Infobox
editThis is the proper way to fill out this type of infobox. Are you capable of understanding this? If territory from Italy and Germany was included in the second Yugoslavia, then this is the proper way to fill out this infobox. Capisce? :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Direktor is in this instance correct - as far as I remember from history, a large chunk of Slovenia and the Istria region around Rijeka (Fiume) in Croatia was historically part of Italy and was handed over post-war to Yugoslavia as part of the Paris Peace Treaties, 1947. I'm not sure re Nazi Germany as the bits of Serbia that were part of the Austro-Hungarian empire were already part of Yugoslavia, but there may be another area I am not aware of which was transferred. Orderinchaos 03:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC
- You have stripped the word "successor" from its meaning (a political, cultural, military, etc ANCESTOR) to merely a geographical successor, only to suit your need for an objective measurement. This would not be a problem, if it didn't send the wrong and insulting message to everyone but the administrators who understand why this is so.
- And don't tell me "nobody cares what your interpretation of the word successor means" because I care, and so do all the people who sacrificed their lives fighting the evil you claim they succeeded. --Barlo7 (TALK) 19:07:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, I'm sorry to have been so gruff, but you're exhausting my powers of persuasion. How do I explain this to you? This is the correct way to do it on Wiki, I'm sorry you don't approve. Please do not remove this info again. The information will be quickly restored and you will very likely be blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you had actually read what I wrote, you would know that I understand how that box works, furthermore, I understand why it is made that way. It is you who is incapable of understanding why it is wrong and deceiving, because you are obsessed with "the correct way to do it on Wiki".--Barlo7 (TALK) 11:58:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- I understand why you think it is wrong and deceiving. The point is, you can think its "deceiving" or "evil" or whatever, just don't edit because the infobox is perfectly correct. I'm sure that now that you "understand how that box works" you will refrain from making silly edits that are contrary to the way the box works. Rest assured, I know what I'm talking about. I'm something of a WWII enthusiast and I know quite a bit about WWII Yugoslavia, especially the Partisans (if I do say so myself :). I've been editing on that subject for a very long time. Trust me, nobody sees that infobox with those flags as anything other than Yugoslavia incorporating territory from Germany and Italy after WWII. You are under a misconception, and you think people will believe Germany somehow created Yugoslavia or something like that? That is not the case. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- The least you could do is to write the percent of the land incorporated by the "successor" next to the flag, although the right thing to do would be to remove that part of the box, because it is misleading to those who have no knowledge about the subject and therefore insulting to some. I am sure you think nobody could interpret this falsely, because you are familiar with the subject and a Wiki expert, but for the same reasons, you lack an objective view. --Barlo7 (TALK) 20:38:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Only a person unfamiliar with Wikipedia might make that assumption, but even then this is imho unlikely. Why would someone conclude Germany formed Yugoslavia? To make a long story short, there's nothing that can be done, and this is the perfectly correct way to write these infoboxes. Case closed. :) Believe me, there is no way I would agree to this article presenting wrong and "anti-Yugoslav" biased information. I am working on writing this article as an "A-Class" Wiki article :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- It needs to be perfectly clear what it means or else it might be misleading. You've basically said it yourself. --Barlo7 (TALK) 21:54:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Only a person unfamiliar with Wikipedia might make that assumption, but even then this is imho unlikely. Why would someone conclude Germany formed Yugoslavia? To make a long story short, there's nothing that can be done, and this is the perfectly correct way to write these infoboxes. Case closed. :) Believe me, there is no way I would agree to this article presenting wrong and "anti-Yugoslav" biased information. I am working on writing this article as an "A-Class" Wiki article :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- The least you could do is to write the percent of the land incorporated by the "successor" next to the flag, although the right thing to do would be to remove that part of the box, because it is misleading to those who have no knowledge about the subject and therefore insulting to some. I am sure you think nobody could interpret this falsely, because you are familiar with the subject and a Wiki expert, but for the same reasons, you lack an objective view. --Barlo7 (TALK) 20:38:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- I understand why you think it is wrong and deceiving. The point is, you can think its "deceiving" or "evil" or whatever, just don't edit because the infobox is perfectly correct. I'm sure that now that you "understand how that box works" you will refrain from making silly edits that are contrary to the way the box works. Rest assured, I know what I'm talking about. I'm something of a WWII enthusiast and I know quite a bit about WWII Yugoslavia, especially the Partisans (if I do say so myself :). I've been editing on that subject for a very long time. Trust me, nobody sees that infobox with those flags as anything other than Yugoslavia incorporating territory from Germany and Italy after WWII. You are under a misconception, and you think people will believe Germany somehow created Yugoslavia or something like that? That is not the case. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you had actually read what I wrote, you would know that I understand how that box works, furthermore, I understand why it is made that way. It is you who is incapable of understanding why it is wrong and deceiving, because you are obsessed with "the correct way to do it on Wiki".--Barlo7 (TALK) 11:58:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, I'm sorry to have been so gruff, but you're exhausting my powers of persuasion. How do I explain this to you? This is the correct way to do it on Wiki, I'm sorry you don't approve. Please do not remove this info again. The information will be quickly restored and you will very likely be blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- And don't tell me "nobody cares what your interpretation of the word successor means" because I care, and so do all the people who sacrificed their lives fighting the evil you claim they succeeded. --Barlo7 (TALK) 19:07:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
October 2009
edit
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. — Jake Wartenberg 01:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)