User talk:LupinoJacky

Hello, LupinoJacky, 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 take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear LupinoJacky, you are also IP 95.90.207.212 and 95.90.207.120, there is no doubt. You have an account now--great, but you must stop editing while logged out. It's not only confusing, it's against the rules. Also, PLEASE start signing your posts: your not signing them is unhelpful and even irritating, esp. since you also don't follow the accepted layout for comments (see WP:TOPPOST and WP:THREAD). More than just courtesy, following those conventions will make your arguments easier to parse for others. After all, you will need to convince others that your case is valid. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies, I am new to Wikipedia and don't know the difference between signing and not signing. Sorry for that. I created the account to add my nickname to the comments so there is a track of the changes. If necessary I can even provide full name and address I dont care being anonymous.

I have a small question: why do I need to convince others, especially if they dont have a bacground in the topic. Convincing is not the right way I am afraid. I can provide references and the others should provide counter references, or accept the provided references till they have any source against them. Otgerwise, what would happen if these guys never be convinced despite numerous sources, because they might have a hard coded version of the story in their mind?

How do you generally handle such cases? Do you invite serious historians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.207.120 (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, signing is done by adding four tildes. It explains above, and on your other IP pages. It's not hard. Second, the way disputed content gets in or gets taken out is by way of consensus. See Wikipedia:Consensus. So yes, you'll have to convince other editors, some of whom may well be historians, serious or otherwise. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Drmies, thanks for your support. Can you please intervene on the case of the fighting contribution of Albania against the Axis forces? Or invite another colleague of yours to inspect the case? -- The version of the story claiming Albania was an Axis story is entirely fake, every historian that knows WW2 in the Balkans would laugh at that. Albania is listed in the Axis page with 0 (zero), (I repeat zero) historical references to indicate any involvement in fighting against Allies, how can you not intervene on such cases? -- I provided numerous historical facts that demonstrate the engagement of Albania against the Axis forces? Can you please do something against it as it is becoming scandalous. -- By the way, there is a guy with the nickname TheBanner. I don't know him and I respect his contribution to Wikipedia, however he probably thinks I am a troll and refuses to even consider to the historical references I provide. Would be nice if a quorum of multiple other editors intervene to take serious care of the issue.

LupinoJacky (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the same point you seem to ignore Uprising in Montenegro and Skanderbeg (military unit), although I think I have give you and your mates the links I think five times. Why? The Banner talk 23:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TheBanner, first sorry for perhaps being too aggressive. I have nothing personal to you, simply I am passionate about the topic. Apologies in advance for any inconvenience as I understand your role is not easy. Probably you often face people that try to impose personal views and try to be reluctant to changing the statue quo. And seriously, believe it or not, I appreciate that your efforts, even though I do not agree with you. ---

Coming to the topic and the links you mentioned. They do not provide a link between the Albanian Government and the Axis. First of all, the only Albanian Government recognized by the Allies at the time of the war was the monarchy of King Zog. Second, I do not reject the existence of Albanians fighting alongside the Nazi. However, as the article of Montenegrin Uprising explicitly state they were irregular forces and not representatives of the Government of Albania. The Skanderbeg unit was a pro-Axis unit that was member of the Italian army (as the article on Skanderbeg explains). None of those unit have direct relations with the Albanian Government. As an analogy, collaborating units or individuals existed in many other Allied countries, Greece, Yugoslavia, etc ...

(Just an unrelated note: The concept of Albanians is very broad, whether it refers to Albanian nationals that are citizens of Montenegro, Kosovo (Yugoslavia at the time), Greece or Albania is not obvious. There are regions where communities of Albanians live in all of those countries.)

-- On the contrary, the Albanian Government militarily resisted against the Italian invasion (see article on Italian Invasion of Albania). After the invasion, the Albanian Government led by King Zog moved to exile resided in exile in United Kingdom, London. During the exile it contributed fighting the Axis through an armed force called the Legality Movement led by Abaz Kupi (see page on Albanian Resistance during World War 2). --

As a last point, there was a massive popular resistance organized by the Albanian communists that is worth mentioning.

--

What I propose to do is:

1) Mention the resistance of the Albanian National Liberation Front 2) Mention the resistance of the official Albanian Government 3) And also mention that there were some very marginal group of independent Albanian fighters which collaborated with the Italian army in the Uprising of Montenegro, similar to the Nazi collaborators in Yugoslavia, Greece, etc ... Yet the sizes of those groups were very minor in number of soldiers compared to the National Liberation Front. 4) Mention the existence of an government set by the Axis forces which was non-recognized by the allies.

--

In that way we respect both sides of the story and we 1) neither neglect the contribution of Albania against Axis, nor refuse the existence of some Albanian groups fighting Axis, 2) nor we deny collaboration of minor groups of Albanians with the Italian army.

--

What do you say? Is that a correct representation of the facts we have on the table.

