Talk:Gazimestan speech

message: While claiming that he is continuing the work of TENC, he routinely violates scholarly ethics. He now not only misrepresents his data, but outright falsifies it. For example, in one text he took 9 words out of context from a thousand word 1938 article by Rabbi Stephen Wise, an article calling on Britain to provide sanctuary for the German Jews, and used this fragment as evidence that - in Gil-White's words - Rabbi Wise "got his wish" when the Holocaust took place. I traced Gil-White's falsified quotation to the actual article by Wise; I have posted my detective work here and Rabbi Wise's actual article here. I have checked other Gil-White documentation, and found that he frequently falsifies evidence, for example: misrepresenting the dates of quoted material; using ellipses in order to alter or reverse the thrust of quoted material; withholding vital information provided by his sources - and withholding important information about his sources - which information would contradict or undermine his arguments; and more. Wikipedia
We CAN NOT use Gil White as a source --I DREJTI 16:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gil White has been published on TENC, and thus his work is not self-published. Jared Israel's comments are result of personal animosity between the two, not to mention that it is original research. Can you find any specific errors in the reference used here? Nikola 20:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gil White owns the website being used as reference. Gil White does not speak Serbian and has not the ability to say anything about a speech made in Serbian. Gil- White has also been fired by the university he worked for. All these facts taken to consideration make it impossible to believe him. Therefore we have to POV check this article. I ask you to read the rules once again especially about self published sources.--I DREJTI 17:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The work has been published on TENC, and subsequently removed because of personal issues. I will link TENC version now. Gil-White may not speak Serbian, but he has reviewed authoritative English translation of the speech - two independent translations, actually. Do you speak Serbian, so that you can know that his analysis of the speech is incorrect? Nikola 06:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gil-White is not a reliable source and should not be used as a reference in political articles. See Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 ChrisO. The article itself is ludicrously biased; I'll have a go at rewriting it over the weekend. -- ChrisO 21:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gil-White is as reliable source as one could get at this topic. The article is exceedingly neutral, containing nothing but a summary of the speech and an overview of reactions to it. If you plan to destroy it as you already did with some articles, I think I'll have a go at reverting it over the weekend. Nikola 22:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please state what notability Gil-White has on this topic. Has he held a chair at a major university teaching this? Published several best-selling books about this? What are his qualifications concerning this subject? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but the "subject" is: whether first reports of the speech in media have different conclusions from later reports. Are you seriously suggesting that several books could be published about this? Nikola 14:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, he does study it, to the point that (he claims) he was thrown out of his university because of it. Does it even matter? Surely, one can analyse a single speech without knowing too much about its background. Do you find any specific errors in his analysis? Nikola 14:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion would be original research, and does not matter in this situation. Do you have a newspaper article which substantiates GW's version of why he was "thrown out" of his university? And yes, it matters. I am still waiting for any substantiation other than your assertion that he lost his job at a university for his views on this - which does not indicate any expertise but rather the reverse. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't be, because it would just evaluate an already present analysis. No, I don't have a newspaper article and, certainly, if one looses his job because of his views, it does at least indicate that said views exist. I don't think that any substantiation is needed. Citing G-W is already higher standard than most Wikipedia articles have; I'd be OK with citing the analysed articles directly, Nikola 14:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jared Israel about Gil- White

