Hello, Jean-Jacques Georges! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Reference note and supplementary note are 2 different things, Ref note [1] is a reference for 900 US aircraft in 1945, Supp note 1 on the bottom of the infobox that clearly states: "Chiang Kai-shek led a Chinese united front that included Nationalists, Communists and regional warlords." Look for it. DCTT (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your question. Well, his full title was His Royal Highness Prince Vanna Vaidhayakara, the Prince Naradhip Bhongsprabandh. His given name was Vanna Vaidhayakara, and the Prince Naradhip Bongseprabandh was his royal title which was given by King Bhumibol Adulyadej, can translate in thai as Krom Muen Naradhip Bongseprabandh. And actually the word Wan Waithayakorn was not correct about naming royal family. The royal family uses the Latino-Indian language style for naming the members of the family. Such as Kitiyakara can translate as Kitiyakorn. And Sirivannavari Nariratana, translate as Siriwanwari Narirat.

And furthermore, the article about Prince Vanna Vaidhayakara is not succesfully completed, we are going to prepare the complete information and biography about him and complete his article soon. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monarchians (talk • contribs) 16:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry we forgot another one, Waiwaidhayakara is not the name or nickname. It was the wrong name with wrong typing in computer, hahaha. His nickname was Ong Wan or Prince Vanna. That you said recently, he was known in the west as Wan. I know it is confused about spelling his name and his spoken name. Anyway, this article is stub, we are preparing all the biography and information about him. And we are going to complete this article successfully.

Whatever westerns or easterns, if you would like to know more about the Thai Royal Family, you can come visit Category:Chakri Dynasty, or can also ask us. We update the information every time. We are so appriciate that you are interested in the Royal Family, Thank you.

Plaek Khittasangka was his born name, the word Pibulsonggram was his title which was given from King Bhumibol Adulyadej as Lord (Luang) Pibulsonggram so the article shoud be named as his right title. And the most people know him most in his surname. In Thailand, he known as P. Pibulsonggram, which P stands for Plaek, his first name. And about the Prince Vanna's article. If we name the article as Prince Vanna Vaidhayakara, the Princess Naradhip Bongseprabandh, it is not neccessary if writing all his given name and the title, or Wan Waithayakon, it is not much appropriate about his official name. 1 month after he was born, there was the 1st month royal birth ceremony which is performed by the King. King Chulalongkorn wrote his name in the golden paper as Vanna Vaidhayakara, as he wrote according to his book, English in Siamese royal society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monarchians (talk • contribs) 18:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again. We decided to move his article back to Wan Waithayakon, for many references according to his most known name. We will retype Wan Waithayakon (birth name: Vanna Vaidhayakara) .............. So the reader will know all his most known name and his birth name. Thank you for your opinion. It was a good decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monarchians (talk • contribs) 10:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jean jacques

the MVAC was an organization extended to Montenegro, Dalmatia/Croatia/Bosnia and Slovenia. this organization was created merging precedent ones amongst them the Bande VAC of Dalmatia/Croatia/Bosnia and the White Guard of Slovenia. The article on the Bande VAC was so focused on the dalmatian etc element, so more then a reorganization the problem was of integration of different articles

the italian article about MVAC is more complete but still not yet exaustive

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milizia_Volontaria_Anti_Comunista

Cunibertus (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jean-Jacques. With regards to the name of Quisling's government, the reason that I moved it from Norges Rike/State of Norway is that both me and other editors have exhausted our (not inconsiderable) supplies of books looking for the term used in this context, and failed completely in finding it. What I have found is that, according to an encyclopaedia created by a large number of foremost Norwegian experts on the Second World War the official name was the "nasjonale regjering" (National government, from the beginning until the end. Professor Hans Fredrik Dahl wrote that. Still, even though we have the official name most people won't look for that name and I suspect that the correct name of the article, according to WP:COMMONNAME is "Quisling regime", which is most familiar to both Norwegian and English speakers.

"Nasjonal Riksregjering" sounds like something Quisling might have used, but we need further data on that possible use, especially if it was official. The search for sources continues.

Yes, the Monarchy was never fully deposed, Terboven only deposed the current king and Quisling temporarily assumed the powers of the monarchy. I'll write more on that in a little while.

The problem with used a state info-box is that the government was never given any sovereignty, only the promise of being able to rule a free Norway after the end of the war. It was not a state, only a government ready to lead a state and in the meantime trying to exert influence on the Germans, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. In the end it served mainly as a, poor, Norwegian alibi for the German occupying authorities. This is unlike for example the French State which I understand held true power to a certain extent in the unoccupied areas of France.

