User talk:Vipz

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Welcome!

Hello, Vipz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jezero (crater), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jezero (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crazy Penguin Catapult, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MMO.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I removed Metal Slug, Pocky & Rocky, Battletoads, Alex Kidd and Kid Icarus then. Any others? Electricmastro (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the talk page, but it was still vague to me exactly which franchises do and don’t count. I suppose you might as well list out all the ones I should remove while on the subject. Also, should I re-add Metal Slug then? Electricmastro (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was going by 20+ year gaps, but now I think I’ll look through all the franchises again to see if there are any 10+ year gaps now. Thanks for the reply! Electricmastro (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry about the Oregon Trail removal. I'm usually pretty good about organizing things while editing articles, but that one must have slipped while adding things. Electricmastro (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Vipz! Thank you for seeking out a WP:Third opinion. As the discussion already had more than two participants, I removed the listing from the 3O page. If further local discussion is unable to resolve the dispute, you might consider WP:DRN. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I got inspired by List of longest-running video game franchises page witch you are a frequent editor to, to create a film page containing the 100 longest running film series & franchises and nearly done but wondering if anyone wants to help Finnish off I have be using Lists of feature film series

92.236.253.249 (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The year is here on the picture of the first issue (bottom right): https://niwanetwork.org/wiki/images/c/c5/Game_Freak_Vol._1.png --188.154.84.134 (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, readded the citation. -Vipz (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw you revert my addition of Earth's image at Oceania and Europe. Why do you think that it is not worthy of inclusion? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vipz, I am doing WP:BRD here, ping to notify. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CactiStaccingCrane: As I said in the edit summaries, they're A) photographs of the whole Earth; B) from very far away and you can barely see the continents; C) the section in Europe#Name is about the origin of the continent's name, and the two pictures are about that. The satellite image has nothing to do with Europe's name. If you believe I'm wrong, please bring it up on the talk pages of these articles and get more people to agree with you. -Vipz (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that both issues A and B can be solved easily by cropping, but I would like to have someone color-correct these photos just like in Earth article. I do agree about C though, but these prior images are just as rubbish as they do not illustrate the continent's name nor a concept said in these paragraph. I am more than happy to relocate these images somewhere else like the geography section. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CactiStaccingCrane: Maybe we could include a satellite photograph in each continent article, but there must be better photos than that one. For example, maybe this one for Oceania. I wouldn't like complete removal of those 2 "continent name" images until you or someone can suggest a better alternative. I really suggest bringing this up on Talk:Europe so other editors can see and participate in the discussion. Thanks. -Vipz (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I choose the photographic images because they are "real" images and not specialized to a certain wavelength. I left a thread about this at Europe article as well. Cheers, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller talk 18:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, that your edit in Polish alphabet is undone by some other User, who also mentioned that "this is not a random list of names, this is the official Polish spelling alphabet". Should I point at exactly the same circumstance in Serbian language article? Or you may proceed with chasing my edits in similiar articles on Hungarian and Finnish as well? Heffalump1974 (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Heffalump1974: I was not aware of "the spelling alphabet" as I've never seen it on any language articles. It would have been helpful to point it out in your edit summary the first time I reverted you. I was made aware by that other user, you never "also" mentioned this. Thanks. -Vipz (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've made a perfectly fine question and argument in the edit summary of Serbian language revert, which you never answered back for. Quote: "Is a list of example words for each letter necessary? Even if it were, it would belong to the Serbo-Croatian article, but I don't think it is." You can just undo my edits with your counterarguments, and preferably make it clear to other editors and readers where do theselike things come from, i.e. like this. -Vipz (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vipz: Sorry, my fault, I really should have appeal to you after the very first reverting. As for Serbian — I was not sure to which article it belongs, in consideration of long and rather complicated history of Serbian/Croatian relations and current structure of articles. But such an alphabet do exist for a certain period and it is a part of the language itself, culture, history, etc. Like "Victor Charlie" or "Николай, Иван, Харитон, Ульяна, Яков". However, if this matter is unimportant for the Wikipedia, it should be gone. Sincerely yours, Heffalump1974 (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Heffalump1974: No worries. I had undone my revert on Serbian language, but its necessity was questioned by another user shortly later. It seems like the spelling alphabet that you put in the article is an outdated one from Yugoslav times, but I found an updated list while looking for sources to add. I posted about it in this discussion Talk:Serbian language#Spelling alphabet. -Vipz (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vipz: Great! Thanks a lot for updating it. Heffalump1974 (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru: I suggest the block on 212.15.176.0/20 should be changed to anon-only. What are your thoughts? Alternatively, IPBE may be appropriate here. --Yamla (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla:, the target of the range block is not super subtle - likely easier to just sweep for the certain keywords periodically than inconvenience Vipz. I've modified the range block to anon-only. Kuru (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kuru! Much appreciated. --Yamla (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I saw you try to salvage this caption in this edit after it became a bit confused after another user’s edit. They once again removed “Croatia” leaving the caption just “map of dialects and Bosnia”. Regardless. I see that the caption used to say “map of Croatian dialects..” and the image shows this title as well but which dialects is it talking about? As some of these dialects are under Serbian and in fact all three would be “Serbo-Croatian”. Which of the dialects are “Croatian” so as the map legend claims? Seems like a Croatian Nationalist pov generated map. Been there for a while it seems unnoticed. If you could take a look it would be appreciated. Cheers, OyMosby (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@OyMosby: The name of the map (and the previous caption) suggests the whole BiH population speaks a "Croatian" dialect. I know there are Croatian minorities in BiH that like to call their language according to the national label, but it can't include the whole of BiH and simultaneously call the entire Shtokavian that it spoken there a "Croatian dialect". I therefore took a neutral approach and listed just the dialect names. Would you suggest something else? -Vipz (talk) 07:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is basically the last bastion of "Croatian language" on English Wikipedia. Readers who click to read the article are given to read something entirely different. For comparison, Serbia#Language does not claim Shtokavian is a "Serbian dialect", just says its standard language is based on it, and its map shows where "Serbian" is an official and minority language. Since I can't find an image like it but for "Croatian" one would have to be made. On another hand, Bosnia and Herzegovina#Languages and Montenegro#Languages avoid making a circus and are blunt about it - it's the same language, Serbo-Croatian. -Vipz (talk) 08:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may want to double check what I wrote as I wasn’t disagreeing with your edit. As I specifically stated that calling all three dialects Croatian is a “Croatian nationalist pov” as is the map if you look at the title in that map. And I called all three Serbo-Croatian. As Shtokavian is the main dialect that Serbians speaks so calling it only Croatian is nonsense. Maybe you are used to dealing with Serbian and Croatian nationalists so perhaps a defensive reaction so no worries. I’m glad to see the same issue was remedied on the Serbia article as it used to be the last bastion for the Serbian language as well. Croatia needs to be fixed accordingly as well. Also for Bosnia, being a three ethnic presidency, it’s evidently going to be called Serbo-Croatian, also as there isn’t a claim of a Montenegrin version per say so those articles really aren trying to be “blunt” or avoid the “circus” as they have no other option so fortunately it didn’t have to be as stubborn an issue. The heavy ethno-induction of the Serbo-Croatian remains a dangerous political tool. As it was used to justify attempts of annexing territories in the past. Believe me, you and I share the same viewpoints on the language and the unnecessary politics behind it. I was writing to you to point out that there is still an issue with the dialect map still claiming all three dialects as “Croatian dialects”. The title in the map image needs to be changed or a better dialect map used. Also I was asking you if perhaps they meant the first two dialects that primarily only exist in modern Croatia that aren’t Shtokavian? Perhaps the other two dialects are why partly the Croatian separate language identifier is pushed as those dialects aren’t used really outside the country, not sure nor am I the most educated on linguistics. In normal day, when I refer to the language I just say Serbo-Croatian, personally. Though it ends up confusing people not familiar with the ex-Yugo countries lol. Also it is interesting how Slovenian ended up being considerable different from the other South Slavic nations. I honestly don’t understand why Bosnia needs to be included in the dialect map as the article is about Croatia not Croats. OyMosby (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@OyMosby: Oh, I'm sorry if I came off rude. I started the message defensively but later realized you weren't defending it. I didn't look at it closely, but yes, the same claim of "Croatian dialects" is also in the picture. I suggest replacing it with another image, otherwise you'll enter a revert war with the uploader. I agree with you wholeheartedly on the language politics; I could write walls of texts with my opinions on this, but all of that has been rinsed and repeated years after years. So we should either make a map like on Serbian article with "official" and "minority" colored countries, or make a map of these dialects only within Croatia, without including any parts of BiH. -Vipz (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just remembered this conversation! No worries. And thanks for taking care of it. :) Stay well. OyMosby (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this edit does not actually qualify as minor, cf. Help:Minor edit. Please simply avoid that checkbox for such edits in the future. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. I have the minor edit checkbox on by default when doing small edits, like adding one sentence in this case. -Vipz (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can that default behavior be modified? Sometimes a single short word edit is non-minor :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, I checked again, that option is disabled on EN Wikipedia, but I have it enabled on all other projects. It's just a habit to mark as minor what I consider minor. -Vipz (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Hey! I wanted to give you a barnstar for reverting the vandalism to Portal talk:LGBT. Its a page I watch. The edits likely arent vandalism, but a user using wikipedia as a forum; however, if we didnt have people like you, we would not be able to maintain the reputation Wikipedia has. I appreciate you! Dillard421♂♂ (talk to me) 10:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited LGBT history in Yugoslavia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 11:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to simply Yugoslavia because when Tito came to power the state was known as the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, it wasn't called the Socialist Federal Republic until 1963. Gorrrillla5 (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gorrrillla5 I believe per MOS:CONTEXTBIO which also refers to WP:MODERNPLACENAME, the latest name of the country when he ruled it should be used, which is SFRY. President of Yugoslavia article uses SFRY as the latest full name of the title. As there were 3 different states called "Yugoslavia" (Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia), two of which had presidents, it should be made clear from the start (in the lead section) which Yugoslavia he was a president of. -Vipz (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third time my IP address/range has been autoblocked. I'm using neither a "peer-to-peer proxy" or VPN. My current IP matches the blocked IP. Refreshing my router doesn't seem to work. -Vipz (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Forza bruta (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even the redirect leads to the page: Serbo-Croato-Slovene. Doremon764 (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previous name of Serbo-Croatian. Doremon764 (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doremon764: It's not a previous name of the language. The language has been known as "Serbo-Croatian" since at least 1820's, a whole century before Kingdom of Yugoslavia made up a name for the pan-Slavic concept of an inexistent "Serbo-Croato-Slovene". Placing it alongside contemporary names and bolding it gives an impression the article is about the official language of Yugoslavia, but it is not, it's about a contemporary language. The name is already mentioned further down the lede and in article content, which is enough. -Vipz (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vipz, ended up on your article "Jugoslavijo" after seing your comment on Sheng's talk page about the demonym for Yugoslav(ian) stuff.

