then, I was even more tired than at beggining, and to conclude, who knows why, I just ended with wikilinking the TV channels! As you see, my enthusiasm was so big that I never returned to it since then (and btw, I had periods when I even edited footballers from deep Cameroon, so I had time if I wanted to). That is why I didn´t understood why you were saying all that to me at beggining, but now we cleared this issues, at least our aproaches to the article. Regarding the infobox, I just haven´t checked the entire list yet, but don´t warry, I´ll give my favourites soon. :) FkpCascais (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: The Croatian Barnstar of Merit

Thank you! From time to time I ask myself does anyone actually notice... but then I just shrug my shoulders and continue... :-) GregorB (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wining squads

I noteced this. I actually think is good to have a winning squad in the season league article. It´s useful easy accessible info. I doubt that most people visiting the article would even know that club seasonal articles exist, so they will hardly go there. Just the wining squad, what you think? FkpCascais (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know really. If I remember correctly it has been discussed several times at WP:Footy and the general consensus was that this sort of information belongs into club season articles (the only league season articles which listed squads were German top level season articles but I think they were mostly removed since the last time this was discussed). There's no need for it in the 1981–82 Yugoslav First League article in particular as there's a link to the 1981–82 NK Dinamo Zagreb season in the See Also section. I've done a lot of cleanup on Yugoslav First League articles lately and I've left most of the squads in the articles for the time being, but only as a temporary solution, until more club season articles are created and squads moved there. There's also a minor issue about who was exactly considered part of the "winning squad" by Yugoslav standards - did every player who appeared in a single game for the winning club get a medal? I'm not sure. The Dinamo 1985 almanac has lists of players by season but in separate articles about particular seasons only lists players who had at least 10 apps for the club as being "members of the team" that year. Anyway, I'm not against keeping squads in season articles as such, but only if there is no corresponding club season article where this would be more appropriate. P.S. My home Internet got disconnected a few days ago so currently I'm just checking in from time to time until it gets resolved :-) Timbouctou (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I just got scared you were thinking of removing all squads... some were hard to find, specially the earliest ones. I think we should keep them, they are that seasons champs after all, and they don´t occupy that much space... And it is not about doubling articles, since club seasonal articles deal with more info than just league. I understand you perfectly about your question on which club players are actually the champs, all the players from the squad? only the ones with appereances?... PS: On Czech wiki they have squad lists for all teams, quite usefull stuff, but only in first years of league (1920s). Regarding the internet, I hope everything solves soon, your contributions are much needed around here. FkpCascais (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

GNK Dinamo

Hey, sorry for any mistakes I did while writing the article. I'm relatively new user, so I'll need some time to adjust. I'd like to know what exactly was written facutally wrong in my wersion of the arcitle. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof. Baltazar (talk • contribs) 00:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

We cannot and must not re-write history the way the club management decides to interpret it. True, the club's official position on its date of foundation is something which needs to be mentioned, but most of the stuff the current management claims is historically incorrect and is nothing more than an attempt to falsify history. Besides, realiable sources such as the Nogometni leksikon explicitly treat Gradjanski and Dinamo as two separate clubs, as did the Football Federation of Yugoslavia, the sport's governing body, for almost 50 years. We can't just pretend that it had been otherwise. So stop insisting on the version of the article which seems to be against the current consensus and please seek agreement from others at Talk:GNK Dinamo Zagreb. Timbouctou (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Bury the hatchet?

Honestly, and you've got to believe I am being perfectly honest here: I have no idea why we're "arch-enemies" all of a sudden or whatnot. I certainly have nothing against you or any of your edits, so far as I can tell we agree on virtually all major issues.. Am I so annoying even normal people like yourself are against me? Well, for me, thats a very worrying notion. So here I am, offering to bury the hatchet and to promise to exert the utmost effort in, well, not being such a duche. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, what is the problem? Here I am hoping to get past any differences with a fellow editor, now that my ban is over, and unless I'm very much mistaken - all I'm getting is the cold shoulder? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If that's an apology I accept it. I did not reply sooner because I simply didn't know what to say. Although you have a long history of politically-slanted editing that itself was not so much an issue which bothered me, unlike the way you demeaned other editors and their work. This is first and foremost a collaborative project and if you want your editing life to continue around here you really should learn the importance of consensus and civility. And once a spat occurs (inevitable in the Balkans, as we all know) you should be smart enough to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Accusing Fainities and Sunray of improper conduct when the smoke clears is not the best route to address the issue and is not doing your reputation any good. But suit yourself. I don't hold grudges so I'm willing to let bygones be bygones - but don't think that I will not react if I see you behaving that way again. To be honest, I still have doubts as to whether you understand what the problem was but I guess time will tell if you learned anything from this. IMO in the best case scenario you are a well-meaning but burned-out editor. Which means you need to chill and take it easy. Seriously. Timbouctou (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ronald Habi

Hi Timbou, why you removed Croatian footballers cat from him? He was born in Croatia, and most important, he played for Croatia at national level (U-21)... FkpCascais (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

On another totally unrelated issue, I allways touth NK Mladost 127 was Mladost Petrinja, but seems that I was wrong... was I? FkpCascais (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, now I cleared all out (hr:NK Mladost Petrinja vs HNK Suhopolje). Strange we don´t have Petrinja club on en.wiki. FkpCascais (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Well I was going through all players in Category:Croatian footballers and cleaning up a bit, adding categories which have been created after those biographies were put on Wiki. As for Habi I must say that at first glance I thought Kneževo was in Serbia :) Secondly, he never played for any Croatian club apart from his childhood team (which I never head of until this day) Jadran Šećerevo which is based in Beli Manastir. Also, he never appeared for Croatia U-21. But I've undone my change now (and btw it appears he has retired in 2009).
• As for Suhopolje - yup, HNK Suhopolje was called "Mladost 127" between 1992 and 2000, during which they appeared briefly in Croatian top level. It was a time when the league format was expanded and many small village sponsored by local strongmen appeared in top level. "127" comes from "127th Brigade" of the Croatian Army which was led by general Đuro Dečak, who was also club chairman and chairman of one of the war veterans' associations until 2001 when the club went bankrupt and Dečak was charged with embezzlement. It's similar to the story of NK Kamen Ingrad. As for other clubs named "Mladost" - there are many others. I've recently started cleaning up Croatian footy articles and I'm prodding all club stubs which have never appeared in the Croatian Cup or top level. I've compiled a list of missing articles here. "Mladost Ždralovi" and "Mladost Sisak" are on my to-do list although it's not a priority as these are hardly ever going to get expanded beyond stubs. The hr.wiki article on Mladost Petrinja looks like it may have some potential, plus they appeared in the Yugoslav Cup so they definitely are notable. Timbouctou (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

About Ronald Habi, I´m still searching about his U-21 Croatia data that I found long time ago somewhere and not sure where now. It was some U-21 matches with line-ups and I remember Habi was there, but I don´t remember if he get to play, or not, i just remember to see it then, and that made me change him from hungary to Croatia in my lists. About his Playerhistory profile, the thing is that it says - Croatia U21 0 (0) - but I think Playerhistory uses zero-zero stats because they don´t know the exact stats, and I doubt they would write it if they knew the stats were zero-zero. I usually find many cases of zero-zero stats for cases they don´t know, but when sure they played. If it comes that he did played for Croatia at U21 level, he should be classified footballistically as Croatian footballer, at least that is how I had been classifiying players (first national teams they represented, and only after the birth place, passport(s) or ethnicity).
About Mladost, thank you for the complementary explanation, it is all cleared up to me now. I´ll bring to you any new info I get on any interesting new stuff I come up related to this, or anything else, as usual. FkpCascais (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well if Habi was born in Croatia (and he was) then his national team appearances do not matter since he certainly never appeared for any other national squad. The HNS website does not have anyone by that name in their archive. If you saw zero-zero stats somewhere it was probably an indication that he was an unused substitute at either an official match or some youth tournament. Timbouctou (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Uridil

Hi, I left you an answer at my talk page. I saw you changed Uridil at 34-35 season article, but I bet his article is right about his time at BSK being in 1935, but in the 35-36 season, as said in the article, and the one Nemes was in Israel. Also, I suspect Uridil was in Belgrade only part of that eason, and posibly Nemes returned early 1936 and got the credit for the title in 35-36, see the logic? FkpCascais (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well let's see. OFK Beograd website credits titles in 1931, 1933 and 1936 as won by Nemeš (it does not list any manager for the titles in 1935 and 1939). This blog (unreliable, I know, but I strongly believe the guy took the information from FSJ almanacs and did not just make it up) lists 1935 as won by Uridil and 1939 by Nemeš. Uridil's article says he "coached BSK in 1935 and moved to FC Biel in 1936". Now I don't know the dates of matches (the only place which might have dates of these matches is Hajduk's website so I'll check it out) but it is possible that Uridil coached BSK in the latter part of the 1934-35 season and won the title before moving on. It's very likely that Nemeš then returned, took over and won the 1935-36 title. The championship was played as a tournament that year and it is likely that most of it took place in 1936, after BSK had won the Belgrade qualifiers in late 1935 (possibly with Uridil). Timbouctou (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, according to Hajduk:

• 1934-35 championship was in fact contested only in 1935, in 18 rounds played between March and August 1935.
• 1935-36 has missing data (wiki article says Croatian clubs withdrew in protest of the cup format and Hajduk lists Hajduk as having played the Split championship and then something called "Yugoslav Cup" in four matches versus Concordia and Jugoslavija all played between 6 and 30 August 1936 - have no idea what that is. Concordia also withdrew and it seems that Jugoslavija did not qualify that year. It seems that these three clubs decided to play each other and ignore the Yugoslav championship.)
• 1936-37 championship was played in 18 rounds between September 1936 and May 1937.

Ye, I knew that blog, and he really lists Uridil in the season earlier... FkpCascais (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This is giving me a headache. I need to draw some sort of a chronological diagram to see who played what when because in some seasons they played regional qualifiers and in som seasons they did not. I don't understand did they play the qualifiers in the same calendar year as the Yugoslav championship or were these qualifiers designed to determine next year's participants in the yugo league. In addition, in some seasons some cubs boycotted the national championship. Do you have access to any source with dates of matches in the 1930s? Timbouctou (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No. The OFK websites are very poor and list only league tables. The Vojvodina unnofficial webite lists matches (including qualifications) but without dates (exemple: 1934-35 season). There is one doubt however, and that is that Josef Uridil article says he coached "SPC Helfot" in 1934-35, but how reliable is that? Did he coached the entire season? Only part? One thing seems sure, and that is that Uridil was in Belgrade in 1935, and probably it was in the period while Nemes was in Israel. The only doubt is to see which exact season Uridil coached BSK, 34-35 or 35-36? Have you finded anything about Uridil at HAŠK earlier? FkpCascais (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No. HAŠK's website is useless. It devotes lots of time and space trying to prove that they are in fact the same club which had been founded 100 years ago and says absolutely nothing about former players, coaches and the like. Nogometni leksikon also does not have entries on a single foreign manager of either Građanski or HAŠK. However, I stumbled across a blog post which listed Richard Kohn as having coached Građanski and I'm pretty sure that György Molnár coached Građanski although his bio does not mention it (both Molnar and Zoltan Opata had played at Hungaria together, evidenced by Mitropa Cup records and I know for sure that Opata had coached HAŠK in 1938). However, IFFHS has match reports for all pre-war Mitropa cup matches. According to RSSSF BSK had appeared in Mitropa in 1938 and was coached by Alex Nemesch in June/July 1938. So that's absolutely certain. In June/July 1939 Nemesch again, but once they got through they changed coaches and in the semifinals BSK was coached by Erwin Mészáros (in games played 9 and 15 July 1939). There's an Ervin Mészáros on wikipedia but he was an Olympic fencer in 1912. Perhaps he might be one of those multi-sport types like Ivo Pavelić. In June 1940 BSK were coached by Svetozar Popović. Btw I've been searching for any info on two Englishmen who coached Građanski and it seems I may be on the verge of a historic breakthrough as I found this link talking about "Arthur Gaskell" who had something to do with Bolton and who had coached Russia. If this is who I think he is then that's the first manager who won the Yugoslav championship ever. German wiki article on Uridil says he had a "brief spell" at SC Helfort before taking over BSK (so he presumably coached there for only a few months in 1934). Interestingly, it does not list himas winning the Yugoslav league in the Honours section. Timbouctou (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Are we sure Erwin/Ervin is a Hungarian name? I mean, could it possibly be Istvan? Istvan Meszaros coached Ujpest against Gradjanski in 1940, when there was already a Popovic on helm of BSK; and in 1939 Ujpest was coached by Béla Guttmann... FkpCascais (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC) About Uridil, I also noteced that nowhere is mentioned that he won the championship with BSK, just as OFK beograd official (and unnofficial) websites also atribute all titles to Nemes, that is why I suposed in first place that Uridil must have possibly coached BSK only in part of some season... ABout Gaskell, yeah, seems you´re about to make a really important discouvery! FkpCascais (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, Hungarian wiki for Isztvan only says he coached Ujpest between 1939 and 1940 and that before that he was in Italy 1934-1937. The link to the Ujpest-Građanski game says (1) in brackets after Istvan's name so it means that it was his first appearance in the Mitropa Cup. So it seems that Erwin and Istvan can't be the same person. This link lists people who apeared as players and coaches - Istvan is at the bottom and it says he only had 2 appearances as coach, both with Ujpest. Timbouctou (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Mitropa Cup coaches

I've listed all coaches and dates for matches played by Yugoslav clubs in Mitropa Cup up to 1940:

• BSK (played a total of 14 games) - four games in 1927 and 1928 they were coached by Adolf Engel; four games in 1938 and 1939 by Alex Nemesch; two games in 1939 by Erwin Meszaros (or Ervin Mészáros?); four games in 1940 by Svetozar Popović. Note: Nemesch coached the game on 3 July 1939 against Slavia in Prague and six days later against Ujpest in Belgrade the team was led by Meszaros who also showed up with BSK on the away leg on 15 July in Ujpest. So something must have happened between July 3 and 9. Maybe Nemesch had decided to stay in Prague after the match with Slavia?
• Građanski (9 games) - Two games in 1928, managed by Imre Pozsonyi, the rest (2 in 1937 and 5 in 1940) by Márton Bukovi
• HAŠK (2 games, both in 1938, both led by Zoltan Opata
• Slavija Sarajevo (2 games) - Both in 1940, both led by "Vilmos Wilhelm"
• Hajduk Split (2 games) - Both in 1927, both led by Luka Kaliterna (the second game was supposed to be hosted by Hajduk but it was held at Stadion Koturaška in Zagreb because Rapid Wien refused to travel to Split - don't know why). Timbouctou (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read about the Austrians refusal to go to Split... It is excellent that you put it all here, so we can add stuff here when we find something worth discussing. ANy clues about Adolf Engel? I included him in OFK Beograd coaches list, but I put him the Austrian flag just by default... Have you checked the link on my talk page about Uridil having coached HAŠK? I would have included it in Uridil´s article, but it is hard without knowing the years. FkpCascais (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Aha! But Istvan Meszaros left Italy in 1937, so there is a gap between 1937 and 1939, so there may be a slight chance it is him we are talking about, but this obviously needs triple check... FkpCascais (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Zoltán Opata is on German wiki. FkpCascais (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Opata is also here (fradi) and here (ph). FkpCascais (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Slavija coach Vilmos Wilhelm? It says, born 1895. FkpCascais (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Lord, check this out: icko-blog says there was one Austrian coach in Concordia´s championship season in 1930 named Ernest Pušner (I supose, Ernest Puschner), but that same year there was an Erwin Puschner coaching Hajduk Split. Same guy? Brother? Or just coincidence purposly made to make us headakes 60 years afterwords... I put them all together here, so it gets easier to check them all in one place. FkpCascais (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well there's a very detailed article on Erwin Puschner on Hajduk's website. He coached Hajduk between August and October 1930. And according to this article in Vjesnik it was the same Puschner at Concordia and Hajduk. I think icko-blog is wrong in this case, like when he credits the 1935 Yugoslav title to "E. Uridil" when he was called "Josef Uridil" and nicknamed Pepi. On the other hand, the 1930 season looks messed up on their site because they only list 8 matches (instead of 10) and they say games took place between September and late October 1930. Which would mean that either their dates are off or maybe Puschner moved to Concordia for the last couple of rounds of the national championship. But the Vjesnik article says specifically that Puschner was at Concordia first before moving to Hajduk. Timbouctou (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Semi professional

Hello, Timbouctou. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues#Albania.3F.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Doktor Plumbi (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: DYK for Ruža Tomašić

That's interesting - I saw this too some time ago, and also thought it was good DYK material. There are also other potentially interesting facts about this film (Branko Lustig's film debut as production manager), and it would indeed make a very nice article.

While we're on the subject of films: I dabbled recently with the List of Croatian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film - wouldn't you say it's super-low-hanging FL fruit? GregorB (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the list: the prose does not require that much, at least 50% is bound to be boilerplate text, so to say (see the Czech, German and Indonesian lists that have already made it to FL). There's Croatia-specific stuff, of course, but actually most of it is already there. I've also tried to find more details about 1991 (and also a better source if possible), but I couldn't find any. Other things: a controversy about Nada Gaćešić-Livaković possibly voting for a film she acted in ([4] - a minor episode and also apparently disallowed since, so perhaps not suitable for inclusion), and a rule that that disqualifies a film if its cast and crew did not receive full compensation and benefits (almost a DYK-worthy fact :-) ). PS - sorry to be breaking this conversation in two against your preference - saw it too late... GregorB (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• I noticed you touched up the references a bit. Good work. As for the 1991 submission I've really looked for some mention of it everywhere but it seems that nobody ever said a word about it. According to the more general List of submissions to the 64th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film the Academy never published the titles of rejected films and the Los Angeles Daily article (unavailable to us because it is behind a pay wall) apparently speculated that the Croatian entry was probably Fragments: Chronicle of a Vanishing because the film had enjoyed some success on the European festival circuit. However this is conjecture as very often highly acclaimed films were overlooked in favor of politically more favourable films when it came to Oscar submissions. The thing which further complicates it is the fact that the Pula Film Festival was started but then suddenly cancelled in 1991. Only Fragments were screened before the festival was called off due to war. According to festival website 9 films were supposed to get screened and I'm unable to find any source listing the remaining eight so we don't know which films might have been sent instead. Likewise, the Croatian Film Archive lists 32 films (!) made in 1991 but I suspect their chronology might be off. In any case I know that Charuga had been made in 1991 and it might have been a good contender for the Academy Award. So in a nutshell - the fact that LA Daily speculated about it could be mentioned but it should not be taken as fact. Also, I'll see if I can find someone with access to LA Daily archive for full text.
• Also, something about he HDFD, its rules and changes they went through could be added to prose and maybe some more references proving that individual titles were sent in when we say they were. I'll get on it if you agree.
• On an unrelated note - I tried looking up Ruža Tomašić in IMDb. Couldn't find her. Then I looked around for her on the internet and found out she was called "Rose Budimir" (Budimir is her maiden name) when she lived in Canada. There's no Rose at IMDb either. However, I found this. It's a list of issues of the official magazine issued by the Ontario Provincial Police. It says that in the October 1986 issue she appeared on the magazine cover, with an accompanying article titled "Downsview's Constable Rose Budimir - the Force's first female motorcycle officer". I tried looking for an online archive if there is one because I thought the cover would be a great addition to the article - but no luck so far. Thought you'd like to know. Timbouctou (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've been looking for the 1991 submission yesterday but came up with nothing. A targeted search would have made more sense, since the Academy rules narrow down the list, and realistically it couldn't have been more than 2 or 3 real candidates, such as the ones you mentioned. I'll look into it.
• HDFD stuff might be informative, which is good - my only concern is the potential volume of prose, as I'm not too familiar with FL practice. But for the purposes of FL, I think we should go for it, and let the reviewers have their say in the end.
• It seems that the list of films itself is not referenced at all in the article, and I couldn't find a reference for the entire list. That means entries will probably have to be individually referenced. This should not be a problem.
• I'd like to kill all the redlinks. (Also not a problem.) I'm currently working on Mladen Juran in my userspace. (Done Vicko Ruić stub some weeks ago.)
• That's very interesting stuff on Tomašić... (I had to consciously constrain myself to a start class article, otherwise I'd spend a month writing it... :-) ) Too bad about the cover, it would be great, and the mere fact is equally DYK-worthy. GregorB (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I've posted a request at WP:REX. I'm hoping someone might come along with access to NewsLibrary.com but it's a long shot. AFAIK there's no limit as to how much prose can be in an FL so it shouldn't be a problem. Timbouctou (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No luck with WP:REX, it seems. Charuga was apparently politically unfit at the time. Regarding Fragments, this very detailed bio and filmography makes no mention of the Oscar bid. It may well be that Croatia attempted to contact the Academy before actually deciding on an Oscar submission - it's hard to say. GregorB (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice job on Jurić and Dević. I'll post further comments regarding the list on the article's talk page. GregorB (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