Thanks for working on the French article, as for any Norwegian article that might happen some day. But it won't be done by me, I do no work over at Norwegian Wikipedia, I don't have the time for that. Manxruler (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see with a state info-box is that it gives the impression of an actual state, which was not the case. As you said, Vichy France controlled territory until 1942, Quisling never did, so Vichy France could be considered something like a state. There was a map of Norway included in the info-box, which was incorrect in several ways, the regime never controlled territory, and even if they had then Spitsbergen and Jan Mayen would not be included as those areas were never captured by the Germans. Quisling also never had troops, only his Hird paramilitaries. The Norwegian police is another case, part Nazi-controlled (Statspolitiet), part not (ordniary police), although there is controversy regarding the willingness of the police to help in the deportation of the Jews.

Regarding contacting worldstatesmen for their sources, I really see little point in doing that as we have the best sources already available. The work based on these sources, written by authoritative historians, is far from finished yet. Also, I generally don't trust websites, and simply can't trust a website that lists Paal Berg as a king of Norway... Manxruler (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Statesmen also seems to be a Self-published source Manxruler (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Norwegian state would be the translation. On page 249 it says that the Party termed the government "the authoritarian state" (Norw.: den autoritære stat). Still, the author of the book has also said, in the sources already used in the article, that the official name of the government was "nasjonale regjering" (National government), thus "the authoritarian state" was an alternative name also used by the Party. That should be included, we'll take care of that. We should keep to the Norwegian names first, with English translations in addition, as the Quisling regime never used English as a working language. Good job on finding the book, it will be useful in the further work. I agree completely that Quisling regime is probably the best name to use for the article, as that will be the most recognizable name. By the way, "Norges rike" is used many places, but we've not yet found it in the context of the Quisling regime, it's a term most often used when referring to the old Norwegian state, pre-ca. 1350, back when Norway was at her greatest size and level of power. Quisling&Co. often looked back to medieval times for inspiration and propaganda, so it's not unlikely that they would have used such a term from time to time, but we do not yet have evidence for this. We shall keep looking. Manxruler (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The country itself had a name during this time as well, it was "Norge" (Norway). The national socialists left out "Kongeriket" (the Kingdom of) in their writings, seeing as they did not recognize a king at that time and the King was a symbol of the exiled pre-war government. Still, the monarchy was only temporarily suspended, with Quisling assuming it's power temporarily. It's important to note that Quisling never wanted to start a new country, just to reform and "improve" the old one. For example, he wanted Lebensraum in the east for Norway. It's all coming to the article in a while. Manxruler (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks for the trust vis-à-vis the Norwegian sources. The Quisling book you found in English is quite good, I'll use that where applicable. I'll probably do an update later today, got to go hiking a bit first. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's a good idea, contacting the archontology people. Manxruler (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, they have provided sources here. That the term Norges rike was used on the state seal, to avoid royal connections. Manxruler (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to rewrite that page to provide a more balanced picture. I stumbled onto that page a few months back and was aghast at the clearly biased article. The best paragraphs to rewrite, in order to provide a fuller picture of what is clearly not a black and white picture, are the relations With The Partisans and the Relations With The British And Americans ones. I created this version here [[1]]. Many of my sourced edits have since been reverted in an effort to downplay Mihailovic's initial anti-Nazi stance and the fact that he was recognized by the British as the official Allied resistance in Yugoslavia. Of course now it only reads that he attacked the Allies, which is misleading to say the least. I'm going to go back in and fix this in the next 24 hours or so, see what you think.Let'sGoO's (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for appropriately clarifying the potential misunderstanding regarding German submarine participation. My father was in Algeria during the spring and summer of 1943. He had learned to speak French while living on the Maine-Quebec border before the war. As Commodore Campbell Edgar's staff intelligence officer, he was one of the first French-speaking Americans to visit Foreign Legion posts following the invasion. His lasting recollections of the friendly reception were his best memories of a tragic conflict. I sincerely appreciate your willingness to bring a French perspective to the English Wikipedia during a period when too many Americans have forgotten our long national history of shared values.Thewellman (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you might be able to find more information about Vice Admiral Michelier, who appears to have been General Noguès' naval subordinate during the defense of Casablanca. My references indicate he sailed aboard Primauguet as commander of the 2nd Light Squadron. Admiral Michelier might be a more appropriate infobox listing as commander of this naval battle.Thewellman (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found exactly what I needed in the marvelous list of references you provided. I was able to interpret the individual articles, but my knowledge of French is inadequate for efficient use of search engines. Thank you for making this a much better article.Thewellman (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I thank you for creating a French article of this topic by translating it. It can be a pain for someone to see a good article or book in another language but they cannot understand it, so it is very gracious of your to translate it. I did an essay on the Huguenots in the French Wars of Religion, and believe me it was frustrating for me not being fluent in French to have to rely on English-language sources!

