User talk:Peacemaker67/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Pavelić section "Birth and education"

I added this section, because it is clearly neutral. Ofc, if you see neutrality there, please just edit the section (but I believe there is no neutrality). --Wustenfuchs 13:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

1RR at Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander)

Per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case, this article is subject to 1RR. Reverting more than one time in a 24-hour period may result in a block or a ban from this article and its talk page. All reverts should be discussed on the talk page. This is a bright line, not an entitlement, and reverting exactly once per day is considered disruption, and users doing so are subject to being blocked. Please see this notice about recent edit warring. Editors wishing to make controversial edits are strongly advised to discuss them first. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 01:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

message received. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI thread

PANONIAN has posted a report on WP:ANI that may marginally concern you [1]. Cheers -- Director (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Re PANONIAN's mediation

Peacemaker, I feel I must warn you against mediations. Maybe they work on normal disputes where everyone follows some sort of logic and there's a willingness to concede, but here in these sort of disputes, on Balkans articles - its a nightmare. All it will do is bog-down the dispute for good. PANONIAN is on an agenda, his goal is not improving Wikipedia, and it thus negates the whole point of his involvement if he concedes that there was no country there. And the matter is so confusing and complex that no mediator will actually do the research and base his position on it (frankly I still can't believe you did it :)). Their priority (by-and-large) is the agreement of Wikipedia users, not the facts. In my opinion, the discussion would look no different than it currently is - it will just last forever. The last mediation I was involved in, on exactly this sort of issue, lasted two years and did nothing at all. The dispute only ended when FkpCascais was topic-banned, if you remember. -- Director (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

on contemplating the likely outcome, I tend to agree. I would rather work on the content of articles than have a incredibly long time-consuming mediation about an imperfect article title I can live with while I help get the article up to scratch. Once the article is close to GAN status, I will consider re-visiting the title. I have located copies of Lemkin and Ramet's 'Serbia and the Serbs', and hopefully they will contain some gems. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What I'd really like to get done is the infobox, and that's one issue I think there's no objective reason to compromise on at all. It should be just like the one in all the other fifteen such articles. While naturally not all articles about occupied Europe need an infobox, articles about occupation zones do use infoboxes [2], as does the vast majority of articles that can be generally classified as being on "territories". Panonian of course would sooner get indefinitely blocked than accept a German flag on his personal WWII country, but when an occupation zone doesn't have a flag of its own like Allied-occupied Germany, its customary to use the flag of the occupying nation. This is part of a more general infobox practice where territories that are controlled by a a country, and do not have a flag of their own, use the country's flag in the infobox.

Frankly I also look on the infobox as an important improvement that will protect the article from Panonian's "puppet country" POV, and a potential "nail in the coffin" on the a-historical nonsense he's desperately trying to squeeze into the article as much as he possibly can. Mind you - infoboxes always use the official name of the territory they cover, nothing else. I expect Panonian may well try to pretend the article is about something else entirely rather than the Territory of the Military commander, so as to avoid using that name in the infobox, i.e. he may try to change the whole subject and scope of the article, or claim that this or that was now suddenly "always" the subject. It certainly wouldn't be anything new. -- Director (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I see what you are getting at, but I still think there are two issues that need to be considered regarding flags. One is the concession the Germans made to allow the use of the Serbian flag in the territory, and also the issue of the Military Commander's flag. There would have been numerous flags flying about the place, including the Serbian one on some buildings, and many different Nazi ones on others. The Nazi's just loved flags. And no doubt the Bulgarians flew their flag in the areas they occupied (the vast majority by 1943). But I thought the purpose of the flag was to show what flag was used to represent the territory at the time, not who was occupying it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

also, I have had a read of [3], and there doesn't appear to be a good reason to include any flag in the infobox.Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no regulation or specific reason why an infobox should be used in any article on Wikipedia - except the for the idea that they provide clarity. And if one article needs clarity, some uniformity, and needs to be part of an organized whole - its this one. Nobody likes the Nazi flag, and I feel strange "advocating its use", but what it does do is it very clearly lets the reader know what this territory was, who controlled it, and how directly - particularly if the reader is reading on the German occupation and all the other military zones they established (which is very likely).

