Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:00, 24 February 2012

Also...

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! We appreciate your contributions to the Kosta Milovanović Pećanac article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! Luna Santin 10:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Which is a shame. We could use an article about the subject to counter systematic bias. Please rewrite it in your own words and use the site as a reference. - Mgm| 11:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

creating redirects

BoDu, I have reverted your edit here, which made conservative liberalism into a redirect to classical liberalism for two reasons:

1. This is not a way to request redirects. Please use the procedure specified in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion to delete, merge and redirect substantive articles to each other.
2. I disagree with your edit, because I believe that conservative liberalism is an ideology separate from classical liberalism.

I would advise you not to re-revert my edit, but instead use official procedures and article discussions for substantive changes to articles. Happy editing! C mon 14:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

{{Liberalism sidebar}}

BoDu I have again reverted your edit on the template liberalism. Please use the talk page to discuss major changes that are disputed, instead of disrupting wikipedia. C mon 12:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Draza Mihailovic

The reason why I keep reverting your edit is that you have not provided evidence for the claim that Mihailovic was decorated for other actions but the rescue of the airmen. Please talk about this in the Discussion section before editing again.--As286 14:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirection of the Partisans (Yugoslavia) article

Hi, BoDu. I feel I must ask, do you have any backing in your redirection? Was there any discussion, any consent here? They were known as the Partisans, you know (the chetniks most certainly were not). I await your answer, in the meantime I will look into this matter... DIREKTOR 01:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

So far I have no backing in my redirection. I think that the name of the article should be the official name of the movement which is not "Partisans" but "People' Liberation Army". BoDu 10:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying your move was wrong, but such radical changes must be discussed first. I read they were also known as "Partizanski odredi Yugoslavije" in some capacity. DIREKTOR 10:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:200px-CedomiljMijatovic.jpg

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:200px-CedomiljMijatovic.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Misplaced Pages:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. Thank you. HermesBot 17:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

An inquiry

Just for my information, would you answer a question: Are you a supporter of the so-called Chetnik movement (Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland)? I mean this not as an insult, of course, but I ask for the sake of easing further communication. (Also, it somehow seems logical due to your background and the character of your edits.) DIREKTOR 15:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am a supporter of the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland. Though I do not support everything they did. BoDu 11:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly hope not. In my oppinion (and in the oppinion of mainstream history) they were little better than the Ustaše (their counterparts, so to speak), merely because they were a much smaller organisation and because they were founded as an anti-fascist organisation. This is all besides the point though... thank you. DIREKTOR 13:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I have to say this - but you are say saying nonsense. Ante Pavelic was a fascist. Draza Mihailovic was not a fascist. Ante Pavelic advocated genocide against non-Croats. Draza Mihailovic did not advocate genocide against non-Serbs. BoDu 10:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but he committed crimes against non-Serbs, just as unhumanly as the Ustaše. The difference was the Ustaše had the Axis to help them. He was not a fascist, strictly speaking, but a rose by any other name... as they say... (he DID support Greater-Serbian dictatorship over other Yugoslav nations)

1. There is no proof that Draža Mihailović ever ordered crimes to be committed against non-Serbs.

2. On January 27,1944 at the Chetnik congress in the village of Ba, Draža Mihailović proposed democratic federal Yugoslavia. BoDu 11:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

1. That is just riddiculous (even if it is true, and I doubt it). There is no proof Tito ordered any crimes either then. Those are his troops under his command.
2. By 1944, the Chetniks would probably say anything. They were a nearly annihilated movement without (official) backing by the Axis or the Allies. Any declarations Mihailović made are irrelevant in 1944. Besides, it does nothing to redeem their policies of Serb dictatorship they supported up to then. DIREKTOR 14:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

1. If Josip Broz did not order his troops to commit crimes - he is not a war criminal. The same applies to Mihailović.

2. Mihailović did not propose dictatorship before 1944. And it is relevant what Mihailović declared in 1944 (was he honest is open to speculation). BoDu 11:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