As for your question, I myself am frankly confused. I thought that that source mentioned the name "Hungarian State". I believe that there are other sources for the name, as I ran into it. A Hungarian user corrected the translation of "Hungarian State" to "Magyar Állam", perhaps they know it. The best option would be to search the Hungarian name: "Magyar Állam" and see what results come up.--R-41 (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your addition ("John I"), as that is not really his title; there is no other king John (of England), no one else to differentiate him from. The ordinal number is never used except if there is more than one monarch of that name ~ and sometimes not then! Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 20:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jean-Jacques Georges. You have new messages at LindsayH's talk page.
Message added 07:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 07:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The succession links in the country template is normally for the official and direct political successor of the state, which most academic timelines and major encyclopedias lists the Republic of China. Not all indpendent states or states proclaiming indpendence need to be listed. For example, the Tibet (1912–1950) article described it as "de facto", so does it have wide international recognition? So why do you think it should be in the template succession box? I'm not absolutely oppose to the idea, but in my opinion a consensus is needed for these links to be in the template. Regards.--TheLeopard (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
Regarding Assassinations.
I would have found that original information at the IMDb. So if you have a different, more reliable source for this film, then you need to provide those details inside a <ref>...</ref> footnote.
Thanks, Varlaam (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello -- wondering if you could take a look at René Prioux. I'd like to fill in some more information about the end of his career in French North Africa and am also wondering if he was politically active after he left the French Army -- unfortunately, the few sources I have do not have much to say about this phase of his life. Thanks for any assistance. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. I only get to France from time to time and wouldn't even know which libraries to visit for good general wartime references that might present a brief biography of Prioux. Sometimes I get lucky at open-air book markets and book shops, but the kinds of war history titles they sell tend to be limited. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I always enjoy new bookstores. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me all, but Wikipedia:CITE#Non-English sources is fairly explicit in what sources are allowed. Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English language sources of equal caliber and content, though the latter are allowed where appropriate. When quoting a source in a different language, please provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text, in a footnote, or on the talk page as appropriate. This does not meet the letter of that directive. That is simply inserting foreign language sources, with no translation attempted. Not acceptable. And there is no valid reason to remove existing sources to insert others. Do not refer to this as vandalism, it is not. It is combatting the insertion of improper referencing and is entirely appropriate. Also, one of your earlier edit summary comments, having heard speak in Italian, I'd say she has more than an understanding of the language, is meaningless here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, edit warring can't happen in a vacuum. If I'm edit warring, so are you, except I have valid reasons for reverting your improper insertion of non-English sources. They are not acceptable as you've inserted them. Find the same stuff in English and it won't be an issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While there appears to be no reason to remove the English language sources, neither is there a good reason to remove the foreign language ones. Yes you are both edit warring. Please stop. LadyofShalott 20:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Find the same stuff in English and it won't be an issue. "