FPR Yugoslavia

Yes this is a bit of a sticky one I must admit. You're well aware that we observe historical accuracy and you don't need me to tell you that Yugoslavia changed its long name on a number of occasions and all in conjunction with constitutional changes. FPR applies to the 1946-63 period though for some reason, it doesn't warrant an article at this stage. If you click on Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, it will take you to Kingdom of Yugoslavia yet it existed as the former from 1918 to 1929. Of course, my preference is for a plain Yugoslavia for anything up to 1991 (and 1992 for Montenegro and Serbia) then opting for FR Yugoslavia for the period to 2003, however you will find that even this article redirects to Serbia and Montenegro despite it only having this name for the final three years. S&M was how it was recognised in some quarters but FRY had de facto status as did it in both public activity and to people in general. Back to the original point, I've been told on more than one occasion by various editors to be specific with Yugoslavia. I know that as WP stands, the FPR as well as the shortlived Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (1943-46) are both presented as birth countries for persons born in that time. The main problem, Timbouctou, is that although many of us prefer historical accuracy, I fear there is no written policy on this, just a consensus. I've never seen users warned or blocked for consistently replacing the old state with the modern-day republic and I don't honestly know how to tackle this issue: all I can say is one thing, if you really believe SFR should represent every period from 1943 then you, I, and every other editor to favour this presentation need to get to work and make amendments across the entire site. Forgive me if I have missed something. Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If I may also add one thing. Maybe it is not my place to get involved here but seeing this[5], I know you are acting in good faith in keeping the subject and his notability at the helm of the article. Now maybe the IP contribution was presented somewhat poorly but it did contain a source. I wouldn't go so far as to add addresses but if a user wishes to add old surnames and names of settlements for ancestors then rather than wiping it, it may be more amicable to move the whole section to a "personal life" or "background" passage. I say this without taking this example into context but considering all contributions of that nature. I haven't looked at this one too closely and the source claiming Robert as having Serb ancestry may be scanty so this is why I don't touch it. In the meantime, I've restored SFR on the article of the previous paragraph. Evlekis (Евлекис) 01:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The text he added in that edit was already present a few months ago when there was some edit-warring by anons over Prosinečki's ethnicity, which I tried to correct by simplifying the lede to explain where his parents come from as succintly as possible. Cramming in details about how his father came from a red-linked village which is near city A and how his mother in turn came from another red-linked village which is near some other city B is just pointlessly pedantic and only invites more vandalism. As for Prosinečki - yes, he is undoubtedly half-Serb by birth and the article already says so in clear terms. Adding detailed accounts sourced from tabloids about how incredibly full-blooded Serbian she is will not make her son 51 or 52 percent Serbian and I suspect that might have been the a possible motivation here. Anyway, if you think my revert was uncalled for feel free to undo it. And about the FPR thing I'll answer in your talk page as Cascais joined the discussion there :) Timbouctou (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The entire Prosinecki mother birthplace issue came out yesterday at Serbian press because he went there to visit the place and he announced he will maybe make some investments there... I think that is why the IP inserted that. See here: MTS Mondo. Or this one, at Sportski Žurnal. I think you missunderstood it relating it to stupid nationalist that happend so many times earlier at his article :) FkpCascais (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but I still see no point. Are we ever going to have article on Ježevica? I'll also bet you 10 euros that within 3 days somebody will add that Prosinečki "might be related to Novak Djokovic" :) Timbouctou (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I want bet because I also beleave some genious will think that is worth having in an encyclopedia article... The famous Djokovic-Prosinecki sportspeople family! FkpCascais (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Timbouctou and FkpCascais. I don't think it is important who headed the post-1992 Yugoslavia campaign. It's true that Yugoslavia to most people in and out of the region pertains to the vast territory from Slovenia to Macedonia, but I don't believe we should submit false information to compensate for people's general ignorance. I for example always - if discussing the Milošević country - say Federal Republic of or if talking to people in Croatia or Bosnia, "Savezna Republika". Naturally for the locals this causes no ambiguity but for persons outside of the former YU and especially in Western Europe, they just think FRY means the whole outfit. But I say again, one's ignorance is his own fault and the world is full of it. To give you both an example, you will be shocked by the number of people who believe that Yugoslavia was nothing more than a Soviet invention, created by Moscow in the aftermath of WWII as one of its sattelites and the end of Communism spelt the end for the country. I mean, these people have some knowledge, they know WWII happened and they know of the Iron Curtain and the Soviet influence; they also know YU was a communist country. A former friend of mine with whom I went to school (English, no surprise) believed Tito was a Russian who had been installed by the Kremlin to administer YU and when I invited him to Montenegro in March 2009, he even asked me there "are there still Russian troops here from the old days?". Where do you begin when trying to set people straight!! I've mentioned to some "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" for the pre-WWII period and they stare blankly. "Eh? Kingdom? Are you sure? How come? Communist wasn't it?? Sorry, after WWI did you say? Eh? I'm lost!!" But just to get back onto biographies of footballers. You two edit heavily on players in and around the former territory so I cannot see anyone getting away with disturbing the status quo. I'm happy to have Kingdom of YU (not SCS) for 1918-WWII and SFRY for the time after up to the 1990s. Evlekis (Евлекис) 11:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Glossary of association football terms

Hey there. Just wanted to say thanks for all the fantastic work you've done on this article so far. It's incredible how quickly the article is coming along, isn't it?

Was just wondering, would it be possible to add references for any terms you add from now on? So far adding things without references was fine, because it was all obvious stuff that would be easy for someone else to cite. But now I think we're getting to the stage where new things will become harder and harder to cite.

Keep up the excellent work! Regards, —WFC— 03:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I figured that the pace of new items being added to the list will soon slow down so we would do more of referencing and weeding out unreferencable stuff. I'll go through the list and see if I can add more refs. Thanks for the support btw, it's great how well the article is developing. Cheers! Timbouctou (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:Thanks

No worries. I got the book as a Christmas present and it's proving to be very handy. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Bury the hatchet?

Honestly, and you've got to believe I am being perfectly honest here: I have no idea why we're "arch-enemies" all of a sudden or whatnot. I certainly have nothing against you or any of your edits, so far as I can tell we agree on virtually all major issues.. Am I so annoying even normal people like yourself are against me? Well, for me, thats a very worrying notion. So here I am, offering to bury the hatchet and to promise to exert the utmost effort in, well, not being such a duche. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, what is the problem? Here I am hoping to get past any differences with a fellow editor, now that my ban is over, and unless I'm very much mistaken - all I'm getting is the cold shoulder? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If that's an apology I accept it. I did not reply sooner because I simply didn't know what to say. Although you have a long history of politically-slanted editing that itself was not so much an issue which bothered me, unlike the way you demeaned other editors and their work. This is first and foremost a collaborative project and if you want your editing life to continue around here you really should learn the importance of consensus and civility. And once a spat occurs (inevitable in the Balkans, as we all know) you should be smart enough to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Accusing Fainities and Sunray of improper conduct when the smoke clears is not the best route to address the issue and is not doing your reputation any good. But suit yourself. I don't hold grudges so I'm willing to let bygones be bygones - but don't think that I will not react if I see you behaving that way again. To be honest, I still have doubts as to whether you understand what the problem was but I guess time will tell if you learned anything from this. IMO in the best case scenario you are a well-meaning but burned-out editor. Which means you need to chill and take it easy. Seriously. Timbouctou (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, its an apology. And I'm glad you accept. To be clear, I apologize for my rudeness and abrupt, demaning manner. I do often cite various excuses, but the truth of course is that there is no excuse and I understand that fully. You may rest assured I will no longer behave in that way.

Re politically slanted. There I disagree. If I may be personal here, I shall point out that I am not a political person: I do not vote, I do not support any parties, communists least of all. I am, first and foremost, an aspiring scientist. I love science, and I love doing science. I simply hope to follow the ideals of objectivity science promotes. I detest nationalism and religion, not because of some left-wing slant (though I have often been called a Croat nationalist and even a Nazi), but because these phenomenon destroy objectivism and muddle human thought. Most people in this world believe their country, their province, their city, their neighborhood, their street, to be superior to any other. This is a HUGE fundamental flaw in human thought and manifests itself everywhere.

Re Sunray & Fainites. Sunray is an excellent Wikipedian, and so is Fainites. That does not mean they are infallible and should not be criticized. In fact, one can make mistakes because one is an excellent Wikipedian. Such criticism will probably be taken against me, as you say, but that will not stop me from believing that it was justified. And to clarify another point: I did not attempt to deal with any issue by such criticism. Indeed, I did so in spite of knowing full well that it will be detrimental to my position (as you yourself point out). I'm a.. "straightforward" sort of person. When I think something, I usually say it, and that is indeed one of the problems.

Re acting again. This attempt at a reconciliation has no other motive other than to achieve an understanding between two editors, who are in conflict as they should not be. I am not attempting to placate you in some way, and I do invite you to react whenever I cross the line. Though, as I said, that should not happen from now on.

Re burned out. I assure you, my inerest in WIkipedia is as strong as ever. I have, however, been fortunate enough to finally do some real actual research (on sleep disorders, to be more specific). This is a huge opportunity, as I'm sure you understand, so for months now I've literally been spending almost every waking moment either studying for exams, attending lectures, or going through data at the hospital. On this note let me additionally apologize for the delay in response on this thread - I simply have no time. When this mess is over, I should be free to resume editing. Perhaps even sooner, I've learned to go through the sources thoroughly before I edit. I have, for example, been doing some very interesting reading on Croatia's economy in the last century, and will present the info on Wikipedia soon.

In short: we should not squabble Tim. :) Sincerest regards, --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool, than as far as I'm concerned we're good :) You don't have to take my advice here but I think it would do you good to spread your interests around and contribute to non-controversial parts of Wikipedia every now and then. You may find it relaxing. But anyway, looking forward to reading the thing about Croatia's economy. I have read a few very interesting pieces about that particular topic recently and it might be an engaging read. Good luck with your exams and hospital work. Best regards. Timbouctou (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Croatian National Theatre in Split

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2011 Wikification Drive

Sumsum2010·T·C 23:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Template:Zagreb

But the flaw in that reasoning should be obvious... a lot of people also visit the faculties. Foreign sports fans are hardly more numerous in Zagreb compared to foreign students, and for completely general tourists the walk along the 'University alley' can be just as interesting as a walk along the Kranjčevićeva - which is to say, not really interesting at all ;) but I digress. Perhaps not all faculties deserve a mention, esp. those without a lot of physical presence, but at least some are prominent landmarks in their own right and should stay. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Goal average

Hey, Timbouctou. I ran across in the 1957–58 Yugoslav First League season, that they used goal average. Did they used this for the entire span of the Yugoslav league? Did goal difference applied for classification and goal average only for deciding champions and relegation? Dr. Vicodine (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know to be honest. I did run into interviews where people mentioned goal averages in relation to some editions in the 1950s (and possibly 1960s but I'm not sure) but I have no idea when they introduced this rule and when was it abandoned. I have never found any source which listed goal averages in league tables so I assume that in those seasons when it was used it was only applied to decide champions and relegation. I'll look into it and see if I can find something. Btw good work on old Yugoslav league tables. I don't know which source you're using but be advised that RSSSF has some mistakes here and there. In my experience these tables posted by a guy called Mrdja are very reliable and if you run into discrepancies Mrdja's tables are probably the most correct. Timbouctou (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I try to help out a little with the Yugoslav league articles. I try to check different sources for tables, RSSSF, FK Vojvodina web page has tables by season, Mrdja seems to have old almanachs so he is a good source... Yeah, all the tables I saw mention goal difference or there is listed only (goals for):(goals against), but in a few cases concerning champions and relegation goal average seems to decide champions and relegation. In 1951, Red Star won the championship ahead of Dinamo Zagreb by goal average [6]. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

CFF

My edition was not a vandalism. It is written on the official site of CFF that CFF has been found in 1939. I shall quote: "The Croatian Football Federation was finally established on August 6th, 1939." Before that, only football section within the CSF was organised on June 13th, 1912. For instance, on the very same session of CSF on which football section is organised it is also organised athletic section (http://nogomet.lzmk.hr/clanak.aspx?id=551). However, on the page about Croatian Athletics Federation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_Athletics_Federation) it is not written that CAF has been found in 1912, but in 1992. It was therefore incorrect to claim that CFF has been established on June 13th, 1912. Even more, on the webpage of CFF it is written about founding member of the football section of CSF, I quote: "they might be rightfully perceived as the first members of the CFF". That is opinion, not a fact. There is a huge difference between "might be percived" and "are".193.198.162.14 (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the difference between something being "perceived" as something and just "being" something. This is a distinction which has been debated to death in relation to Građanski Zagreb and Dinamo Zagreb. Whether you take 1912 or 1939 as CFF's foundation date is open to debate. However, official sources have solved the dilemma for us. CFF is pretty clear - their official web page titled "Facts & Figures" states in its first sentence that "The Croatian Football Federation (Hrvatski nogometni savez) was founded on 13 June 1912." Both FIFA.com and UEFA.com also say "1912". The "finally" in the sentence you quoted refers to the name as it was the first time that the association was named the way it is called today.

Sure, like the Croatian Football Federation article says, there was no Croatia-level association between 1919 and 1939 and before that there was only a football section of the Croatian Sports Union from 1912 to 1919, at the time when the country was part on Austria-Hungary. In 1919 the newly established Croatian Football Federaton actually doubled as the Yugoslav Association and the reason why the CFF was founded in 1939 is that Banovina Croatia was established then. So CFF can claim either 1912 or 1939 - and they chose the former for obvious reasons. This is confirmed by just about any reliable source you can find. Changing it back to 1939 is original research and if you persist in doing it you are likely to get sanctioned. Timbouctou (talk) 08:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Concordia

Timbu, I wanted to read the document found on the reffs section at HŠK Concordia article, but for some reason I am receving the 404 error (The page cannot be found). Is it because the doc is not avaliable anymore, or because I can´t access it from my server? Can you access it? FkpCascais (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a magazine titled "Olimp" published by the Croatian Olympic Committee (HOO). It contains an insert titled "Povijest hrvatskog sporta" which deals with the overall history of sport in Croatia and many articles from this section talk about football (in fact that used to be a standalone magazine launched in the mid-1970s I think, before it was merged into HOO's "Olimp"). This particular issue is still online, only the link in the HŠK Concordia article was broken. I meant to fix it but User:Dr. Vicodine beat me to it. Here is the direct link to that issue in pdf. You can probably download more issues by replacing "XX" in the generic "OLIMP-XX-2006.pdf" file name. I've downloaded back issues up to #15 (2005), it seems earlier ones aren't online. Hope this helps. Timbouctou (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, many thanks. Seems you got me a new free-time reading for this summer. I´ll definitelly try to search as much as I can about usefull staff for us there :) FkpCascais (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the book from where they transcribed the text. It mentions there that in Concordia a certain Karlo Blaha was a fencing coach. Remember Czech coach Karel Blaha from SK Jugoslavija? Is it possible that he was a multy-sports enthusiast, and that we are talking about the same person? You know, the grandpa of my grandpa came from Prague and was named Karel, and he was allways named Karlo while in Belgrade... FkpCascais (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Glossary of association football terms

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Separating references

A slight apology for starting and not finishing - this is what happens when one edits during working hours... GregorB (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It's alright, no problem at all. I'll think about expanding the lead and maybe re-arranging some prose today. Bulajić will probably get dropped from the lead. Timbouctou (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. Bulajić might still get mentioned for his nomination with Neretva, but then again it is not a Croatian film and he was not a Croatian director back then. GregorB (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Marks

Hi Timbouctou, thanks for picking up the DYK for the article. I've recycled existing cites to hopefully plug the gap in the missing info. The fact that I hadn't cited the Goblin voice was a sitter. Unfortunatley we can't use imdb as a source for Wikipedia articles, only the 'External link' part. I've been scouring the web for better cites, but I keep hitting fansites and blogs. I'll keep looking to improve the article though. ...funny thing is I only intended to create a stub for this article to break the redirect to Howard Marks, a few hours later and your looking at an article you had no intention of making. Curse you Wikipedia!!! Thanks again. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

you can

you can open ANI case on angry guy: look here--Tiblocco (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for List of Slovenia international footballers

--Calmer Waters 19:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

British English Help

Hello. I saw that you are familiar with British English and was wondering if you would be interested in helping me with NK Maribor article. I am not asking for much, only that you would check out the words when I finish the editing (somewhere by the end of this week I believe). The article in question is a current GA nominiee, but I am pretty much certain that it won't pass since, at the moment, the article has inconsistency in the type of English used. Now, I will try to solve the problem during this week (when I will have the time) and use British English. And you could (if interested) just give me an "unofficial review" and check if everything is in order and there aren't anymore inconsistencies in the article. Interested or not, please respond. Lep pozdrav, Ratipok (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see that you have taken matters in to your hand and decided to CE the whole article yourself. Thanks a lot, and if you need any help in return, just let me know.Ratipok (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Croatian atheists or devils...

It is generaly known fact that Miroslav Krleža, Josip Broz Tito, Ante Ciliga were declared atheists. Ante Tomić as journalist in many texts declared himself as atheist and also Miljenko Smoje did. Sorry, belive it or not, there are notalble croatians who were or they are atheists.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.127.163 (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

They are not "notable as atheists", but it is recognizible by their political, social and professi onal acts. Tito was communist leader and declared atheist(on his wiki profile there are plenty of references for this), Krleža was devouted atheist and anticlerical in many his works; in book "With Krleža day by day" of Enes Čengić, Globus, Zagreb, 1986., his biographical interviews he mentioned dozen times that all his life was atheist. Ciliga was known communist and one of the founders Yugoslav Communist Party; what kind of references should be?

But it is interesting that you didnt mentioned that someone during morning "clean up" some of the people from list without any comments or suggestion. It wasnt vandalism.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.127.163 (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"They are not notable as atheists" is the only relevant part of your reply. I will continue to remove categories you add to articles of people whose beliefs are irrelevant for their notability and/or unreferenced because you don't seem to understand or want to understand relevant policies around here. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify Discussion Invitation

Sumsum2010·T·C 23:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Bernard Tomic

I see that you have made some edits on Australian sports people Wikipedia pages, so I was wondering if you could take a look at Bernard Tomic discussion page and share your thought. Especially last edits on discussion page from 3 July 2011. Thank you.--89.164.162.225 (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Croatia and Operation Storm

So why did you make this edit[7]? Any particular reason? I feel like reverting it but I won't before I discuss this and reach a consencus. Besides I am not the sort to editwar. Proud Serbian Chetnik (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

OK thankyou for replying. I'll be more careful next time. I don't wanna be a vandal or an unconstructive editor and that's why I never editwarred against you. Please tell me what was the problem with my edits on Operation Storm. Look from the beginning, I am from Serbia remember and I went to school at the time of Milosevic. I want to discuss it with you like two humans even if I am Serb and you Croat. Wasn't Serb Republic of Krajina totally legal? Weren't Serbs a 99% majority in it? Wasn't Operation Storm a war crime to steal a legally Serb region and make it into an expanded Croatia? Was it right when there was a 99% Serb majority? What's your answer? Proud Serbian Chetnik (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX. Your edit to Operation Storm [8] consisted of a personal opinion (the "Serb-populated Krajina region and eastern Croatia where Croats were in a relative majority - these places should have legally formed part of Greater Serbia according to late 19th century treaties accross Europe" part is pure invention, it is quite offending to everyone outside Serbia and you inserted it in front of a reference which implies that the references text says so - which is far from truth). You also editorialized the preceding paragraph, calling the operation "atrocity" (which is debatable but could be claimed if ICTY rulings are anything to go by) - but you also added that Krajina was "legally controlled by ethnic Serbs" instead of "claimed by separatist ethnic Serbs". "Legally controlled"? Republic of Serbian Krajina was unrecognized by any other country apart from Serbia throughout its existence between 1990 and 1995.

It was self-proclaimed (just like Republic of Kosovo today), it had a majority of Serbian population, who were in turn a minority in Croatia as a whole (just like Albanians are a majority in Kosovo), and it was not recognized by any other country (unlike Kosovo which is recognized by some 70 UN member states).

Operation Storm was first and foremost a military operation whose aim was to gain back control over parts of the Republic of Croatia which were under de facto control by Serb rebels. The "expanded Croatia" idea is total nonsense and if you paid for your schooling you should ask for your money back. You should also read up on your history and consult the article on the Badinter Commission and the constitution of SFR Yugoslavia (article 5 of the 1974 Constitution stipulated that the socialist republics’ territories and boundaries could not be altered without their consent - which means that, legally speaking, anyone and everyone who sought to use the Yugoslav wars to re-draw boundaries was doing it illegally). Republic of Croatia is territorially identical to SR Croatia which means that Croatia's borders haven't changed since 1945. But I guess Milošević-era textbooks might have dropped that piece of information.

