User talk:Serpen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regarding your edits here, here and here, please refrain from making personal attacks. Comment on the content, not the contributor. Thanks. --Elephantus 10:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Hello again

On my talk page you posted the following comment:

Regarding your edit [1], please refrain from making personal attacks. Comment on the content, not the contributors. Thanks. Serpen 11:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The edit in question (edit summary: "another round of NPOV + rm unsourced Orthodox Vlachs remark") contains no visible personal assault. The content is commented on, not the contributor. I would be grateful If you pointed out what you perceive as personal assault here. Thanks. --Elephantus 11:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The "rm unsourced Orthodox Vlachs remark" wasn't a comment on the editors, but on the content of the article. You would do well to read the text of the article itself. Thanks. --Elephantus 11:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Try not to REV without even reading

Hi,

I'm trying to make some NPOV changes, slowly, bit by bit. So, try not to REV everything without even reading.

you know, there is a slight possibility that someone might acttualy wriet something that You might agree with.

But, You just don't bother to read, do you?

--Ante Perkovic 08:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You owe my an explanation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Minefields_in_Croatia#Reverting_without_even_reading_text . You better think of one. I don't think You can get away wiyh uncommented reverting nad avoinding siscusiion on long term. Sooner or later, You'll make some admin pissed at You. --Ante Perkovic 09:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation in Minefields in Croatia

Thanks for the more accurate translation of Mičić's words. However, I don't think it's necessary to refer to them in the photo caption - it makes the caption unneccesarily long. -- ChrisO 13:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. I am working on it. Serpen 13:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please...

Hi,

Me and my friends deleted parts of the text from Aloysius Cardinal Stepinac page several times, and explained our changes in detail.

On the other side, You seams unwilling to do anythoing more then endless reverting, without any kind of discussion from your side.

Endless edit-war leads to nowhere, so I suggest that we talk about the issue before making important changes.

Please, join the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aloysius_Cardinal_Stepinac#Irrelevant_parts

I can't fail to notice that, since You inscreased Your activity on wiki 5 days ago, all you do is revert, revert and revert.... You made zero edits on talk pages and You keep avoiding discussion.

This is not particulary good way to contribute wikipedia. We all must talk if we want to make wikipedia better. Ignoring other people's opinions and arguments leads nowhere.

So, please, discuss before making any changes.

Regards, Ante Perkovic :)

[edit] Rudjer Boscovich

Hi,

I see that You are in edit war over Boskovich.

Since I believe that your primary motive is just proving that he was Serbian, and propably do not know much about his work, please, next time you revert the article, try not to include part:

and is a potential basis for an eventual unified field theory according to Einstein's coworker Lancelot Law Whyte, and further worked on by Leo Baranski

... because it has nothing to do with this croat-serb thing, and other non-ex-Yu user explained why he deleted it.

So, either don't include that part when reverting (which I obviously can't stop you doing) or explain why You keep returning that text.

Anyway, this gives impression that You actually don't bother to read other people changes, but just keep reverting, and this doesn't portrays you as very reasonable person (if that is really the case).

Just like I said before, endless blind reverting lead us nowhere.

Regards, Ante Perkovic

Hi,

Thanks for answering :).

Regarding Rudjer's ethnicity, I agree that final NPOV version should be somewhere between two versions. I don't want to speak for others, but I can say that I concetrated my "reverting effort" to pages that I'm 100% sure are not disputable, and the pages wher I can explain my arguments easier, without digging into books.

As for Your comment that croatian side of the dispute is making changes without comments, I think You are wrong. Just look at the talk pages. Bormalagurski and Purger are discussing Starcevic article, Mottsa is also willing to talk. You also started discussing think, and I'm very thankfull for that :)), but other of "your pals" are quite silent. And, I must say, I openly suspect that some of "your pals" have quite a lot of sock-puppets because there is just to many new users with the same (serbian) agenda. And they all popped out in just a few days - since 12th of May.

On the other side, Elephantus made quite a lot of edits on talk pages, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Elephantus. The same goes for Mir Harven, me ... you name it.

Please, check contribution of all those "my pals", You'll see that they explain their edits quite a lot.

I also tried to trace activities of some users that introduced the text or images we are arguing about and I found that some of them just disapeared afterwords (?!). Those looks like one-time sock-puppets to me. I'm not accusing any of You, but there must be someone among your pals that likes sock-puppeting.

--Ante Perkovic 04:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I can speak in anyone name except in mine, but I believe that the first think we all could agree on is to put "NPOV" signs in all disputed articles and not to remove them until agreement is arranged. Also, { {fact} } templates shold be left where they are. In general, "NPOV" and "citation needed" marks could stop at least some of nervous users to keep reverting and also to give some kind of satisfaction to those who don't agree with the article (and stop them from reverting it).

When that isd taken care of, we can proceed with one article at a time. I strongly believe that no-one sane wants endless edit wars. Sooner or later, some kind of compromise will be agrred. The sooner the better.

So, let's all cool down and start comunicating. I must go offline now, so we can continue this talk later. --Ante Perkovic 11:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2 sides for a compromise

Yes, it takes 2 sides for a compromise.

But, there is just to many people invovled here and there will always be some stubborn Croats and some stubborn Serbs that will not be willing to play by the rules.

So, please, do not except everyone on croatian side to be disciplined, just like don't except everyone on your side to be. Not because Croats or Serbs are like that, but because every group of people is.

It would be nice if more calm members of both groups try to calm the more iimpatient members (at least by email, I know all of Your pals are communicating outside wikipedia).

Next time You see someone of my pals breaking rules, try not to get angry on entire nation ;), just like I'm trying to view all of you as separate individuals. Instead, try to communicate with other of "my pals" and try to solve the problem with them.

When we all realise that both groups are not in perfect coordination or in telephatic link, we can go one step further in solving these noumerous disputes.


Regards, Ante Perkovic 11:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)