The details of infobox use, and even their use as a whole, have nothing in particular to do with policy. The watchword there is "common practice", what is "usually done" with this or that infobox in this or that situation. The reason why people try to do things everyone else is doing is that infoboxes really are powerful and tricky, and can be confusing - if not used carefully and properly. If everyone, or at least most, use the infobox and use it in a certain way, it helps reduce this negative aspect of infobox use very significantly. Contrast all this with the fact that the article currently sports PANONIAN's home-made, single-issue, "special" custom infobox... -- Director (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

that's all fine, but I personally think infoboxes are overused, and agree with many of the sentiments at WP:DISINFOBOX. I see no reason to use the Nazi flag in this infobox if the article must have one. I agree it's a nonsense to design a unique infobox for this article, but what are the alternatives? Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I also think that infoboxes are overused, in principle. They are everywhere. But this is not the article from which to start the "anti-infobox Wikirevolution" :). That thing over there needs to be nursed back to health. The reason I see for using the German flag is the same why the other dozen articles of this sort use it - because it was a territory under direct German control (hence German flag). That's one reason, the other reason is the very fact that all other articles of this sort use the German flag. Its a good thing to organize articles of the same type in a similar way, both generally speaking, and specifically for this article. As Panonian has pretty much manged to confuse the issue of the organization of the territory, to have the article integrated into the group of all the others of its type will be an excellent antidote. -- Director (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What articles specifically are you referring to that have the Nazi flag in the info box? Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Why practically all the other articles on German occupation zones, military (Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers) or civil (Reichskommissariat) [4][5][6][7][8][9] [10]. And as I said, its part of a more general practice of not leaving the flag field empty, but using the flag of the country that administers the territory. -- Director (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

ok, point taken. On that basis, I've just been trying to think of a way forward with this, other than endless WP:TLDR posts on the talkpage. Perhaps if we could enlist some help from the MILHIST project? Anyone you can think of that might be sufficiently disinterested to be acceptable to User:PANONIAN? Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm reasonably certain noone I invite would be acceptable to User:PANONIAN. -- Director (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to put something brief together for the MILHIST talk page to see if anyone is interested. Can you see any issues with that approach? Alternatively, RfC? Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Posting an invite on MILHIST seems a good start. But I'm worried. This is not an issue that can be easily understood, and PANONIAN will inevitably attempt to confuse the matter with the out-of-context sentence or two he's managed to find. We should be very clear from the outset about things like what the sources say the actual official name of this territory was, and what "Serbia" can mean... the status of the puppet government, etc. Its a very complex issue. There are more than a few excellent Wikipedians on MILHIST, people very familiar with WWII and with an abundance of sources at hand. I just hope someone with the means to do the research will be interested. -- Director (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

what about infoboxes? Is it worth asking the former countries project ppl?Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think our best option might be to present the whole case at WP:AE. -- Director (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. BTW, the 'former country' WikiProject coordinator suggests the most appropriate infobox for this territory would be the 'Infobox former subdivision' as used in East Berlin. What are your views?

