Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::I will not waste my time with you yet again. The sources are very clear: '''''there was no puppet state.''''' You may think whatever you wish, and you may personally "believe" otherwise, but not a single source really claims there was. No source mentions one. Several sources explicitly deny its existence. The fact that you are preventing users from repairing the article and bringing it in accordance with sources is ]. Your OR does not concern me. There was no puppet state. Are you prepared to ever face reality on this issue? <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 22:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
:::I will not waste my time with you yet again. The sources are very clear: '''''there was no puppet state.''''' You may think whatever you wish, and you may personally "believe" otherwise, but not a single source really claims there was. No source mentions one. Several sources explicitly deny its existence. The fact that you are preventing users from repairing the article and bringing it in accordance with sources is ]. Your OR does not concern me. There was no puppet state. Are you prepared to ever face reality on this issue? <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 22:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
::::Cut the crap. I thought that you will not play your games at least in personal correspondence. Since sources are referring to the area in both ways, as to "territory" and as to "country/state", I am offering you this compromise: 1. usage of term "territory" in whole article is acceptable for me (I will not insist that terms "country" or "state" are used), 2. however, territory was de facto and de jure separate from all other entities, so you should also not insist to make this article to look as article about some German province or colony (while northern Slovenia was annexed by Germany, Serbia was only occupied but not annexed, and therefore article should not imply that it was part of Germany - this include usage of "subdivision" infobox and flag of Germany. ] 22:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I usually reply to posted messages here, but if the message is important I'll notify you on on your talkpage as well.
If I posted a message on your talkpage I will reply there, but feel free to notify me on my talk if you feel it is urgent.
I'd prefer it if noone removed content here, but naturally I have no objections if it's just grammar.
Please don't revert my edits on this page.
Finally: no insults. I can take criticism as much as the next guy, but outright personal attacks will be reverted and reported.
Director is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon.
New Page Patrol survey
New page patrol – Survey Invitation
Hello Director! 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
April 2012
Your recent editing history at Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander) 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.
Thank you for the warning, Tiptoety, I do appreciate it. Though as I said on the talkpage , I've no intention to continue. Please note however that the users edit-warring with me have pretty much given up the talk page. Why discuss when you don't need to, right? -- Director (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
That would require the participation of knowledgeable Wikipedians who have a passion for reading through months and months of inane dispute-babel, more-often-than-not involving a user with less-than-adequate English skills who is fond of writing immense, confusing blocks of text. Not only that, but this fantasy Wikipedian would have to be willing to do the research on this extremely obscure and complex subject as well. In my five years on Wiki I've met only one such user, Peacemaker67 - who is right there on the talkpage, alongside me, trying to talk some sense into the guy who lives in the area in question (User:PANONIAN), and has strong personal preconceptions that have led him to take WP:OWNERSHIP of that damn article (ruining it in the process).
I will also say, Tiptoety, that I think its pretty obvious at this point that User:WhiteWriter is a WP:MEATPUPPET recruited by User:PANONIAN to help in his edit-wars. I mean sending an e-mail isn't exactly rocket science. WhiteWriter has not edited the article in about a month, and his last edit was exactly this sort of a revert in support of PANONIAN . And the edit before that was last year . His talkpage involvement is very limited, and what little there is is exclusively in PANONIAN's support (often even without an understanding of what exactly PANONIAN is arguing for). -- Director (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
No. You may get a WP:MEATPUPPETEERING report instead, however. Its not an insult. I honestly think you're being notified by PANONIAN to revert at crucial points so that he can avoid troublesome discussions by simply revert-warring. Isn't this your last edit on that article? People are not stupid, WhiteWriter. -- Director (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
My request is still in order. Up to the next direct conversation. You will not be allowed to pushed your POV without agreement, and talk page consensus. You may be sure that when i see something similar in the future, react again. You must gain consensus on talk for your pov. I have no interest in listening anyone's notifications, by the way. And my last edit. It was useful. You stopped with POV pushing, and restored statue quo, until agreement was reached on talk page. Therefor, it was successful. One last time, i am asking you to apologize for this unfounded personal attack. --WhiteWriter23:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Your request is not in order, and I will not apologize. I interpret your behavior as suspicious. As for whether organized edit-warring can be useful, yes it can. And you do not support the status quo, but rather simply PANONIAN and whatever he may be pushing at any one time (like his absurd "Nazi Serbia" fantasy country). Your latest "intervention" restored his edit through against the status quo ante (besides removing my own), and you never ever revert PANONIAN when he tries to get his edits through with edit-warring. In short, you can cut down on the "outrage", and you should take this as a warning. People do get sanctioned for WP:MEAT. -- Director (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh hullo Peacemaker. I don't know if you noticed, but your whole sockpuppet scheme has been revealed by PANONIAN. Again. Your plan to add Nazi flags to the Reichskommissariat Ostland article in 2008, so you can win an argument against PANONIAN in 2012, was just not good enough. You've been caught. -- Director (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
What's my problem? Allright. Let's try discussion one more time.