First off all (off-topic), it quiet surprised me that the song is actually called "Jugoslavijo", since I remember that it was almost always being referred to as Od Vardara pa do Triglava, even if I remember seeing "Jugoslavijo" on some albums: [1], [2]. Maybe I remembered something wrong, but I even think that I once red the title "Od Vardara pa do Triglava" on vinyl many, many years ago.

Nevermind, back on topic:

I saw that in this article you were using the demonym Yugoslavian. Do you know what literature says about the demonym(s) "Yugoslav/Yugoslavian"? I always used to believe that Yugoslav was the only correct form in English language. The more I researched about this, I ended up finding out that there are even authors using the term Yugoslavian in some cases. What do you think about this? IMHO, it is obv. the Yugoslav Dinar and not the Yugoslavian Dinar (just as an example), but in which cases would you use Yugoslavian and in which Yugoslav?

Best regards and have a good night, Koreanovsky (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koreanovsky I don't know of any literature discussing the two, though "Yugoslav" seems to be much more prevalent than "Yugoslavian" as an adjective. JSTOR gives 27,300 results for "Yugoslav" and only 6,010 for "Yugoslavian" - likewise for demonyms - 4,040 results for "Yugoslavs" and 339 for "Yugoslavians". Google Ngram also confirms this is the case. I personally use "Yugoslav" more and "Yugoslavian" when it feels like a better choice. It would be great to have a professional Wikipedian linguist to research this for our supposed MOS page, and why such a page would be really useful to consult when in dilemma. I agree with your examples. -Vipz (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would definitely be great, yeah - we need some sort of "norm" for such cases. You will even find terms like "Yugoslavic" (literally South Slavic) instead of Yugoslav(ian), but I think that in the end we are just talking about synonyms that are many not wrong, but it is also not fully known how correct they are. I remember from old English language newspapers that in the early 20th century some authors even spelled Yugoslav as "Jugoslav".

