User talk:Peacemaker67 Information
I dunno what your timeline is for for this article, but it has a gaping hole in that there's no coverage of Naval Aviation. How's your French? I've just stumbled across an article in that language that covers the subject in a moderate amount of detail. If you can read it, I can send you a .pdf or you can wait for me to translate it and add the material myself. I didn't see any info from the Freivogel book so I suspect it's not a high priority for you at the moment, but I'll try and get everything updated this month or next. If you're planning to send it to FAC sooner, give me a buzz and I can advance that timetable.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Feel free to add anything you have access to,
Sturm. I won't be nomming it for FAC until I've sifted through both volumes of Velimir Terzić's Slom Kraljevine Jugoslavije 1941 [The Collapse of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1941], which has a lot of detail about the history and development of the navy up to the war. I have also ordered a few of Freivogel's books, and won't be doing much on the navy until they arrive via slow boat from Croatia.
click to talk to me) 03:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Also, my French is la merde.
click to talk to me) 04:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Good. Hopefully they'll have some more info on Zmaj's peacetime activities, as I need to trawl through Freivogel and see what I can add to that article. IIRC, you're more interested in Yugoslavia than its predecessor states, is that right? 'Cause I found a three part article in French on the Royal Serbian Air Service in this pile of French aviation magazines that I've got. If that's not your thing, I'll just add the citations to the relevant articles. I'm glad that your Serbo-Croat is better than my crappy French and worse German. (Tenses, what are they for, again?)-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 04:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Also, my French is la merde. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 04:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Be careful what you ask for.
click to talk to me) 23:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- To be clear, I didn't ask because I thought you'd be on one side or another but because El C asked for input from an admin in the Balkans topic area and you are basically the only one that I know of who gets involved in these matters. --
talk) 00:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's good, because frankly I have taken a dim view of the ongoing behaviour of a number of editors in the Balkans space, especially in the last nine months to a year. BTW, EdJohnston has also been willing to look into these issues in the past, and he is not involved in the way I am. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 00:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- To be clear, I didn't ask because I thought you'd be on one side or another but because El C asked for input from an admin in the Balkans topic area and you are basically the only one that I know of who gets involved in these matters. -- Griboski ( talk) 00:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this is best practice
If you want to revert and protect the version before a dispute started, it's one thing, but note I just expanded a previously existing note then the note was removed. You protected not a 'stable' version but a new version with a note totally removed, further, right now only three people commented on the talk page, and right now two support my revision (well, one being myself, shrug). I am fine waiting to see what more people think but I think it is unfair that you restored one of the disputed versions instead of the previously stable one (from ~24h ago). Further, you also undid my edit that added referenced content that has not been challenged by anyone on talk or in an edit summary. How's that helpful? I think you should either restore the stable infobox version from before my edit here or simply protect the final version you found (which FYI does not have the infobox I prefer, I did not revert as I was following BRD and waiting for more comments on talk and I just started copyediting other parts of the article). Reverting my recent edit which, I repeat, was not disputed by anyone so far, and then protecting the page is just confusing, and it suggests involvement (protecting a version 'you like'). I don't think that was your intention, so please, either restore the version from 24h ago or restore my latest unchallenged edit. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- There is always someone who thinks the wrong version has been protected. You were edit warring, and should have sorted it out on the talk page, not via edit summaries. The current consensus is a combination of those that have reverted you and those discussing on the talk page. Just work towards a consensus on the talk page, THEN implement it in the article. I am not “involved” because I reverted you, I have expressed no view on the matter in question. Thanks,
click to talk to me) 12:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67, You fail to answer why you have reverted me before protecting the page. You did not explain why you did not choose to protect the stable version. And you did not answer why you reverted my edit that added new content, new references, and that wasn't challenged by anyone except you. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. This isn't about "wrong version". This is about you involving yourself in a dispute by participating in an edit war then using your admin powers to protect your own preferred version (which as it happens, was NOT the long standing stable version). You expressed an opinion by participating in an edit war.The version that has been there for years is the one with consensus so it's those who wish to change from that version that need to obtain new consensus. 00:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I highly appreciate your work and dedication, and I have an obligation to respect your assessment of the policy violation and the decision on restrictions. However, one thing I have to say. I'm really disappointed and deeply shaken by certain descriptions. To accuse me of pro-nationalist views and denial of genocide is a serious misunderstanding. Especially since I have been deeply devoted all my life to condemning nationalism and prejudice of any kind. Even on Wikipedia, I wrote countless criticisms of Serbian politics and its leaders, including nationalist moves ( 1991–1992 anti-war protests in Belgrade, Aleksandar Vučić, Tomislav Nikolić, Slobodan Milošević, 2018–2020 Serbian protests, Media freedom in Serbia...). Many of my family members are of different ethnic and religious groups, they would be shocked to hear that someone judged me like this.
I never questioned the Bosnian genocide and war crimes during the Bosnian war. Moreover, I also wrote condemnations of denial. The last change in the article is an accidental mistake that has nothing to do with Bosnia, or Balkan issues in general. A mere coincidence. Those sections still need to be removed from the Genocides in history (before World War I) article. Furthermore, during 12 years on Wikipedia, I hardly ever interfered in articles about Chetniks. I have been involved in recent weeks, and I have never covered up crimes, diminished their number, or brutality. I just opened the question of historical and legal classification, more precisely whether there is a consensus or not. Indeed, no one should accuse me of denying or downplaying. I admit that I used to react emotionally, especially now I am privately in a difficult period, but I often apologized and I almost always preferred to resolve the misunderstanding with a civilized agreement. I am simply such a person. I wish you could see that too. I feel very sad because of the whole situation, and especially these strong labels. I hope that there will be opportunities for us to cooperate in the future. If I can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards.-- WEBDuB ( talk) 14:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)