1. The Chetniks had a genocidal agenda in the Yugoslav front, this is well known. They killed and muredered on an ethnic basis, not on a political basis. They performed organised ethnic cleansing operations on specific areas, this is also well documented. Such a level of multi-unit cooperation required for this clearly more than implicates the Chetnik command. (Are we talking about Tito or the Chetniks, here? If you knew your history, you would know that same rules DO NOT apply to Allied and non-Allied commanders.)
2. Like I said, what the Chetniks proclaimed in 1944 is not important (for them the war was practically over). You may not be aware that even the Ustaše started approaching the Allies (and changing policy accordingly) in 1944. Does that exempt them from their crimes? DIREKTOR 07:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Karchmar says that it is quite possible that those Chetniks who commited the crimes did it without the approal of Mihailović. Are we talking about Broz or Mihailović, here? Well, you first mentioned Broz so I responded.(Which rules do not apply to Allied and non-Allied commanders?)

2. As I said, what Mihailović proclaimed in 1944 is important. Is interesting that you ignored my argument that Mihailović - unlike Ante Pavelić - did not advocate dictatorship before 1944. BoDu 11:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Oh I'm sure its possible. Just not probable by any logical standards. Different standards do apply to Allied and non-Allied commanders, because of the cause they were fighting for. This is obvious from War Crimes Trbunals' findings and statements after the war.

2. Why exactly is it important what a defeated commander of a nearly annihilated and denounced movement says, after his previous actions to the contrary? Mihailović advocated (prior to his defeat) the old Serbian Yugoslavia, wich was anything but democratic, and had been ruled with an iron fist first by the dictator King Alexander and his lackeys, and afterwards the Regent Paul. You cannot claim this was a democracy, it simply wasn't. DIREKTOR 11:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

1a. It is not established fact by historians that Mihailović ordered Chetniks to commit the crimes. It is established fact by historians that Pavelić ordered Ustashas to commit the crimes.

1b. Allied commanders were court-martialed and found guilty of committing war crimes. For example, Sergeant Horace T. West.

2. Mihailović did not advocate - prior to his defeat - the old Yugoslavia. In 1942 Mihailović proposed program for Yugoslavia after the war. This program proposed universal franchise(inluding votes for women)secret ballot,parlamentarizam. BoDu 11:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

1.a It is not, but in the long run that does not matter. Their crimes were numerous and gruesome. They were a Serb radical nationalist genocidal movement, famous for their hatred of non-Serbs (the vast majority of thefew non-Serbs that did join their movement in the beginning left it within a year).

1.b Yes (of course!), but different standards were applied because of their alignment.

2. They advocated a Yugoslavia in wich all the other nations were to be repressed and their existance subjected to democide. Does the angelic Draža state at any point he accepts the need for national self-determination of the Yugoslav peoples? DIREKTOR 11:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

1.a Some Chetniks did gruesome crimes but Mihailović was the leader of the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland. If the leader of the YAF did not order his men to commit the crimes than it can hardly be said that YAF was genocidal movement.

1.b My point is that Sergeant Horace T. West found guilty of committing a war crime of the same kind that the Partisans commited.

2. Karchmar says that Mihailović's first program in 1942 was "far from chauvinistic" so I guess the answer to your question is - yes. BoDu 12:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

1.a What? So what you're saying is that the Chetniks colud kill half of Yugoslavia's civilians, but if they weren't ordered to do so by Draža, they are not a genocidal movement? My friend, its what you do, not what you say that matters.

1.b Trials are conducted case by case, like I said, different standards apply for filing accusations. And anyway you cannot compare the Yugoslav front with the Western one, or Marshall Broz with a Sergeant in the US? Army.

2. I don't care about Krchmar's claims, for every author that says Chetniks were "moderate" I can find you a dozen that say the Chetniks did not accept the demands of the Yugoslav nations for self-determination.
I ask you again: Does General Draža Miailović (on behalf of the YAF) make a proclamation/declaration at any point that he accepts the need for national self-determination of other (non-Serb) Yugoslav peoples? Yes or no?

1.a I stand by my words. It is interesting what Britannica says about Ustashas and Chetniks. Britannica mentions Ustashas crimes but it does not mention Chetniks crimes.