Have a nice day, Koreanovsky (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have reverted an edit of yours on this article, and would like to remind you about WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached (see WP:STATUSQUO).

Please remember that as the person attempting to make a change to the article, the WP:ONUS is on you to justify the change, and to get a consensus if it is disputed; and again, please do not edit war.Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To help move things along, I have started a discussion on the article talk page about the disputed edit, which you will find Talk:Socialist state#Removal of North Korea without consensus to do so. Please take the opportunity to make your views known there. Please do not restore your deletion until there is a consensus among the editors there to do so. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken unlike you, I will in fact keep this notification on my talk page. What I've said in these other places still applies: You have restored unsourced content three times without policy-based reasons and told me I'm the one supposed to prove something is not true by citing sources, completely contrary to WP:BURDEN. And yes, per WP:ONUS, for something to be even considered worthy of inclusion, it must be verifiable. -Vipz (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is verified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and happy New Year to you too @Abishe! -Vipz (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited AfroCrowd, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Black history and Black culture.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This really happened. You rearrange, you don't have to delete everything. Savasampion (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Savasampion: I don't have the slightest of doubts that it happened (as do incidents the other way around). Searching for "Temerin incident" on Google, apart from this 2004 incident, more recent results talk about yet another similar attack in the same place, from 2011. As much as it's unfortunate that they happen (too many to even list), they do not have direct relevance nor connection to the Đorđe Martinović incident for that section to stay on that article. -Vipz (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are great similarities (provinces of Serbia, ethnic suspicion, the manner of the case...), so for those reasons I believe that you can put the year when it happened and that for those reasons it should be merged with this page.--Savasampion (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about adding obsolete ISO codes to the language table. We don't do that for most languages, Dalecarlian for example. We do mention them in the text; the info box is intended as a summary of relevant info, not of historical trivia.

As for Glottolog and Linguasphere, those codes are for Moldavian dialect of Romanian, not for the Moldovan standard. — kwami (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: You could've posted this on the talk page of that article, so others in the future are warned of not doing what you recommend me not to do. That said, I don't think obsolete ISO codes are historical trivia, not in the context of the subject being talked about. None (mis) gives a very different impression to "something" (deprecated) to readers glancing over just the infobox – as if it never had any ISO codes vs. had them but they were deprecated. These ISO codes were the basis of Moldovan Wikipedia and remain functioning (won't be assigned to any other languages and for historical 'recordings' i.e. uses). As for the latter two, fair removal. -Vipz (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question for you: why do you keep undoing my edits? LeonChrisfield (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LeonChrisfield: I find many of them problematic, as do many others that revert many of your edits. -Vipz (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of problems? Edits that do not match Wikipedia standards? Oh LeonChrisfield (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I read through the whole Tito page, and there is no mention of him criminalizing LGBT communities. Is it accurate to consider him homophobic due to the anti-LGBT laws that existed in Former Yugoslavia? LeonChrisfield (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LeonChrisfield the correct article to consult would be LGBT history in Yugoslavia (there is also a bit more insightful article on Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia, which I worked on and plan translating). It is difficult to put this into few words or give a yes/no answer because treatment and legality of homosexuality was the last thing Tito could have in his mind or care about. The Communist Party as a whole was responsible in its failure to put forward any kind of improvements for LGBT people until many decades of reign. The rest can be read on that article. -Vipz (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That language is called Srpski/Српски which literally means Serb. Why is it called Serbian if in the same language it means Srbijanski/Србијански (from Serbia)? Savasampion (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Savasampion: -ian is a suffix specific to the English language: Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Italian, Russian, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, etc. Afaik, they were mostly derived from their geographical whereabouts: i.e. Serbia = Serbian, Bosnia = Bosnian, Croatia = Croatian, Russia = Russian, Bulgaria = Bulgarian, etc. Few languages/dialects were named after ethnic groups, e.g. Rusyn. It's not up to us to make up alternatives to the standard and use them on Wikipedia - "Serb" is not a common name for "Serbian", as isn't "Rus" for "Russian". "Serbian language" does not translate to "Srbijanski jezik" though, as doesn't "Srpski jezik" to "Serb language", because translations are dictated by standards set for each language. -Vipz (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your tireless participation in all things Yugoslavia and the Balkans! It's good to know that there are other users who care as much as you; thank you! ---✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Emperor of Byzantium: Thank you so much on this award as well! Sorry for not replying sooner, I was away (this is evident from my contributions log). To be honest, the work I've done to date is only surface-level and from information that can be found online; I do plan to engage in more thorough writing and research in the future, including getting into physical literature. Cheers and thanks again! -Vipz (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vipz, surface-level or not (and I think you do yourself a real disservice) praise should be rewarded... too often on Wikipedia comments and feedback are ether negative and non-existent, so keep up the great work, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise =) ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Munster was also called a communist state https://books.google.com/books?id=k35piIm2C90C&pg=PA158#v=onepage&q&f=false so it's not a stretch in the EPHEMERAL section Rote1234 (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rote1234: A 16th century communal theocracy, a big outlier in the list consisting of definitively 'socialist' 20th century states with the exception of Paris Commune that concepted development of socialism in its modern meaning, definitively looks like a stretch to me. But as I have no expertise on Christian communism and pre-19th century socialist history, I request you to post a talk page section about this on Talk:List of socialist states and request expertise from/notify Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Socialism to judge this addition. Thank you for understanding. ^^ -Vipz (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vipz, per WP:DABNAME, if there is no primary topic, the title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, and the title containing the (disambiguation) qualifier is a redirect to the disambiguation page. I have switched around Old Croatian (disambiguation) and Old Croatian accordingly. Leschnei (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Why do you think my edit was NPOV, or that it doesn't have anything specific to Croatia? The question of Vatican Treaties is for example specific for Croatia? Also, first thing when I opened news this morning - news about people kneeling on Ban Jelačić Square with their rosaries and counter protesters (although the edit is removed now so I cannot add this).