But that is all beside the point. Wikipedia does not allow adding unsourced information like that. If you want to discuss these topics in general you should look for some other venue such as a forum or a blog. This is an encyclopedia and claims must be supported by reliable sources in order to survive in the article body. Nothing "legally formed" Greater Serbia because such a thing never existed. It is just an ideology - an idea. Timbouctou (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Timbouctou. When I read your reply, I was ready to respond but I have looked at the sources, the reliable sources and you are 100% correct. No it was never legally Serb and was always Croatian. "Greater Serbia" IS an ideology which Serb nationalists adhere to. I was wrong I have to admit. I will change the nature of my editing from this point onward. Proud Serbian Chetnik (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Timbouctou, congratulations on your explanation of Operation Storm! You converted a Serb nationalist with one hit. He went from being an indoctrinated subject to an enlightened reborn anti-Serb! :) You do realise this was all in vein don't you? It was just another incarnation of User:Sinbad Barron. But don't worry, I got caught out and so did User:WhiteWriter. Neither of us originally suspected him and I made the even stupider blunder of clearing him before the issue emerged, I was convinced that the jingoism was genuine albeit unconstructive. Not to worry, he is no more! Evlekis (Евлекис) 08:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I was intelligent enough to realise that the response was in vein before I started writing it so I did not write it for him. As for the user - no jingoism is acceptable here regardless of its slant, in spite the fact that it still remains the prevailing method of communication in some parts of the Balkans. This particular user was not a problem because of his views but because of his obvious mental health issues. He is simply a troll wasting everybody's time. On a sidenote - I consider you a fine editor but I object to your liberal use of the term Serbophobe. It presents a false dichotomy (as if people are either Serbophiles or Serbophobes) and implies that anti-Serb sentiment is purely irrational. It is not. One must be an idiot to live in these parts for the past couple of decades and not to notice the suffering caused by Serb nationalists, regardless whether they had support of their people or not. So even though unacceptable here, the sentiment is something I can understand, just like I understand anti-Croat sentiment due to NDH atrocities and the ICTY verdicts in relation to Storm (regardless of the fact I'm apalled by the former and I disagree with the latter). But you won't see me going around describing people as Croatophobes or convincing people that there's some sort of a worldwide anti-Croat conspiracy. You also won't see me creating articles on "Croat lands" equivalent to Serb lands, you won't see me listing assorted incidents which may or may not have something to do with nationalism akin to the Serbophobia article (which had been AfD's 5 times and is still completely useless), you won't see any Croatian editors claiming that any Orthodox priests were in fact Croats (unlike edit wars regarding Ruđer Bošković for example), you won't see Croatian editors creating a bunch of poor quality articles claiming that Croats were for centuries targets of irrational hatred, you won't see obvious and blatant propagandistic editing like the one at war crimes in the Kosovo War, which I examined point-by-point to the community, to no avail. Serb editors in general are products of the Serbian society and its media and that society still has some way to go in coming to terms with facts from its recent history. As for this particular user - good riddance. He was and still is incompetent for this project. Timbouctou (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don't personally deny the fact that the Serb nation committed widespread atrocities in the region and in all honesty, Serbophobe is misleading term because a "phobia" means "fear of" the subject. I just don't know any other term to use. I'm a realist Timbouctou. As with all perpetrators and belligerents, there are the facts and there is fiction. What each side in the conflicts of 1991-2001 in our part of the world did has its limits but there will always be those from everywhere truncating the facts. There is such thing as anti-Serb propaganda just as their is anti-Croat and anti-Albanian. I sympathise with all of the nations for two reasons: one is my appreciation of the unity and my desire for continued friendship; two is my first-hand experience in witnessing lies by opponents, but concerning Serbs, I do not strictly refer to the parties with which they were in direct conflict in the 1990s but the more remote enemy which was the New World faction and its associated press (much of which is classed "reliable" here). This user Sinbad Barron (and incarnations) is a true anti-Serb (if not Serbophobe) as his comments if examined carefully from past puppets clearly display ignorance. Not any old ignorance, but specifically that you would expect to adopt if you read British tabloid publications and put your faith in mainstream British and American news - this whole network ignores many facts not only about Serbia but the surrounding area and it is my belief that all ex-Yugoslav nations are victims of their malicious untruths. They reduce Croats too as being a people "at the mercey of the more industrial west" as though Croats and Serbs are just squirmdogs. Nothing is further from the truth. I know Croatia, Croats as nation across the entire region as well as Serbs: they are mostly proud and protective and very few honestly place themselves beneath the outside world. But in the end of the day, if there are two things you will never get from the likes of Bob Stewart (former colonel in Bosnia turned Conservative PM in Britain) and Robert Fox (Guardian, so-called historian), it is positive remarks about the Serbian nation, and intelligent commentary. Unfortunately Timbouctou, everybody in this caper is anti-somebody, to defend one nation in conflict is to attack another. This is why ALL information is slanted, distorted and we as citizens will never know the full facts. I hope this makes sense to you. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're overestimating the influence of Western press. Sure, we Balkanites will to some extent always be seen as a bunch of crazy tribesmen to some people in the West (Washington Times' Jeffrey Kuhner's idiotic and poorly written articles about countries in the region spring to mind) and there are also other media outlets who think of themselves as "alternative" so they always go against whatever the mainstream says even if their alternative version is complete bollocks (the Living Marxism case springs to mind). Long story short - everybody has an agenda because agendas sell newspapers and most people buying them (and consequently, most people producing them) do not care about facts 99% percent of the time. They only care about how it fits their world view. But when the smoke clears and some time passes and western media's attention turns to Egypt or Britney Spears we who live here have to live with facts which have a habit of becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Facts in the form of mass graves full of non-Serbs which still tend to pop up every now and then here in Croatia and in Bosnia, facts like the one that neither Croatian nor Bosnian armies waged war in Serbia whereas the opposite is true, or that nobody held a Serbian city in the state of siege for months like the Bosnian Serbs did with Sarajevo or that no Serbian city was stomped into ground like Vukovar was, or that nobody shelled any place in Montenegro at the time when Montenegrins shelled Dubrovnik. Yeah, Croats themselves were at the time sweeped in a wave of nationalism and I am certainly not the one to whitewash history and pretend crimes against Serbs did not happen or that all Croats are great and all Serbs are not - but let's not get carried away in relativist interpretations and pretend that the fact that the JNA somehow turned into a purely Serb army overnight did not happen or that even Zagreb, the city where I live, was attacked by rockets by Serbs whereas I can't remember a single Serbian city which was rocketed by Croats. "Serbophobia" is an invented ideological term whose purpose is to pretend that peace-loving Serbs are perennial victims of everybody around them and that everybody living near Serbs just happens to be sick with irrational hatred for no apparent reason. I find the term quite insulting, as if Jews were "Germanophobes" or Americans were "Japanophobes" in the 1940s. One can try to sell that to Westerners (just like some sought to sell the opposite version and villify that nation when political circumstances asked for it in 1999) but we who live here and who will continue to live here know better. Once you go past all the nationalist crap from either sides, once you read all the memoirs and transcripts, once you count all the dead and reconstruct the chain of events what you get is facts. These facts need to be known because we are not moving anywhere, we will all still be neighbours long after assorted historians and "historians" have their say, long after Žižeks and Chomskies and Finkielkrauts and The Guardians and BBCs turn their attention towards the next bloody spectacle they saw on TV. But remember - most regular readers in the developed world are raised to believe that no nation is genocidal or homicidal as such so even when propagandistic articles appear because politics of the day demand it - it tends to get forgotten very quickly. People should just take it easy. Nobody is going to change history by editing Wikipedia or publishing a scathing article about whatever or whoever. History is not a shouting match, it is a fact-based science.

I realise that a lot of Balkan-related articles are infested with editors who think they are spreading the "truth" and I sometimes find their efforts amusing because of their childlike naivety (like for example User:King Of The Moas's edits in which he reversed the order of crimes listed in the War crimes in the Kosovo War article, as if one side will somehow look better if their crimes come after the other side's). However I do not care about correcting the crappy state these articles are in because frankly, any member of the public with an average IQ is capable of detecting how poor and incoherent they are and is more than likely to simply ignore Wikipedia as a source for these topics (which has already happened to hr.wiki for example because some of the admins there are nationalist nutcases). So in the end nothing really gets accomplished - articles filled with "truths" look useless to readers so they aren't really serving the purpose of correcting any "untruths" - and we editors are left to our own means to tolerate assorted "truth warriors" and waste a whole lot of time on good faith warnings and discussions, leading to us avoiding the whole mess like the plague. In a nutshell - yes, there's a lot of crap out there and some of it inevitably ends up on Wikipedia, but the difference between crap and non-crap is that the latter tends to stick longer and is cited more often. That's the non-perfect principle behind Wikipedia, which by definition tries to be a perfect mirror of a non-perfect world, just like any other collection of knowledge that encyclopedias are. My apologies for such a lengthy and meandering comment :-) Timbouctou (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Sinbad Barron

Just one example - look at this pathetic paragraph added to the bottom of the section, and the red marked info at the top[9]. It is more than propaganda, it is wholly false! Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It is common knowledge both inside and outside Serbia that the Serb Radical Party is as far as one can get on the political spectrum, and SNP 1389 is currently on the verge of being banned by the Serbian Constitutional Court which is described by the state prosecutor's office as an "extreme right organization" along with Obraz and Nacionalni stroj. So the line in red is true, albeit unreferenced and perhaps even superfluous. The unsourced opinion piece added in the section "The Real Serbia" looks like a summary of some of the reactions which you can read here, here or here. As for the "years of lies and propaganda in the press from the Milosevic days", see this public apology issued by Radio Television of Serbia in May. Qualifying Mladić's supporters as "drawn from uneducated backgrounds and elitists who longed for the past" sounds like quotes pulled out from some of the articles I've read by various Serbian columnists, although most commentators had focused on the fact that many protesters were young people in their late teens who were babies or were not even born yet at the time of Yugoslav wars. Yes, it is editorializing, its tone is not encyclopaedic and as such the section in that form is unacceptable on Wikipedia - but I wouldn't exactly call it "wholly false" or "more than propaganda". The text added by Sinbad is very close to how sections of the Serbian media had described it to their audience. In fact, I suspect that Chetnik is probably Serbian himself and he simply translated his favourite columnist's article on the subject. Timbouctou (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point that he may be Serbian but I suspect he isn't, Albanian is more likely given his poor ability to write Serbian. English may be his first tongue but this user writes "it's" for the possessive and not its which is standard. Wholly false ranks very generous compared to that what others say about the press. Remember something Timbouctou. There is more pro-Serbian coverage in worldwide publication than there is pro-Albanian, pro-Bosnian Muslim or pro-Croatian but to be fair, the other nations have not have the same finger of blame pointed at them nor have they found themselves at the receiving end of internationally sponsored aggression and this coupled with double-standards from the same organisations. I'm not an apologist for Serb actions in the 1990s but I do read the and watch coverage which refutes BBC et al. You may feel that defending the Serbian position is an automatic slap in the face for those that fought against them in the 1990s but most of the commentary attacks the world governments (cheifly US) and organisations such as the EU, the UN and their excrements such as the ICTY. The two parties you mentioned to organise the protests are as you correctly state far-right by their own admission. Who organises an event is one thing, who attends is totally different. Of a good hundred people I know to attend the pro-Mladić protest, only two vote SRS, many of them vote more central parties such as DSS, DS, G17+ but the absolute majority are among the millions to boycott all political voting since spring 2001 kada su primijetili koliko je sati...it won't have the same effect in English. All of a sudden, months have passed since the overthrow of the nasty man and the cracks are showing, unemployment up, pay rises slightly but prices rocket, public wealth privatised and sold to outsiders who will continue to exploit natives for cheap labour - but, appeasing Europe/the west - "we obey, you want this man, we will arrest him, we will now write the most shameful chapter of this nation's history and squirm like dogs. Sinđelić will turn in his grave but the sweets we are given taste too nice to resist!". Naturally Timbouctou, what a government does is its own choice but attending a demonstration opposing extradition of Mladić no more makes one a "nationalist" than those who opposed Gotovina's trial were. There were demonstrations in Croatia and many I knew to attend were Titoists or supporters of SDP, liberals and non-right wing parties, or HDZ which is moderate right in all truth even if it had its fingers in a few pies in the 1990s. As for radicals, they have almost a quarter of the support in Serbia making them a major party. A great many SRS gatherings - but for lesser events such as upcoming elections - can often attract a sea of people waving blue flags. I know one or two radicals in Novi Sad, I phoned one of them to ask if he were going (he's a lawyer) and he replied that he wouldn't and neither would many because they knew it to be a "futile non-event". But CNN however produced a slanted report showing one section of the "small but respectable crowd" and proclaimed "..but the rest of Serbia is happy this has happened". They then show arbitrary interviews with two people who could only cite "economical advantages which beckon in the near future" but nobody from the list of letters read by the BBC cited "international justice". If Serbia and Croatia could have joined their beloved intergovernmental rat packs without having to arrest the suspects (only "moderate pleas", if you could, please hand Mr.XXX to us, that would be nice, thanks) it would never have happened, such as you never had protests in the past years from locals outside Parliament saying "arrest this man, arrest him, and don't try him here, have him tried over there where it's more fair - never mind economical rewards, do it for justice" - I also noted the absence of "Serbs rejoicing", they may not have protested but I didn't hear of any street parties hailing the event like Ivanišević and Đoković winning Wimbledon. For Wikipedia purposes, it was a minor event and that's the end; for me to cite the examples I give you you personally is original research so I don't go near it. And as for the "important day for Europe", please, I just feel sick when I read that! If the allegations were not subject to overkill in the press, nobody would have heard of these "fugitives" the same way few New World apologists can name Naser Orić despite him bragging about his activities to the press, and those same propagandists ignore the actions of the Israeli state and its direct and indirect involvements in 60 years of incidents that make Srebrenica (dubious but assuming truth of accusation) look like nothing. I didn't mean to enter this conversation Timbouctou and on the whole I am in agreement with you on actual thoughts and views (looking at your remarks on previous sections), and please do not feel I'm an advocate for Serb atrocities. I am not. I am merely imparting the facts about the nation and its feelings and the coverage on the matter. Best wishes to you. Evlekis (Евлекис) 09:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Proud Serbian Chetnik. Thank you. —Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Operation Corridor

I know it sounds like we're just fighting a vandal here, but please do integrate this information about "The death of 12 newborn babies in Banja Luka". Be it another case of "the-enemy-is-killing-our-babies-oh-the-humanities" propaganda in the Yugoslav Wars, it sounds like it deserves mention.

As for the disruptive anonymous, I suggest you file a new case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the babies part at all and I'll try to integrate it into the article. I've filed the case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/212.124.171.27 and it appears that the IP range has been blocked for 1 month if I understand it correctly. Timbouctou (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Template help

Hey, I saw that you have made a template about NK Maribor and I was wondering on how did you done that. The reason why is that I would like to make a template of "NK Maribor seasons". Thx, Ratipok (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for responding so late, I've been away from the internet a lot lately. Creating templates is very simple, you can just browse around well-developed similar articles and then when you find a template you like you can do it by creating Template:NK Maribor seasons, copying the code you liked into it and adjusting all the parameters to suit your needs. But the purpose of templates is helping navigation between related articles so I'd recommend creating a new one for seasons only when you get 4-5 season articles created. There are only two season articles for Maribor at the moment (the current one and the one before that) and you can simply include a link to the 2010-11 season in the more general Template:NK Maribor. Timbouctou (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Croatian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film

The article has finally been passed... All I can say is: well done! Now we can work on the UNESCO list - it is going to be much more difficult, but the subject is interesting and this list could really be useful. GregorB (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Congrats to both of us for waiting around long enough to see the list get promoted. It seemed like the review would eventually end around Christmas :-) I'm currently on a holiday and away from the internet most of the time so the UNESCO list might have to wait a bit but I definitely think we should have a go at it. If you feel like working on it feel free to develop the version in my sandbox. Timbouctou (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

WP Croatia in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Croatia for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Statuta Valachorum

Sorry for bodering,

Can you just rate importance and class of Statuta Valachorum article, and add few atagories (I realy don't know in wich category to put this article). Since it is desirable that importance and class of the article be rated by other user, not one who created the page. You are expirienced, you should know status of the article.

Regards. --Wustenfuchs 14:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify's August Newsletter

The Wikifier Your Wikification Newsletter – Volume I, Issue IV, October 2011 Front Cover • From the editor • General news Membership • August drive results To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Diacritics

Hi Timbouctou. Don't worry, I'm not raising a political issue - the matter with Yugoslavs in Croatia is one that I am trying to resolve by having the page redirected and all information moved. I know you concentrate mainly on football but in the tennis world we have a diacritic issue here and I thought you ma be interested to add your view. Many thanks in advance. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Croatian politics&history..

Hi Timbouctou, why did you change my edit informations about Savka Dabcevic-Kucar and Anton Tus? Is there any false information or subjective opinion harmful for object of editing? Wish you nice evening, Timeon (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted some of your edits, yes. In case of Tus I reverted the version which had a) unnecessary mention of his birthplace - already listed in his inbox, b) weasel wordings such as a "legendary" Croatian general, and c) an unreferenced piece of information ("founder of Croatian Army" and "who was most important that Croatian Armed Forces became modern and professional army"). You need references for statements like these otherwise it is considered WP:OR and likely to get deleted. I reverted some of the same problems with your additions to Savka Dabčević-Kučar (diff) - statements such as the one that she hails from the "notable Croatian family Dabčević originaly from Boka Kotorska", that she was a "partisan and until 1943" are unreferenced. The "Queen of Croatians" is also dubious. Also, you had added her to Category:Croatian atheists - person's beliefs are supposed to be added only when they are relevant for their activities and if they self-identified as such. Having said that, I see now that you also added her to Category:Croatian communists - which is fine, because she was a member of the communist party. Please be more careful in the future and remember that all unsourced material may be deleted. If you need help with that just ask. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Igralište Kraj Drave

Let's take it to AFD, prod was declined - same as NK Elektra Osijek. GregorB (talk) 09:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Croatian atheists...

Thank you for your attention on my editing, but your comments are on wrong adress I m affraid. First off all, writer Miroslav Krleza and film producer Branko Lustig was before put in article Croatian atheists. Branko Lustig is croatian jew and citizen of Croatia I dont see anything suspectable in fact that he is croatian atheist. Similar situation is in profile about Marek Edelman, known polish Second World War ressistant, communist and jew, who was put in articles as jewish atheist and polish atheist. Miroslav Krleza was notable atheist out of category his communist political orientations; it is wide known fact in croatian public and as fact very considerable in Krleza work. So violation is not on side of someone who knows than rather on side who doesnt know. If you have opposite informations on subjects, please be free to inform me. Wish you nice eveningTimeon (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Josip ____ enter last name

Dobar dan!

Vidim da ste promenili ime u članku Josip Đerđa/Gjergja.

Verujem da ste sigurni da ste u pravu? Možda bi trebalo Giuseppe Gjergja?

Znam da se u Hrvatskoj transkripcija razlikuje. Na primer, umesto...

Hetrik Tea Volkota nokautirao Briž, vi bi ste napisali

Hat-trick Thea Walcotta knockoutirao Brugge. Otprilike tako nešto.

Poz!

Tempo21 (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

U pravu ste. Promijenio sam Gjergju kako bi se slagalo s načinom kako se njegovo prezime piše u hrvatskim medijima, budući da je on hrvatski sportaš/trener iako stranog (arbanaškog) porijekla. Dakle isto kao i kod Franjo Wölfl i Anas Sharbini. Što se imena tiče u nekim izvorima ga zovu Giuseppe, u nekima Josip - no najčešće ga navode kao "Pino" [10], [11], [12]. Američki sajt Sports-Reference.com ga zove "Giuseppe Gjergja" i vjerojatno bi se tako trebao zvati njegov članak, kao i na hrvatskoj wikipediji. Inače njegov sin Dario je košarkaški trener (donedavno je vodio Liège Basket u Belgiji) i njegovo prezime također svuda pišu "Gjergja" [13], [14]. Giuseppe Gjergja trenutno preusmjerava na Josip Gjergja, što je možda u redu jer izvori se ne slažu svi - Fiba.com i Fibaeurope ga zovu "Josip Djerdja". Ako predložite da se članak preseli na Giuseppe Gjergja preko WP:RM podržat ću tu ideju. Timbouctou (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Šimun Debelić

Hi. Can I ask why you updated this article as you did. As Debelić was a high ranking member of the Ustasê government the category appears to fit.
Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but I am concerned that this could become a trend. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you be "concerned" if this was a Japanese/Italian WWII veterinarian-turned-minister of economy? Absolutely, and if anyone is removing categories in a possibly misguided way then you and I and every editor in good standing have the right, even obligation, to contest, and if necessary, rv, any such edits. I cannot monitor every page related to World War II-related individuals. (I haven't decided what to do about the Debelić category rv in question.)

You are right about some of the edits made by the unregistered user in question, and I am glad you fixed them, but language such as "Serbia-based anon seems to have a real problem with the WWII Independent State of Croatia and everything and everyone even remotely related to it" is inappropriate. It is like saying "Israel-based anon seems to have a problem with the Third Reich and everything and everyone even remotely related to it". It is our duty to ensure that encyclopaedic standards rule. If any editor goes beyond the pale then they can be blocked or banned by WP:ANI, WP:RAA, etc. However I believe in checks and balances, which sometimes means reviewing the reviewer. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

I posted a thread on WP:ANI that concerns you, here's a direct link. Regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Since you used your rollback privileges to edit war, I've just revoked them. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Great work Salvio. Wikipedians everywhere can sleep peacefully now. Timbouctou (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

If only... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for 72 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Social Democratic Party of Croatia. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. v/r - TP 19:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Timbouctou (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm sorry for breaching WP:3RR. This is my second time I violated the rule (the first time was in March, because of a dispute with the same editor I edit-warred with this time (User:DIREKTOR). Admin TP decided to make an exercise in equality and blocked both me and him for the same length of time which I think is unjust because the opposing editor has a much longer history of edit-warring (this is his 9th block). Regardless, I knew what I was doing and I knew I might get blocked. However, the scope of articles I edit is much larger than his and I wish to continue making non-controversial edits before the 72-hour block expires. Timbouctou (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I knew what I was doing and I knew I might get blocked - well then this is no surprise, and I see no need to change. As for treatment of the other editor - I refer you to WP:NOTTHEM  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Timbouctou (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Yes, the block itself is not surprising but I resent the entirely arbitrary nature of the block's length. Also, per WP:BLOCK they are supposed to be preventative, not punitive and I see no danger of it becoming an issue as I don't intend to edit-war again. Timbouctou (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

And as WP:3RR - Editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident, I see nothing wrong with 72h for a second block. Punitive would be 3 months or a year.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Timbouctou (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I see nothing wrong with 72h for a second block. Do you see something wrong with 72h for a ninth block? Exactly. Anyway, I've stated already that the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am being blocked for and I said I would not do it again. What else do I need to say to have this block lifted? Timbouctou (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You say that you understand the reason for your block and will not do the same again. However, you have already told us that you knew all along what was wrong with what you were doing, and have made it clear that you were willing to accept a short block for it, but that the length of this block has gone beyond what you were budgeting for. That indicates that the length of this block was fully justified, as the shorter one you were expecting would not have been an effective deterrent. You have therefore given a very good reason for not unblocking. (Also, it is worth mentioning that you still don't seem to have taken WP:NOTTHEM on board.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Social_Democratic_Party_of_Croatia. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. v/r - TP 21:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Timbouctou. You have new messages at TParis's talk page.
Message added 21:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

v/r - TP 21:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC) x2 x3

Croatian county templates

Why did you mass move them without discussion? I for one disagree with the moves, because the phrase "Cities and towns in Bjelovar-Bilogora" doesn't actually mean anything - the counties are never referred to like that, without the prefix, AFAIK. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think it would be controversial. They were inconsistently named anyway so I was looking for some standardised format for all of them before I do some cleaning up on them, standardising names of urban and rural subdivisions, fixing endashes, adding county coats of arms and removing flags from headers. I merely wanted a logical and short name for all templates. Do you have a better idea? Timbouctou (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

How about "Subdivision(s) of X County" for template names and titles? Timbouctou (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Definitely with the suffix. It also occurs to me that the word county was likely chosen because of an equivalence with American counties - e.g. Anaheim is not located in "Orange", but in "Orange County", just like Biograd is not located in "Zadar", but in "zadarska županija".