message: I've protected the page for a short while. Between the article probation and the edit warring, I'd rather do this than start blocking people. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: There is a translation of the Gazimestan speech here.
If it is genuine (Nikola, can you confirm?) then it appears to me to be highly inflammatory. Almost any reference to history and (especially) the use of "exclusive national labels" in this fashion is deliberate trouble-making.
......... Through the play of history and life, it seems as if Serbia has, precisely in this year, in 1989, regained its state and its dignity and thus has celebrated an event of the distant past which has a great historical and symbolic significance for its future.
Today, it is difficult to say what is the historical truth about the Battle of Kosovo and what is legend. Today this is no longer important. Oppressed by pain and filled with hope, the people used to remember and to forget, as, after all, all people in the world do, and it was ashamed of treachery and glorified heroism. Therefore it is difficult to say today whether the Battle of Kosovo was a defeat or a victory for the Serbian people, whether thanks to it we fell into slavery or we survived in this slavery. The answers to those questions will be constantly sought by science and the people. What has been certain through all the centuries until our time today is that disharmony struck Kosovo 600 years ago. If we lost the battle, then this was not only the result of social superiority and the armed advantage of the Ottoman Empire but also of the tragic disunity in the leadership of the Serbian state at that time. In that distant 1389, the Ottoman Empire was not only stronger than that of the Serbs but it was also more fortunate than the Serbian kingdom.
The lack of unity and betrayal in Kosovo will continue to follow the Serbian people like an evil fate through the whole of its history. Even in the last war, this lack of unity and betrayal led the Serbian people and Serbia into agony, the consequences of which in the historical and moral sense exceeded fascist aggression.  PalestineRemembered 09:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is actually me who put the translation on Wikisource and yes, I can affirm that it is correct translation of Serbian original. I don't see anything whatsoever inflamatory in it. You say that "Almost any reference to history and (especially) the use of "exclusive national labels" in this fashion is deliberate trouble-making". What fashion is that? What are "exclusive national labels"? What are you referring to by "trouble-making"? Nikola 06:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lol well, you must be very careful of what you say when muslims are around ;) Palistinians are obviously fuming over being occupied so put yourself in their place as abused. While I don't feel like Palestinians have anything to do with Yugoslav history and should stay put in their own playground. The question arises why this guy is even browsing the Gazimestan speech at all. LOL! 19:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I think I've spelled out my reading of the content of the speech, and it's clear that my reading pretty much matches what the sources say about it. Nationalist versions of history are a curse and violent nationalism even more so - Milosevic deliberately abused the first and encouraged the second. His sad end, unconvictable in a prison cell, shouldn't blind us to some of the bad things we know he carried out. PRtalk 07:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a chat room. Opine somewhere else. <<-armon->> 15:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If translation is genuine, this is a very inflammatory speech. 

message: OK, I see there is an authoritative source for the translation and I'm glad there is one, but I think it is nevertheless pretty obvious that the following sentence is mistranslated and something should be done about it.
Ali moram da kažem ovde, na ovom velikom, legendarnom polju Kosovu, da Srbi tu prednost što su veliki nisu nikada koristili ni za sebe.
This is rendered as "but I must say that here, in this big, legendary field of Kosovo, the Serbs have not used the advantage of being great for their own benefit either."
It actually says "but I must say here, in this big, legendary field of Kosovo, that the Serbs have never used the advantage of being great for their own benefit either".
In other words, "here, in the field of Kosovo" modifies the verb "say" and not the verb "used"; it expresses the place where he is making the statement, not the place where the Serbs haven't used their advantage.
Again, I think this is obvious to the point of being indisputable. I hope native speakers will confirm this.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious translation of a sentence 

message: I would appreciate if someone could add to the "Gazimestan" or "Gazimestan" article, a parenthesis stating how to pronounce it. Namely, where to put the accent. 192.38.5.154 (talk) 07:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of "Gazimestan" 

message: It is interesting that (mis)representation of the speech occupies more space in the article than would the speech itself. 79.101.131.251 (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your non-constructive comment. If you're referring to the 'Responses to the speech' section, then it isn't a '(mis)representation' because it is full of quotes and referenced opinions (which the article makes it very clear of), our readers/ audiences are able to to tell what is a quotation/ opinion; let them make up their own minds if they agree with a quote or an opinion. This is an encyclopaedia, we state facts. If a historian/ politician/ journalist comments on a subject, which is related to the article's subject, we can say that 'Person X said Y' because it is a fact that Person X said Y. We're not necessarily saying that what Person X said is a fact, but it is a fact that Person X said Y; and if person X (assuming that person X is notable) said Y and it is relevant/ notable to the article subject, then it should be included. We shouldn't deprive our readers/ audience of knowledge/ information, if it is POV information then we should inform our readers of the POV which the article does anyway. IJA (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: All is fine, but one could also include a bit more of the speech itself. Similar with this one. At least that one has a valid link to the speech. 213.198.249.208 (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gazimestan speech. 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/20090407010431/http://www.rastko.org.rs/kosovo/istorija/kosovo_migrations/index.html to http://www.rastko.org.rs/kosovo/istorija/kosovo_migrations/index.html
*Added  tag to http://www.osa.ceu.hu/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/86-3-301.shtml
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) 02:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please stop arguing over the edit-summary in justification of edit-warring and understand that "irredentism" definition is irrelevant. It is only article content that matters, especially if it is properly referenced. Please note that this is WP:ARBEE scope and removal of proper category on the basis of editors own personal opinion is disruptive and could end up on ANI. ౪ Santa ౪99° 07:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not "properly referenced". From the source: "In his Gazimestan speech, Milošević narrated the 1389 loss broadly, as the beginning of centuries of Serbian victimizations, and the victimhood nationalism that this narration helped constitute not only reanimated an ancient irredentism, but also fuelled new grievances during the 1990s against Croats, Bosnians and even Milošević’s Serbian opponents, whom he portrayed as preventing national unity and perpetuating the long-standing historical subordination that led to traumatization. Apart from this being badly written by the author, the link between the speech itself and what commentators would later label "irredentism" elsewhere in Yugoslavia is insanely weak. If anything, a better category would be Anti-Serbian sentiment because at least that is what was being addressed in the speech. Bottom line, this speech was about Serbian victimhood, but at no time did it seek that Serbs break away from Yugoslavia or that its internal border be expanded. When you add categories. the article needs to be an example of the category. So Greater Serbia is fine for the irredentism category, but a SFRJ-era speech about a region within its nominal limits does not warrant the category. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Anti-Serbian sentiment for this article? That would be strange category, but I am not surprised with the suggestion after reding your opinion about the references. Category is appropriate - speech is the main point of reference for every scholar on breakup of Yugoslavia and its beginnings and inducement. Your analysis of the speech, with all due respect, does not matter. Even if these sources didn't mention in it by word, it is still irredentism, because in referenced analysis speech is seen by both scholars (including James Gow, which is used in the article elsewhere) as the announcement of Serbian nationalism going aggressive and territorial, and they explain that in more than one word. Is it badly written by author or not is a matter for RSN not for TP discussion, while the link between the speech content and later analysis by scholars is everything for writing article in English Wikipedia (WP:SECONDARY) (that the link is somehow "weak" is your impression and personal opinion, I find both Lerner and Bieber, including Gow eloquent and broad). ౪ Santa ౪99° 15:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