In my opinion there is indeed a culture war ongoing in Croatia between two sets of beliefs. I was just trying to describe the situation in society. Franjo Tahy (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Franjo Tahy. Okay so, here's how regarding non-NPOV:

1. In Croatia, society is divided in two "camps". – false and oversimplified. There is never just black and white in any society. Apparently there are no secular conservatives, no religious liberals, anything to the left of 'secular-liberals' doesn't exist. Which so-called major "camps" there exist is something far from specific to Croatia.
2. The first group of people are conservatives close to Catholic church; suspicious towards modern secular values, multiculturalism, political correctness and gender theory. – 'suspicious' is here used as if it is something positive.
3. Another group of people are secular-liberals and advocates the package of values imported from The West. – 'package of values imported from the West' is here used as if it's something foreign and therefore abnormal for said society and bad.

Something could be written about those reactionaries in Zagreb but not in such a way to sugar-coat them. The rest of text is just examples to try back up points made above. –Vipz (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I rarely see culture war between these smaller shades of Croatian political spectrum. Mostly it's just leftists against rightists.

I wasn't using word suspitious as neither negative nor positive. Feel free to suggest better word then.

It doesn't mean western values are abnormal, it just means that they weren't created locally but came among Croatians from a different place, just like for example Christianity once did. We shouldn't quite call them reactionaries as it has pejorative connotations, we should remain balanced. Franjo Tahy (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Franjo Tahy, let me try clear some things up:

• liberalism (and neoliberalism) encompases a wide spectrum of political standings, from centre-left (social liberalism) throughout centre to centre-right (conservative liberalism). In the United States, where the overton window is so far to the right, they are perceived as the left-wing of politics. In Nordic countries they are perceived as the right-wing of politics. In Croatia, liberalism is pretty much centre/centre-right; social democracy constitutes the major centre-left wing of politics here.
• If having 'leftists against rightists' clash against each other constitutes a 'culture war', then virtually every country in the world is in one. But again, nothing wrong by having a paragraph about Croatia somewhere in there as long as it's well written, as previously said.
• 'suspicious' implies questioning other groups' basic human rights is apparently something completely normal to do. Why would we not call them 'reactionaries'? Because it is inconvenient for the right-wing narrative? How the tables have turned!
• 'packaged and imported form the West' is a well known right-wing rhetoric used to try discredit (actual) left-wing values. Students in schools are taught to nurture everything domestic and local (nothing wrong with that on the surface), and right-wing values just conveniently happen to be 'locally created' while left-wing ones are 'foreign imported' according to your rhetoric.
• 'Western values' do not exist, it is a political neologism. The 'West' is as much a bastion of rightism as it is of leftism.

–Vipz (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look, on one hand, I partially understand your points... On the other I don't know how to write that better in a way that it would suit you, so you can either re-write it yourself or leave it as it is. Franjo Tahy (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Vipz reported by User:VQuakr (Result: ). Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you changed the png to an svg on the article Bans on communist symbols. However, in the process, you removed Crimea from the colouration intended to represent Ukraine. I am not sure if you intended to do so, but I'm unaware of any consensus elsewhere on that representation, and hence have reverted to the version that shows the internationally recognised borders. Please advise if there is a basis for doing so. Fermiboson (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved using a different blank map. –Vipz (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation? Re-reverting? Don't make me laugh. The reason for deletion is already written in that motherfucking article, but I guess you didn’t want to read it because you had already decided to disrespect me. I’m very thankful for that. Anyway, calling only two articles "multiple" is the funniest joke I’ve ever seen on the Internet. (Personal attack removed) Juniv0862 (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh: the user above is seeking an indef. –Vipz (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juniv0862's comment above was unacceptable, and I have removed the egregious portion and they have been blocked. - Aoidh (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that Franjo Tudman was a Neo-Ustašeist and a quasi-fascist who conducted ethnic cleansings against Serbs and Bosnians? I would like to hear your opinion on this as a Croat. LeonChrisfield (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @LeonChrisfield, I don't think I'm in position to answer questions like these at the time. Though don't make a conclusion like this without looking at the big picture and recognizing similar features from other sides of the wars. –Vipz (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leon, I’m curious as to how you formed such a basis of a question considering the Wikipedia articles available. Where did it come from? Not completely the ICTY take I don’t think. He was found guilty of being part of a joint criminal enterprise with the goal of ethnic cleansing Bosniaks from parts of Western Bosnia. The rest of the question seems more a simplified nationalist B&W pov sourced take . Tudjman was not as extreme a case as Milosevic and others, however he was a scumbag for sure, but for many other reasons. I echo Vipz’s response. OyMosby (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has started a thread at ANI about an issue you've been involved in. The thread is: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#user:Vipz deletes reliable sources and adds something that is not written in the sources. Thank you. Nythar (💬-🍀) 10:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vipz! Hope you are doing well. Just wanted to let you know that it appears an IP address you had a back and forth with is trying to canvas users they deem will agree with their views on Serb-Croatian vs Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, etc. They also appear to have launched an ANI against you. OyMosby (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @OyMosby! I hope you're doing well too. I'm aware of the canvassing going on behind the scenes, though I judge that not every misdeed is worthy of immediately raising alarm on. It will be taken into account if the discussion develops into the direction IP intends it to do. –Vipz (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, just wanted to be sure. Hopefully the user decides to take a more calm and collected approach. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vipz This question may seem a bit absurd.
Are you really interested in Yugoslavia? I have seen your edits on the pages about Yugoslavia and all former Member States. (Actually, I'm interested as well.) Noobythailand (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Noobythailand: Ah, dang, you found me out! :p Yeah, it's a kinda funny question to ask if you see my userpage contents. Greetings to Thailand! –Vipz (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I don't know how to thank you. Thank you for liking Thailand. Noobythailand (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for you're editing on the 12th CC and my Sandbox article! TheUzbek (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheUzbek: Wikipedia is all about collaboration. :) –Vipz (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made changes to the Central Committee of the 11th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia: would you mind checking if I missed any female members (probably did both, overlooked them and miscategorised male and females)? --TheUzbek (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheUzbek: did it. You actually didn't do bad! –Vipz (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

haha thanks, I try at the very least! Could you do a similar check on the Central Committee of the 10th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia?

