Fajberglas

Hello, Fajberglas. You have new messages at Andreworkney's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Croatia/SFR Yugoslavia

Hi. Would you please stop reverting entries in biographies of Croatian people to Croatia for people born before the country gained independence? There is a Wikipedia-wide consensus to list the country as it was at the time of birth, NOT what it is today. That's why people born in present-day Croatia up to 1918 are usually listed as bein born in Austria-Hungary, while those born between 1945 and 1990 should always be listed as being born in SFR Yugoslavia (with SFR there to distinguish it from FR Yugoslavia and Kingdom of Yugoslavia). We have already invested hundreds of hours in discussing this matter. Thank you. Timbouctou (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

And where i can read about that?

At Template:Infobox person you can read explanations for each entry used in people infoboxes across English Wikipedia. The Place of birth is there defined as "city, administrative region, sovereign state". In practice, the "administrative region" is usually dropped to simplify the infobox. Therefore if you absolutely insist on having Croatia listed in the infobox, the only proper way to do it would be to list it as "Zadar, SR Croatia, SFR Yugoslavia" (in Karamarko's case). You can see this format in Josip Broz Tito's article. Since Croatia was NOT a sovereign state between 1945 and 1990 it is not okay to list it as country of birth/death, and could be mentioned only combined with SFR Yugoslavia (which was). There are hundreds of examples you could see this in - and generally speaking, it would be a good idea to look how data is formatted in similar articles before creating new ones, as changing pre-existing conventions is a serious matter which should be brought up in articles' talk pages or talk pages of related projects (in this case that would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia). If you feel the current convention is wrong, you are invited to bring up the issue there. Until then, please follow the rules. Timbouctou (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

So there is no official wiki policy about that. For Karamarko's case place of birth is Zadar, and Zadar is Croatian city, right? (Zadar (Italian: Zara) is a city in Croatia) I prefer "Zadar, Croatia" or "Zadar, Zadar County, Croatia". Thank you.

Hello, Fajberglas. Let me say a few words regarding this issue.

There is no written policy on the country of birth. You are absolutely free to write "Zadar, Croatia" or something like that. In a sense, it is not wrong, since, as you say, Zadar is in what is today Croatia. However, it may be misleading for some readers, so the general consensus is to do what Timbouctou has described above, and you should be aware that other editors are also free to change "Zadar, Croatia" into something else, in accordance with the established practice. For an illustration of what this established practice is, take a look at: Milan Kučan, Franjo Tuđman, Alija Izetbegović, Slobodan Milošević, Milo Đukanović, Kiro Gligorov. (Note that Gligorov's example may appear to be particularly "unpleasant", since he was born in what was then Serbia.) But you're also free to add a parenthesized remark such as "now Croatia" or "present-day Croatia", which is correct, non-misleading and useful (and is, in my opinion, the best solution). Wish you pleasant editing, GregorB (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If they are free to change Zadar, Croatia into something else, then i'm free to change something else into Zadar, Croatia because this is not an article in my opinion about historical geography. Thanks you for your answer.

Well, that was not really my point... What I wanted to say - in a nice way - is that precisely because we're essentially free here (or at least I like to see it that way) we have to respect that by not imposing unilateral solutions against established practice, especially if it's without prior discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Consensus. If you feel that the current practice is wrong, you can raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) and ask for comments. GregorB (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well i just wrote a short article. I expected that someone else write something more, not to change my facts telling me that "country of birth" field must list the country at the tim of his birth. As i see there is no general policy about that, so there is no "must". Thank you.

Correct. There is no "must". There is nevertheless a "must not" and that means removing factual information, especially when the removal of such communication is inspired by political sentiment which is most unwelcome here. Editors that have ventured this avenue have had very short careers on Wikipedia (eg. this user made few friends and this man came and went in a matter of minutes). Your current line of thought will categorise you with these users. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Evlekis, is this some kind of brain washing? You told me that it is not forbiden, but if i wrote "Zadar, Croatia" i will have short career on Wikipedia. Nice talk. Did you ever heard about personal attacks?