1.b It does not matters is it Yugoslav front or Western one, Marshall Broz or a Sergeant in the US - to order murder of prisoners was a war crime.

2.a You should care about Karchmar's claims because he is the most reliable historian on Draža Mihailović

2.b I answered your question BoDu 12:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

1a So you refuse logical arguments and stick implicitly to what you claim? I can't say that suprises me... Like I said, its what you do, not waht you say that matters.

1b Yes it does. Wich Soviet comander was tried for war crimes?

2a We are talking about his personal oppinion here. Not scientificly proven facts. He is not the only acclaimed expert on the Chetniks, you know, but he certainly is the most "radical" one, so to speak.

2b Please indulge me and answer me again, yes or no.

DIREKTOR 13:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

1a. Exactly, its what you do, not what you say that matters. Some Chetnik commanders were saying that they are members of the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland but in fact they were pursuing its own policy. These Chetnik commanders were de facto leaders of the independent Chetnik movements.

1b. The Nuremberg Tribunal stated that the 1929 Geneva Convention was binding to all nations which fought WW2. Consequently, all Allied commanders who ordered murder of prisoners are de facto war criminals.

2a. Karchmar's claims suggest it is not established fact by historians that Mihailović advocated dictatorship before 1944.

2b. I answered your question. BoDu 12:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not gonna do this any more... your POV is increadibly strong. You answered my inquiry more than sufficiently, thank you. DIREKTOR 15:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Momčilo Đujić

As you seem to know a lot about Chetniks, I suggest you look at Momčilo Đujić, a croatian user recently vandalized the article. Paulcicero 14:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

March 2010

You've been reported on WP:ANI --DIREKTOR 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Formal notification of Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions

You have been edit-warring to remove sourced material on Draža Mihailović in contravention of Misplaced Pages policy. I case you weren't aware, this article comes under the Arbcom ruling linked in the header above. Any further disruption on the article will lead to your account being blocked without further warning. Please discuss content changes on the article talk-page and, if necessary, pursue the other measures listed at WP:DR. Thank you, EyeSerene 16:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have additionally blocked you for 24 hours for breaking WP:3RR on the above article. EyeSerene 16:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Template:Z9

This is for continuing to revert as soon as your first block above expired.  Sandstein  15:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:Mediation for Draza Mihailovic article

Please learn how to file for mediation. Nobody is not going to agree to such a biased description of the issue. --DIREKTOR 15:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

@Direktor:Nobody? Why don´t you start speaking for yourself. You are once again trying to speak in name of some "community". Please behave in accordance to what you really are (editor).

@BoDu:The request should be extended to the article Chetniks and to the Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism since the issue (level and importance of their collaboration) and the sources (the editors mostly too) are the same. FkpCascais (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

When I say "nobody", then naturally I mean nobody from the opposing side of the debate. I never had any doubt you would support any chance you can get to eliminate the sources from the article. I'm sorrys if my meaning was not 'completely obvious.

BoDu, your description of the issue is 1) totally biased, and 2) ignores every single response anybody ever wrote to your posts. It ignores the fact that the "lack of consensus" on the issue is your own personal opinion (without a single solitary source opposing the ones in the article), and it ignores the fact that the Britannica entry has been conclusively discredited as copy-pasted text from a blog.

If you want to write a serious mediation request, I suugest you remove those quite obviously misleading statements from the issue description, and that you simply describe the issue in the most unbiased wording imaginable. A sincere effort at neutrality and verifiability is required from anyone trying to describe the issue properly. --DIREKTOR 14:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I will try to do it as soon as possible. We must have to see the most effective way for it. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, you discredited yourself by making claim that the Brittannica entry is a copy-pasted text from a blog (see talk page on Mihailovic article). As for your suggestion, is for you acceptable the following text for the issue description:

"Should the article contain statement "the issue whether Mihailovic was a collaborator is disputed among historians" or "Mihailovic was a collaborator""? BoDu (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the request. From what I understood (I never donne this request) we just have to present the issues that are disputed, without any explanations. It is afterwords, that in case the mediation is accepted, that we are going to be asked to expose the cases and explain them. Well, I hope that it is going to be enough to be accepted, if you know someone with experience on this call him to help us, and I hope I am not forgeting nothing... FkpCascais (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

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

Hi BoDu, just to let you know that the mediation has begin. Here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Draza_Mihailovic#Begin_mediation.