Alas what are your thoughts regarding creating an article on the Conference of the LCY created to replace the CC in 1969? An exciting and democratic experiment(at least from a Marxist-Leninist perspective) that only lasted five years. I only have a list over centrally elected mandates but all the remainder were elected from the grassroots for each conference. I'm guessing there is no English source on it or a Serbo-Croatian source available online on the subject. --TheUzbek (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @TheUzbek, I can only tell you to go for it! Is it Stroynowski's book you've been citing on CC tables that you're getting this list from as well? Searching for the conferences online, each of the four seems to have received a book, but they seem difficult to come by. sr:Predsedništvo CK SKJ#1969—1974. says the Conference had two parts - permanent and variable - with 70 permanent members that were elected at the 9th congress of LCY; I suppose these 70 are what you refer to as "centrally elected mandates"? Cheers. –Vipz (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Yes that is what I mean by "centrally elected members" + of course, the members of the Presidency.

The list of centrally-elected members I found here. The official documents of the Ninth Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia are accessible online. Officially these members are called "Members of the Conference of the LCY Whose Mandate Last Up to the Next Congress". I can't, however, find any other official Party documents in English freely available online, sadly!

It annoys me that it is so darn difficult to find basic sources such as these about the LCY. The internet is full of Maoist propaganda, Soviet nostalgia, Hoxha lovers el cetra Titoist seems to have died alongside Yugoslavia all across the globe. Of course, leaving the past behind might be a positive thing. I have enough sources to know that I'll be able to create CC articles for all the congresses and five ordinary conferences. That means there will be enough sources to create articles on every central party institution of note. That is good! --TheUzbek (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheUzbek: sorry for not answering sooner. You might be surprised to learn that despite the relative lack (in comparison) of online uploads of Yugoslav documents, yugo-nostalgia is anything but dead (i.e. it's still lively), although moreso in the real world than on the Internet. Whatever there is of Hoxhaism in this day and age I presume comes off as an extension of Stalinism, but I don't think there is actually any kind of Hoxhaist Albania nostalgia going on. For the rest, this is discussion best reserved for chats outside Wikipedia. I do hope an initiative to preserve more of Yugoslav history on the Internet kicks off sooner than later. Thank you, again, for documenting all of this. –Vipz (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

np!

I won't be able to complete the Central Committee of the 13th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. There seems to be scant information on these members on the web and the official documents of the 13th LCY Congress are not available online. There are also a whole bunch of resignations and by-elections, but I can't find sources for them or who resigned. I will try to edit the 11th to 13th CC again on a later date. I think we should have two tables, one for elected members and another one for ex-officio members. But in the meantime I'll finish off the politburos, presidencies, secretariats, statutory commissions el cetra. --TheUzbek (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you have the time, can you change the colour for Poland to green on that map? My explanation's here on Wikimedia Commons. Thank you in advance. Yue🌙 23:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yue: done, thanks for notifying. –Vipz (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, hello, hello. I saw that you're the one who added:

 • The Roma people or Romani people, an ethnic group living mostly in Europe and the Americas

in Old revision of 1152810686 on Roma — the disambiguation page. There's an ongoing debate over at Talk:Romani people in Romania for preferring to use the noun Roma instead of the feminine singular adjective of Romani, while discussing I found that you added the above quote and just wanted to notice that Roma is a noun, and so shouldn't really be used as an adjective. Just checking to make sure you're okay with the change I propose:

−

The Roma people or Romani people, an ethnic group living mostly in Europe and the Americas

+

The Roma or Romani people, an ethnic group living mostly in Europe and the Americas

Thanks for reading. Happy editing, 多多123 (✉ • ✎) 19:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to make the change, I believe the reasoning is valid and I have also asked another editor who agrees; Old revision of 1161285786:

−

+

多多123 (✉ • ✎) 19:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @多多123, what I did in Special:Diff/1152810686 is move the People section up to the top, I'm not the one who added this content. Of course I'm fine with this change. I might take a look at the linked discussion later. Thank you and cheers. –Vipz (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I guessed that was the case, but was not really sure so I just sent it to you. 多多123 (✉ • ✎) 17:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm interested in a collaboration between us on this draft that I've been sitting on for a while. My main problem with it is that I found it impossible to research the topic thoroughly because I don't speak Serbocroatian. Are you interested? 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Festucalex: thank you for coming forward to me with this proposal! I'll start reading up on SUBNOR and hope to contribute something by the end of the next week, although my free time is scarce nowadays. Cheers. –Vipz (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll be waiting. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Festucalex, before I archive my talk page, I just want to notify you that I haven't and won't forget this proposal. I've been incredibly busy and hadn't got to it as planned. My to-do backlog is large, but I do hope to come to do this in foreseeable future. Thank you, again, for the invitation, and for understanding. (four-day workweeks without surplus value being taken off would be sweet, huh :p) Cheers! –Vipz (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really dont see a reason why.the red flag is commonly associated with the october revolution and Bolsheviks, and its just unfair to group up the other VERY specific russian socialist with RSDRP Welso (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Welso: I don't understand what are you complaining about. Red is the political color of socialism. There is nothing unfair in simply describing red flags were symbols of many socialists during the October Revolution without going ahead to enlist some examples ("including but not limited to") because I see it unnecessary. For example, left communists, democratic socialists, anarcho-communists and Marxist–Leninists are all wildly different tendencies that don't like being grouped with each other, but their movements all fall under socialism, and there's nothing unfair about it. And what's up with Grand Duke Nicholas Konstantinovich of Russia at the end of that list, are you calling him a socialist who used the red flag? –Vipz (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