Find the same stuff in English and you might have an issue. As it is, CITE is quite clear that a foreign language source can be justified if there isn't a suitable English source. So in this case, there's no problem with using the sources given and as it's a language-related issue it's entirely reasonable to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V#Non-English sources is also quite clear... When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: . . . Therefore, editor Wildhartlivie is within policy to request a translation from a reliable source.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  18:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wildhartlivie did not "request a translation", Wildhartlivie just kept removing over and over several sources because he (she ?) could not understand the language, and hence was not "within policy". I'm the kind of person who will do such things as translate a sentence or two if I'm asked nicely enough, but such was not the case. Now enough of this, please. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jean-Jacques Georges. You have new messages at Rin tin tin 1996's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Well, I decided to be WP: BOLD and add the warbox. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly sure that Horthy was removed from power in 1944. He was the acting head of state as regent of Hungary, but after he indicated that Hungary would no longer fight alongside Germany, Germany installed the Arrow Cross regime.--R-41 (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jean-Jacques Georges. You have new messages at PAStheLoD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Jean-Jacques Georges. You have new messages at PAStheLoD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Jean-Jacques Georges. You have new messages at PAStheLoD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I filed the request for mediation on Draza Mihailovic article that needs your acceptance Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Draza_Mihailovic. BoDu (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a request for informal mediation with the MedCab about Second Sino-Japanese War; It is here Rin tin tin (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A request has been made at WP:MEDCAB concerning the Second Sino-Japanese War. If all parties agree, I would be happy to act as an informal mediator. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jean-Jacques. Just to let you know that the mediation has begin. Here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Draza_Mihailovic#Begin_mediation. FkpCascais (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that any edit of mine will be accepted by direktor, even if completely neutral. It will only provoke an edit-war. It is better to leave you working on it, and see how will they react. They did get me enervate on the mediation, and I am starting to doubt about the honesty of the real neutrality, in it. People there say one thing then do another, and there has not been equal treatement there. But, we have to try, at least. FkpCascais (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously could, but I can´t really intervene there, I can just complain on the mediation in case someone decides to revert your edits... (I can´t involve in edit wars there because admins that are friends of direktor would just love to have that as reason to block me, or something...) I´ll try my best, but you can allways see the edit history of the article, and see who did what. Also, don´t forget about the mediation... it is important that you participate (since they want to show me as some crazy Chetnik fan, and discredit my oposition towards the way the article was edited before). It is important to demonstrate that we do have right to be unhappy with the way this, and other related articles, have been edited. And, you are right, you have also seen how all these articles have been sistematically edited and are watched... That is the worste thing that should happend in wikipedia type encyclopedias. FkpCascais (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jean-Jacques, but I had to say some things I did over there. I hope you understand that I much apreciate you, and I do understand that you wanted to "help me", but also, I think you understand now that by participating in the mediation, you are also helping yourself, because that is the only way to have your edits inserted in the article. I lost some faith in it, but that may change acordingly to the further evolution of it. Letting user:LAz17, now blocked for insulting me, participate or ignoring that Tomasevich may not be completely neutral, among some other issues, but mostly the first one, also contributed. I´ll be in touch with you, but I am just not willing to participate and loose time there if my time there isn´t apreciated, or worste, to make a fool of myself. I did choose to defend him there because nobody is, and that fact is good for contributing to the nutrality of the article (just as your participation, as well), but if this is not apreciated, and will just make me loose time and get insulted, I really prefer to go to the beach, or edit something else. With many doubts regarding the good will of the mediation (I have doubts that will be just used to "legalize" all acusations), I send you best regards. I am around and I´ll be watching what happends there. FkpCascais (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was just watching it now. I´m thinking about one issue: How right is to call the movement "Serbian"? I ask this because Serbs, in general, by then, had very much gave up on the "Serbianity" on behalve of "Yugoslavity", and in the movement were welcomed all members of other nationalities that suported the Royal Yugoslavia and the King. I think that they defended the "continuity of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia" whatever its new composition might be, because they were aware of the separatist movements and the unwilingness of some nationalities in continuing as part of some future union with its capital in Belgrade (along with Serbs, and with the King as head of state). See the idea? FkpCascais (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, don´t warry, it is just that for time being I agree with all you have. :) I´ll point out whatever I find, like this, Chetniks being exclusively Serbian and Montenegrin idea, that was/is pushed purposly in a number of texts. That includes describing the movement "nationalistic" along with monarchic, but for time being, I´m not 100% sure what sources say about it. Simply monarchic is surely right, but "nationalistic"? I don´t know for sure yet. It is just that some users want to describe the Partisans as "Yugoslav" and Chetniks as "Serbian", when in trouth, had both almost the same composition (Serbs majority, unfortunatelly to some POV pushing editors). For instance, my father family was monarchic (but nobody fought the war), while my mother side were mostly Partisans (my Grandpa fought WWII, and Grandma helped :). The Serbs were most participative in both, so if we say Chetniks were "Serb", well, we could say it for the Partisans, as well, and for Yugoslavia itself... FkpCascais (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I want distract you anymore, you just begin the most important part, that is to demostrate how wronlgy and intentionally distorced the sources have been used. That is the most important. Having in mind what direktor said on Sunray´s talk page, I wouldn´t mind entering into analising the sources with him, the ones that he consideres fit for naming DM Axis collaborator... FkpCascais (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as end to our previous comments, if the Chetniks were Royalists, why, for exemple, the Danes or Swedes, when defend their monarchy are considered "normal", but when Serbs defend their monarchy, are considered nationalist? We´ll see this more in front, but if this idea is oposed, it should be challenged. FkpCascais (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you explain why you moved the Chetniks from the list of Axis forces in the Yugoslav Wars article? I can maybe see how the issue of a single person, Draža Mihailović, might be "debatable", but certainly not the widespread collaboration of the Chetnik movement. I used to have the impression you were a user striving towards neutrality in this issue. No longer, I'm afraid. And if I may say so, I'm even sensing suppressed antagonism on your part.

