Talk:Social Democratic Party of Croatia

message: :Image:Sdp-logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Sdp-logo.gif

message: :Image:Sdp-logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Sdp-logo.gif

message: Hey, I  just  came here by  coincidence because the page keeps showing  up  somewhere. Can you  guys all  stop  acting  like a bunch  of kids and get  back  to  working  on  your article instead of talking  about  each  other and slinging  mud? If you  added as many  words to Social Democratic Party of Croatia as you  do  about  each other, it  would be a Featured Article. If  I'd noticed what  was going  on  on  8 Oftober, I  would have probably been handing  out  some blocks for 3RR. Get  a grip  folks ;)   Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Its hard not to have a long drawn-out discussion that diverges from the relevant point when your fellow Wikipedian discussing with you is posting long, drawn-out posts that diverge from the relevant point. Though I can't say the "method" isn't effective: he's posted enough posts that the discussion now appears off-topic, and we can avoid discussing his incredibly inappropriate and disruptive behavior on this article and its talkpage. I'm sure he'd be more than happy to terminate such an uncomfortable discourse. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

text: @Kudpung: The only person actually working on this article is me, as shown by its history (expanded from 11,862 to 20,280 bytes between Oct 12 and 13). Thanks for the encouragement though. Timbouctou (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, removing and adding whatever information you deem "worthy" of inclusion. Against opposition and without consensus. Woe onto whomever may dare step into your path, why, he's liable to see 15 separate attempts at character assassination that could fill a small booklet. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya'all need to read a chapter out of the User:The prophet wizard of the crayon cake's book.  Some serious detachment could be very helpful.  Can both of you just address the issue of the removal of the infobox and pretend you are talking to another user?  Put me in place of each other's username for example and then explain your rationale behind either the removal or the keep (revert) of the material.--v/r - TP 20:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I don't see why I should be forced to accept whatever a bully such as DIREKTOR fancies. I've left a message at WP:Croatia yesterday and two more editors (both in good standing if I may add, unlike DIREKTOR here) commented above that they see nothing wrong with my edits. I refuse to be forced to be put on the same level of a guy who a) never ever ever provided any kind of policy-based rationale for what he calls "opposition" and b) never ever ever contributed significantly to this article (or any other for that matter). The call at ANI was dead wrong - this is not a "content dispute", this is him abusing me. Timbouctou (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You arrive on an article, edit-war to have you disputed edits stand by gaming the 3RR system, insult me about 20 times in a variety of ways, and I'm a "bully"? You know its amazing how this guy can get away with personal attacks - by posting more personal attacks. You really ought to write a book, spread the skill. Talk about "commenting on the the contributor", this guy wrote a chapter up there about how much he hates me and why, and he gets away with it by being good at character assassination?  --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I "arrived on an article"??? What, you were holding it as your territory? Read WP:OWN. I "gamed the system"? No I didn't, I reverted too many times and got punished for it. Gaming the system is exactly what you do - you even went about explaining the process in your own block appeal. Besides, I still don't hear a single reason for your "opposition" to my edits. And talk of "the guy hates me" speech - scroll up to an admin's blockquote from seven months ago which includes quotes from you directed at me. It describes pretty much this entire talk page which means your May 2011 apology meant zilch and all the topic bans you received in the meantime achieved nothing. I'm sorry but you are simply incapable of participating in a collaborative project now, just as you were back then. You proved it time and again - and yes - an entire book could be compiled about your abuse around Wikipedia. And the funny thing is - there is not a single editor on this project who actually saw you making meaningful contributions to this project, ever. You are nothing but a wind up artist. Timbouctou (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Guys, please do not continue in the same manner of arguing you have been in after several folks have asked you to discuss the changes and you've both been blocked over this issue.  Again, use the several options listed to you.  Timbouctou, the policy is WP:BRD.  You were bold, Direktor reverted, it's time to discuss.  That's the policy.  Calling Direktor a "bully" isn't going to fix this issue and may lead to another block for personal attacks.  Focus on the content, not the editor.  Again, insert my name instead of each other's names and discuss as if you're talking to me.  Or seek WP:3O or WP:DRN.  At some point, one of you is going to have to concede.  Both of you are going to have to accept that it may be you that has to concede and accept that possibility.  Or, alternatively, you could come to a middle ground that reasonably addresses each other's concerns.  For example, if Timbouctou would say exactly which parts and why those parts are considered not important.  And then if Direktor could discuss each point individually why they are important.  Perhaps between you two, you can discuss the individual parts of the edits and come to an agreement on which to remove and which to keep?  Either way, Timbouctou, your personal attacks will lead to another block.  I suggest those stop.--v/r - TP 21:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: TP, can you show me a single article DIREKTOR has significantly expanded during his time here? Also, can you tell me why a consensus of three editors needs to be agreed upon with DIREKTOR? Can you point me to a policy-based argument he had provided for his opposition? Did you even read the talk page at all? Timbouctou (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not going to join you in discussing the editor.  I am happy to discuss the content though.  WP:BRD is enough policy for me to warrant discussion about the content.--v/r - TP 21:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