well the Grand Duke was a socialist and indeed had a red flag above his palace. You can even find it on the Russian Wiki i think? Welso (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Welso: sources to confirm either of these statements? I see an unsourced sentence on the Duke's ru.wiki article, Google translated: The abdication of the emperor on March 2, 1917, the Grand Duke took with delight: he raised a red flag over his house and sent a welcome telegram to the Provisional Government. The head of the Provisional Government A.F. Kerensky personally knew Nikolai Konstantinovich from Tashkent, since for almost ten years they lived in the neighborhood. If this is true and I interpreted it correctly, Konstantinovich simply welcomed a social democratic provisional government taking over, nothing implies that he was a socialist all of a sudden, especially as a member of royalty. –Vipz (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I listen my "le surs" in the edit you reverted, and if you get the book you would find the origz there, also there is a documentary of the same name based on the book but i dont think there is a full recording of it. the documentary was done by NTV (before it turned shit, aka before kursk or whatever was the sub) and the author, well, is there. Welso (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSkDc4GzO4M&t=1047s the only thing i found from the documentary was a different Knaz, very sadge. Welso (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vipz and i say the only thing i found because this doesnt look like a credible surs: https://web.archive.org/web/20071029072551/http://www.centrasia.ru/newsA.php4?st=1031120340 Welso (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionaly, people often do not see the fact that there were 2 revolutions, and leaving out "the petrograd soviet" and the esers, who infact were really unorthodox in their ideology would lead people to believe "Oh, thats the Bolshevik stuff", even tho it isn't. Welso (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and additionaly if you, @Vipz what unorthodox means in this context, use the bloody internet archive and search up "Эсеры программа" Welso (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you take a look at my new article Rudi Čajavec (company)? Do you perhaps have access to sources which detail the operations of the firm during the seventies and the eighties, so as to be able to include the list of OOURs (of which there were 24 I think), information about exports etc.? —Alalch E. 12:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Alalch E.! Sorry, I don't have any such sources at hand. I'll keep this article in mind if I come across any. Great job! –Vipz (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SANDWICH. Cheers. — Sadko (words are wind) 10:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the image to a more relevant section instead. –Vipz (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	10,000 Edit Barnstar
	Well done! (I feel like I should say something funny here, but I can't think of anything just now) Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the theory here is that some people are ethnically Albanian. One way to sometimes tell is if their primary language is Albanian, but in theory there are other marks of clear ethnicity. Other people are "of Albanian descent", they have ancestors they know were Albanian, but are not themselves "Albanian". In a place like Albanians in Yugoslavia, there is also the issue some think of "Albanian descent" as "those who moved from Albania to Yugoslavia, or who had ancestors who did so", but most Albanian people, in any sense, in Yugoslavia had lived outside Albania since before it was created in 1912, some it is not clear they ever had ancestors who lived in Albania. We have both "Tartar people" and "Tartar descent" cats for those in Russia, the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire, and I think also Armenian and Armenian descent cats for both the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire, so there is some idea that these are two distinct things. However the line of what makes someone "Albanian" v "Albanian descent" is a tough one to draw. On the other hand, at some point ancestry becomes trivial. If someone had a great grandfather who was Albanian, but did not know this in their lifetime, and it was only determined by more recent scholarship, and this person was in fact a very anti-Albanian Serb nationalist, than this fact not know to them may in fact not be defining at all, and so it might not be worth categorizing by. Some of these things are case by case, but categories generally also group people who are in recognized groups. So if in a place there are a few fully Albanian people, but they are treated and thought of essentially the same as people who are just "of Albanian descent", then we might just have the descent category. So in the US for ethnic groups that are not indigenous to the US we normally just have descent cats. On the other hand in a place like the Ottoman Empire where basically everyone was assigned some sort of ethnic designation, being of one ethnicity but having known ancestry from another might mean that the known ancestry is not really that defining, and so we might limit our ethnic related categories to ethnicities like Greek, Albanian, Arab, etc, and not use descent categories at all. My general assumption is that in Yugoslavia Albanians were an ethno/cultural group, with most people who were Albanian also speaking Albanian, so much so that we would be best off with just one category, and if they are just "of descent" but not enough to actually call them Albanian we should not put them in Albanian related categories. However if someone can find a group of people who we can should from reliable sources were A-Yugoslav nationals B-identified clearly as being another ethnic groups and C-it was also known to them and others that they had Albanian ancestry, I would say we could do the descent category. However calling residents who spoke only Albanian, were called Albanian by others and functioned in Albanian ethnic frameworks, especially in what is now Kosovo and North Macedonia, but in many cases other parts of Yugoslavia as well, "of Albanian descent", is also misleading. I know that there are also, especially in times past, people in the US who are fully ethnically Germany, Vietnamese, Albanian, Slovak, Polish, etc, but they are in generally not distinct from those who are only of descent. I also have to admit I am not sure what the best name is, however it is probably CategoryAlbanian people from Yugoslavia, but since we have several categories of Albanians in Greece, Albanians in North Macedonia, etc, we might need a group nomination to move away. What we are trying to group is people who are by ethnicity Albanian, however exactly that is defined, speaking Albanian as your native tongue is one marker, but there are people who are fully an ethnic group who do not know the ethnic language, but who are nationals of Yugoslavia, Greece, North Macedonia, Italy, the Republic of Venice, the Ottoman Empire, etc. In theory someone born in Britain, the child of a diplomat from Yugoslavia to Britain, who lived in only Britain and France, could still be an Albanian by ethnicity and a Yugoslav by nationality, even if they never set foot in Yugoslaiva ever. So we need to craft the name so it will include such children of diplomats who were never "in" their home country. Realistically they probably would be in their home country a little, but possibly not much. They would also be a Yugoslav expatriate in the United Kingdom, but that is another issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Do you know a site in which the "Poslovnik CK SKJ" and the "Poslovnik predsjedništva CK SKJ" are available? I found the "Rules of Procedure on the Organisation and Activity of the Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia", adopted in 1969.

I need access, because I want to do a comparative analysis of them and compare them to the "Work Regulations of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China".

To be honest, if you know of a Croatian Ebay or anything similar that seels hardcopies of those books send me to that site, I need these! TheUzbek (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @TheUzbek, I do not, but I could suggest you to contact a mainly Serbian Wikipedia editor called "Pinki". He is way more knowledgeable and has better access to such literature than me. –Vipz (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vipz: I've been in contact with him, but alas he does not understand English so a bit difficult to communicate. I have created an article on the LCY Presidency. If you feel something is missing please say so. I'm going to try and create similar articles on the LCY Central Committee, the LCY Supervisory Commission and the LCY Statutory Commission. --TheUzbek (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between April and June 2023. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Hi Vipz. Would the same reasoning for not including the painting of Tomislav apply to King Solomon article as well? I noticed an IP bring this up. I also noticed another IP attack that IP for supporting an “ustashe nazi propaganda image”. Is the painting in question actually Ustashe propaganda? I know there was ultranationalist myths generated by the regime. Was King Tomislav, his artifacts or his images part of it? I don’t know luch about this and do not want to be inadvertently peddling fascist propaganda. You insight would be appreciated. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recently reviewed the changes you made to the Fidel Castro article and wanted to reach out with some feedback. First and foremost, I deeply appreciate the effort and time editors like you devote to improving Wikipedia, a platform many rely upon for accurate and unbiased information. I observed that some of the nuances in your edits might inadvertently reflect a slight bias, possibly stemming from personal or political beliefs. We all carry our perspectives and experiences, and sometimes they can subtly influence the way we present information. Given the sensitive nature of political articles, particularly those about figures like Fidel Castro, it's paramount that we approach them with utmost neutrality.