text: What is synth, exactly? By whom? I noted above - even if the source didn't mention in it by word, it is still irredentism, because in analysis of the speech almost all scholarship describes it as an announcement of Serbian nationalism becoming aggressive and territorial, and they use literally volumes to explain that. (Note: Category itself was renamed from Greater Serbian nationalism, and as I said earlier it is a category not a label or statement.) ౪ Santa ౪99° 15:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

text: Yours and Ip's removal of the referenced content from the section is absolutely groundless. If you don't agree or you don't like it that's OK, you have every right to think and feel whatever you want, and you can make your case here in TP, but outright removal is disruptive. ౪ Santa ౪99° 19:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: OK there are numerous issues here. It is not just an IP but another editor. That's an analysis of the speech that forges a synthesis with later events, rather than being on-topic. Moving on. There is enough scholarly commentary out there that does not consider the hardline approach by Miloevic in Kosovo both at the time of the speech, nor later during the Kosovo war as "nationalist". The fact is that Serbian nationalism is a very real thing, yet the article of his Socialist Party of Serbia explores the parallels and the deviations in great detail. So while certin policies may be looked upon as harsh, it is questionable whether it is "Serbian nationalism". Hereinafter, nationalism is not necessarily irredentism. Then where Kosovo is concerned, it was within Serbia's limits in 1989 and constitutionally Serbia considers it its own province today. However, Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and parts of Croatia make up the territories of irredentism for Serbs, and these are the regions that may be linked to irredentism where attempts have been made to incorporate them into an independent Serbia (ie. not within a Yugoslav federation of any time). So by Serbian irredentism you mean the big spoken about event which never happened (ie. Serbia taking over Montenegro, then Macedonia, then Bosnia, then parts of Croatia), then the Gazimestan speech is not an example of this, and its keynote speaker never advocated any part of it beyond the possible partition of Bosnia. That is why it is SYNTH. As for Kosovo and "Greater Serb" conspicacies, it is a non-starter. Kosovo is as far as every Serb concerned, already redeemed and unlawfully taken from them. Therefore, a speech inside of Serbia (where Kosovo was) about Serbian victimhood is not the same as a Serbian claim over Macedonia, therefore it is a false category. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Clear WP:CIR issue with Santasa99. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