BTW prefix plural ("subdivisions" rather than "subdivision") seems more appropriate, judging from existing practice in article titles. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I figured the county suffix didn't matter since these are just template names and thus not visible to readers, plus they are all in the category called "Croatian counties". Btw how about changing cities/towns to "urban" and municipalities to "rural" like they call them in German equivalent templates? Općine are rural and Gradovi are urban by legal definition anyway, and it might save us the trouble of using two terms (city/town) when one can suffice. Plus there are settlements which are urbanistically considered towns but are not legally recognized as such (like Hum), and vice versa (Kaštel). The urban/rural distinction cuts straight to the point. Timbouctou (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So would this result in changes to Infobox settlement settlement_type variables, to say "Urban municipality" and "Rural municipality", respectively? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on tinkering with infobox settlement but it sounds like a good idea I'd gladly support. I suppose that would also include renaming Category:Cities and towns in Croatia and Category:Municipalities of Croatia then. I'm not sure if this would constitute WP:OR or WP:V though. Timbouctou (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Generally I support this line of thinking, still grad is officially translated as city (not town) therefore I suppose city should be used term for grad (regardless of what city or town really is).--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm wary, too. For example http://www.dzs.hr/Eng/censuses/census2011/censusact.htm and http://www.dzs.hr/Eng/censuses/census2011/censusfaq.htm seem to consistently use the terms "county, "town", "municipality" and "settlement" so we can't stray that much. It's not super-official (binding), but it's close. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

There's this source too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I know. While it is true that the terms "urban" and "rural" would seem like our invention since official terminology does not use them, we are probably entitled to simplify things for readers, at least in navigation boxes. We could explain what we mean by that via wikilinking "Urban" to some dedicated article such as List of cities in Croatia or "Rural" to Municipalities of Croatia. On the other hand, DZS uses the term town for everything except the City of Zagreb [15],Article 22, so if we are to follow their designations then everything urban outside Zagreb is officially a "town" in English. Timbouctou (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should just go with the 2005 amendment which defines a city ("veliki grad") as anything urban with more than 35,000 people (there are 17 of those in Croatia). If a county has one or more its template will still say "Cities and towns" and if it doesn't then it's just "towns". Same for infobox settlement. Timbouctou (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that would make it an entirely arbitrary translation as veliki grad is not the same as city. Since there is no agreed difference between terms city and town we are fairly free to choose either, however city appears to be preferred translation by the MVPEI and the cities themselves and English language permits that choice be influenced by local legislation. Other possible distinction, which is purely traditional, is that a city has a royal charter - and that is not entirely applicable since such charters were last issued in Croatia hundreds of years ago: in that case, for instance: Požega would be a city even though it is not a veliki grad while a number of veliki grads would end up as towns. Alternatively, there is a tradition that a city has a cathedral: once again, Gospić would be city, while Slavonski Brod would be town. -- I propose that only city be used as a simple solution preferred by local and central government and permitted by English language. We need not be more catholic than the pope and make distinctions where there are none - and if veliki grad need be translated, then translate it as a large city or something along those lines.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

On a further note - town may come in handy to describe settlements which do not legally qualify as cities (e.g. no city government), but are not villages, even though they may be small in terms of population: Buzin and Dugopolje are hardly villages, but they are not legally cities - and that would somewhat mimic the "royal charter" criterion for cities.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The English language dictionary definition of a "city" is "urban settlement larger than a town" while a town is an "urban settlement smaller than a city". Every other attempt to define the two terms is either historically outdated (cathedrals, charters, and the like) or purely arbitrary (in large countries a "city" would be something above 50,000 people while in small countries 20,000 can suffice). MVPEI's preferences are totally irrelevant, especially since the same translators who compiled the manual also translated Croatian legislation - including the law on the census itself which (in its English version) calls everything outside Zagreb (including Split and Rijeka and Osijek) a "town". And I assure you, no professional translator would translate "veliki grad" as "large city" - precisely because the term "veliki grad" was legislators' way of circumventing the fact that Croatian language does not have the distinction the target language (English) has. If there are "large cities" then there must be "small cities" and if every urban settlement is thus a "city" then it seems Croatia is the only place on Earth where towns do not exist. And resortng to the "town" label only for settlements which "look urban" but aren't legally that sounds pretty arbitrary to me. Timbouctou (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

What I proposed above for the town/city distinction does follow size distinction thus Croatia would not be the only place on earth where towns do not exist. As far as professional translators are concerned I suspect I may know a few of those and what they would do.:) Position taken by the DZS is clearly flawed as it would imply that Zagreb is the only city in Croatia. I just wanted to point out that a lot of settlements defined as grad declare themselves a city and thought that wiki should reflect the sources instead of what may or may not be meant by veliki grad, I do not intend to change anything at any rate.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Vukovar featured article nomination

Thank you for your recent interest in Battle of Vukovar. I have nominated the article for featured status with the aim of getting it to that position by 18 November, the 20th anniversary of the battle. You are very welcome to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Vukovar/archive1. Prioryman (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Further to your question at #en-wikipedia-help

I don't think that there is a clear, fast solution. User:Prioryman's suggestion of writing to the Croatian MOD might need to be expanded to some other countries for the JNA logo. Someone from the former Yugoslavia area might also be able to help, try asking around Wikipedia:Croatian Wikipedians' notice board or Wikipedia:Serbian Wikipedians' notice board and the other relevant noticeboards/ projects. Sorry I can't be of more help. --Mrmatiko (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

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

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Šiško Horvat Majcan

The lead sentence at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) instructs how to best deal with fictional characters, in its recognizing (just as you did) that there is no specific guideline for such and in its advising that until there is, editors should see other relevant policies and guidelines in order to determine which fiction-related articles are appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Timbouctou (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There have been MANY efforts to write provisions for fictional elements (characters), but they have failed with consesnsus deferring to existing guidelines and policies. If a fictional element or character is described in enough depth in reliable secondary sources, we'd have a meeting of WP:V and WP:GNG. So even without a specific guideline, we have decent article on fictional elements such as Light sabers and the Millenium Falcon and fictional characters such as James T. Kirk and Luke Skywalker. Its all in the coverage.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

NK Široki Brijeg

Zašto mi stalno mijenjaš sastav Širokog Brijega sa igračima koji su igrali u 7. mjesecu. To je stari, od tada je bilo puno promjena? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikinukuapua (talk • contribs) 08:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: PNG to SVG logos

You should first talk to them, tell them to fix it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Wrote a post on ANI that concerns you [16]. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

ciao

ciao, I am Italian and I consider DIREKTOR a professional titoist activist of a Croat party but you can report him in ANI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.126.34 (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please cease this

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Your persistence in continuing the feud with DIREKTOR is not helpful to the encyclopedia. Your inclusion of TParis in your uncivil remarks is not helpful either. Distance yourself, or sanctions may ensue. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Croatian Women's Cup finals

I stumbles upon a Croatian newspaper archive. http://library.foi.hr/nv/default.aspx?G=1&u= Those newspapers cover football at like 3 pages per day. I wondered if one is able to find results or at least runner-ups from 1992 to 2001. As i don't speak Croatian and don't know the dates of the finals, i can't come up with good searchterm to create few good results. Maybe you could have a short try at that site? Something like women's cup final, women's football, year final, or cupwinner + final or something. Thanks in advance. -Koppapa (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Attendances

Info is taken from annual yearbooks (Almanah YU fudbala) published after each season. I'll add it a as a non-linked source.99.255.217.164 (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Article importance assessment drive...

Whoa! I was this close to raising an issue with the WP 1.0 bot, because it looked like it was almost 100 articles off, and noone is assessing that many articles a day... :-) GregorB (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

All in a day's work ;-) Mind you, 99% of everything I assessed received a low importance rating. It would sure be easier to keep them in check if WP:CRO templates were marked "low importance" (and "stub") by default, requiring manual input only for quality/importance upgrades. Speaking of which, if one wanted to adapt WP:Germany's version of the table depicting importance scale, where would one paste it at WP:CRO project's page? Should I just put it on talk page until we find a better place for it? Timbouctou (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

From time to time I assess a couple of articles, and usually it's "low" because these are easy to pick: villages, barely notable films and such. Yeah, it's a chore, but in this case occasional (or semi-permanent, to be honest) backlogs don't really hurt either...

Well, the only proper place for the table is surely Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/Assessment, i.e. the assessment subpage (currently used for something slightly different, but this is easily fixable). Maybe the time to introduce it has come... I'm not sure myself, the project might offer an answer. GregorB (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed you tried to add the quality scale... I've wrapped it in <noinclude>, which prevents it from messing up the main page. Not really a solution - ideally the assessment page and what is displayed in the Assessment frame should be entirely different things - but it works, kind of. GregorB (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Maps in infobox settlement

There's an intermediate template that you'd have to create, or use a parameter of the existing Template:Location map Croatia. If the coordinates match, the latter could work. But, I don't know offhand if and how this extra parameter fits into Template:Infobox settlement parameters. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Henlein

I found out that while with Građanski Zagreb, the Austrian Karl Henlein was actually a coach/player. He is former Austrian international. Here (3rd paragraph) is says that Gradjanski had 2 Austrian internationals, refering to Henlein and probably Rupec. That makes me doubt if Jaroslav Šifer (Schiffer) ever got to play with Austria, as he played in this same period as well in the club, thus, if Sifer was Austrian international, they would have been 3, and not 2, as mentioned. All sources say that J. Šifer was only Yugoslav international, but the only source claimng he played for Austria, that I know, is RSSSF. Any ideas? FkpCascais (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

HČSP

Well, I'm sorry that I reverted all of the info, but some of it was either unsourced or non-neutral. I edited the page again, so let me know what do you think. HeadlessMaster (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Glossary of association football terms

Hi Timbouctou. I was wondering if you would be able to use the Football Lexicon to source any of the remaining unsourced terms? They're all tagged with ^{[citation needed]}, and last time I counted there are about 20 unsourced entries left. I've been trying to cut that down myself, but a lot of the remaining ones are phrases that might be difficult to source the meaning of from anywhere other than a book dedicated to football terminology. For instance, it's easy to find references to layoff and through ball online, but difficult to find anywhere that actually says what they are. —WFC— 17:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Vukovar featured article nomination redux

Please note that I've renominated Battle of Vukovar for featured article status. You're very welcome to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Vukovar/archive2‎. Prioryman (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Referencing Croatia

Hi! I've expanded and referenced a part of the Croatia article, and by now only the "History" section (minus the last subsection thereof) remains to be referenced. Once that's done, I'd like to redo the lead to have a summary of the entire article in it per WP:LEAD. Since you edited the section at hand (along with many others) I thought to let you know. How about we co-nominate the article sometime next week, when the references and lead are in place, for WP:GAN?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed the huge work you've done recently and my hats off to you. However, I'm not sure it is ready for GAN yet. The prose needs to be condensed a bit and the ratio of dry statistics vs. flowing prose should be improved in favour of the latter, as some sections are tiresome to read (for example, take the culture section which has too many numbers IMO). I had tried reducing the history part section by section but I didn't get around to doing the earliest (Pre-history and Antiquity) and the latest (Modern Croatia) sections. These may need another pass through. We could also use a section on Etymology. In a nutshell, it still has lots of room for improvement, but if you want to have a go at GAN I'll be happy to lend a hand. I'll get on referencing History for starters, we could be ready for a formal nomination in a week or so. Again, great work so far, keep it up. Timbouctou (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree the article may be "overwritten" in some aspects, but I'd still leave further trimming to be performed during GAN review if necessary - moving any excess material to linked articles. I also agree there's quite a lot of stats, but a similar level of statistics is present in Germany which is an FA therefore I added them modeling the section on the FA article - which is not to say that your impression isn't correct one. Again, if that becomes an issue during a GAN review, the detailed version may be moved to Culture of Croatia or elsewhere where appropriate and replaced with a summary passage. As far as the "Modern Croatia" is concerned it seems fine to me, but the "Pre-history and Antiquity" does feel a bit odd. The "Etymology" isn't there, true, but would it be better to have a separate super-short section on that as in case of Germany or position it as "History" section introductory text? Anyway I'll prepare it in the sandbox and move it in when it's ready. On a final note - the article right now contains a mix of US and British English spelling and one should be chosen. I don't have any preference, but we should make a choice before the article is a GAN or before a copyedit or proofreading is requested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

About etymology, I remember reading some guidelines at WP:COUNTRIES which said that etymology is a good thing to start the article with, but that's not set in stone of course. Since I think expanding the earliest history section might prove to be difficult we can alternatively mention it in there. I don't have a strong opinion about the variety of English to be used. I'd personally prefer BE but if others are more comfortable with AmE I'd be fine with that. Maybe you should raise the issue at the article's talk page and get a wider consensus, so that the {{British English}} or {{American English}} template could be placed on top. Timbouctou (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. Indeed WP:COUNTRIES says etymology goes into "History" section, so the first subsection may be the place. How about transforming the first subsection (simply removing the heading) into introductory passages outlining etymology, prehistoric and antiquity context of the area and mentioning the move from White Croatia as none of those (apart etymology) are strictly history of Croatia but a context and no simple heading could be accurate? I'm confident the etymology passage will be ready today, so I'll insert it there. I'll bring up the AE/BE in the talk page as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm against removing the heading. The text following a level-2 header which itself contains level-3 headers below usually serves as summary of all lvl-3 content below so this solution would be awkward. Re-wording the section title is a much better option even though the different material makes it difficult to find an accurate tile. How about simply "Early history"? That's general enough to chronologically include pre-historic settlements in present-day Croatia, Roman and Greek colonization, the migration of Croats, and the etymology of the term. This could serve as a logical introduction to the following section, Medieval Croatia, which picks up at circa 10th century AD. Timbouctou (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Gradjanski coaches

This book seems to say that an Austrian coach Toni Ringer was a coach of Gradjanski Zagreb in 1926. Just to let you know... FkpCascais (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Player positions

Well, the info is to precise the role in the last year or two. For instance, Danijel Pranjić is not a winger for a few years now, Eduardo being presented as a "forward" is not correct, cause he only plays as a winger or striker. Igor Bišćan is now described as central defender, when he finishes his career it could be added he was a central midfielder too. It was a thought, if you think it's over-describing, I say: - Cool, no problem, it's all relative. But I see some players have detailed info, some don't - so i just hope there is an exact rule against my "miscondust". ;) Much respect m8. N1cky (talk)

Ok, let's keep it simple for now in the infobox. When you elaborate it like that, I couldn't agree more. Regards. N1cky (talk)

However I altered Kranjčar & Perišić's info cause they are strickty attacking midfielders and I think any other description is misleading. Hope that's ok. A very little compromise & no more over-detailing from me. N1cky (talk)

Giancarlo Danova

Hello, your addition to WP:Requested Articles/Sports, Giancarlo Danova, could not be found in any references online. Please tell me if you can find one, and remove the tag on WP:Requested articles/Sports#A-D. If not, the name will be erased. Please make sure it abides by the notability guidelines. Thank you. Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 01:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember adding him, but it's possible. In any case, Italian Wikipedia has an article on him [17] and Google yields plenty of results [18]. Timbouctou (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how I didn't see that. (BTW, you added it in 2009. I am cleaning out the requests by looking them up) Oh well. Happy editing, Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 01:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I got Domenico Di Cecco and Giancarlo Danova mixed up. Whoops. Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 01:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's Di Cecco's transfer history. He currently plays in Lega Pro Prima Divisione, Italian third level, which is notable per WP:FPL. Timbouctou (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, your good at this! Maybe you would like to assist me? Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 02:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I can help you out. I'll go through players K-N for starters. How's that? Timbouctou (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks SO much :) Also, can you find a good reference for Godwin Dwomoh, please? Much thanks, Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 02:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No luck for Godwin Gwomoh. He seems to be Ghanaian but I can't find any reference for him appearing for Ghana or any club. We can assume he's not notable. Timbouctou (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll delete him. Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 02:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I've done almost all players in the K-N section. Kozak seems to have played for Club Atlético Lanús around 1971 but I can't find a good reference for him. Leonovs played for FK Rīga in Latvia but Latvian league is not listed at WP:FPL at all so I don't know if that's notable. Couldn't find anything on Klein and Nietzsche, but maybe somebody else will have better luck. Peter Nilsson is a Swedish guy who played in several smaller clubs, don't know if the leagues he played in are professional. I'd say about 70 percent of people listed in that section are Estonian players who appeared for the Estonia national team in the 1920s and 1930s. Hope this helps. Timbouctou (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

It certainly does help. Thank you. Enjoy the coffee. Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 14:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Timbouctou! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Vukovar

Thanks very much for your help in getting Battle of Vukovar to featured status and thanks for the barnstar! There's one more thing to be done - ensuring that it appears on the Main Page on 18 November. Could you please take a look at my post at Talk:Battle of Vukovar#Next steps: a call for assistance and advise whether you might be able to help? Prioryman (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Tuđman

If you are arguing about "reliability" then no right wing media quoted all over wikipedia is reliable. See what Einstein says about capitalist media. [Note,the word "impossible" in particular]

"under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights."

Stick to the conventions in wikipedia. [Even I am not okay with right wing hate-mongers quoting some american's book or article (some are even obviously ridiculous) in support of their claims too. but that is how things are going on here.] 122.176.58.109 (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Your source is indeed unacceptable 122.176.58.109. I added a different one, hopefully that will solve it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

@ 122.176.58.109 - I fail to see how Einstein's musings on politics can justify using a 2001 essay written by Prakash Karat and published in something billed as the "Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India" to reference a claim that Franjo Tuđman was "most commonly accused of autocratic behaviour and despotism". Especially so since the essay in question does not even mention his autocracy or "despotism". You should listen to your own advice, stick with whatever you meant by "Wikipedia conventions" and do some reading of WP:RS. You also might want to catch up on WP:CIVIL before describing somebody's edits as being based on "silly arguments". Timbouctou (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Iztok Puc

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla would have loved this ....

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		For withstanding one of the strongest tempests-in-a-teapot I have ever witnessed. Djathinkimacowboy 04:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well deserved, and to heck with procedure: I hereby second myself! Djathinkimacowboy 19:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

read

read here: first section Biased Usage of Wikipedia about political agenda of user who is well known for his blatant propaganda! What to do?--Daneto (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Let me alert you that this User:Daneto is kind of spamming lots of people with the above. He posted it to me last week. 2. Have you seen User:DIREKTOR trying to imply that you are my sock?! Better watch him, T! Djathinkimacowboy 08:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

I posted a thread on WP:ANI that concerns you. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

How unpredictable. Timbouctou (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. v/r - TP 00:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Timbouctou (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not harass anyone. Provide evidence that I did. Timbouctou (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The ANI thread contains several diffs which prove you were attacking people; this, the latest one, is but one of many examples. Continued unblock requests of this nature will rapidly result in the disabling of your talkpage for the remainder of the block; it's on you to explain why you should be unblocked, not on the blocking admin to re-justify his actions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Peace

It's the season of peace, so take your week off to enjoy the holidays. I know you and Direktor have your issues, but you both have made some great contributions to Wikipedia Croatia and I have admired your edits. Don't let anger get in the way of your Wikipedia contributions, otherwise it just becomes a vicious circle of conflict. "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar". --Jesuislafete (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I second this.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

page deletions

Would you like your entire userspace deleted? Or just selected pages? Prodego ^talk 06:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Just selected pages, thanks. Timbouctou (talk) 06:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, is that the full set of them that I got? Prodego ^talk

Yup, it's fine for now, thanks. Timbouctou (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, cheers! Prodego ^talk 06:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. You're probably not too fond of me right now, but welcome back. Let me know if I can be of any help.--v/r - TP 15:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

New ministries

Hi! I started a new government of Croatia template in my sandbox, but it appears that quite a few ministries will split or rearrange their scope of authority starting today. Should I use the template as prepared for now - some ministry articles are linked twice, and some are not linked at all, and allow those to be reorganized later or is there another preferred/customary way to handle this type of situation?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to list all the changes from the previous cabinet in the Cabinet of Zoran Milanović article to see what needs to be done. As for articles on individual ministries, we should wait for English language translations to become official and later split them from existing articles, leaving them unlinked in government templates in the meantime. That way we should have redirects in place for articles which will continue to use obsolete ministry names and properly titled articles reflecting current situation with portfolios shuffled around. There's no rush to get it right. Timbouctou (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Members of the 7th Sabor

Since you understand Croatian politics, I need advice here...

At the official site of Sabor, for example, there are 12 MPs from HNS, while they won 14 at the election. I understand two of them are now in the government, however, they aren't listed as MPs... So should I list only 12 MPs of HNS?

Similiar thing with other parties also... --Wustenfuchs 10:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The Sabor website actually lists 13 in the current assembly (Baranović, Batinić, Beus Richemberg, Bilek, Blažeković, Gjurković, Glavina, Konig, Mandić, Martinčević, Radoš, Topolovec, Turina-Đurić). The 14th one was supposed to be Vesna Pusić, but she joined the government and her vacated seat was then taken by Igor Kolman from SDP. But it doesn't matter really since it would make our life a whole lot easier if we simply listed MPs who were officially elected to the 7th Sabor. It would probably be too much to track all the changes which later come about due to MPs vacating their seats to take other posts and it would be almost impossible to track such changes in previous assemblies. So for the purpose of our list putting in 14 is fine, with Pusić listed along with 13 other HNS members. However, it is pretty unusual for a vacated seat to be taken by an MP from some another party and a section below listing changes (looking something like this) should mention this, because HNS was effectively reduced by 1 seat and that might have some bearing on the dynamics of the 7th assembly. Timbouctou (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

OK then, I'll add official list of MPs... you correct me if I make any mistake... --Wustenfuchs 11:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas!
	May you have a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year. Prioryman (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

--Tomobe03 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas and a happy new year!

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and happy New Year! Best wishes, GregorB (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to you too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Sv. Stipan and Ivan to you too. --Jesuislafete (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Widespread edit-warring. --v/r - TP 14:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Timbouctou

Remember what we did at WP:RA/Sports? I finished up A-N so O-Z is left. I will be busy today so can you do some of it if you don't mind? (It's okay to say no) Sincerely, Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 14:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

January 2012

I posted a thread on WP:ANI that concerns you. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

I just wanted to apologise for insinuating you have "dragged" people to ANI in the past. I realise that direktor has a history of starting fights and then going crying to mommy; I should've done my research first! Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's alright. Timbouctou (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Hello Timbouctou, with this edit, in enacting a consensus of the community reached at the Administrator's Noticeboard, I hereby inform you that you are banned for 6 months from

• interacting with DIREKTOR
• undoing his edits
• making reference to or commenting on him or his actions
• replying to him in any discussion
• editing his user talk space
• filing WP:ANI reports about him except to clarify or abolish this interaction ban or to report violations of the interaction ban.

The discussion leading to the ban may be viewed here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

And in case he makes an edit which is in clear violation of policies, such as the BLP violation he insisted on which led to this iBan in the first place, what course of action do you suggest? Timbouctou (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Let someone else deal with it. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

...not by asking someone else to deal with it though. If it is so clear a violation, someone else will see it. If it isn't dealt with, you are welcome to email me.--v/r - TP 00:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Strongylopus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Striped stream frog (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Husbands and Wives (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Benno Schmidt

Melinda and Melinda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Brooke Smith

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Slovak Superliga seasons

Category:Slovak Superliga seasons, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Na hrvatskom

Bog! Pitanje na hrvatskom. Zašto misliš da bi trebalo spojiti Živo Blato sa Vucom?--Gdje je nestala duša svijeta (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I read your posts and I agree with your opinion! May you improve Broz's article with me and others? You can put your idea here: I know you are a balanced editor. Best wishes,--Alojow (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Kuc-kuc

English version: Hello Timbu. Whatz up?