New draft of Draža Mihailović article

JJG has completed a new draft of the article. I am asking for participants comments here. If you haven't much time, would you be able to just look at the lead and provide comments? Sunray (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Have completed (well, as far as anything can be completed here) and expanded the draft. Comments welcome. :) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Photo

Hi,

the photo you're suggesting is certainly much better. However, can it be freely used or is it copyrighted ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yep, I saw this after sending my previous message. As I said above, suggestions and comments are welcome for the draft. Cheers :) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:145 Draza Mihajlovic.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:145 Draza Mihajlovic.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:145 Draza Mihajlovic.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:145 Draza Mihajlovic.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:145 Draza Mihajlovic.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:145 Draza Mihajlovic.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Mihailovic mediation

The time is now approaching for us to bring this mediation (or at least, this phase of it) to a close. I would welcome constructive comments from all participants as to what could reasonably be dealt with before closing. Please respond on the mediation talk page. Sunray (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I note that you have not been active onwiki for some time now. Here's an update. The draft article is nearly complete and it has been decided that we will move it to replace the article. At the moment some mediation participants are working out terms of discussion, so as to increase the odds of a focused dialogue. As soon as that is completed, we will unlock the article and proceed. Please join in when you are back. Sunray (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back to the mediation. I have being trying to shift the discussion away from Karchmar--it has become a circular discussion that isn't going anywhere. Two days ago, I suggested that we move on to the topic of collaboration. I note that you are interested in this. Would you be able to pursue some discussion of issues here? (tomorrow, that is, I think you have reached your limit of posts for today). :) BTW, the template was first developed in 2009 and as Fainites observes, many people have added to it. If you think it is problematic, we can come back to it after the mediation. Sunray (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Mihailović: Draft for new section on "Collaboration"

During the mediation, we agreed to discuss two additional topics on the article talk page: 1) Ethnic conflict and terror tactics, and, 2) Collaboration. The former was completed some time ago. Nuujinn has now drafted a proposed section on the latter subject. I am contacting mediation participants to see if they wish to comment. The draft can be found here. Any comments would be most appreciated. Sunray (talk) 06:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Three revert warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

That's it for me

I've had it, if you start an edit war over a half-dozen articles I'll just bring up your POV-warring on ANI. When reverted, propose changes on the talkpage and work towards a consensus. I'll not play this "my way or the highway" game with you. -- Director (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

we may not agree on much, but I'm with Director on this. Play by the rules. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not against the rules to remove the material that was added without consensus. That's what I have done. BoDu (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding? So we can just remove any piece of information on Misplaced Pages that isn't directly backed by some agreement of several people? Utter nonsense. It is against the rules to go around wantonly deleting content and then edit-warring without a word of discussion. And don't try to turn this around - its you who's editing without consensus, or even any discussion. -- Director (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Look, BoDu, you've got it wrong. Every edit-warring POV-pusher has some convoluted "logic" which "justifies" their bullying and vandalism. The only thing that matters is that once you're reverted you STOP and see whether YOUR EDIT has consensus. This isn't the Kosovo article where people just fling dirt at one-another. -- Director (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Was template about the Axis collaboration in Yugoslavia created with consensus? Yes or no? BoDu (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

"Yes or no?" So you're in charge, are you?

What kind of absurd, nonsense question is that? Virtually all Misplaced Pages content doesn't have an explicit consensus behind it. Look you obviously have no concept whatsoever on the functionings of Misplaced Pages. You are NOT "allowed" to delete any content you don't like, simply because it wasn't entered with a consensus. Find me a policy that states you can delete anything if it wasn't added by consensus. Find it, I challenge you, because I can find you WP:BRD without any trouble. This "rule" you've invented for yourself is nothing more than an absurd excuse to "justify" your bullying and edit-warring - of the kind all POV-pushers invent for themselves. -- Director (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)