I tend to agree, the two infoboxes are very similar. My priority is that we use 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia' in the title, and use the appropriate flag and insignia. -- Director (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It's either mediation with Steven or WP:AE. He is not on receive... Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Peacemaker, I've been reviewing the {{Infobox former subdivision}} template, and it seems pretty much the same as the {{Infobox former country}} template, except that its older, not as polished as the latter, and does not have certain categories that I think might be useful. I'd like you to review and test-out the infoboxes and see whether you think {{Infobox former country}} might be alright after all. To be clear, this has nothing to do with the territory itself, I just like the more up-to-date appearance and completeness of the latter. -- Director (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violation of sanctions prohibiting more than 1 revert in a 24 hour period at Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander)‎. Specifically this and this. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Tiptoety ^talk 17:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Wait.. what? Now just a minute. That second link is not a "revert", the man just corrected a mistake of mine. I have absolutely no problem with it. I mean.. should I have done it? Tiptoety, I believe you misinterpreted the edit. Would you please unblock? (I'm fully aware of the red tape required to appeal to an arbitration enforcement block, but this is really an obvious mistake, and by the time the issue is reviewed the greater part of the 24 hours would likely pass anyway.) -- Director (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The edit summary reads: "rm unsourced Serbian translations of sourced terms in English and German", and this section on the talk page indicates to me that it was more than just a mistake that Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) was correcting. The wording in both of those things seem to indicate to me that is/was disputed content. And yes, you should have corrected it yourself, or he should have contacted you first. As the edit stands it looks like a revert (even if it is just a partial revert). Tiptoety ^talk 22:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It may look like a revert - but it really isn't. I don't want to double-post, but as I said on your talk, my consent is implied from the very fact that the translations were unsourced. Peacemaker knows this through extensive interaction between us, and likely did not expect to have his correction viewed as a "revert" of some sort.

@Peacemaker since this is an arbitration enforcement block, an admin can't unblock you. You'd technically need to appeal according to the instructions at WP:AEBLOCK, but its more-or-less pointless since by the time the committee reviews your request your block will have long expired anyway. I wouldn't worry about this, though, its really an "accident" more than anything else. -- Director (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2012 (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).

Peacemaker67 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The second 'translation' partial rv relates to discussion that had already taken place on the current talk page under 'Names Section', which I further clarified and which User:Director commented on. I should not have assumed that Director had made a mistake, I take your point regarding contacting Director first, and my tone clearly should have been more neutral. I'm afraid my frustration with the addition of unsourced material to this article got the better of me. I request unblocking on the basis that I am contrite and the subject material had been discussed on the talk page previously.

Decline reason:

Sorry, an AE block may not be reviewed in this fashion; please read the template above. Kuru (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2012 (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.

No worries. Seems a bit dramatic, but I'll just stand down and wait for the clock to stop ticking. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Email this user

Would you consider enabling this function, please? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

done Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:AE

This a notification to inform you that an WP:AE discussion related to you is taking place. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 09:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Request for translation

Hello Peacemaker67, I've left a comment at Talk:Serbia_(Territory_of_the_German_Military_Commander)#Official_name_for_the_Territory_referred_to_as_.27Serbia_under_German_occupation.27. Regards, De728631 (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Map of the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia

Hi Peacemaker67, all your suggestions are sensible ones so I will create a map along those lines and upload it to WP:COMMONS. Have you got a reference for the German Area and District Commands that I can quote? I already have the basemap so I will be able to knock something up pretty quickly. I'll put it up on the article when done. XrysD (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

OK it's up! Let me know if you feel there are any changes needed. XrysD (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I can use Tomasevich ref [64] for the four area and district commands. But there is nothing in the article about the Veliki Beckerek and Pancevo commands. I think we would need something about them (with a reference) in the text to go with the map. I am not doubting that they were commands, but we need to tie the map and article together :) Once this is done I will modify the map accordingly. I also see that the maps and text about the civil admin have now been moved to the Government of National Salvation article with a link from its former location. This makes sense but the map in the GNS infobox is illegible on that scale so I shall create something along the lines of the other infobox map to replace it. XrysD (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I've created and uploaded the new Infobox map for the Government of National Salvation page. I've also uploaded a new version of the main civil admin map and changed the title. I don't always agree with DIREKTOR (see our debate about the NDH!) but on this occasion the documentary evidence seems clear that there was no Serbian state in this period and so having "Serbia 1941-44" as the map title is misleading. I've also come across a number of German WWII period maps recently and they all label the territory as Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien. XrysD (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There was a bit of a disagreement with DIREKTOR over the map (see XrysD Talk and DIREKTOR Talk). But he has now given valid reasons for the colour changes he made and they make sense to me so I will be able to modify the map to add the labels for the Banat while making the changes he suggests. XrysD (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Another difficult subject