S-C version: Pa dobro, gde si bre ti? Nema te k´o sunca u decembru... Gledao sam Metastaze pa se tebe setio. Film je do jaja! Nego, vidi šta ovaj lik veli ovde (strana 298), kaže nije bilo voća u Zagrebu: "I had to go to Italy to buy fruit"... Čuj samo, nije imao voća u Zagrebu... e jadničak... Tako ti je to kad si stranac i nemaš vezu, ono, ne znaš lokalnog dilera jagoda, trešanja i banana... nije mu lako.  :) FkpCascais (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey man what's up :-) Sorry što mi treba toliko dugo da odgovorim, slabo sam na wiki posljednjih nekoliko mjeseci, dojadilo mi natezanje sa uvijek istim pacijentima na uvijek istim člancima, vjerujem da razumiješ :-) U svakom slučaju, imam dosta posla u RL u zadnje vrijeme, osmosatno radno vrijeme, dosta putujem po Hrvatskoj i tako to, pa kad dođem doma iscijeđen sam i nemam puno inspiracije za wiki zajebancije. Metastaze su fora, Bitorajac razvalio mada su ostali likovi nekako slabašni :-) A voća danas ima koliko hoćeš, mada je sve uvozno, no od nogometa nema zapravo ništa. Bio sam na sve tri domaće utakmice Dinama u ligi prvaka, ono zadnje sramoćenje protiv Lyona bilo je tragikomično, no poslužilo je kao dobar uvod u valjda najtužniju sezonu hrvatskog nogometa u povijesti :-) Stay in touch. Veliki pozdrav Fkp :-) Timbouctou (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: User:Sundostund (RSK lists)

Please file a request to enforce WP:ARBMAC, this doesn't appear to be much more than stubborn RSK advocacy. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED precludes my own enforcement. There's nothing too bureaucratic about this, you basically have to paste your request to me into the form over there. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Undoing

Hi Timbouctou. I would really like to know why you have undone my recent change on the article about the State Hydrometeorological Institute? This is the namely the translation of the name of this institute. When the article about the Meteorological Service of Germany can be called on the English language Wikipedia Deutscher Wetterdienst, what is its name in German, and when the article about the Meteorological Service of Austria can be named Central Institution for Meteorology and Geodynamics, then the Meteorological Service of Croatia can be named State Hydrometeorological Institute. Or, just maybe, have you some other reasons that are unclear to me in this moment to undo my change? I hope for a reply soon. Greetings. --The Nerd from Earth (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I already posted my rationale at Talk:Croatian Meteorological and Hydrological Service. Official names in foreign languages do not always correspond to direct translations of their native names, and this happens to be the case with DHMZ. Timbouctou (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Your recent editing history at Croatian Liberation Movement shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Tonel

Hi there TIMBOUCTOU, VASCO here,

i thought we had had this talk already, but here's a reminder: please (please!) don't remove runner-up honours in Cups, they count (only no good in LEAGUES), medals are awarded. Also, i don't think the numerals are all that relevant, except when a player as won many, not Tonel's case.

Attentively, from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, i guess you were offended by my message (that's what i deduce from your total silence), but i think i was polite overall. Nice weekend - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, OK. Timbouctou (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Croatian Liberation Movement

Hi Timbouctou. You had a lengthy discssion with an IP over this article about a month ago. I believe he's now created the article on the Simple English Wikipedia - simple:Croatian Liberation Movement. I was wondering if you might have a look at it for us and check it for POV problems. I don't have any knowledge on the subject, but I don't like seeing POV-pushing users who were rebuffed here move their efforts to another wiki. Osiris (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up although I'm kind of tired of it all. There's no doubt that HOP was an organisation which was originally founded by and maintained close contacts with Croatian nationalist extremists throughout the 1970s. I don't doubt that some members of it might have been involved in a handful of terrorist attacks or that they once upon a time organised some sort of training camps in Australia. However, AFAIK the organisation itself was never listed as such by any western government and it never claimed responsibility for any terrorist attacks (both of which are considered requirements for anything to be called "terrorist" on Wikipedia) and its political influence was always marginal. Since 1990 they relocated to Croatia, re-established themselves as a political party, and ran in elections a few times, always receiving a miniscule percentage of the vote, which is understandable since we are talking about a fairly anonymous group of right wing crackpots. The claims that IP has cobbled together there are for the most part misquoted and exaggerated as you have already explaned in the AfD discussion. I agree with your assessment. Timbouctou (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

TImbouctou, you are invited!

Maybe you can include some information on Croatian universities? I have invted you, because one of the purposes of this new project is to share information about the universities in Southeast Europe.--Comparativist1 (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know anything about the University of Belgrade and I don't think I can contribute meaningfully to the project. Thanks for the invite though. Timbouctou (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Velered kralja Tomislava.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Velered kralja Tomislava.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bulwersator (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Biography banner in talk pages

FYI... there is no "importance" parameter in the WikiProject Biography banner. It was replace a few years ago with specific work-group priorities. Examples are sports-priority, a&e-priority, politician-priority, musician-priority, etc. Bgwhite (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks for clarifying that for me. Timbouctou (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Timbouctou. You have new messages at Talk:Operation Storm ‎.
Message added 19:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WhiteWriter^speaks 19:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Timbouctou. You have new messages at Talk:Operation Storm.
Message added 19:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WhiteWriter^speaks 19:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Giovanni Cernogoraz

Would you consider nominating the article for the DYK section? One interesting fact: works as a waiter at his father's restaurant.[19] GregorB (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If you decide to make a DYK nomination, and I would love to see this article get there, drop me a line should you need any assistance. There's a five day limit for DYK nomination (mentioning this just in case) starting with the day the article appeared in the article space. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea, let's do it! Timbouctou (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I created the nomination page, hope I filled in everything right, the process got way more complicated than it used to be. Timbouctou (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No need for alarm

Regarding the latest section added to the Talk:Croatia - I don't see any reason for further discussion per WP:DNFT.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Giovanni Cernogoraz

A brief summary for your report:

• you started the "edit-war" just few minutes ago, removing informations without consensus (informations posted by days, and highlighted by the major Italian newspapers);
• only you're making comments like "(Italian) wikipedians are kind of obsessed about it";
• you're the only one who is doing disruptive comments ignoring the difference between minorities and dual citizenship, and repeating endlessly these provocations;
• you're the only one who removed several sources with "nonsense" or "nonsensical" (???!) as "motivation".

I think that perhaps it's better to stop your edit war and restore the original version. --Felisopus (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

1. What "information" exactly? That Cernogoraz had said that "he did not switch federations"? How useful. Because otherwise we would think that he did. Except that he did not. And we say so in the very first sentence.
2. Only I am stating the obvious.
3. We are talking about a sportsman, and for sportspeople the country they represent in international competitions is prety much all that counts.
4. Yeah. I call nonsensical stuff nonsense when I see it. I plan to continue doing that.

Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Storm

How pathetic[20], a "turn of phrase" indeed. That article is guarded 24 hours a day by a delegation who collectively aspire to mark the chapter as something positive and deny any wrongdoings whatsoever. But nothing invites more ridicule than a reference to the "international community", a way of adding sensation and utopia that the whole world less the antagonist is civilised and united and has a heart of gold. Reality: so-called "concerns" are voiced by figures close to the global elite, along with their sponsors and backers. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't really guard anything on Wikipedia, and I find your conspiracy theory monologue concerning. Regardless, I'm sure you've heard that this project relies on third party sources, the huge majority of which are (western) media outlets. They use the term "international community" as opposed to "world governments", as the latter is almost universally employed by conspiracy theorists. How this relates to "denying any wrongdoing whatsoever" beats me. You sound like you need a wikibreak. Timbouctou (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Come on Timboucouu, read every single article concerning the Homeland War - they are a joke! Every time between 1991 and 1995 Croatian and Serbian forces clashed, Croats emerged triumphant - how many times have I read "a surpise victory" where the author has presented his side as the lesser party up against the giant. In four years of Croatian victories, one only wonders how the opponent held onto the bulk for so long. Of course, there were times Serbs came out on top, but these articles are devoted not to the operation which repelled their opponent but to the aftermath and the atrocities they committed. Meanwhile, those acts which Croats also carried out seem to get minimal coverage in the articles which focus only on the military battle. I follow world affairs closely and have done for years and I know the scene inside out, regardless of whether I edit heavily on other pages. Whether it is Homeland War some time in 1993 or Mali today, one launches an operation, it either succeeds to fails, and invariably there are abuses and crimes carried out against the non-sympathetic population to make one's mark. I've known it in Libya by both sides last year, Syria today, Turkey over the years, Chechnya; China 70 years ago (ROV vs PROC), North and South Korea in years following truce, Sri Lanka over 20 years until recently, Afghanistan when it was split between Emirate and State, Ivory Coast from 2000 up to last year, the list is endless. And the only "conspirasist" is the one from whichever region who cries, "yeah, the others did it, but not we, we never - we have morals, we just fought against an evil aggressor!". International community only ever means world leaders with voices, how else do you define a loose confederation of 193 imbeciles that calls itself "United Nations". There is more public division in this world than you would have imagined if you were unaware of proceedings, and yet, "the international community" speaks with one voice. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Giovanni Cernogoraz at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. GregorB (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Croatian Liberation Movement

I would appreciate your comments only if they are not inserted in my text. Please be advised to put your comment in proper section For proposal or Against proposal--Sunil of India (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't vote on content here without actually discussing references. See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Also, try to refrain from contacting me directly and address your concerns at article's talk page instead. Thanks. Timbouctou (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no voting there, rather an attempt to rationally organize comments.--Sunil of India (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You deleted other editors' comments here and here. It is considered vandalism and is contrary to Wikipedia policies. You can reorganize them for clarity but outright deletion of comments you don't like will not help your cause. It will get you reported and banned though. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Some help regarding terrorist organizations, freedom fighters, etc..

I have noticed your "discussion" on the talk page of Croatian Liberation Movement and whether it is a terrorist organization. As with other militant/political groups, to be mentioned as a terrorist organization, most articles use the formula, "X group is recognized/designated as a terrorist organization by Y country/countries." Example, Hamas, Hezbollah, ASALA, al-Qaeda. This gives the reader an understanding of exactly which country has labeled a particular group as terrorist and is usually backed by a link to a government site of a particular country. Hope this helps. --Defensor Ursa 02:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

User:71.178.108.23

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Giovanni Cernogoraz

Hello! Your submission of Giovanni Cernogoraz at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Giovanni Cernogoraz

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on the DYK! I saw the ref problem by chance and it was fairly easy to fix, so no problem. BTW, I've been working on a DYK of my own - it's another distinguished Olympian... :-) GregorB (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Chronological summary of the 1960 Summer Olympics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Don Thompson, Vyacheslav Ivanov and Bernhard Knubel

Novigrad, Istria County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Novigrad

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

YRT

Next time don't delete claims like this, just put this template behind: because that's right thing to do in this situations. :-)

P.S. Now you have ref for this claim.

Best regards, --S T E V A N ^(talk) 15:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Club names

Hey, Timbouctu. I'm wondering what to do with this recent issue of clubs going bankrupt, then being founded as new clubs under a new name: Croatia Sesvete (now Croatia Prigorje) [21], Karlovac (now Karlovac 1919) [22], Varaždin (now Varaždin - Škola nogometa) [23]. Should the articles be moved to new names? Dr. Vicodine (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well it depends whether the newly formed entities are considered to be just a continuation of old clubs or new clubs altogether, i.e. whether this is just a matter of renaming or is this an entirely new club. Usually it is the national football association that has the final say on this as UEFA normally doesn't care and simply takes the clubs' official - but often embellished - stance on their own history as correct. But HNS rarely says anything on the matter. So if it is a case of simple renaming then yes - the articles should be renamed and moved. However all the clubs you mentioned seem to have been established as new legal entities precisely because they wanted to distance themselves legally from their former incarnations. And if that is the case we should treat them as separate clubs which merit their own articles, which means WP:NOTABLE kicks in. And since they all compete in non-professional leagues as they were newly formed, almost none of them pass our notability threshold. So in my opinion the article on, for example, Croatia Sesvete should describe the club as defunct, with a short note saying that the club went bankrupt and was re-established by Croatia Prigorje, which in turn does not merit its own article until it appears at least in the second round of the Croatian Cup. It goes the same for NK Varaždin, which means NK Varteks (founded 2011) should be deleted or merged into NK Varaždin, purely on notability grounds. Timbouctou (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, then I will leave it as it is. This is similar to the Rangers saga here on wiki but in this case, few people care about it. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Only the problem is that HNS lets new clubs to compete in Croatian Cup based on the coefficient of their predecessors. So Varaždin and Karlovac will enter the first round of 2012–13 cup competition even though they were registered as new clubs and joined county leagues. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ante Puljić

Zdravo, ne znam zašto si vratio Puljića na staro ali čovjek je, prema Comet sustavu HNSa rođen u Mostaru. Ako ti je izvor stranica Dinama, samo ću primjetiti da je, kao i mnogo šta na njoj (primjerice, izvješća s utakmica), i članak o njemu pun grešaka/neistina, npr. da je debitirao sa 17 godina za momčad Zadra (u koju je prešao sa 19 godina). Nogometno je obrazovanje prošao u HNK Ljubuškom, samo je zadnju juniorsku sezonu, 2005-2006, proveo u Hajduku. Zlopseto (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sedlar source at Ante Pavelic

Hi Timbouctou, could you have a look at the links I've posted at the RSN thread? Some need language skills I lack. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have a look at it over the weekend, can't do it earlier because of my day job. Timbouctou (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

About some deleting

Vajstina (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Why did you delete some of my addings of Category:Serbian-Croatian people? I have seen your comment, that some of source were unreferenced, that is fair enough. But what with the others, (example: Arsen Dedić) where is clearly that person has booth Serbian and Croatian roots. Was the concept of booth Serbian-Croatian people unclear to you? As Serbian-Croatian, I have considered thoose people with national origins from this two nations, and self declaration (that most of them had to do in 90's) is less important, so it is more biological than social category. If you agree, there is a really great number of theese people, and therefor I see the need for creating souchVajstina (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC) page. If you are interested, help me to build it to be even better, and if you disagree, just propose it for deleton, but PLEASE stop deleting some obvious things. If you insist on references, it is not a problem, they will be added. Happy NYVajstina (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Category:Serbian-Croatian people is redundant, poorly defined and completely made-up. Ethnicity is defined by self-declaration, whereas nationality is defined by country of birth, and we already have categories for all of these, like Category:Serbs of Croatia, Category:Croats of Serbia, etc. In addition, you added dozens of articles to your fictional category, based on absolutely no references. For example what makes Neda Arnerić or Nikola Karabatić "Serbian-Croatian"? What you are doing is pure original research. Timbouctou (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Chechnya Film Festival

Hello, and thanks for tagging this article for notability back in 2008. The tag's still in place, and you may want to consider taking it to the Notability Notceboard or AfD. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Chechnya Film Festival

Thanks for tagging this article for notability back in 2008. It's still tagged; you may want to take it to the Notability noticeboard or AfD to get it resolved. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Croatian Constitution 1990

Hello, I just noticed your reverts of my edits regarding the changes to the Croatian constitution made in December 1990. I know that this is a controvertial topic, and I could be wrong, but from my own reading of the Croatian constitution, the question of the status of Serbs is a little bit more ambigious than just saying that they were demoted to minority status. Leaving aside the questionable notion that the Serbs formed a constituant nation in Croatia in 1974, the 1990 constitution actually says the following:

"Republika Hrvatska ustanovljuje se kao nacionalna država hrvatskoga naroda i država pripadnika inih naroda i manjina koji su njezini državljani: Srba, Muslimana, Slovenaca, Čeha, Slovaka, Talijana, Madžara, Židova i drugih, kojima se jamči ravnopravnost s građanima hrvatske narodnosti i ostvarivanje nacionalnih prava u skladu s demokratskim normama OUN i zemalja slobodnoga svijeta." (The Republic of Croatia is established as the national state of the Croatian nation, and the state of members of other nations and minorities, who are its citizens: Serbs, Muslims, Slovenes, Czechs, Slovaks, Italians, Hungarians , Jews and others, who are guaranteed equality with citizens of Croatian nationality and the realization of national rights in accordance with the democratic norms of the United Nations and the free world.)

From my own reading, the status of Serbs is, at best, highly ambigious in the 1990 Constitution. Again, from my own and various historians readings, the changes did not significantly alter their status from the 1974 constitution, which defined Croatia as “the national state of the Croatian nation, the state of the Serb nation in Croatia and the state of the nationalities which live within it” although I think we should mention that Krajina Serbs interpereted it as an attack on their rights and a lowering of their status.

What do you think? Ana Radic (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Since the whole point of that section is to describe the historic context of the times, the perception of changes brought by the 1990 constitution is the only one relevant, regardless of our own readings some 23 years later. And whether the status of Serbs of Croatia was indeed "demoted" can only be established by comparing it to the 1974 text, which, if I'm not mistaken, had put Serbs on par with Croats in its definition of what SR Croatia was. The 1990 constitution simply lumped them together with all other minorities and explicitly defined Croatia as a nation state of Croats plus everybody else. It is pointless to discuss whether interpretations were true or not, since it's the perceptions that had shaped history. The 1990 Croatian government had quite openly flirted with Croatian nationalism and the 1990 constitution was a reflection of that (if all Croatian citizens are equal anyway, then what's the point in dividing them explicitly into Croats and minorities at all?) Timbouctou (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, I agree with you on the importance of perception, and at the time the constitution was viewed by the Krajina Serbs as stripping away their constitutional rights. It's important to be historically accurate though; we know for example that the SDS claim that the Sahovnica was an "Ustasa symbol" is false. I will say that the 1974 constitution very specifically referred to Croatia as a “the national state of the Croatian nation, the state of the Serb nation in Croatia and the state of the nationalities which live within it”, the term "national state of the Croatian nation" for me implies a higher status for Croats, and the dividing of people into "Croats and minorities" is nothing new in a Yugoslav context. I've always found the Stalinist notion of 'Constituent Nations' to be very problematic for a democratic country anyway, as it effectively treats people as second class citizens. Ana Radic (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Franjo Tudjman

Dear sir, the previously done edit does not represent vandalism. Please check for sources and proofs on internet if you do not believe. 141.136.242.52 (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not need to check anything. It is you who are supposed to provide "sources and proofs", which you didn't do. Timbouctou (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikify

Hello there! Nice to meet you. Could you be so kind and have a quick look at some of the articles I've wikified for the current drive and tell me if you find any editing faults? Much appreciated. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Translator needed to identify a person's titles

We're having trouble verifying the information on Hidajet Repovac in Semir_Osmanagić#Ph.D._thesis which was added here. The talk page discussion is here. The machine translations are unclear. You're listed as a translator at Wikipedia:Translators_available#Croatian-to-English, so I was hoping you can help. As I understand it, the differences between the languages are small, and I hope you'll take no offense in my asking. Below is the source and Repovac's profile at his university:

• http://www.bhdani.com/arhiva/147/inter.htm
• http://www.fpn.unsa.ba/ba/nastavno-osoblje/repovac-hidajet/

I hope you might be able to help! I'd already asked Arny (talk · contribs), but I was hoping for a faster response. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look and get back to you soon. Timbouctou (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, the first link is an archived interview with Repovac published in Bosnian magazine BH Dani which describes Repovac as a university professor who teaches "sociology of culture and history of civilisation" at the at the Faculty of Political Science in Sarajevo (FPN). In the interview he talks about multiculturalism and various nationalist movements in Bosnia. Neither Osmanagić nor any archeological topic are mentioned in the article.

The second link is his personal page at the FPN website with his biography. It says he has been granted a tenure in 1993, that he is a sociologist and that he teaches courses on "sociology of culture" and "history of civilization" topics. He published articles in sociology journals and is a member of many sociology associations blablabla. Is there anything specific you want to know? Timbouctou (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated. So you don't think any of it states an official title? Strange that it wouldn't on his official page.

The information that we're specifically trying to verify is "...Hidajet Repovac, Professor of the sociology of culture and history of civilization in the Faculty of Political Sciences." From what I've read, and your translation, it seems to be fine. Do you agree? --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Well Repovac is a professor at the Faculty of Political Sciences at Sarajevo University, and his area of expertise is sociology, that much is certain. Which courses he teaches specifically is difficult to verify. His official page is rather vague on that, "sociology of culture" and "history of civilization" are listed as rough estimations of the topics he deals with. Since you are asking for this information in regard to Osmanagić and his (pseudo)archeological endeavours, I'd say it is important to stress that although Repovac might have been Osmanagić's PhD thesis mentor as stated earlier, Repovac is neither a historian nor an archeologist. So I'd just describe him as a sociology professor. Timbouctou (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! --Ronz (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

GNK Dinamo

Hello, Timbouctou. Can you answer me why you undid my edit for GNK Dinamo? I can't see any reason for it because that are all facts transferred from official site of GNK Dinamo (as I see you speak Croatian and will understand what there is written in section of history) and because of that we can't talk about whitewashing of history. I hope that all people which edit this page aren't biased, otherwise page doesn't have sense anymore.

Best, Billiboom (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue of Dinamo's history has been debated at length in the past, and if you have issues with the current version of the article please raise this at Talk:GNK Dinamo Zagreb. In any case, merely transcribing what the official website currently says is not acceptable, because the club's official stance has changed several times, and various discrepancies in official published material, such as club's almanachs, UEFA yearbooks, Yugoslav and Croatian FA books, must be explained in the article. Who knows, maybe Dinamo decide next summer that they were actually founded in 1815, and decide to hold a celebration of its bicentennial. Timbouctou (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I put answer on club's talk page so you can check it.Billiboom (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Velered kralja Tomislava.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Velered kralja Tomislava.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

László Bulcsú vs Bulcsú László

Hi! I saw your remark and bold move at the Talk:László Bulcsú re page move request. Even though László is a common Hungarian first name, in case of this particular person this is his surname (Bulcsú is his first name). I listed a couple of sources verifying that at the talk page. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

at WT:YU

I'm not sure why you responded to my message; my indentation was precise, it was directed at Direktor, not you. In any case, I chuckled at the end seeing you use Kordić to reinforce your point. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry then :-) I just felt I needed to clarify my position, which is essentially the same as Kordic's. No doubt Serbian and Croatian are extremely closely related but for most practical (non-linguist) purposes this is totally beside the point. That is the position of most real linguists, and belongs somewhere in the middle, between nutters of right-wing and left-wing political persuasions. And Kordic is almost always misinterpreted by members of both groups. Cheers man. Timbouctou (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Bulcsú László article

I see that article has been deleted. Where do one gets notification about when certain article is nominated for deletion? Since I'm not on here every day I missed any possible clues. I have spend hours and hours improving that article, finding links and sources, only for it to be deleted, just like that, without me being able to support it.

I have found some more articles that need to, or might need to be deleted, for you to check them out and ask for their deletion.