I respect and understand that everyone has their political leanings, IMHO is necesary for us, as editors, to remain vigilant and ensure that such leanings don't unintentionally color the articles we edit. In the spirit of fostering a neutral point of view—one of the core principles of Wikipedia—I kindly suggest revisiting such edits with an added layer of objectivity. Please don't interpret this as a criticism of your work but as a collaborative suggestion to maintain the integrity of the articles we are entrusted with. Wikipedia thrives when its community of editors support and guide one another. Let's keep the dialogue open and continue working together towards the shared goal of accurate and balanced content. :) Wilfredor (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wilfredor. Usual code of conduct when an edit is disputed is to take it to the article's talk page, discuss it and gather consensus, not re-reverting and accusing fellow editors of biased editing. In this specific example, I don't think an evaluation of Castro's inheritance carries due weight to be emphasized in the lead section. Do other biographies on Fidel Castro put emphasis on his family's inheritance from him? –Vipz (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to respond to my message and for your dedicated contributions to Wikipedia. I genuinely respect your efforts to ensure that content is presented with due weight and relevance. I apologize if my initial message came off as accusatory or critical of your intentions. My aim was solely to offer a perspective and initiate a dialogue about the nuances of the edits. Regarding the emphasis on Castro's inheritance in the lead section, my concern was mainly about presenting a balanced view. If other reputable sources on Fidel Castro's biography don't focus on this aspect, then I understand and support your reasoning to not overemphasize it in the lead section. I brought it up as a point of discussion and not as a definitive statement. I wholeheartedly agree with your suggestion to take such discussions to the article's talk page for more extensive conversation and consensus-building. Let's continue the discussion there, and as always, work collaboratively to ensure the quality and neutrality of the content. Wilfredor (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there were some issues with the Community section of that article, but I think you are right that it was probably overkill to put an article tag for it. I honestly don't know what I was thinking, so thanks for fixing it. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ThaesOfereode! Please remember that all article tags have section equivalents or a parameter that make them read "This section [...]" instead of "This article [...]". In this case, {{Original research section}}. Thank you for clearing up that confusion. –Vipz (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've reverted the edit on Kirby (series) on basis of not using legal names. Referring to Natsume as "Natsume Co., Ltd." is a necessary change because there's two different companies known as Natsume: Natsume Co., Ltd. (currently Natsume Atari) and Natsume Inc. It's a common mistake within Wikipedia to confuse both of them and using its full name is an appropriate method to prevent it. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed, thanks for pointing this out and sorry for the delayed response. –Vipz (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --Joy (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I would love some input from you. Do you feel these articles (leader and congress) lack any more information in the leads? I think both are good candidates for WP:FL. TheUzbek (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheUzbek! Not a lack of information, but I can suggest for both articles to retain first paragraphs in their lead sections and have the rest separated into "History" sections. Do sources also emphasize ethnicities/nationalities of secretariat members? –Vipz (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources always emphasise ethnicities, but you are in right that in this instance its not relevant. As Kardelj said (paraphrasing of course): "we are not constructing a multicultural society"

As for dividing into sections wouldn't that go against the WP:FL? I've never seen an FL nominated that way, but it might be a good idea. Never thought of it.

Heads up: The SK logos are incorrect. I've sent messages to certain users at Wikimedia Commons and I hope they have the spare time to fix them. See File:X Kongres SKJ, Beograd 1974.jpg and File:XI Kongres SKJ, Beograd 1978.jpg. The SKJ element is incorrectly placed in the logos we use. I've also asked for a logo without the abbreviation. The hammer and sickle is not correct either: [3] & [4]. TheUzbek (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheUzbek: At the point you have to consider dividing content of the lede into sections, I don't think it's just a list. –Vipz (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked into some WP:FLCs and see that the lead varies in size. For instance, the List of Seattle Seahawks seasons has a lead like the LCY president article. The nominee Portland Trail Blazers draft history is a hybrid and seems to be garnering support. I have, therefore, created a new section entitled "Institutional history". You are right that this list is probably a "hybrid", but there is not enough information out there on the actual workings of this office (maybe in a Yugoslavish language, but not in English).

Do you approve of the new structure? TheUzbek (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New and correct logos: [5] --TheUzbek (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheUzbek: I noticed this but never bothered to have them fixed. I'm glad you did. :) The handles look to be consistently aligned with the two bottom points of the star. Cheers! –Vipz (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Heads up!

I'm thinking of splitting Template:Politics of Yugoslavia into two: one about the kingdom and another one about the SFRY. While it's logical that some articles are merged (such as heads of state), the political systems of these two states were very different, and merging them into one template does not really make that altogether clear. TheUzbek (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheUzbek: I apologize for a very late answer to this, but please be bold and go ahead! –Vipz (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I changed [[Nintendo Entertainment System|NES]] to [[NES]], [[PlayStation (console)]] to [[PlayStation 1|PlayStation]] because it takes less time for me to read. Speed and momentum aren't the same; momentum = speed x mass / angle. I am bad at writing so I don't think it is usually clear what I'm talking about. 71.178.45.197 (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please make a comment so a consensus can be reached at: Talk:History of the Balkans#Requested move 27 December 2023 and Talk:Slavic migrations to the Balkans#Requested move 27 December 2023. Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Miki Filigranski, I appreciate the invitation. :) –Vipz (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Would you please participate in the move discussion at Talk:Communist state. I already do know that you don't approve of the current name title. I don't really have anything against it, but people refuse to link to the proper page, which means that this title doesn't work at all. TheUzbek (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vipz