I initially intended to wait for User:FkpCascais to finish-up with his topic ban before suggesting this, but since he was caught evading and got his ban extended for another six months, I'm really thinking there's no reason to wait. I'm talking about Draza Mihailovic. There still isn't a decent paragraph discussing his collaboration as the head of the Chetnik movement. I think we oughta try tackling the problem of putting together a comprehensive, and unbiased, piece of text on his involvements with the Axis. Thoughts? -- Director (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

you really are focused on the 'low hanging fruit', aren't you? Alright, I'm interested, but my view is that the whole article needs greater focus on DM and his limitations as nominal head of the Chetnik movement, and less on the actions of his supposed underlings, who in quite a few cases he had little influence with. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Low hanging fruit? You are aware this goal exhausted the efforts of a half-dozen users over two years? :)

Actually, I agree. We should focus on his own actions. However, reading through The Chetniks I did not get the impression he was the "nominal" head of the Chetnik movement. While he did not directly control the Chetniks in western Yugoslavia (which is logical, being cut-off from them), he did control the Chetniks in Serbia, and later in Montenegro as well. Or to be more precise, I've seen no reason to think he did not control the movement in eastern Yugoslavia. At the Battle of Neretva, for example, he assumed direct control. -- Director (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Zaharije Ostojic1.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Zaharije Ostojic1.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have questions, please post them here.
• I will automatically 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 ask an admin to turn it off here.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the proposed input from that one board will work

I've noticed that there are posts there dating back to early April that have not been responded to. I think that that board is essentially dead, it appears like almost no one volunteers for it. Sigh, it looks like another way will have to be found to resolve the dispute. Is there any noticeboard where this material could be brought? Should it be taken to a dispute resolution noticeboard? Because it seems apparent that it is a dispute now.--R-41 (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at Wikipedia:Negotiation - it suggests to reach compromise a typed agreement should be made and agreed to by the differing factions on an issue. I have created a rough draft of one that focuses on obtaining a mutual agreement between the one side that only wants the SFRY flag and the other side that wants both the Kingdom's flag and the SFRY flag, first on what we will not accept as arguments from each other, and then an agreement on having this issue brought to all the members of WikiProject Yugoslavia to vote on the matter, after an indepth review has been made by third party users as well as WP:EXPERT if possible into the issues of offensiveness of both the Kingdom's flag and the SFRY flag to peoples in the former Yugoslavia. I think that this is a fair course of action, if we agree to accept a certain number of each others disagreements, we can move forward without needing to resort to arbitration.--R-41 (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I personally have little confidence in the process you have outlined, but will play along to see where it goes. RfC seems like the next step to me, as this is not a content issue. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It is embarassing to say, but I have not requested an RfC before, how do you go about doing it? Second of all, I think that we need to have something that is the alternative to the SFRY-only template - is my proposal of the Kingdom's flag alongside the SFRY flag acceptable?--R-41 (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest WP:RfC? I can't stop you, but its a mistake. As Peacemaker says, this is not a Wikipedia content dispute, its essentially an aesthetic issue concerning a WikiProject banner. Even if you're not shown the door, and even if someone happens to care, I don't think its beneficial for enWiki to bother RfC users for this sort of thing. I suggest you notify project members, as its really up to them in the end. Either way, it never really happens, but I have to ask: please try to present the matter as neutrally as possible. -- Director (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is time to bring in outside users to at least review this. Direktor, you've made your point clearly, others have made their points clearly, it is now time for some less frustrated users from outside to review. It is an aesthetic dispute that currently may be offending non-communist users who do not see themselves as represented by the Project that exclusively shows the symbolism of the SFRY state, and indeed it is possible that the plain tricolour may offend pro-Titoist or pro-communist users. The vote will ultimately be determined by the WikiProject Yugoslavia members - they may very well agree with your proposal - the SFRY symbol is the last symbol of a united Yugoslavia, they may not. First we should get outside review and advice.--R-41 (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Look, what this boils down to is personal opinion. User:Some Guy could arrive and say he prefers your point of view or mine (which actually happened), but it doesn't really help us conclude the matter since they're not project members and this isn't a factual dispute. The only opinions that matter re changing our project banner, are the opinions of other participants in said project. I suggest you notify them of the discussion and receive uninvolved input that way (being careful to avoid WP:CANVASSING and just notifying them). -- Director (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