text: You are happy to discuss policy? Fine: I was bold, DIREKTOR reverted, I discussed. DIREKTOR reverted. I discussed. DIREKTOR threatened and simply said that "I don't get to decide about it." Is there a policy describing this? Something called WP:BRDRDTI perhaps? Timbouctou (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: By your timeline, what was Direktor reverting the second and subsequent times.  You need to be honest with yourself before we can work this out.  You also reverted several times.--v/r - TP 21:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So if he reverted back to the original and then simply walked away, leaving me to wait in vain for his reply to the discussion I started, all would be well, eh? Timbouctou (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no rush to fix this immediately (except political reasons that don't belong here).  Have you read Wikipedia:Silence_and_consensus.  If you had left comments and Direktor hadn't replied in several (3 or more) days, then you could've assumed silence means consent (or lack of opposition) to your opinion on the talk page.--v/r - TP 22:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civility 

message: Again you are making disruptive edits to the article, obviously you do NOT HAVE A CONSENSUS, but still you have engaged in a edit war. If you do not stop I will have to report you, I am sorry.
When you present all the information, and by that I mean, the number of mayors(gradonačelnici i načelnici), the number of city council members(članovi gradskih i općinskih vijeća), also all the county prefects(župani) and all memebers of county assemblies(članovi županijskih skupština), then you can source them and maybe then, if the sources are correct put them in the article, otherwise it is just you pushing your own agenda and nothing else, it is not sourced and not relevant. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tozwu 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Social Democratic Party of Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090228125733/http://zoranmilanovic.sdp.hr:80/govori/ljubo-jurcic-sdpov-kandidat-za-predsjednika-vlade-rh to http://zoranmilanovic.sdp.hr/govori/ljubo-jurcic-sdpov-kandidat-za-predsjednika-vlade-rh/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Social Democratic Party of Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140126073243/http://www.pes.eu:80/en/news/sdp-croatia-become-full-members-party-european-socialists to http://www.pes.eu/en/news/sdp-croatia-become-full-members-party-european-socialists
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Social Democratic Party of Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151018221036/http://hidran.hidra.hr/hidrarad/stranke/programi/028354.pdf to http://hidran.hidra.hr/hidrarad/stranke/programi/028354.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140907191524/http://www.jutarnji.hr/sdp-izabrao-josipovica--jurcic-dalje-ide-sam-/302753/ to http://www.jutarnji.hr/sdp-izabrao-josipovica--jurcic-dalje-ide-sam-/302753/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: I never said that Pro-Europeanism is not an ideology. And I also think that other ideologies of the SDP should be included in the infobox --Tuvixer (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:ONUS. Which references say it's an ideology? Policy or position =/= ideology. FDW777 (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I made an oversight that you were the first editor, so I apologize. --Tuvixer (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology - Pro-Europeanism 

message: SDPs leading politican Zoran Milanovic is widely known for his anti-western and pro russian attitude 92.36.222.230 (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strongly Pro-European?