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Викидим and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a discussion about the redirect Unitary People's Liberation Front of Yugoslavia, created by you. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 20 § Unitary People's Liberation Front of Yugoslavia.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Викидим}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Викидим (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	"From one Comrade to another", for being understanding and supportive in times of need... Thank you! ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering why it got a C? Not taking it personally, but I'm just wondering what needs to be done to bring it up. Considering sources really don't exist for the topic outside of the ones I used, and there are at least 3 major ones... It seems wrong since "C" is defined as "Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study". I'm not sure I would say that the article is not detailed, would you? Vininn126 (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Vininn126, I only glanced over the article, saw no visible issues and rated it as C without much forethought, leaving it up to expectation that somebody more proficient in the field or topic will update the rating appropriately. Perhaps leaving the assessment out entirely is the correct approach I should take moving forward whilst tagging article talk pages with WikiProject banners and shells. I apologize for the lack of discretion and for leaving you probably bewildered. –Vipz (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. It may or may not; I can also see some people complaining about the technical jargon in the article. As to someone more proficient - I tried emailing universities and finding professors so as to get input before publishing the article - I'm pretty sure at this point that an expert doesn't exist! Anyone who had anything to do with Slovincian ended up saying I found way more sources than they were ever aware of/had read. The point is, I'm not sure if such assessments might depend article to article - but I'm no Wikipedia editor, I mostly needed it to clean up entries on Wiktionary. Thanks for the explanation. Cheers. Vininn126 (talk) 04:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a win for us to have Wikipedia be the best resource for such niche topics. Very well done and keep up the great work! –Vipz (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vipz :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did cite the source I did not copy and paste it from somewhere. Did the reason I did not cite sources for the second paragraph, was because I did find a source but it was very old any if user tried to access it it costed money to see so it was kinda pointless. Aleksandar Karađorđević (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y Answered on user's talk page. –Vipz (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appriciate you work on categorization. However, please don't add Russian categories as a parent to soviet categories. The consensus is that these categories are not nested. I've removed them [6] Mason (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm new to Wiki. The aforementioned Moljević did advocate for a greater Serbia, but also within the framework of a greater Yugoslavia which would receive territorial expansion. In my opinion it could be part of that page. What do you think? Let us mention it together? All the best. Bagyblazha (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Bagyblazha. I am completely opposed to inserting either the map or text content about Stevan Moljević's Homogeneous Serbia to the article on Yugoslav irredentism. Moljević's concepts are the epitome of Serbian irredentism. After ethnically cleansing non-Serb population from all that (blue-colored) territory and forming ethnically pure Greater Serbia, he further seeks for this Serbia to maintain control over whatever is left over to Croatia and Slovenia (through this 'framework'). Do not conflate Yugoslav irredentism with Serbian irredentism. –Vipz (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, Serbian irredentism is part of Yugoslav irredentism. His plan did not aim at the disintegration of Yugoslavia, but, according to him, at a just territorial expansion. Slovenia would also receive internal enlargement, but within Yugoslavia. Internal matters, ethnic cleansing and the like can be left aside. According to your rhetoric, someone would say that "Tito wanted to territorially destroy Serbia or similar". Certainly, all of this belongs to Yugoslav irredentism, regardless of internal matters. Bagyblazha (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagyblazha: No, internal matters such as ethnic cleansing and taking away the entirety of Bosnian-Herzegovinian, Macedonian, Montenegrin, and most Croatian territory cannot be "left aside". These are the demarking characteristics that indicate which kind of irredentism is in question. Serbian irredentism is not a subtype of Yugoslav irredentism and will never be. I've already explained why his 'trialist Yugoslavia' represents Serbian irredentism further than any other Greater Serbia concept. Simply naming it 'Yugoslavia' does not make it 'Yugoslav'. We don't need to waste any more words here. If you still seek to insert this content, please start a talk page discussion on that article, perhaps even a WP:RfC (request for comments). –Vipz (talk) 01:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you reversed my changes to the article about Slavs because my changes were "unsourced." But the portion that I removed was never sourced to begin with. It is not based on any sources. There's no basis for believing that "Slovene" is a "reconstructed autonym."

Here is the relevant portion:

The oldest documents written in Old Church Slavonic, dating from the 9th century, attest the autonym as Slověne (Словѣне). Those forms point back to a Slavic autonym, which can be reconstructed in Proto-Slavic as *Slověninъ, plural Slověne.[citation needed] The reconstructed autonym *Slověninъ is usually considered a derivation from slovo ("word"), originally denoting "people who speak (the same language)", meaning "people who understand one another", in contrast to the Slavic word denoting "German people", namely *němьcь, meaning "silent, mute people" (from Slavic *němъ "mute, mumbling"). Historybuff4life4health (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can certain Wikipedians interested in socialism be against some forms of socialism (i.e. communism, anarchism, etc.)? If so, are you one of them?
Quang, Bùi Huy (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Bhuyquang1. If you're posting this question to me because you saw that category on my userpage, keep in mind that this category is automatically added by the {{User WikiProject Socialism}} userbox template. Wikipedians interested in socialism or participating in its WikiProject are not necessarily all socialists of any kind. Among those who are socialists, there are so many different strands of socialism, many of which are irreconcilable with one another, whether as broadly as authoritarian socialism and libertarian socialism, or even within the same branch of ideology (e.g. Trotskyism and Stalinism). –Vipz (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For me, I asked that question to you because, well, historians of communism may be interested in researching on communism, but some of those are anti-communist as well. BTW, TYSM! ❤️

Quang, Bùi Huy (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhuyquang1: Not sure why you're curious about my political beliefs specifically. At the moment, I consider myself a socialist—broadly speaking—liking and disliking certain aspects of many different traditions of communism and anarchism, being neither anti-communist nor anti-anarchist. I have not settled on one ideology or another yet. I am leaning towards forms of socialism from below (i.e. anti-authoritarian). –Vipz (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for the changes to the article on SFRY. Done as I expected. I do not think that FRY has continuity, but that the state ceased to exist when that constitution was promulgated. I made some small changes to make it more precise, I hope you don't mind. In the hope that we will cooperate further, warm greetings. Bagyblazha (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Bagyblazha. I'm not sure your replacement of the link to Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (article about the country with all relevant information) with one to the 1992 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (a stub with two short sentences) was really an improvement. A link to the 1992 constitution also does not inform readers that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is in fact a distinct country until they reach the article on the country itself. It might as well imply the 1992 constitution was just another constitution of SFRY, and not one of a distinct country that we do not learn about until we reach the end of the infobox. A constitution of any other successor state to SFRY (i.e. Croatia or Slovenia) might as well be the 'end event' of SFRY. The constitutions are irrelevant—the fact that two former republics formed a distinct country called 'Yugoslavia' is the only relevant fact here. Cheers. –Vipz (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]