WWII Persecution of Serbs

The number of Serbs killed by Ustashe listed by the US Holocaust Museum is incorrect. I tried to change it to the correct number, and I received a message from you. Here is a link to the number that the US Holocaust Museum lists. This is a link to the actual website, where it clearly says, "330,000-390,000". Go to the bottom of the page where they list victims by ethnicity. Either correct your webpage, or allow me to do so. http://www.ushmm.org/museum/press/archives/detail.php?category=06-exhibitions&content=2001-11-13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.98 (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

on the current Jasenovac page of their site, here [11], it says 'The Croat authorities murdered between 320,000 and 340,000 ethnic Serb residents of Croatia and Bosnia during the period of Ustaša rule'. The link you have provided is from a press release issued 10 years ago. I have emailed the USHMM asking if the estimate on their Jasenovac page has their current figures, or whether they subscribe to the figures in the press release from 2001. In the meantime, I am proceeding on the basis that the current website has the current figures, taking into account the age of the press release. And it is not my webpage, it is Wikipedia's. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Pavle Đurišić/Kosta Pećanac

The Pavle Đurišić article has passed the good article nomination. Cheers. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 16:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

A good combined effort! Nice to see an article from this era/region make it to GA! Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking about nominating the Đurišić article for A-Class status at the military history wikiproject. Do you think it's up to par? -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it might be worth having a look to see if there is anything else available online on him. I will have a look today. Otherwise, I reckon it's pretty close. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Had another look and couldn't find anything to add. I gave it a thorough copyedit and got rid of a bit of WP:OVERLINK and some clunky grammar and phrasing, and I reckon it's ready. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok it looks good to me. Here's the nomination. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 08:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

How's this?:
Chetniks (1895-1944);
Kingdom of Serbia (1903-18);
Nazi Germany (August 1941-43);
Government of National Salvation (October 1941-43)

It shows Pećanac concluded his agreements with the Germans in August and then made formal contact with the Nedic government in October a bit later. I put 1943 as the end date since both allegiances effectively ended in March 1943 and given that we don't know what he was up to until his death in 1944. It also shows his long time Chetnik allegiance in his career.

By the way I found a few articles from Glas javnosti that I'll use to fill in his earlier life. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Great. The allegiances look good too. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm done with the Pecanac article. Admittedly not much was added. I had to sift through a dramatic narrative to extract the important bits - I'll revisit it later to see if I overlooked something. A lot of the text on the website revolves around what generally happened at battles, lacks evidence of what Pecanac personally did, or contains insignificant details. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Same. I'm pretty sure I've picked out everything I can find that adds to the narrative. Do you reckon it's up to par for GA? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it to me. You want to do the honor? -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 13:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The nomination for the Pavle Đurišić article caught a bit of a snag due to a lack of US licenses for the images, but I believe I've cleared the matter up. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I saw that, but I am still getting used to the rules, and wasn't sure how to sort it. Good job, hopefully it should be ok now. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you expand the bit from the Milazzo reference (p. 46) that states that Mihailovic promoted Djurisic? A reviewer is requesting clarification on Mihailovic's authority to do so and I don't have Milazzo's book in my possession. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 14:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Milazzo says Mihailovic appointed Djurisic as commander of all 'regular and reserve troops' in central and eastern Montenegro and parts of the Sandzak. The ref he uses is a communication between the two of October 1941 (produced at M's trial). He doesn't really say under what authority he did this, suffice to say M was a colonel (at that stage) and Djurisic a captain. I'll try to add something along those lines. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC on WikiProject Yugoslavia