First, no brainwashing. Second, I fail to see where a personal attack has been made. I'd like you to know that all edits are monitored by persons supervising Recent Changes. To that end, if a talkpage remark had appeared to be one of personal attack, it would have been dealt with before you resumed your session. I assure you that I am not making any form of attack. I'll clarify my point. The users I mentioned did not last long, and their style of editing was similar to some of yours now. Now I am not an admin, so if you can survive behaving as those users did and avoid the block, then good luck to you. Now you created an article, well done to you; another user makes a presentational amendment and specifies his reason for doing so (historical accuracy) and then you blank that good faith edit. All right, on the one hand, we said there is no policy on this issue (for the time being) but from another angle, why are you removing the information to restore it to a thinner version? I accept that there can be a difference between "Zadar, Croatia" and "Zadar, Yugoslavia", naturally. But when one produces a format to include all preferences (eg. Zadar, Croatia, Yugoslavia) or something similar, then it is wholly disruptive to return the section to either of the two previously listed formats. Now historical accuracy is widely practiced and completely unchallenged. There can be no double-standard, so the reasoning for ones preference cannot be argued and discussed with one subject in mind, but on a special project page that would set a standard for the entire site; so if historical accuracy fails, time would then be spent rearranging millions of articles. Just to also point out: "Bosnians can be Sarajevo, Yugoslavia but Croats have to be Dubrovnik, Croatia because I like it more and I hated Yugoslavia" is not a good enough reason, policy or not. If you wish to present it that way, you need to specify a reason, "no policy" one way is "no policy" the other. Historical accuracy is one reason concerning preference, but you need to produce one for why it is not a good idea; and plain old reverting or "don't like it" will not suffice. I hope we are all clear now. You can write on my talk page if you wish. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 12:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's unclear to me. What i have with those users, and why are you mention that to me? I don't see the point. You clearly said that my line of thought will categorise me with these users, and you have concluded that on which basis? Because i wrote SR Croatia instead SFRY? And where i removed an information? Please explain!

Secondly. I didnt wrote "Republic of Croatia", I wrote "Croatia" and surely you know that "Croatia" could mean "Republic of Croatia", "SR Croatia", "Independente State of Croatia" , "Banovina of Croatia", "Kingdom of Croatia", etc. That is why I continue to write "Zadar, Croatia". I see that wording in many articles, and i my opinion is that this is ok.

Yes it's fine. All right, we may have misapprehended each other, I thought you were simply removing Yugoslavia on some principle but then I have not seen a great many of your edits. I was focusing on the Zadar-based politician recently created. Yes Croatia means anything that Croatia has been in its history and you are absolutely well justified in producing SR as it tells the reader the exact entity concerned. As the article stands, it covers all angles by adding present-day Croatia, but if you believe that SR Croatia should be closer to the city, then feel absolutely free to edit it. I won't revert that. So we can all be constructive when we want to! User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 19:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Croatian intelligence agencies

Hello Fajberglas,

I've noticed that you created a couple of articles related to Croatian intelligence agencies. Do you have an interest in this field? If so, you might help us with the rest of the articles in Category:Croatian intelligence agencies. Some of them are outdated or describe agencies that no longer exist - you might have noticed. This problem was discussed here. Something has been done, but this problem is not fully solved, and help would be welcome. Of course, this is just an idea. If you have a question, you can contact me at my talk page. If by any chance you're planning to do some serious work, asking for comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia might also be a good idea. Cheers, GregorB (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad you're interested. Deleting the articles probably won't be necessary - our original idea was to:

• clean up the main article
• move the relevant content from "satellite" articles to the main article
• make satellite articles into redirects to the main article if they are not significant enough (defunct agencies, for example)

This would be the standard procedure, more or less. In this way, actual deletion is not necessary, and all incoming wikilinks would still work after this "virtual deletion". Is that, generally speaking, what you had in mind? See Wikipedia:Merging and Help:Merging and if there's anything you need, ask me. GregorB (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Talk:Intelligence Community Coordination Committee has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Andreworkney ^talk_contribs 17:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Fajberglas. There was nothing wrong with your edit, on the contrary. I've restored it and left a brief note to Andreworkney. He's made an honest mistake, unfortunately - sorry about that. You can go ahead and do the rest, there should be no problems. I'd help you with it, but I'm going to be away from Wikipedia for a while, starting tomorrow. GregorB (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Sigurnosno Izvestajna Sluzba

Hello Fajberglas. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sigurnosno Izvestajna Sluzba, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's a reasonable redirect, lots of people won't know how to write the correct diacritic. Take to RfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  19:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)