text: It is your or anybody else's right to question these two sources, Bieber and Lerner (including Gow), but not here and not by edit-warring. You can question them in RSN, nothing else gives you right to remove them on the ground of your personal opinion and POV - not even ONUS provides you with a basis to remove entire paragraph of content refed by sources used in this scope extensively. What you and Juicy doing is disruptive POV. ౪ Santa ౪99° 19:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Bieber and Lerner do not say "The Gazimestan speech was an example of Serbian irredentism" or anything to that effect. That's what they need to have done if you want the category. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, tag-teaming in POV on issues related to nationalism is hardly collaboration in building encyclopedia. You are removing content, which is properly refed, and then claim synthesis (Juciy for lack of a better argument even call out Wp:CIR, with his 700+ edits). You have missed the venue for questioning sources, and then disruptively removed refed content, but I won't. ౪ Santa ౪99° 20:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: CIR may be a bit over the top. I can assure that that we have no association outside of en.wiki so TAGTEAM may also be out of turn. But he only reverted you here the once. Another time was  and another time was an IP which is certainly not mine, and I cannot speak for the other two. That said, I am not making bold reverts and running away like so many do elsewhere. I am happy to have this conversation with you and to explore alternatives. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You are reverting me in turns to avoid 3RR on three issues (one of which is content properly refed in two RS) on two different articles, and with the same POV, I have every right to say that you are tag-teaming to edit-war without breaking 3RR. Malcous argument is hollow, and made in edit-summary - she questioned two scholars whose work is extensively used on Balkan nationalism, and made bewildering claim that paragraph is self referenced - I mean, User:Melcous should explain herself about her removal and such an outlandish rational here, I would like to hear her voice, before I go to Noticeboard over this affair. ౪ Santa ౪99° 20:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Slow down a bit. We are not taking turns at anything. This is more Juicy oranges' area of interest than mine as he is from the former Yugoslavia whereas I am ex-Soviet. My knowledge on the former Yugoslavia is not as good as his or many others and nor do I claim it to be. But my guess is that he is more concerned about the other article than this one. The fact he was watched over my contributions (as I may do his and some other people's) does not mean we are in federation with one another. We're actually two days into this dispute now. Perhaps Melcous could help the situation by providing more detail here on the talk, but I wouldn't personally go praising the works of thoese two authors. Sure their backgrounds make them reliable sources but from what I can tell, they (and so many other self-affirmed "experts" on Balkan affairs) are sublimely ignorant on a great number of matters. In my experiences, historians and political commentators usually compile their tripe to sell a narrative and not to distribute facts. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources, when questioned here without any kind of agreement in sight, or if someone believes they are fundamentally flawed, are then discussed in appropriate forum, which is RSN. But, we can't dismiss them simply on the ground of !vote. Editors who question sources needs evidence not a long explanation of their opinion and believe and larger number of like-minded editors, and since no evidence is provided in this forum by any of those who are against the paragraph which I included and refed with Bieber and Lerner its removal is then disruptive. Any further discussion on both authors should be (or should have been) conducted at RSN, and only if enough evidence is provided, regardless of how many editors providing them (even one good, strong evidence against would be enough), only then we can dismiss content refed by them. ౪ Santa ౪99° 22:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

text: My reasoning is different, and I have no association with any other editor here, but I agree the paragraph should not be reinserted unless a consensus is reached. By "self referenced" I meant Adam B. Lerner - there is no source where anyone else is saying he is an expert on this topic. A paragraph was introduced that quotes him as if he is an expert, but is sourced solely to his own work. Similarly, the wiki article on him (created by ) is sourced entirely to his own resume and websites, so there is absolutely no secondary independent sourcing which would demonstrate that his views should be included here. Melcous (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  And  I think you might mean a WP:RFC rather than a WP:AFD? Melcous (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Kudos Melcous. I did indeed mean RFC and made a total blunder. Struck out the two references to wrong type of discussion. Thanks for your input and your correction. --Coldtrack (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead with both 3O and RfC, I have asked administrator familiar with the scope for help too. But you have removed categories on your own POV whim on two occasions and edit-warred over those removals in manner usually associated with 3RR sidestepping by way of Wikipedia:Tag team. Those are all POV removals, also without consensus, and you should revert yourself first if you are to show you are neutrally acting in good faith. ౪ Santa ౪99° 14:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: For the last time, this article is about a speech. The speech not not infer expanding borders. It is thereby not a POV. You have proven that you do not know the meaning of "irredentism", nor do you know the meaning of "nationalism", and moreover you don't know how to interpret sources. That goes for Proposed Croat federal unit in Bosnia and Herzegovina too. In these cases, the removal of "irredentism" would be as much as POV as it would have been if you added Category:Cross-Strait relations just because a so-called "reliable source" happened to mention Taiwan and Kosovo on the same paragraph, and someone came along and remove the cat. 3O won't help you as you are up against three as it is. That's a 3O and a 4O. This needs an RFC. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that you are POV pushing, now you are discussing me and my abilities as well. What I know or don't know about irredentism is irrelevant, just like your POV on "so-called reliable sources" and these supposedly illuminating juxtaposing of Taiwan and Kosovo with Milosevic's ideological make-up, speech and Serbian irredentism. Bravo. ౪ Santa ౪99° 01:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You're showing ignorance. Admitting that the possibility that you know about irredentism is irrelevant (your words), and then claiming Milošević to have had an ideologucal make-up which included "irredentism". Really? Are you claiming he sought independence for Serbia and then sought to expand its borders? Are you claiming he sought to reinstate the monarchy to replace head of state? Forget irredentism, just take the tenets of basic Serbian nationalism. This is a subject I could quiz you on. WP:CIR is a severe issue with you. You do not know the events which led to the speech, the backstory at the time, the relevance of the event nor the aftermath. You have simply heard of the event, read one or two publications about it, and then connected the dots of completely unwarranted assumptions. You accuse Coldtrack of "POV pushing"  when he has challenged you enough times now to produce the line in the speech where Milošević called for the expansion of Serbia's borders, the absence of which cannot even engender a discussion on "irredentism". I say it is you who edits on articles of the former Yugoslavia which the intention of selling an agenda by distorting well established facts. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a personal attack. You should apologize and then for future discission you should tone down your rhetoric. ౪ Santa ౪99° 05:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Message redacted to remove what may have been construed as personal attacks. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