Since you have taken part in substantial discussion on this matter, I am informing you that an RfC has been opened on WP Yugoslavia, here: [12].--R-41 (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Ostojic

Sorry, but I couldn't find any info on Ostojic's early life. I checked everywhere I had access. Just a heads up, almost all the concerns on the Djurisic article have been settled, we just need clarification on Mihailović. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 09:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)-- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 09:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

oh well, it was a long shot. His early life is probably marginal anyway. I wasn't sure he'd get to GA anyway. Thanks for looking. I made a minor edit a few days ago, but the reality is that D, as a captain, recognised M's authority as a colonel. But there isn't a source I'm aware of for his legal authority to give D orders. D's acceptance of them is proof he had authority, but that's OR in my view. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Johann Fortner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roma (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) 14:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Peacemaker67. You have new messages at Oliverlyc's talk page.
Message added 14:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Well... G'day mate! ★ Oliverlyc ★ ✈✈✈ Pop me a message! 14:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

GA nomination

Talk:13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian)/GA1. You may start improving the article. When you think you are done, please infrom me. --Wustenfuchs 12:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I am done, although there are one or two issues I need further clarification on. I've responded on the GA review page. Cheers! Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

For those images you have uploaded to commons, as I wrote in the review, you can wrote a permission like in this image - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Slavonski_Korpus_1943.JPG. Those images you have uploaded are probably in some of the ex-Yu states. --Wustenfuchs 17:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on successful GA! Great article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:13th SS Divisional insignia.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:13th SS Divisional insignia.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Re:13th SS GA Review

It wasn't a problem, it was very good article, it was easy to review it. Good job. --Wustenfuchs 13:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Siegfried Kasche

Sorry, I won't link from wikipedia to other wiki pages. It did have a footnote. SHould I have linked to the footnote instead?

Yours, Me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.239.209.92 (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI notification

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. Thank you. GiantSnowman 10:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Cheers

For what? :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors: Wikimania 2012; special projects note Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Australian 25th Battalion Interview: Article writers discuss buildings and fortifications Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports on a weekend workshop

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Re; Citing on Jasenovac article

It's OK, sorry if I have been impulsive. Cheers, --Bbrezic (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of sources re: official title of Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia

You stop with POV pushing and revert war. You only want to promote an strange and dubious name in wikipedia and I proved that one of the sources that you use do not support your POV. Also your so called bibliography have nothing to do with subjects of these articles. Nemambrata (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If you continue I will report you for Wiki stalking and abuse of refences. But, if you want to talk I will ask you this> what is wrong with descripription area governed by the Military Administration in Serbia? Nemambrata (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