Linguists:

[24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39] ("Mark Baltin has two wonderful dogs, Xana, a former Seeing Eye dog, and a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel named Winnie.") That's my favorite part of an article about a linguist on Wikipedia. Beats Croatian translation of a poem from the Akkadian language by a country mile. :)

Others (historians):

[40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51] (Only had a patience to check letter A)--Rovoobo Talk 08:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The Deletion discussion was opened on 29 July and was closed on 6 August, and the notification about it was posted on top of the article. You had seven days to voice you opinion. You didn't. You also had ample time to familiarize yourself with WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. You didn't. Timbouctou (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not here every day. I'm sorry for that, otherwise I would have noticed. No comment from you on the articles I found? Are they OK to stay on Wikipedia or will they be deleted? Some of them are really small, like one sentence long and no sources. Some of them could be a good comparison to Bulcsú László article, yes?--Rovoobo Talk 14:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me most of them pass WP:ACADEMIC, but if you think otherwise feel free to take some or all of them to AfD. Good luck. Timbouctou (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't care any more. I thought you might.Rovoobo Talk 15:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

HŠK Građanski Zagreb

Hi Timbouctou. Not sure to be honest why you have added back the content I removed, it seemed pretty obvious to me why it was not relevant. Firstly, the section is wholly unsourced and so can be removed at will really, there's no real counter argument to that, it's essentially OR as it stands.

Secondly, the prose bears little relevance to the club itself. The first paragraph perhaps is useful to the article, but as it is unreffed is essentially pov as it stands. The second paragraph is about the Yugoslav national team and does not even mention the club, it is competely superfluous to this article. The third paragraph is again perfhaps relevant to the history of the club but is still unreferenced (saying you have taken information from a database without providing iany indication as to where that database is does not count as a source. Moving on to the table, it is excessive in length. Firstly, it is preferable that "notable players" are mentioned in sourced prose rather than a list, that way some context is provided to their notability. Secondly, the fact that the list has nearly forty people on it but covers a period of only 20 years would suggest that there is in fact nothing particularly notable about being an international player at the club during this period. Half the players listed amassed fewer than 10 caps and only five more than 20. Perhaps it would be fairer to say that the truly notable players are the five with more than 20 caps. Admittedly this is an arbitrary total, but it seems a more sensible arbitrary total than 1 cap. Such a criterion cannot be applied sensibly on a widespread basis by deifinition (as I said in my edit summary, consider Brca, almost every player they have would fulfill that criterion. Either way, the section is a considerable chunk of the article that needs to referenced as a matter of policy or it should be removed. Fenix down (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

1. I would prefer if you tagged unsourced sections with appropriate templates instead of outright deleting them.

2. The prose bears a lot of relevance as it illustrates the importance of the club for football in Yugoslavia and establishes it as a powerhouse in the interwar era.

3. Everything is sourced from the Reprezentacija.rs website, which is the official Serbian FA database

4. I see little benefit in turning a list of 37 players into prose as that prose is likely to become completely unreadable.

5. I kind of disagree that there is "nothing particularly notable about being an international player at the club during this period". Were there any other such clubs in the country at the time? In any country? And who are you to make that judgement anyway? There are plenty of club articles which list capped players as notables.

6. I don't really care about your comparisons to Barca nor do I think that each and every criterion must be applicable to each and every club in the world. For example - we already had a consensus years ago to allow runner-up competition places to be included into "Honours" sections for smaller clubs - but not for bigger ones.

7. Let me emphasize - I resent you outright deleting entire sections instead of just tagging them as unreferenced. What you are doing is on the verge of vandalism.

Timbouctou (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Fine I accept your points. However when a section is of that length and fully referenced I don't think it is on the verge of vandalism to remove it at all. It can easily be added back with references. To be honest I'm not sure why you thought it was fine to have such an unsourced section in place. As far as I could see the link you provided above was alluded to but no direct sourcing was provided. Fenix down (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

DRN

Hi,

I noticed that you edited one section of Anti-Serb_sentiment article which is disputed and which is subject of the discussion ad WP:DRN (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Anti-Serb_sentiment. Since discussion is kind of stale right what do you think about joining it and presenting your view about this dispute which might help resolving this dispute? Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Re

I will consult with the other editors on this issue, but I will stop till then. All the best.--MirkoS18 (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Croatian help needed!

Hello Timbouctou, I'm contacting you because we need some Croatian translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on hr.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Croatian Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Need help from Croatian users

Jimbo Wales is asking for aditional input from Croatian users regarding the situation on Croatian Wikipedia. Please feel free to voice your opinion. Regards!--В и к и T 19:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Bešker's assessment

Regarding the Bešker's JL article you mentioned: his assessment is precisely what Jimbo asked for in his talk page ("can someone ask as many of [the Croatian Wikipedia editors] as is practical to pop here for a discussion?"). Apart from being a Wikipedian, Bešker is a well-respected journalist, so his views carry a certain weight.

Since you have the paper, could you post a (condensed?) translation of the article for Jimbo's consideration? GregorB (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, no problem, although I am at work now and can't devote much time to it right away. I could do it later in the afternoon if that's okay. Timbouctou (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, thanks! GregorB (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, that was quick... I could not resist and bought the paper. (I don't remember ever buying JL on Monday.) IB makes some good points. Also, rips Jimbo a new one. (I tend to agree with him on this one, although for somewhat different reasons.) Of course, no need to post the article in its entirety, and IB's style is indeed not conducive to easy translation. OK, do we submit it to the discussion then?

BTW, I actually enjoyed reading your writeup in the Jimbo's talk page. I always like a bit of panache... GregorB (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I just felt I had to say what was on my mind. I spent two days around that place and I felt as if I was in a madhouse. I've put Bešker's translation at the talk page just now. I personally don't agree with him entirely - nobody read all 140,000 articles - a) does that mean nobody is entitled to have an opinion on the 20 or 30 or 200 that they've read?, and b) we all know not all articles are equally popular and not all articles is what majority of people come to an encyclopedia for. Of course articles about recent history is the topic that anyone interested is going to measure a Croatian Wikipedia's standards by. Measuring Wikipedias by comparing articles on football clubs or obscure types of lizards would probably get us nowhere. And his assessment of Jimbo's proposition is a bit harsh. I am Croatian who majored in English in Croatia so I am well familiar with the differences in how we perceive our language and how it is perceived in Anglophone linguistics. And the two positions are much more reconcilable than people think. So although I disagree with the idea, I understand where Jimbo is coming from. Still, it is normal that people have differing opinions, ahd Bešker, being an editor himself, certainly has the right to say what he feels. Timbouctou (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I saw what was going on in Kafić. I thought I had seen it all, but I guess this tops everything. Surreal stuff.

Bešker's argument about 140k articles is technically correct but muddles the issue. Surely one is not bound to find bias in articles on marine life and such (although, after what I've seen lately, all bets are off). He spends a good quarter of the article berating Jovanović, not exactly known as a cautious communicator, merely for not being precise. Well, I've seen worse.

What I find problematic in Jimbo's idea is... You know, when he says it was "always a mistake to have separate Wikipedias in this part of the world", to me it sounded a bit like "The natives are getting restless. Let's corral them off until they behave. It's for their own good.". It's in good faith, granted, it actually might be for our own good, but it is not going to fly.

Anyway, back to the point: I'm going to leave a pointer to Bešker's text on Jimbo's talk tomorrow. And, since Bešker is an editor, I thought it would be only fair to drop him a note about his article being used here. With that in mind, you might want to... you know, "adjust" certain statements you might feel uncomfortable with. :-) GregorB (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You mean, at Talk:Croatian Wikipedia? Timbouctou (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup. I have no problem with this at all though, it's your call... GregorB (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Btw I would not support the merger idea neither. There are several reasons but the biggest one would be that nobody would read it since the speakers' perception of languages and reality are different from each other, regardless how slight these differences may seem to an outsider. It would be like herding Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox believers into the same church, forcing them to use it at the same time, because hey - they are all fans of Jesus Christ, and they all carry Bibles, so let them work out their differences. Joy was also right in saying that such a move would be insulting for all Croatians as it would mean only fascists speak Croatian. But I think we are all on the same page here. Nobody wants to see CW go or merge, but then nobody knows what to do with it in its current state. What that project needs is a complete reorganisation and new people. Maybe a temporary shutdown for a few months would help things? Followed by re-opening and fresh admin elections? Because I think fanatics are addicted to it, and if Wikipedia disappeared they would gradually become addicted to other places on the internet like far-right forums or hkv.hr. The places some of the regulars clearly belong to anyway. Timbouctou (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that there is going to be a reboot at CW, with dozen or so desysoppings, maybe even a complete admin reset. Transitional period with external monitoring, perhaps? Who knows? As far as I know, this is unprecedented. Some fairly drastic methods will almost certainly be necessary.

I've been thinking about this hypothetical merged sh wiki, and no, it wouldn't work. And, funnily enough, not because of articles like Croatian War of Independence and Draža Mihailović. With an equivalent of WP:ENGVAR/WP:TIES in place, the former would be in Croatian while the latter would be in Serbian. Great, to each his own. But Croats will hate to read about and contribute to an article like, say, multiple sclerosis in Serbian, while Serbs will not enjoy reading about e.g. abortion in Croatian. I can only imagine what will Bosniaks have to say. For all parties, this is not just that they're not going to like it: it will be unacceptable, a dealbreaker - and by this, I mean just the articles without a content dispute. The greatest obstacle to that outcome, though, is the sheer volume of work needed to merge the existing four editions. The idea is unworkable in pretty much every aspect.

I also thought about starting a discussion within WP Croatia, but is there a point? We are already having a discussion, albeit in different places. Moreover, I feel there is little we can do at present except state our opinions to Jimbo. GregorB (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I have also thought about it a lot recently. I am thoroughly against merging because I don't think there's a chance in hell anybody would be willing to read it. It is 100% likely that all the editors and admins from C, B and S wikipedia would leave to work on newly spawned language-specific encyclopedias, starting with thousands of articles lifted from the merged Wiki, leaving the merged version a ghost town. Plus, this is not like in the old days of Yugoslavia when Croats could read Serbian and vice versa with no problem, it would be difficult for people who grew up after the breakup to adjust (it's not just a matter of different scripts like Jimbo thinks), so it would be a practical problem as well. So I would keep them apart.

However, I'd maybe introduce some sort of a cross-wiki committee to deliberate on and align articles on a specific sets of controversial topics. There's no need for articles on marine life (to use your example) to be identical across all three wiki's - but there is a need to quell the potential each wiki has as a platform for chauvinism and nationalism. We all know what kind of topics and articles attract that kind of attention so why wouldn't we have a place where Serbian, Croatian and Bosniak editors could meet and decide together on drafts of articles related to controversial topics, which is pretty much the entire 19th and 20th century history articles. Kind of like a cross-wiki mediation thing, where credibility of sources could also be discussed, article by article. After all, that would make sense - for peoples who became independent nations following the breakup of Yugoslavia to write the story of that period together, and everything concerning the periods that came chronologically before and after that they do on their own on their own wikis.

Although - when you think about it, the only problem with all these smaller wikis really is that their standard of quality way lower than over here. Tomobe talked about that at Talk:Croatian Wikipedia. Simply raising the bar in terms of policies and referencing and quality assessment would solve a lot of problems that they currently or (potentially might) have. Timbouctou (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know there actually was an "exchange" between hr and sr wiki (sh probably too) in which articles - especially those that filled the gaps - were translated (a trivial matter, obviously) and otherwise adapted. Still, this is short of actual collaboration, as the editors were still effectively walled inside their respective wikis, with only the content moving back and forth. A cross-wiki committee could be a great idea - away from mechanically producing content, and towards improved article quality, processes, policies, mediation, and cooperation. The individual wikis seem to be below the critical mass for most of that. Are people going to recognize the opportunity, though? Well, this is where things start to look bleak... GregorB (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a brief remark for Timbouctou: I haven't written nothing about merging of two Norwegian editions, but I've mentioned Danish and Bokmål. Inoslav Bešker (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. Feel free to correct that. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lastovo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ubli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 Wikification Drive

This message was delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To stop receiving messages from WikiProject Wikify, remove your name from the recipients page. -- EdwardsBot (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.

I just want to thank you for your last revert of my edit...you've just made me realize how much I detest Wikipedia. You and Direktor reverting me on the basis of some ridiculous quasi-semantics issue is something to behold...I am in awe of you... You two are my idols. Can I be your friend? Shokatz (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe you will have no problem befriending many like-minded individuals at Croatian Wikipedia. I suggest you try looking for friends there. Timbouctou (talk) 08:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Boro Primorac

You do realize you have broken the WP:3RR rule on Boro Primorac? Also WP:OPENPARA clearly states under #3: Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity); In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Boro Primorac was born in FPR Yugoslavia not Bosnia and Herzegovina. We do not know what passport (it could be Croatian, French, who knows...) he holds and that fact is unknown to us. The only valid and viable designation is ethno-geographic designation. Shokatz (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

All I did was revert your vandalism. And no - his ethnicity is not relevant to his notability (he is NOT famous for being a Bosnian Croat footballer, he IS famous for being a footballer). Also, the claim is unreferenced. Also, there is a long time consensus that footballers from former Yugoslavia are described per their present-day country of birth (unless they appeared for some of the teams which were formed after Yugoslavia's dissolution which is not the case here anyway). There are literally hundreds of similar articles you can consult on this, from Slaven Zambata to Dragan Džajić. Timbouctou (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually what YOU did is vandalism as it goes directly against WP:OPENPARA. He cannot be Bosnian as Bosnia and Herzegovina did not exist as a sovereign state, Yugoslavia did. It is common practice that sportsmen and all other notable personalities from Bosnia and Herzegovina are designated by their ethnic affiliation. For example Blaž Slišković, another ex-Yugoslav player who is ethnic Croat from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Please revert your edits or I will report you. Shokatz (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

What about the small matter of you edit-warring to insert unreferenced information on people's ethnicity? That conveniently slipped your mind did it? Btw it is not referenced for Blaž Slišković either. How do we know he is not a Bosnian Serb instead, and why is his ethnicity relevant for his notability? He might as well be a Jew or an Eskimo. Why does it matter? Which reference supports the idea that his ethnicity (as opposed to his nationality) is even worth mentioning in the opening paragraph at all? Timbouctou (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh I'd really like to hear where did I insert unreferenced information on people's ethnicity, really interested to see it. You would do well to start reading the articles carefully. The category Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina was long present in the article before I even came to edit there. As for Blaž Slišković you should check the references once more (if you even did it at all) before making such bold statements. In any case since you show no willingness to budge consider yourself reported for violating WP:3RR. Shokatz (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

1. There is not a single reference in the article on Boro Primorac supporting the claim that he is a Bosnian Croat at all. I think it is you who needs to read the article.

2. There is not a single source supporting the idea that his ethnicity is relevant for his notability at all.

3. You yourself violated the 3RR [52], [53], [54].

4. So you edit-warred to keep an unreferenced piece of information which is not relevant for the subject's notability in the opening paragraph of a biography of a living person. I believe it is you who will get blocked upon any formal complaint.

5. Please refrain from trolling on my talk page. Timbouctou (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Shokatz (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Boro Primorac. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  —Darkwind (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify: November Newsletter and December Drive

Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To unsubscribe remove your username from this list. EdwardsBot (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Vlatko Marković

Hi! Vlatko Marković had two internatinal match like a head of Croatian international team.Croatia - International Matches 1990-1995 His first match was in 1992:

07, friendly game, Zagreb, Stadion Maksimir, October 22, 1992, 50,000 spectators, referee Hutak (Hun) CROATIA - MEXICO 3-0 (1-0) CROATIA: (Coach Vlatko Markovic)

His second last match was

1 9 9 3

08, friendly game, Zagreb, Stadion Maksimir, June 25, 1993, attendance n/a, referee Jamsek (Slo) CROATIA - UKRAINE 3-1 (1-0) CROATIA: (Coach Vlatko Markovic)

In 1994 the first match was the head coach Blažević. Best regards - Csurla (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Csurla. The RSSSF source is wrong. The October 1992 game against Mexico was still coached by Stanko Poklepović, who previously led the team in a tour around Australia in July 1992 where they played 3 games. Both Dražan Jerković (3 games 1990-91) and Stanko Poklepović (4 games in 1992) were temporary managers who led the team as Croatian FA awaited international recognition by UEFA and FIFA. Vlatko Marković was appointed as the first permanent manager some time in 1993, and only led the team in a single match, in a June 1993 friendly against Ukraine, before being replaced by Blažević in March 1994 who had his debut later that month against Spain. Here is one source confirming this, and the official Croatian FA website agrees. Timbouctou (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. - Csurla (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

◅ PRODUCER (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. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you PRODUCER, best wishes to you too! Timbouctou (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

:)

Dear Timbouctou, just to wish you a marry Christmas to you and your loved ones. FkpCascais (talk) 08:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks FkpCascais, I wish a very merry and cheerful Christmas to you and your family! Timbouctou (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Tomobe03 (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. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Best wishes for the holidays and a very successful new year!--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tomobe03, best wishes to you too! Timbouctou (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holidays to you too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Timbouctou/Misc/List of tallest buildings in Zagreb

This seems to be attracting some unwanted attention. Can we delete it, please? It's hard enough to patrol the actual page... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I was not planning on moving it to article namespace anytime soon anyway. Timbouctou (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Move of River Seine crossings article

Why did you remove the word "river" from the name of this article, please? - Denimadept (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Because there's no need for it (main article is titled just "Seine") and per List of crossings of the Danube. Timbouctou (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jan Pieterszoon Coen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Batavia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Hey dude

Thanks for the kind words! The hr wiki affair really did put me under heavy (if self-inflicted) strain, but I guess it merely accelerated the process, it was not a cause in itself. I need to relax a bit and let things take their course; I really hope it's just a phase... GregorB (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Water polo at the 1984 Summer Olympics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Milorad Krivokapić (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Slovenia

Welcome, Timbouctou, to the WikiProject Slovenia! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on Slovenia-related topics, please list them at our announcement page and tag their talk page with our project template {{WikiProject Slovenia}}. A few features that you might find helpful:

• The project's Navigation box points to most of the pages in the project that might be of use to you.
• Most of the important discussions related to the project take place on the project's main talk page; you may find it useful to watchlist it.

Here are some tasks you can do (watch):

• Requests: Jože Tisnikar (sl), Protestant Reformation in the Slovene Lands (sl), Metlika black (sl)
• Wikify: Russia–Slovenia relations
• Unreferenced: Inner Carniola, Litostroj, Pavel Golia, Predjama Castle
• Cleanup: Edvard Ravnikar, Škofja Loka, Inex-Adria Aviopromet Flight 1308
• Expand: Education in Slovenia
• Stubs: Ajdovi žganci, Čop Street, Omar Naber, Radenska
• NPOV: Gregorij Rožman, Siddharta (band)
• Portal maintenance: Update News, Did you know, announcements, and suggest Selected article and picture
• Help assess the quality of 63 unassessed articles
• Take/Add requested photographs

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any of the more experienced members of the project, and we'll be very happy to help you. Again, welcome, and thank you for joining this project! --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

my response

You have a response here, [55]. Have a good day. (Lilicneiu (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)). (Lilicneiu (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)).

Gjakova

I don't care what it was called in Yugoslavia or in present day Croatia because that is not relevant, all I care about is the WP:CommonName in the English Language as this is English Wikipedia. Please revert your edit. IJA (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed and there are many examples that trump it quite easily (we refer to Dubrovnik as Ragusa, we refer to Gdansk as Danzig, we refer to New York as New Amsterdam, we sometimes choose Constantinople instead of Istanbul, etc.) The choice often depends on what was the most common English name used for the place in that period. Besides, both names in this case are official and of equal status and we have redirects pointing to main city articles. Your edit-warring is unacceptable. Timbouctou (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Both names were used historically. And please don't compare to cities where there has been an actual name change. And let me guess, your edit warring is acceptable? It is wikipedia policy to use the most recognisable name per WP:COMMONAME. IJA (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

People who were born in Yugoslavia were born into a country where Serbo-Croatian was the official national language (along with Macedonian and Slovenian). And all three languages used Serbo-Croatian placenames for settlements in Kosovo. And all foreign publications used them as well. Later political events do not change that fact. And not all of the above cases involved "actual name changes". Timbouctou (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't use official names per WP:CommonName. Also Albanian had official status in Kosovo. IJA (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah so? SAP Kosovo was just a small part of the country. Notice the phrasing "official national languages" I used above. Albanian was used only regionally. You are violating the policy on biographies which says we use official contemporary names for birthplaces. Timbouctou (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The contemporary name is Gjakova. IJA (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

And you came to this conclusion how exactly? Timbouctou (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Novi Plamen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Karl Kraus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Vladimir Nazor Award

Could you add a description of what the annotations mean? I must admit I couldn't figure it out. There is also an asterisk next to Malec's name, I suppose that's because he declined the award. GregorB (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I can do it later today or tomorrow. Winners marked with † represent shared awards, and you are right about Malec, the asterisk is there to indicate that he declined to accept the award. I had put the markings earlier when I compiled the list and I meant to add a section with notes later, but I simply forgot about it. Timbouctou (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! GregorB (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Kyrenia / Girne District

Thank you for correcting my change in the english wikipedia text Kyrenia District. As you certainly suspect, I was mislead by the english articles about the other 4 districts of de facto TRNC, and thought the number six instead of five would be just a typo. It would be clearer to have a text about the traditional district Kyrenia, and another one about the present turkish district Girne, though the territory is the same (see e.g. the greek wikipedia text el:Επαρχία Γκιρνέ for the present turkish district). --ThomasPusch (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Amphibians of Albania