text: @Melcous, this is most bizarre reply I have ever heard from someone with 100+ thousands edit under its belt and tendency to review new pages. You are literally re-interpreting old ones or inventing new policies and guidelines on the fly. First, what new article on Lerner has to do with him being referenced, who says that he must have an article on English Wikipedia at all to be used as a source? Second, how Lerner is not independent secondary source? And last but not least, since when we have to give another secondary source to prove that one already included is an expert on the field - and do you even know how and where process of questioning and proving one's expertise should be conducted? ౪ Santa ౪99° 13:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry you find it bizarre. I would admit it is perhaps a bit cynical, but if you hang around WP:COIN long enough you see that it is not at all uncommon for an editor to create an article about a person whose notability is not clearly demonstrated, and then insert references to that person in other articles to demonstrate their expertise. I'll leave it to the rest of the you to discuss the content here. My questions to throw into the mix would be, what value does naming Lerner here add to this particular article? Why is his view important to quote above the views of anyone else? And even if it was agreed to be included, surely it could be done in a far more integrated way than the proposed edit which interrupts the paragraph flow and was grammatically confusing. Thanks. Melcous (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I know from where your idea comes from, and I know that editors create articles to make sure their source choices are notable and can be used in refing. However, you are experienced enough to know that such misguided expectation is nevertheless irrelevant, simply because we don't need our sources' authors to meet usability (reliability) criterion by having an article of their own in English Wikipedia. I didn't and would never use such a banal argument, like it's a fact that so-and-so author has an article, because that's not evidence of his notability and/or usability for referencing. That's pointless and it does not matter, after all vast majority of authors used in this scope and indeed whole project has no article of their own and they are still notable and widely used. Even more so because we have authors with huge articles, some with GA status, whose works can't be used as a source because they are unreliable. Lerner article, which I created, may or may not withstand notability guideline pressure, but that's absolutely irrelevant for Lerner reliability as an expert in the field of victimhood nationalism and it will never be, by any stretch of the imagination, a precondition for his reliability as a source. Lerner is published and cited expert, and if you have problem with him take it to RSN, if anything his view and analysis is on equal to Gow and other authors refed. But your question is a classic strawman, without any specific objection - why does anyone else's view matter in this article, or, why is Serbian chauvinist poet Matija Beckovic reaction more important than Lerner's who is published and cited scholar? (I am not sure that my edit interrupts the "paragraph flow", because it is a paragraph entirely of its own, in a section where every paragraph is completely isolated with every para covering specific person reception/reaction. Any issue of grammatic and composition could have been corrected without edit-warring and POV pushing. Additionally, consensus is achieved by making a better argument, not voting on POV, and I am yet to hear reasonable argument.) ౪ Santa ౪99° 18:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

text: I have no idea what you are writing about, nor am I interested in reading these essay-long elaborations on your point of view on everything from editing to RS to state of world media and politics, without much or any relation to problems at hand. ౪ Santa ౪99° 22:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear to which of three editors this comment was directed towards as the layout looks as if you're replying to yourself. --Coldtrack (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category