it was discussed at length on Talk:Territory_of_the_Military_Commander_in_Serbia, which I suggest you read. Here is the page. Firstly, it is pretty complex, and involves the international laws of belligerent occupation and numerous sources, but the administration was only one half of the military government. The other half was the economic office run by Franz Neuhausen for most of the war. Over the top of both was the Military Commander in Serbia, who was allocated an area of Yugoslavia which roughly accorded with what used to be known as Central Serbia, in which he was the ultimate authority. The puppet governments of Acimovic and Nedic were appointed by the Military Commander, but actually worked to the Head of the Military Administration. The article in question Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia is about all of that, including the territory he ruled, and that was its official name. The official name was in German and there were a couple of different English translations, so and we got several German speaking wikipedians to look at it and give an opinion. User:Buckshot06 oversaw the process on MILHIST and consensus was achieved for the current article name. That is it in a nutshell. There is also the issue that has been discussed on WT:MILHIST in the last couple of days which relates to using the contemporary name of the territory in articles about that time. As you are no doubt aware, the King changed the subdivisions of Yugoslavia in 1929 specifically so they didn't correspond with previous political boundaries. He did this to try to achieve unity between the Yugoslav people. When the Axis invaded, what had been the Kingdom of Serbia in 1918 had been divided between various banovina, and whilst there had been a 'Serbia' on that territory in the past (the Kingdom most recently), there was not one when the invasion occurred. The contemporary state name at the time of the invasion was Yugoslavia, not Serbia, or Croatia or any of the other former subdivisions. That is why Occupation of Serbia in WWII is not an appropriate article, it rewrites history by saying there was an entity called Serbia to be occupied in 1941. The Germans gave it a name when they occupied it, and it was the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

all this speech is not related to our subject - why you promote name not supported by sources, why you abuse reference and why you filling bibliographies of pages with nonrelated books? Nemambrata (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

There is currently a thread on WP:ANI that may concern you [13]. You've been involved with the user in question more than I. -- Director (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Local official name

Peacemaker67, do you know what was local official name, used in official documents for this territory?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Dash fix

Hey, I see I messed up putting a dash into a ref name; thanks for catching and fixing. But what's with the other two places where you changed dashes in page ranges back to hyphens? Dicklyon (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Oh, I see, you had the same confusion I had about ref name or not. It would have been better if I had changed all those in the names instead of trying to change only the ones that show up, since I got it wrong. Better now, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so good with the dashes yet, I should probably get a master class... Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Andrija Artukovic

It's too obvious that factual inaccuracy and POV are main deficiencies of this article. The discussion is open. Please, avoid false accusations about edit warring. I am improving the article content. It's you who is an edit warring user.--71.178.108.23 (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Handschar

The unit did crimes against the Serb people and fought briefly in Syrmia - covers WPSR, give a rationale not to add it and you may remove it.--Zoupan 12:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I never suggested it shouldn't be added, I just wanted to know why you added it. Try WP:AGF for a change of pace, you need to chill out. No-one's out to get you. Struth! Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	As a sign of gratitude of your contributions on Wikipedia, I award you this barnstar. Thank you for the meticulous care and vast amount of research you've put into numerous Yugoslavia related articles, especially the Pavle Đurišić article. Congratulations, Peacemaker67. ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 15:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! Peacemaker67 (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited Operation Uzice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serbian Volunteer Corps (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) 04:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Apology

I apologize. I actually removed my warning before you left me a message. Again, my apology. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

NO worries. :-) Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Third Enemy Offensive

Is it appropriate for "Third Enemy Offensive" to redirect to "Operation Trio" given that Trio is apparently simply "a part" of it rather than the "Third Enemy Offensive"? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 08:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is the way I see it. The whole 'Seven enemy offensives' thing is a Yugoslav triumphalist construct that ignores massive Axis operations, largely because there was no 'heroic' story to tell for them. Each of the seven is fairly poorly defined (and takes a lot of research to nail down). My preference would be to have the references to 'X enemy offensive' in all articles (and all redirects) all point to the Seven enemy offensives article, then have that article list the actual operations that fit (sort of) under each one. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Victims

You may have noticed that I have changed the number of Serb victims during the NDH. The number of cca. 300,000 is a number of total dead Serbs, including those killed either in Serbia or as Partisans or Chetniks. See also the research made by Žerjavić that is more detailed. It's some 172,000 Serbs being killed as civilians (25,000 died of tiphoid). The close number is given by Croatian historian Goldstein who stated that some 217,000 Serbs have been killed as vicitims of the "fascist terror" which includes Germans, Italians and Croatians in the terrirory of the NDH. --Wüstenfuchs 09:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Tomasevich