You have succeeded in rendering Misplaced Pages dysfunctional on that article for years, and have taken possession of it, infusing it with historical nonsense. While the issue of the WP:COMMONNAME is perhaps a complex one, your claim that there was a country or puppet state called "Serbia" during WWII is simply ridiculous. As all sources agree, the area was a territory under military administration (you're not about to fool anyone with the "1:0" nonsense). Peacemaker reports that the coordinator of WikiProject Former countries has recommended {{Infobox former subdivision}} as the appropriate infobox. Such an infobox must be complete with Axis German flag and insignia, also sporting "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" alone on top, with translations, as the official name (without a nonsense list of "alternative names" below).
In short, I will not rest until that article is free of the nonsense POV that promotes the existence of a non-existent country or puppet state. The fact that this territory, the 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia', was a German military occupation zone, must be laid out in the lede and infobox, clearly, unambiguously, and in accordance with general practice on all the other dozen such articles.
Do you, or do you not, intend to ever stop promoting the "puppet state" POV? And is there any possibility that this article might be brought in accordance with sources with your consent? i.e. without admin action? -- Director (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, if we have disagreement about one article, it does not give you right to post personal insults and threats addressed to me. Regarding that article, you for years trying to destroy it - you simply ignoring sources, misquoting sources and, for some reason, you trying to completely delete this part of the history of Serbian statehood. Also, you claim that "I have taken possession of article"? How so? I am only trying to make it NPOV, accurate and in accordance with sources. Also, I explained the issue of difference between "state/country" and "German military district" - that were two political entities that had absolutely same borders. Therefore, some sources mentioning area as "occupied territory" and some as "state/country", but these sources are not contradicting one to another - all these sources are correct. However, you completelly ignoring these sources that describing area as "state/country". Why? Why, for example, Serbian State Guard was named like this if "it had no state to guard"? I am sorry, but your behavior and your ignoring of sources and facts is simply unbelievable. As for "Infobox former subdivision", than one is fully unacceptable because Serbia was not subdivision of anything (or you have some evidence that it was?). And would you say why you now do not like current infobox when it was acceptable for you few months ago? Also, why you want to include Nazi flag? Do you have some source that say that it was flag of the area? PANONIAN22:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
What you are saying is that the quisling authorities, the Government of National Salvation of Nedic, were not just a government, but had the status of a puppet state? Are you aware that this is directly contradicted by sources quoted to you several times? Are you aware this is unheard-of in all of occupied Europe? And finally, are you aware that this is just plain impossible and a contradiction in terms? A "puppet state", by definition, is legally sovereign, just not de facto. The second it is occupied and military administration takes over the functions of government, it is no longer even legally sovereign and hence it is no longer a "state" at all.
I will not waste my time with you yet again. The sources are very clear: there was no puppet state. You may think whatever you wish, and you may personally "believe" otherwise, but not a single source really claims there was. No source mentions one. Several sources explicitly deny its existence. The fact that you are preventing users from repairing the article and bringing it in accordance with sources is WP:DISRUPTION. Your OR does not concern me. There was no puppet state. Are you prepared to ever face reality on this issue? -- Director (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Cut the crap. I thought that you will not play your games at least in personal correspondence. Since sources are referring to the area in both ways, as to "territory" and as to "country/state", I am offering you this compromise: 1. usage of term "territory" in whole article is acceptable for me (I will not insist that terms "country" or "state" are used), 2. however, territory was de facto and de jure separate from all other entities, so you should also not insist to make this article to look as article about some German province or colony (while northern Slovenia was annexed by Germany, Serbia was only occupied but not annexed, and therefore article should not imply that it was part of Germany - this include usage of "subdivision" infobox and flag of Germany. PANONIAN22:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