All I can do is assure you that your perception of the Chetniks' primary role in the war is deeply flawed, and recommend that you discuss your edits prior to inserting them. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for completing a new draft of the article. I am asking for participants' comments here. As the owner of the current draft you likely will want to participate in the discussion. If you do, I would just recommend that you don't allow yourself to get overly defensive (i.e., state your view in a neutral manner, but don't engage in further discussion, beyond clarification). IMO your draft helps move things forward. Sunray (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote some of the reasons why I think that Tomasevic shouldn´t be used as source on the mediation page [2]. What do you think about it? I also wanted to congratulate you for your work, and to thank you for all your effort and help on this. Best regrads JJR! FkpCascais (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks that other participants want to present this as WP:CANVASING, but I hope you know that I don´t (neither I think I can) influnce you on any question. I know that you do the things in the way you consider right, and that is another reason why I support you, so me asking you an opinion about something is evidently so I can have a better idea about some doubts I might have. It looks that I can´t ask you anything without the other participants wanting to present it as some "dark activities" behind. If I wanted to influnce you, I would have not have asked you something so everybody can see... But, it looks some people are sometimes so brut, and on other ocasions, so sensitive. Sorry if this qustion was problematic, and thank you for answering to me on the mediation. FkpCascais (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your further thoughts. I will follow up on them. However, I have (temporarily) moved them to the comments section. The reason for this is that I want to get the reaction of all participants to the current draft. Some people do not spend time on Wikipedia over the weekend, (go figure :)) so I want to make sure everyone has at least had a chance to comment. Then I will take all constructive comments and suggested alternatives and begin trying to find a consensus on each. I will set up a new section for that, including your latest post. Sunray (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the current photo in the infobox of Draza Mihailovic article is bad. I suggest you should replace the image with this one in your draft. What do you think? BoDu (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also support that change. That is the picture found on serbian wiki article. There are also other interesting pictures. We could take a look and see which ones would be apropriate to bring into the article. Here is the link to the page [3]. On the article are found pictures of him with the allies. FkpCascais (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques, I saw that you edited the file page, so you know now it is believed that the use of this image may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law. BoDu (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I follow as (sic) spectator the RfM of Draza Mihajlovitch (or Mihaijlović?) and I wonder, reading your post, if you'd like to re-write, beesides the Chetniks, Yugoslav Front as well as Yugoslavia and the Allies, using the same "draft", even the Bleiburg Massacre article.

Cheers, - Theirrulez (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I definitely give you a hand. - Theirrulez (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No way. Tito's page can't be improved. Tito's fanboys (I can't stop laughing when I read this definition :D) preside the article, raving something about consensus. I'm sorry. - Theirrulez (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the work you've done on the latest re-draft of the Mihailović article. I've suggested that participants begin discussing it. Not sure whether the group is ready for that yet, but thanks for opening up the possibility. Sunray (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too think you did a great job. Cheers! Sir Floyd (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciable effort in pursuit of neutrality. - Theirrulez (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that if you simply present your point of view, others will be able to discuss and decide. Direktor is forthright. Don't take it to heart. He has also shown himself to be reasonable. Consensus ain't easy (especially when one is tired!) but IMO it is worth the effort. Sunray (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image of actress Fan Bingbing is not her. I have removed it from her page. Thanks! Stormedelf (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason why it's not her is because of her eyes. Her eyes are a tad bit bigger than the one you have uploaded. Here are some pictures of her to compare: Films Cannes 2010 #1 Cannes 2010 #2 Stormedelf (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! ^_^ Stormedelf (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Stormedelf (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree to ask for a RfM for Tito too? - Theirrulez (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jean-Jacques Georges. I think several of the former Yugoslavia articles would need an RfM. Cheers! Sir Floyd (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jean-Jacques Georges! I would like to know what do you think of Wiki's article on the Bleiburg massacre? Cheers! Sir Floyd (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]