Category:Amphibians of Albania, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 12:37, Wednesday, May 15, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Naples, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parthenope (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

pron

Molim te, pogledaj razliku u funkcioniranju predloška, s tim pron i bez njega, npr. na stranici Ivica Kostelić. --IvanOS 19:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Bez predloška ne piše koji je jezik, što ionako nije niti potrebno jer koji bi jezik uopće bio ako se radi o hrvatskoj osobi? Timbouctou (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A zašto ne bi pisalo koji je jezik? Pogledaj: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 itd. Za onu izmjenu na članku o Jastrebarskom, pogledaš na mađarsku wikipediju i vidjet ćeš da stoji naziv koji se ne koristi. --IvanOS 19:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Jednostavno zato što je suvišno. Nitko ne pretpostavlja da je izgovor imena hrvatskog skijaša napisan na turskom ili uzbekistanskom. Na engleskoj Wikipediji izgovor se sutomatski smatra engleskim ako ne piše koji je jezik, ali u imenima mjesta i ljudi drugog izgovora osim lokalnog u 99% slučajeva ionako niti nema. Čemu onda to? Ima li itko tko riječ "Split" izgovara drugačije od Hrvata? Timbouctou (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Za hrvatski je suvišno, ali za sve druge jezike nije. Zanimljiv slučaj. --IvanOS 20:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ako misliš da je tvoje mišljenje u većini, pokreni temu o tome na WP:Croatia. Također, ne znam da li između mađarskog i "svih drugih jezika" stoji znak jednakosti, ali ako jest tako - to je doista zanimljiv slučaj. Timbouctou (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23... i tako bih mogao pisati u nedogled, ali neću s obzirom da očito nisi pogledao ni sva prva 4 primjera. --IvanOS 20:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Nisi trebao pisati ništa, dovoljno je bilo da pročitaš moju prošlu poruku i pokreneš tu temu na WP:Croatia. Pozdrav. Timbouctou (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Btw za većinu primjera koje si naveo postoji više mogućih izgovora, pa je stoga potrebno naglasiti o kojemu izgovoru se radi (Krakow ima 3 moguća - 2 engleska i 1 poljski; Reykjavik ima 2 - islandski i engleski; Oslo ima 3 - 1 engleski i 2 norveška, Stockholm ima 3 moguća švedska, etc. Ostali su dovoljno poznati da ih već govornici engleskog (krivo) izgovaraju). Ništa od navedenog ne može se reći za Belišće, Osijek i ostala mjesta po Hrvatskoj. Timbouctou (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Your repetitive violations of the edit warring policy, esp. in hot-button issues, are what caused this. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of my "repetitive violations of the edit warring policy". If you are referring to my edits on Vukovar, I did not violate WP:3RR. I had two reverts on 1 May (upholding agreement reached at WP:CRO), and the article is not subject to a 1RR limitation anyway. Perhaps it should be, and that would in any case be a far more suitable course of action instead of blocking me for 1 month(?!). In addition, your block (incurred for not violating rules) came about 21 hours after my last edit on the article, which kind of goes against the idea that blocks are meant to be preventative, instead of punitive. In addition, you decided not to block two other editors with the same number of reverts on that article, like User:Sokac121 and User:Brianyoumans, both of whom edited the article after me. You have some explaining to do. Timbouctou (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I apologize, Timbouctou - I seem to have inadvertently landed you in hot water. Since Joy had been involved before, they seemed like an appropriate admin to appeal to. I hope this is resolved quickly. Brianyoumans (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, Joy justified his actions by mentioning seeing "familiar faces" in recent edit-warring. Which is quite interesting as my last edits on that article before the recent squabbles was in September 2011. Which means that, evidenced by article's editing history, I have missed previous edit-wars in February 2013 and September 2013. I cannot conclude anything other than that this block was arbitrary and heavy-handed, and the reasoning offered was nothing short of misleading. Timbouctou (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Timbouctou (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Multiple reasons for unblock. 1. I did not violate edit-warring rules. 2. The block was imposed putatively rather than preventatively. 3. Out of atleast four editors involved over at Vukovar only me and one other seem to have been singled out for this sort of punishment. 4. I explained my edits at article talk page and I edited to uphold consensus previously reached at WP:Croatia. 5. I can only conclude that this is abuse of admin powers and I intend to file a formal complaint following my unblock. Timbouctou (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Just, wow. Here's a few things to remember:

• Consensus can change, so reverting to an "old" consensus is unacceptable
• You don't have to break WP:3RR to be edit-warring - you can actually edit-war with a single edit
• This is NOT your first block for edit-warring, so you are fully aware of this
• Because you don't understand the above 3 facts, this block is very obviously preventative, not punitive, and is correct in face
• Blocks are escalating in nature because you're supposed to stop performing the behaviour the FIRST time: this is you're fourth - in other words, you're a repeat offender
• You're welcome to file some form of formal complaint when this block expires, or contact WP:ARBCOM. However, this block is clearly based on you, and your misunderstanding of project and its policies - not that of the admin the panda ₯’ 10:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(Responding to all of the above) Yourself and IvanOS obviously led the tit-for-tat there. ISTR seeing the same thing happen recently on other articles as well. There's absolutely no point in letting this pattern persist. Should the other familiar faces try to replicate it, rest assured that they will be blocked as well. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Wow, it's so useful for User:Dangerous Panda to tell me that "consensus can change". My edits favoured the most recent consensus. Edit-warring "with a single edit" probably refers to articles with 1RR restrictions. Which Vukovar is not. No, it is not my first block for edit warring, which is how I learned what I said in the preceding sentence. The great wisdom of the Dangerous Panda therefore means "we have rules, but you don't need to actually break them to be punished for breaking them". How very Zen. Moving on - yeah, I'm a repeat offender although I did not offend anything except admin Joy's interpretation of "the spirit of the rules" (albeit not the rules themselves). I guess the "spirit of being an admin" probably includes knowing something about the topic you are talking about. But that ship has obviously sailed.
• @Joy: Like I said earlier, I was not involved in previous disputes on the article in question, so your comments about "familiar faces" is misleading. IvanOS, however, was. I also find it interesting that you did not block at least two other editors who had the same number of reverts on the same article and (I assume) violated the "spirit of the rules" in exactly the same manner. I also find it interesting that you decided to block me even after I had refrained from reverting 20+ hours on the said article, even if "my" preferred version was not the live one, and even though two other (still not blocked) editors continued the edit-war among themselves. And all this in spite of the facts that I had explained my edits at talk page, warned IvanOS to cease edit warring in my last edit before the block, and even (oh stupid stupid me) posted a calm talk template on top of talk page. And even though I had been insulted and provoked by the "opposing" editor on my talk page, the same guy who had made 39 edits on the article in question since 2011, almost all of which contituted edit-warring. But hey - I'm a "repeat offender" as evidenced in perpetuity by my block log, so I guess I might be lectured and/or banned for 10 years sometime in 2016 on the whim of an admin who is yet to arrive to Wikipedia and whose greatest claim to fame will have been editing articles on Pokemon characters but who will nevertheless feel to have a thorough understanding of the "spirit of the rules" and of "the project and its policies". Yeah, you guys seem to be real experts on that. Timbouctou (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

First and foremost, you answer for your actions. Edit warring is bad. If you make the first bold edit, and then continue harping on rv edits with few talk edits, you may get blocked for edit warring. It's that simple. Most of the time one doesn't get blocked for doing that because people are lenient, or they don't care. This time someone paid attention.

Secondly, the familiar faces that I mentioned aren't you two, but everyone else involved. They're all straddling the line that you two crossed.

The right way to approach that taunting above was to tell an admin, not edit war with the offender. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me just understand something: a discussion is opened at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Croatia#Minority_place_names.3F. Timbouctou actively and positively participates in that discussion. The discussion is placed there for days and in the end a consensus is reached. At the article, other users, namely Ivan OS and User:Sokac121, which simply ignore the discussion despite knowing about it, keep on reverting. Tmbouctou reverts twice and points to the discussion. Other users ignore him and the discussion and keep on doing whatever they want. At the end, Ivan OS, who reverted several times several users on that article in those days gets 1 month blocked, but Timbouctou as well? Because he made 2 reverts pointing to the discussion and because he didn´t called you for help? Wait a sec., why do we editors loose time and days discussing then on talk pages if the discussions are going to be ignored? So basically an editor that actively discusses and works towards forming consensus and implementing ir, is the same as an editor that ignores the discussion and just goes for the revert botton? Of course it isn´t. Now we have the article in a way that was not agreed in the discussion and with everyone in panic of even touching it with the possibilty if being immediatelly blocked. Hum, strange situation. FkpCascais (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Pointing to consensus at some other talk page, and assuming bad faith on the part of people who don't follow it, is one of the hallmarks of battleground mentality in my experience. IOW this is exactly the behavior that needs to be avoided. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Joy, an editing decision based on a discussion, however flawed it may be, by necessity must trump an editing decision based on non-discussion. Personally, this is a kind of edit I'd keep reverting till kingdom come: one cannot simply say "I've read the discussion and I don't agree with the outcome, so eff you". That's why I think DangerousPanda misapplied the policy above: WP:CCC means that no consensus is final, and not that everyone can simply edit as they please, ignoring the prior discussion. While IvanOS at least bothered to give a some sort of rationale for his edit, I don't think him expecting that a 20-word edit summary can simply trump a 1000-word discussion between multiple editors is good faith either. GregorB (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

We can argue the finer points of consensus... because you weren't trigger-happy yourself and didn't wage an edit war. Apparently this hasn't been stressed enough.

While we're at it, I should probably also mention that your (sensible) ideas in that discussion were not actually followed.

At this point I feel we're just rubbing it in by using Timbouctou's talk page. Please move anything that is relevant to the specific issue - to the relevant specific talk page. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, Joy, although I'm generally unhappy with pretty much all aspects of this story, the real issue here for me is not the article, it's Timbouctou's block. It is (largely?) undeserved, excessive at best (1 month, come on) and ultimately unhelpful. We haven't moved one iota towards a solution of the problem with the Vukovar article - of course we haven't, that's because Timbouctou's actions didn't really cause it, so banning him achieved precisely nothing. A much more constructive course of action would have been issuing warnings to the parties involved ("discuss, or else"). You've done that before. There is no discussion now - there likely won't be - and we're not better off, we're worse. GregorB (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't how many many times I have to rephrase this to be any clearer. Let me put it this way - had Timbouctou added a simple pointer to that new WP discussion at Talk:Vukovar, and then applied your final suggestion in that discussion to the Vukovar article, I would have given him the benefit of the doubt. He did not do that: he added a bland edit with an edit summary that made no mention of the issue or the new WP discussion, and then proceeded to edit war about it just like IvanOS. This article has been the target of these exact same senseless edit wars before, and I've had to block people about it before. Both have been blocked for edit warring before, too. The time for warnings was long past. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I, as an uninvolved admin, have discussed this with the blocking admin. My perception is that while the edit-war this time, which definitely existed, was of brief duration and certainly did not come close to 3RR, as there is a significant past history on this page then a block is reasonable. However, as the last block was a long time ago and was only for 24 hours, I am, with the tacit consent of the blocking admin, shortening your block to two weeks, as from the date of the original block. But it is fair to say that further edit-warring on the same page will result in a longer block, without there necessarily being any warning given. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

A small point: I was the user who started the discussion at the WP:Croatia talk page. I did so because there was a comment by User:Ivan OS on the Vukovar talk page that WP:Croatia had decided that minority names should only be in a "Names" section. So, I went to WP:Croatia to discuss. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: DYKs

That's nice, thanks - I've just copied the section to the project's DYK subpage. Other stuff you have (hooks etc.) might also be useful there. GregorB (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		I award you with this barnstar for your honest, diplomatic and constructive editing at Talk:Republika Srpska. Keep up the good work! Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Antidiskriminator! Timbouctou (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Pozdrav Timbouctou

Zašto brišeš statistiku kad sam lijepo naveo izvor? Ovo što ti pišeš je potpuno krivo! npr. u tekstu se navodi kako je zabio dva gola Rijeci u superkupu, a u statistici piše jedan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.234.70.227 (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Nisam siguran koliko je hrnogomet.com pouzdan izvor, no iste brojke su i na hnl-statistika.com pa valjda su u redu. Ove starije statistike po sezonama su preuzete sa drugih sajtova poput national-football-teams.com i u optjecaju su godinama. U infobox ionako trebaju ići samo podaci o nastupima i golovima u ligi, a anonimni editori često tu trpaju i golove iz kupova, superkupa, itd. Kako god, vratio sam promjene. Timbouctou (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of football clubs in Croatia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Požega. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yugoslav Basketball

Why league name change? The officiall league name was "Prva savezna košarkaška liga" and I think older name was correct.Linhart (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

For several reasons: a) it was not called that way during its entire existence, b) official names need not be used in article titles if a shorter, more succint and recognizable name can suffice, c) no other wiki (and neither do any sources I've seen) called it that way, including the ones in ex-Yugoslav languages, proving that it was never the most common name per WP:COMMONNAME, and c) all national sports leagues in Yugoslavia were "federal" anyway, whether explicitly stated or not, but for consistency reasons there's no reason to single this one out and call it that way (see Yugoslav First League, Yugoslav Water Polo Championship, Yugoslav Handball Championship, Yugoslav Ice Hockey League, etc.) Btw, the first example should really be renamed Yugoslav First Football League to differentiate it from all the others, as well as Yugoslav Cup which would be better suited at Yugoslav Football Cup. Timbouctou (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I noteced this move, and I must say that I agree with Timbouctou. They were all Federal leagues, and when we say Yugoslav anyway we are refering to the Federation when the context is pos-1945, so seems unecessary the further adition of Federal in the league name. FkpCascais (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as i know it was officially called that was from the formation in 1949 on. Germans can have Bundesliga (not just liga), just we have to delete the "savezna" for some reason. OK, so the title maybe can have shorter name, but then at least it should be noted in an article somewhere, what was the correct and full name. Same goes for football and other sports of course.Linhart (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The German football league is an exception as "Bundesliga" is commonly used in English media to refer to it (notice that our article does not even mention the sport in its title, as its official name is "Fußball-Bundesliga") even though we also have Basketball Bundesliga, Handball-Bundesliga, etc. Yugoslav sports leagues never had that kind of recognizable name in English, so they were always referred to by some descriptive translation (e.g. "Yugoslav First Football League" or something similar). And sure, the official name can and should be noted in the lede. Timbouctou (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Flags/stateless nations

Okay, got a rationale? Mine is that people are visual creatures, and there's no reason not to have flags. Q·L·1968 ☿ 22:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not really a rationale, is it? Because otherwise Wikipedia would be a picture book. And no, the flags are not helpful - at that size most of those flags are so miniscule they are not recognizable, even if we assume that readers actually know what flags waved by various nationalists look like (which they don't). Which is the reason why the great majority of templates listing actual countries do not use flags, and neither do templates with political parties, former countries, administrative subdivisions, capitals, etc. So, got a rationale as to why this template is the exception? Timbouctou (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

A template is a navigational aid, not an encyclopedia, so your picture book claim is a straw man. I can't tell you why templates listing independent countries generally don't use flags on Wikipedia. First, is that so? Second, is there a reason for that? I've never been aware that there was such a reason, if there is one; to my knowledge, we've had them on the EU template in Interlingua since 2007, and I doubt this is the only such case. The 'minuscule' flags are perfectly identifiable in most cases (the Veneto being one exception), and they add a visual confirmation of the verbal cue, much like the flags do on the pages that give most any sports team's roster (here's an arbitrary example). I didn't put the flags in that template; I just saw they were there, and added non-breaking spaces. I guess I just don't understand the impulse to remove stuff that isn't in the way, looks kind of nice, and adds a visual enhancement to what otherwise is just words on the screen. Q·L·1968 ☿ 18:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I seriously doubt flags are a navigational aid, especially when used in templates, as the great majority of readers are unlikely to be guided by flags as oppopsed to words when clicking through. A case in point are football templates and infoboxes, of which we have thousands and which never use flagicons - flags indeed are used in rosters, but rosters only. But again, the plethora of templates where flags could be used but aren't probably establishes a convention. So the burden would be on you to argue why that established convention shouldn't apply. Timbouctou (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope, the burden should really be on you to justify removing something that a user found good and useful to add (a user who, again, was not me). However, in the interest of moving this discussion towards a conclusion, I've hunted around for something in the manual of style that should be relevant. Before I read it, I actually was more prepared to concede the point at issue. While I find nothing there directly about navigational templates, I do find that "flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself". The subject here is about nationality (nationalism). Conversely, we are directed not to "use subnational flags without direct relevance"; but clearly there is direct relevance here. Here's a fictional, but plausible example of the usefulness of such flags as a navigational aid: István has recently moved to Barcelona, and during a march in favour of Catalan independence, he notices a black-and-white flag he doesn't recognize. István reads the Wikipedia article on Catalan nationalism, trying to figure out what this is all about. He gets to the bottom of the page, and hey, there's that flag again. ‘Oh, Breton nationalism—those people at the march must have been from Brittany,’ he thinks. He follows the link, looking around for whatever parallels (or differences) there might be between Catalan and Breton nationalism. This kind of thing happens all the time: Basque nationalists show up in solidarity with Corsican nationalists, and so on and so forth.

Anyway, if you don't find this argument plausible, it's not worth edit-warring about. I would suggest that we copy this discussion over to the template talk page for future reference, however. Q·L·1968 ☿ 16:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

National Magazine Awards

Why did you delete all the external links and the award-winning reporters/writers? I'm updating the page as a member of the American Society of Magazine Editors, who operate the National Magazine Awards. What is your issue with the links and content?Hsgold (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because it was you who had deleted names of reporters in several sections, including Reporting, Feature Writing, Essays & Criticism, etc. While NMA's are awarded to magazines, in many categories they are awarded for specific pieces of writing written by specific jopurnalists. Not listing them would turn the article into 20 lists composed solely of magazine titles (of which maybe a couple of dozen have won awards). Also, external links belong in the External Links section at the bottom of the page. Per Wikipedia's manual of style, we rarely put external links in article body, especially if they merely link to some publications' homepage. If you would like to improve the article feel free to ask for help or discuss changes at article's talk page, but don't remove useful information before consulting whether there is consensus to do so. Timbouctou (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Now I see you have split award categories into separate lists for writers and magazines - which is fine, but kind of pointless don't you think. To avoid the article becoming unwieldy, perhaps lists of award winners should be split into separate list articles. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the page back to the way it was before I began editing. I am going to be going through it in the next couple days, and I will be re-organizing the page to include external pages for each year's winners. Unlike the Pulitzer Prize, the National Magazine Awards are won each year by magazine titles as a whole, which is why there are lists of just magazine titles who have won the awards. This information is important to the magazine community. Hsgold (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The magazine community is not really that big, and having 24 separate lists listing only magazine titles does not sound encyclopedic to me. And according to the awards database, most of the writing awards are given for specific articles by specific authors published in a specific magazine's issue. There is no reason to withhold that information from our readers. And there is no reason to delete wikilinks from authors' names pointing to their Wikipedia articles like you did before. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is an example what a list of winners could look like. Timbouctou (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm re-formatting the "award-winning writers" section to fit with the earlier list of magazine winners. It'll take me some time, but I'm going through the information. It will all look like <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Magazine_Awards#Public_Interest this> soon Hsgold (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Support/Oppose?

Thanks for this. I'm assuming that's an "oppose" but it might be better to clearly state either way. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Edits

Thanks for the link. However, my edit is correct and your revert unncessary. Firstly, adding UK is superflous (and not present on 99% of articles) and it is accurate to describe people from the UK as English, Scottish or Welsh. See the rest of Wikipedia for reference.

Arrensgore (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: FYI

Thanks for alerting me to the problem. Please try to avoid extra interaction with this user in the near future, because I see it's caused you to lose your temper, e.g. with [56] or [57]. This can now be excused given the context, but it's still generally inappropriate and unproductive. Just think about the simple reality that all these comments will be available for people to read in years to come, and hopefully that will make it easier to choose to stay above the fray. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Categories

Sorry for that. However, with the notifications I got quite a record when I came on: 20 :P Jackninja5 (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverting my edit on Branko Zorko

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Flags to understand why I made the edit that I did. The flag is already displayed in the medal table. Please revert your edit so that it matches other articles on athletes. Zastavafan76 (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Paškal Jukić

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Cape Verde map

Having their name on the map is one of the conditions of using the map freely, as I read the permissions. This seems circular. Do you have a Wikipedia guide on this? The map is very helpful in seeing the islands of Cape Verde. I did not find this map, but I find it appropriate and useful. --Prairieplant (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, having their name on map is a condition of using it freely - but then there is no need for us to use it if we already have watermark-free maps available to us. Regarding Cape Verde, you can use any one of these available at Commons to illustrate the article instead. Timbouctou (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The Portuguese language Wikipedia uses this same map. The watermark that Wikipedia seems to worry about is a digital one, to prevent or track disallowed use. The UN group just wants their acronym to show, so they get credit, not to prevent use by others. I would rather put that map back. You left a hole in article in my view. I would put the UN map back but that is considered rude. So perhaps you should fill the hole you made. --Prairieplant (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think WP:WATERMARK is pretty claer. Neither me not our readers care about their acronym and Wikipedia's policy has always been to avoid using watermarked images if other alternatives exist. And when it comes to maps - they exist. Using your analogy - putting it back in would leave a hole in our image use policy. Timbouctou (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Overdtop (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Meh. What a troll. Timbouctou (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Croatian Wikipedia

Hello!

My commiserations regarding your recent hr wiki block - or not, because it's not like you're losing anything... :-)

Anyway, I've just achieved what perhaps no other Wikipedian has achieved: I got blocked for using a {{citation needed}} template (?!). See Wikipedija and its talk, you might find it interesting...

Now there is a boneheaded move - I certainly wouldn't like to explain to the WMF how adding a cn template is a "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point"[58], and maybe - just maybe - someone will have to do exactly that... GregorB (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

My condolences. Or not :-) In addition to being a vehicle for promoting hate speech and assorted stuff lifted verbatim from fringe right-wing online columns, CW is a colossal waste of time. The project is FUBAR and does more harm than good in its current form. The only result of my experience over there is that the target of my resentment has shifted from the semi-literate paranoid imbeciles running CW to WMF itself, as it genuinely does not seem to care about using its donated funds to host a runaway project that is actually an inversion of all of its values. If you need support fighting your block I am willing to help, but I am increasingly getting fed up with all that crap. I rarely used CW as a reader myself, and the media coverage it received last year - along with the blatant propaganda speak used throughout CW - makes me think not many Croatians ever will. So why bother? They probably did you a favor. (Btw have you noticed that their recent changes page lists changes to user talk pages as well? So that when you inevitably get harassed for not toeing the desired party line, you immediately have an entire pack of admins descending on your talk page. Which, btw, they won't let you delete, and, once blocked, even modify. In essence they treat recent changes page as a policing tool for monitoring who does what and where, and I even received a warning once for making too many incremental edits because it interfered with their ability to monitor user activity. Which is pretty hilarious considering how abandoned the place seems to be.) Timbouctou (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You make some very good points. I've also recently came to a conclusion that the best way is letting the place self-destruct: trying to fix it actually has the opposite effect.

Also, the WMF has been a big disappointment to me, because it's really as blatant as it gets. They might still make a move in the end, but chances are it'll probably be either something half-assed, or something easily defeated by a sock-storm.

I have no intention whatsoever of fighting my block. It's a waste of time. And, it just so happens it is also pretty hard to do: one can't edit while logged in (obviously), can't edit while logged out (IP is blocked too), and can't send an email to the blocking administrator using the "Email this user option" (funny thing - either a bug, or is deliberately disabled).