Do you have any offline works on WWII Yugoslav history that mention this collaborationist unit? Its current state leaves much to be desired regarding sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

have added what I can find easily. Will look more closely when I get time. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

AP

I see that you've begun some work on the Ante Pavelic article and I agree the article is a mess lacking most of the essential works on the matter. I know how difficult it is trying to tackle the biographies of the main leaders alone so I'll try to pitch in when I can. Perhaps some time in the future, if you're feeling ambitious, we could work on improving the Tito article? I have a draft, which has been sitting for a while, that has addressed most of his early life and now needs to focus on his WWII activities and beyond. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

sounds like a plan. I figured Djurisic would be a good practice exercise for WW2 Balkans biographies, and I always intended to spread the love between the various factions, so it's the NDH's turn now, and I'd be happy to collaborate on Tito when Pavelic is done. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear. Expect heavy rains and winds as Hurricane Pavelic moves onward to FAC. Tropical Storm Djurisic will be a cakewalk in comparison. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Too right. We've got Buckley's, but why not have a crack at it? What are the bludgers [14] gonna do, take our birthday's away? [15] ;-]

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the legacy of World War II Op-ed: Bomzibar on German military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

GOCE request for Dobroslav Jevđević

I took up your request for this article and have gone through it. It didn't need much but I tidied up a bit of grammar and such. I'll leave it open for the time being. Blackmane (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, it is great to have a fresh set of eyes of it! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice

As soon as you responded to the source issue Antidiskriminator accused you again of being canvassed[16]. Having him use this kind of reasoning is rather disruptive so consider WP:ANI or even WP:AE.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

saw that. I wouldn't waste my time on that rot, I watchlist pretty much every article on the Balkans in WW2. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: WikiProject order

I have no policy to point to, I simply put categories and WikiProjects in alphabetical order when possible. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

This edit is vandalism. Please refrain from such edits.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, please look up how it is defined. Your POV tagging of every section of talk pages is itself very much WP:OWN, and you need to give it a rest. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

IP-hopping vandal

Edit filter 489 seems to be helping slow the vandal down. If you spot them up to their games again, can you please let me know? Thanks, -- The Anome (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Will do, no sign over the last few days. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Peering into the bot logs and article history, I see a couple of other behaviors from them that are consistent with their revisionist and antisemitic editing history. In addition to soft-pedalling on the Nazis and adding antisemitic insults, they also remove references to famous Jews from articles, sometimes chopping out entire sections at a time (see, for example, this: [17] and [18]), and they also like to delete interwiki links to the Hebrew-language wiki (see [19]). Good grief. I'm continuing to track them, and working on refining the filter further. -- The Anome (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, they are still banging away against the filter, eg. [20] -- The Anome (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen them hit an article yet though, good work so far... Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. So far, so good. They're still bashing away, though: see [21] -- The Anome (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Desha

Just a note to let you know that Joseph Desha, an article you reviewed and supported during its MILHIST ACR, is now at FAC if you'd like to comment and/or !vote. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

balkanpeace.org

Hello. Why are you tagging balkanpeace.org? Is there any wikipedia wide consensus to do that? --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

G'day WW. I've done two things with citations from that website. Firstly I've removed all citations of anonymous opinion/analysis presented on the website without attribution to an author or WP:RS such as a newspaper. That has been done because they are completely anonymous and self-published per WP:SPS. Secondly, I've tagged citations of that website where the linked page is suspected of being a copyvio because it reproduces articles from a newspaper when there is no information on the site indicating that the site has authority from the original source to reproduce it (ie it's a copyright violation, and linking to a copyright violation is not allowed on WP). I am acting based on advice provided at RSN regarding WP:SPS and suspected copyright violations, here [22]. In most cases I expect that the original source should be linked, not balkanpeace.org. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)