Also, that's a good observation regarding the patrolled changes: on the face of it, it's an anti-vandalism measure, but in reality is a matter of total control. Once they "get your number", your edits get scrutinized to death or wantonly reverted just for the fun of it, and it is impossible to reason with those people. They are not too smart either - my block seems to prove it - and in the end that's going to be their undoing. GregorB (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There is an anecdote which ends with a question “What are you doing out of jail?” --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Rationale

Can you please explain the reason of your recent edit in Gazi Hüsrev Pasha ? Thanks Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, regarding this edit - Category:Bosniak people is a container category, i.e. it is meant to be populated only by subcategories, not articles. Timbouctou (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Timbouctou (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Timbouctou, you wrote, "I think the pros of having the belief parameter in the template vastly outweighs the cons of constant vandalism that it attracts...". That seems to contradict the rest of your statement. Did you mean "I think the pros of having the belief parameter in the template are vastly outweighed by the cons of constant vandalism that it attracts"? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 00:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant, I apologise for the confusing statement, English is not my first language and I was pretty tired when I was adding the comment. Thanks for pointing this out, I've corrected my comment on the discussion page. Timbouctou (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Nacional

Just wanted to say: good call on the Nacional article.[59] It has been a mess for years now. Hopefully - now it has been relaunched - more sources will appear, giving us a chance for a decent article. GregorB (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to you Timbou and all the best in the new year! GregorB (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: Admin attention is needed

Sorry, I was away for a while. Thanks for handling the RSK list issue (again). With regard to the .yu basketball league list, is the latest version still contentious? I see there are notability references now, and no further reverts or discussion on Talk. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Timbouctou,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Magnum Crimen

Thanks for chipping in! I feel the article is going in the right direction regarding balance, but still: once it is stable, would you volunteer to give the final assessment of the WP:BCLASS #2 criterion ("The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies."), in which I originally failed it? GregorB (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, the topic is certainly interesting. I haven't heard of the book or Novak before, and I assume it attracts a lot of bullshit merchants, which is a shame since it deserves a proper treatment. The book's content tackles a lot of topics and some effort should be made to explain them concisely and coherently, including the criticism and praise it received. There are too many inline citations referring to the primary source, and too few secondary sources which could shed some light as to why is the book positive or negative. And we would also need some biographical details on the author himself. Let me know if help is needed to whip it into shape. Timbouctou (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not exactly an expert on the topic either, but sometimes not being familiar with it is a bonus.

I agree with your remarks. I'm probably going to tweak a few things in the article myself so let's see what happens... GregorB (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Air stuff :)

Sorry for this, I left a proposal at the talk-page. I understand your point, it is just that in that case, a new article should be created, and that one should be left as it originally was (about the content you removed). I hope you had nice holidays Timbouctou! FkpCascais (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Magnum Crimen, again

Thanks for the reminder. Also, I suggest you use the {{interrupted}} template in the future, particularly when dealing with controversial discussions, because it makes it clear that replying to a specific point inline was intentional and made in good faith. (The context and the actions of the other party in this case preclude a different interpretation, but still, it's better to be safe than sorry.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Milos zankov (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Magnum Crimen

Please, stop vandalizing further this article. Refrain form the name calling, too.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You are nothing but a sock/meat puppet of User:Milos Zankov and your sole purpose here is to censor edits to an article you seem to be very much in love with. Please refrain from posting messages to my talk page. Thanks. Timbouctou (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll cave

Well, that was a lot of nostalgic fun, but I'm going out to have some real fun now. Seriously though - don't you think you might look like the bad guy here? Or at least, the worse guy? You claim the sequence needs sourcing, you don't achieve consensus on the talkpage (people oppose you, essentially say its BLUE), and thus you resort to edit-warring in order to push opposed cn tags where there is no consensus we need one. And to the point of such fervor, wow. You must really like Kolinda... Though I'm sure there's also a strong element of opposing my communist conspiracy... which I of course originated by introducing a table into the article... which already listed the pre-1990 officials..

Now, you may firmly believe that we need a source for whatever, but that's just your opinion. An opinion opposed by at least two others. And I'll be damned if I let you force your opinions on our readers. Do you think you might remove the stupid tag if the text is changed somehow, or are you entirely set on edit-warring? -- Director (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue has been raised several times in the past by several years by several other people. Your tactic is always the same, drowning every form of discussion in endless talk page trollfests. Somehow, you manage always to have one useful idiot supporting your politically motivated fantasies, and nothing ever gets changed, enabling you to WP:OWN whatever you want to own. I'm surprised you haven't canvassed some admin by now, I guess all the usual ones who have no clue about this topic area are too busy.

We both know there is no other place on the planet which says anyone who came before Tudjman were "presidents of Croatia" in either form or function, and this is a simple fact, known to anyone living in Croatia. They may be referred to as "leaders" or something similarly vague, but you seem to find such wording unacceptable. Because we all know your political orientation and how important it is for you to imply continuity where there was none. On the other hand, you have no clue who I vote for and you have no clue about who I am and what I do. Which is exactly how I would like it to remain. So, for the 87th time - do you have anything which might help to bring List of Presidents of Croatia into line with WP:V or not? And do keep it short, please. I have a very low tolerance threshold for trolling on my talk page. Timbouctou (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, "troll" is patently ridiculous. Very few people who are called trolls actually are trolls. In this case it implies I want to ruin an article I worked hard on, its laughable. Further, I don't drown discussions, I argue honestly. You're confusing effective argument with "drowning".

I just don't see any viable alternative for the article. The place has always listed all heads of state, since the modern state came about in 1944/45, splitting it apart into two or three stub fragments invalidates all those fragments - surely you MUST see that! Its so obviously silly, and detrimental. You'd break the entire article: a list of four people doesn't warrant its own entry, and neither do any of the other fragments you would form... It would completely undermine our coverage of all of this.

And that being the scope since time immemorial, essentially immutable - I see no harm whatsoever in numbering the entries to present more information to the reader. That's the standard layout of practically every officeholder template. The idea that they must have a sourced, "official" numbering of some sort in order for that to be done - is a fallacy. Its a completely arbitrary declaration: we can number whatever we want on our project.

They're not really "leaders of Croatia", that's the problem with that. The secretaries of the KPH were the "leaders", or at best the executive council presidents in their time. Literally the only one on that list that exercised actual power through his office is Tudjman.

I'm not a communist goddamnit! I'm not even a socialist, not really. I suppose I'm pretty conservative, but I'm an atheist, and I kind of think the HDZ is probably corrupt.. so that's basically me. And I'm not "implying" continuity - its stated outright in the damn constitution. Are you able to accept that fact? You are legally in the same state as your parents were born in, to pretend otherwise is just silly.

I don't "canvass" admins. Never have, really. And the fact that people may not care about our venting all over the internet about a cn tag - is probably a good thing. If it were up to me, I'd block us both for three months: "we're very experienced editors, and should know better". Speaking of which, what happened to your RfC? Edit war instead?

WP:V? I honestly do not know what you want sourced? Do you doubt these people were heads of state of a Croatian republic? Do you doubt Koliinda is the 20th person to legally hold that position? That's all so BLUE its ultraviolet. Are you hung up on the precise legal title of the heads? That's just so petty and irrelevant! And besides - they were indeed all called "president" (-prezidija, -Sabora, -presdsjednistva republike), so its both technically accurate, and accurate in terms of the general meaning the word in English. Its just ok, its fine...

So what exactly are you challenging, what do you want sourced? -- Director (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think splitting it into two lists would suffice. One list for everyone up to 1990 titled "list of leaders of X" (possibly even including presidents as a subsection) and another list for presidents, titled "list of presidents of X". The fact is, nobody considers those before 1990 to have been "presidents" in either form or function. Saying otherwise is grossly misleading. Thinking a non-sovereign entity's head was somehow equivalent to a sovereign entity head of which the former was part shows WP:COMPETENCE issues. Finding any source agreeing with your chronology and the implied office continuity would help your case and fix WP:V issues, but since none seems to exist, I can't see how it can remain as it is. But I think you know all this already. Timbouctou (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@"nobody considers those before 1990 to have been 'presidents' in either form or function" - that's not really true. They were simply not very relevant, that's all (which didn't change at all, besides for Tudman). Everybody saw them as "presidents", in fact that's how they were called colloquially. Especially post 1974 during the presidency. Its not misleading at all, they were called "presidents", that was exactly what they were with respect to the usual meaning of the term in English..

A non-sovereign head of state is not "equivalent" to a sovereign head of state, in terms of diplomatic protocol - but they're both heads of state.

I can agree to splitting the list into sections - if that's the consensus. But that raises questions of its own, I'll list them on talk. -- Director (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence officeholders before 1990 were "seen by everybody as presidents"? Like, any piece of actual paper that might imply that claim? As for "heads of state" - this is something called "a phrase". Look up the definition of what a "phrase" is (it's a set of words which have a meaning different from its constituent parts - which is why "head of state" is VASTLY different term than "head of a state"). Also, what "diplomatic protocol"? Non-sovereign heads of whatever play no part in diplomatic protocol because foreign relations are never in their domain (that's one of the defining features of sovereignty). In fact, what were the authorities of pre-1990 "presidents of Croatia"? Do you have any idea? I don't, and it seems nobody else does. Still,what issues would splitting the list raise? Timbouctou (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Well since they were actually formally titled "president", say "of the presidency of Croatia", its what they were seen as (e.g. "Ema Derosi, President of the Presidency of Croatia, etc."). And as I said, they fit the definition of a "president" in the general sense.
• The source I provided doesn't discuss "heads of A state", but the formal category of "head of state". The phrase, as you say. It clearly indicates that a "head of state" need not at all necessarily be sovereign. You keep talking about these ideas on what a "head of (a) state" must or must not be in order to be seen as such. Its all news to me, and sounds pretty strange. Who says a "head of state" MUST be sovereign - if a "state" need not be sovereign??
• Whether or not foreign relations are the domain of an official, bears no weight on whether diplomatic protocol exists with regard to said official. A prominent example would be Milosević (president of Serbia 1989-1997), who was a non-sovereign head of state, but received equivalent treatment to any sovereign head of state (Ćosić and Lilić were the presidents of FR Yugoslavia during his tenure).

I honestly don't know what the devil the heads of state did.. they were complete figureheads with no real power. They certainly did have duties, probably rubber-stamping.. who knows. Communist governments are generally a bureaucratic merry-go-round with no real relevance, the party head is the guy in charge (i.e. Racan, not Ivo Latin or Antun Milović, for example). -- Director (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding semantics - pretty much everything and everyone is called "president" of something in ex Yugoslavia. In Croatia only, we have "predsjednik općine", "predsjednik vlade", "predsjednik Sabora", "predsjednik odbora" - and none of them is ever translated as such (they are municipality mayors, prime ministers, parliament speakers and committee chairmen). Because of this proliferation of "presidents", the only kind which does not need an additional explanation in common usage is the president of the country. But in communist times even this did not exist, as even republican bodies were always "...of presidency". I doubt anyone ever referred to presidents of presidency as simply "presidents". This was not even used on the federal level. Did anyone ever call Mesić "president of Yugoslavia"?

Discussing what "head of state" means is a waste of time. There's about a dozen dictionary definitions coming to the same conclusion and any English speaking person has a very clear idea what a "head of state" is. It really is WP:BLUE. You are the first person I have ever met who thinks this is somehow vague or that it allows non-sovereign entities. The point of the phrase is the "head part" - meaning "nobody above it" in the given country. These people definitely had someone above them in the hierarchy of things. Otherwise head of just about any regional government could be described as "head of state", and we know this is not possible in practice.

Milošević is really an exception. I'm not even entirely sure if he was treated like a head of state - the only way to know would be to see how he was treated when he went abroad - but during the time of his prominence he barely traveled for obvious reasons and simply received foreign diplomats in Belgrade. Did anyone ever treat heads of republics the same way before or after him? Is Minister-President of Bavaria treated that way? Or American governors?

Yes, they were figureheads. Exactly. Timbouctou (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ivo Josipović

Joy, Director, FkpCascais, Sundostund, what you all think about Timbouctou making unnecessary changes on article about Ivo Josipović. He keeps adding years next to Prime Ministers despite the fact that I have proven to him this is unnecessary, no President of a EU member state has years next to Prime Ministers who have served in time of their mandate. Why is he doing this? This is not the first time he has done such violations. He ignores the Talk page. Does he need to be sanctioned? Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

How about raising this at their own talk pages or even WP:CRO? My talk page is not a public forum, you know. As for the "issue" - lol, you have "proven this is unnecessary"? How exactly? Is there a discussion banning this practice that you can point to? Also, see Franjo Tuđman. The same information has been fine there for years without anyone complaining. This looks more like a case of WP:HOUNDING to me. Timbouctou (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ahh yes, so adding dates of prime ministers' terms makes me a "biased right wing fanatic"? Lol. Timbouctou (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

My reaction is: "ugh, what now!". That's my reaction.

• Why did you remove "Josipović also worked as a university professor, legal expert, musician and composer."? First thing I noticed, and I feel like rolling back everything because of it.
• WHY are you adding years next to pms? Its just not done. See Hollande or Köhler, just off the top of my head..

-- Director (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Why not? Is there a policy saying otherwise? The same thing has been in the article on Franjo Tuđman for years and it never bothered anyone. Or does everything has to be identical to other articles? What's the point of "expanding" anything then? And try reading for a change - these groups of letters, colloquially known as "words", are here for a reason - I changed "law professor, composer and politician" into "jurist, composer and politician". Now go and read the reference which is conveniently located after the word "jurist". Then go and read the definition of the word jurist. Bravo. Timbouctou (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You are not expanding, you are adding unnecessary data. I have told you that all Presidents of all EU member states do not have years next to their Presidents. I don't edit the article about tuđman, but I edit the one about Josipović and you don't have a consensus on making such changes, so please stop, or otherwise I will have to report you, and I don't want to do that. He is a law professor, what is wrong with you? Do you even live in Croatia? Then if you are so obsessed about word jurist, also change the article about President Obama. I am sure you are going to do that. Not in the whole article on President Obama does it even mentioned the word "jurist". Go and edit the article about tuđman and your other saints, and don't try to make a mess in articles about politicians whit whom you do not agree or hate. --Tuvixer (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Some presidents have it, some presidents don't. What's the fuss about? Some political party articles have no charts or statistics, the article on your favourite party has three. Most parties do not include the name of party spokesman, your favourite party article had one for years. Most such articles don't have party flags and many don't have logos - your favourite party has both. Also, Obama is not really a jurist, he is a lawyer. If you had read the definition you would know what the difference was. This is pure WP:DISRUPT and you will be reported if you continue. Timbouctou (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Really? My favourite party is PGS and I don't see that. No president in a EU member state has years next tho the PMs, please don't make things up. I have told you, show me 3 Presidents of a EU member state and you can make changes. Othervise you do not have consensus, so stop edit warring. Please stop. --Tuvixer (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no policy requiring anyone to explain themselves to you and jump through the hoops you invent on the spot. Comer back with a policy-based (or at least logic-based) argument when you get one. In the meantime stop posting messages on my talk page. Thanks. Timbouctou (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Presidents of Croatia ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Unlikely truce

Apparently my ceasing to revert your addition on the list article constitutes an "unlikely truce", and we are parties that can be "well imagined" slipping back into incivility [60]. I guess so. But in a spiteful effort to thwart expectations, I'm here to politely and courteously ask where you currently stand on the issue at the article, and to explain where I stand. In my view, there's no consensus for your general position. Do you challenge that? If so, I'm prepared to go as far down DR as we can hopefully get.

For the record, I'm sort of 'on my way out' from Wiki and I don't really "mind" getting blocked that much for some petty nonsense, but what I'd like to do, for once, is to try actually arriving at an amicable understanding from a POV dispute of this sort. Just as a crazy experiment more than anything else... -- Director (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Titoist POV

You know the matter and can explain it in Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Manipulated and mystified sources or in talk:Josip Broz Tito#DisputeTeo Pitta (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I'm still sorting through the rest of the dispute, but I'm giving both of you edit warring warnings now, because nothing justifies the edit warring that you both participated in. Monty₈₄₅ 14:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Notice

I have added your edit warring to this section. link AlbinoFerret 14:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Privatization in Croatia. Thank you. Monty₈₄₅ 15:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

And please be aware there is yet another one, just opened by Joy, about the "List of Presidents" dispute, where I have asked you a question. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I'll reply to that soon enough. Timbouctou (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Balkans

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Sanctions

Following up on the ANI report, I am imposing the following sanctions under WP:ARBMAC:

1. A full interaction ban between you and Director (talk · contribs), of indefinite duration, under the same conditions as the earlier one in 2012 ("banned from all interaction, undoing each others edits, making reference to or comment on each other, replying to each other in any discussion, editing each others user talk space, or filing ANI reports about each other for 6 months except to clarify or abolish this interaction ban or to report violations of the interaction ban")
2. A 12-months topic ban for you from all topics related to Croatia
3. A 6-months topic ban for Director on the narrower topic area of Croatian constitutional continuity and related issues of Croatian officeholders.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban

Your edits from yesterday were in breach of your topic ban. Please note that the ban covers everything related to Croatia, not just politically or historically contentious topics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, the other editor involved in your little investigation breached rule #1 of your wisely dministered topic ban a full 49 minutes after he had been notified of the ban. No similar warning was issued. I sense double standards here. Also, on what grounds is my topic ban wider than his and what evidence has been put forward that I should be banned from all topics "related to Croatia", including non-contentious ones? (Besides, what's the point of banning anyone from non-contentious articles anyway?) In addition, you do realise that the other involved editor is feeling safe from any interference and is engaged in reverts en masse, citing non-existent consensus? I assume you think you taught someone a lesson here. And I agree - you taught trolls how to troll more efficiently. No need for talk pages, they can just take their litanies to ANI and pretty much go crazy in article space. Congrats. Timbouctou (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Tuvixer (talk · contribs)? I didn't impose any restriction on him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about him and the one that was sanctioned. I've fixed the first wikilink, read through my comment again. Timbouctou (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Please, can you tell me what reverts? It is weekend and I have found some time to edit all articles about the ministries in the Croatian government, and it has all been discussed on the talk page of the Talk:Ministry of Culture (Croatia). I did not revert you, I just added the increase/decrease, that is all. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, your edits are a continuation of the edit-war you were engaged in and which you apparently think you've won, with me being absurdly topic-banned and you getting away scot-free. But I have no desire discussing anything with you, especially not on my talk page. Please do ignore pinging on this page in the future, thanks. Timbouctou (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciations

Hello, not sure what you meant here[61]. I removed it then reverted myself when I saw yours was the freshest edit. Doesn't the IPA guide suffice? --Oranges Juicy (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry, that seems to have been a mistake on my part. I was tagging many articles for pronunciation and after a while I grew tired and stopped reading past the opening words. Just ignore that edit. Timbouctou (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

All right thanks for that. I'll remove it again, I was thinking you were calling out for an audio sample which you have on some articles. Cheers Timbouctou. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Prva HNL

I've noticed the article has been renamed - probably just as well, I've never liked the title in light of WP:UE, but did not want to bother with it because I thought that was something WP:FOOTBALL guys had agreed upon. Just a heads up: I suppose Category:Prva HNL and its subcats could be renamed accordingly. GregorB (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

{{NogometniMagazin}}

Just a heads up: the website in question seems to be dead now, so the template is currently non-functional really. Not sure what to do about it. GregorB (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that a few days ago, I removed the links from a few players' bios, but a better solution is needed as hundreds of articles are using the template. Perhaps there's some place one can request a mass removal via bot? Timbouctou (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The transclusion count is 298 - removing by hand will be slow. However, for some articles this is the only source or external link, so perhaps mass removal is not an ideal solution either.

As far as I can tell, the URLs are irretrievable and irreplaceable, so the template is gone. I'll tag it as deprecated for the time being. GregorB (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: Football template

It's a very useful template and I've been adding it to the articles already. If you take a look at {{NogometniMagazin}}, {{CFF player}} is suggested as replacement - works 9 times out of 10, so phasing it out will be much easier. GregorB (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Potočnik (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked you for one month for violating your topic ban. --John (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

So trolls win the Internet. Let's rejoice. Timbouctou (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Matica hrvatska logo.gif

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Eiffel names

Template:Eiffel names has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Article upgrade assistance request (Pre-translation stage)

Seasons Greetings,

This is in reference to a relatively new umbrella article on en-wikipedia named Ceremonial pole. Ceremonial pole is a human tradition since ancient times; either existed in past at some point of time, or still exists in some cultures across global continents from north to south & from east to west. Ceremonial poles are used to symbolize a variety of concepts in several different world cultures.

Through article Ceremonial pole we intend to take encyclopedic note of cultural aspects and festive celebrations around Ceremonial pole as an umbrella article and want to have historical, mythological, anthropological aspects, reverence or worships wherever concerned as a small part.

While Ceremonial poles have a long past and strong presence but usually less discussed subject. Even before we seek translation of this article in global languages, we need to have more encyclopedic information/input about Ceremonial poles from all global cultures and languages. And we seek your assistance in the same.

Since other contributors to the article are insisting for reliable sources and Standard native english; If your contributions get deleted (for some reason like linguistics or may be your information is reliable but unfortunately dosent match expectations of other editors) , please do list the same on Talk:Ceremonial pole page so that other wikipedians may help improve by interlanguage collaborations, and/or some other language wikipedias may be interested in giving more importance to reliablity of information over other factors on their respective wikipedia.

This particular request is being made to you since your user name is listed in Wikipedia:Translators available list.

Thanking you with warm regards Mahitgar (talk) 05:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

He died

Bulcsú László died today. I think you are pretty happy with that, considering your attitude towards him during those deletion petitions. Enjoy this day while we all are in sorrow and weep. 93.136.29.167 (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what What should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Ivan Mestrovic

As someone involved in an earlier discussion with Scosby85 on the Ivan Mestrovic talk page, you may wish to know that he is now involved in a fresh dispute there. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Andrija maurovic 1979.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Andrija maurovic 1979.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Timbouctou. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ah cacao real chocolate logo.gif

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 03:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Krleza.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LORKOVIC-MLADEN.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Croatian presidential elections polls dispute

Hello and sorry for bothering You. I remember You being a balanced editor from some other articles about Croatian politics and history, so I would like to ask You for participation in ending the edit war started by the user Tuvixer on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_presidential_election,_2014%E2%80%9315 Thank You in advance StjepanHR (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Zagreb music academy logo.png

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Elcor, Minnesota

Hello, Timbouctou!

Would you have any interest in translating the featured article Elcor, Minnesota for the Croatian Wikipedia? Since many of the immigrants who settled here were from Croatia, I think having the article translated in this language is important, especially for any relatives of former residents who are looking for information about the town. Thanks! DrGregMN (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fb competition 2011 CAF Champions League

Template:Fb competition 2011 CAF Champions League has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fb competition 2011 CAF Confederation Cup

Template:Fb competition 2011 CAF Confederation Cup has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Erorr

Asocijacija Radioamatera u Bosni i Hercegovini acttualy translates into Association of Radioamater in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Stombari7 (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Stombari7