LupinoJacky (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And a joke to relax the story a bit: Do the British citizens fighting in Syria make Britain a terrorist state? :)

LupinoJacky (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--- TheBanner, found another extremely interesting fact. Please look at the page of the leader of the Albanian troops that participated in the Uprising of Montenegro named Prek Cali https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prek_Cali

As the source clearly shows he was not affiliated with the Government, on the contrary he was a lone wolf that was in conflict with both the Albanian government and the communists. You should understand the Albanian societal organization of the time. In the mountainous regions of the north the organization was often based on a tribal style. The leader of a tribe which controls a group of people from some villages behaves in an autonomous fashion. I believe this link is exactly the answer you need.

LupinoJacky (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No official military unit will fight abroad without the consent of the government. In this case it was the de facto puppet government sponsored by Italy. I have great admiration for the partisans but they did not form the de jure or de facto government of Albania till after the Germans went on the run and they liberated the whole of the country. Before that, Albania was part of the Axis, sorry. The Banner talk 11:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They were categorically NOT an official military unit. Can you provide any link that the units you are providing belong to the Army of the Government of Albania? Can you provide a historical source stating that those individuals were official representatives of the Government of Albania?

Even, the Wiki links you are providing clearly state that "they were irregular Albanian forces", not an official army of the Government of Albania. Why don't you want to read the links that you provide yourself?

P.S.: By source I mean any book, historical manuscript, memoirs of war, encyclopedia, etc ... LupinoJacky (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you read Skanderbeg (military unit) with al its sources. The Banner talk 14:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the article you mention has 3.5 lines of text and a few non-English references. In that circumstance I am not sure if it is even acceptable to lose time considering such a crap. Who was the commander of such a unit? Where was it formed? When was it formed? Who financed that? I hope you don't seriously base your whole imaginary story on Albanian involvement on Axis on those 3.5 poorly written lines of text.

Nevertheless, just to respect you I am reading and analyzing the description of the article for granted. It says:

"Skanderbeg was Albanian quisling[1] military unit assigned to the 14th Italian Army Corp, composed of Albanian soldiers recruited in Albania [2] during the Second World War. This unit participated in the Italian counteroffensive against insurgents in Montenegro, during the Uprising in Montenegro in 1941.[3] Skanderbeg was composed of four battalions[4] and had the strength of one division[5][6] or two regiments.[7]"

The article EXPLICITLY state that this was a unit of the Italian Army, composed of Albanian soldiers recruited in Albania. It was not a division of the army of the Government of Albania. It does not indicate any form of relation to the Army of the Government of Albania. They were individual that did not represent the Albanian state.

Don't confuse collaborators with official governments, don't confuse puppet government with official governments and don't confuse facts with your opinions. For your interenst, even an army of Russians fought alongside the Axis ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Liberation_Army ). Does it make Soviet Union a pro-Axis state? Please let us get serious and stop this madness.

Please, I repeat for the n-th time, do you have any historic sources that link the Government of Albania and its official army to any form of battle against the Allies? Otherwise, please get serious and accept the numerous historic sources provided to you.

LupinoJacky (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, my friend. Why don't you start reading the fact instead of ignoring them? There are plenty of sources that Albania sided with Italy. By now, there is also plenty of evidence that you try to remove that evidence. It really starts to look like POV pushing. Please, stop ignoring facts and references. The Banner talk 23:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TheBanner, can you please provide those facts in the appropriate context in the respective pages. I would be more than happy to consider them, if you can point to any source that backs up any concrete claim. However, till you provide me with counter-sources for each individual claim you raise, then I cannot follow and accept verbal assertions.

LupinoJacky (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LupinoJacky! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on Talk:Allies of World War II were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved by another user. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am new to Wiki and was not aware of that rule and feature.

LupinoJacky (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm The Banner. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to World War II in Yugoslavia seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Banner talk 23:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Axis powers. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. The Banner talk 12:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TheBanner, I did not add commentary neither I violated the neutral point of view. I simply respected the historic sources. Do you have any problem with historic sources, or have any counter-source? What is breaking Wiki rules is you trying to threaten users based on "I just don't like it". LupinoJacky (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion at WP:AN ([1]), requesting assistance. By the way, canvassing, as you did, is frowned upon. The Banner talk 12:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that, hopefully that would help improve the quality of the Wiki pages under focus. LupinoJacky (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finally we get some help to close down this bizarre episode. Be prepared for the boomerang. The Banner talk 19:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. You have carried the dispute over the status of Albania in the Allies of World War II well beyond any reasonable limits, and have not been able to provide any sources which explicitly support your position. Instead of finding adequate sources or moving on, you keep dragging this out and have now escalated it to WP:AN. As this matter appears to be your only purpose for editing, I have blocked this account for an indefinite duration. If you would like to be unblocked, I would suggest that you nominate other topics you would like to work on and outline how you will do so in a collegial fashion. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Nick-D (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

LupinoJacky (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Albania was recognized as an Ally during the Peace Treaty Conference in Paris 1946 ^[1] and signed the treaty of the "Allies and Associated Powers" with Italy on February 10, 1947 ^[2]. Pages 823-824 of the source states explicitly: "The first peace treaty concluded between the Allies and a former Axis nation was with Italy. It was signed in Paris on February 10 , by representatives from Albania, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, France, Great Britain, Greece, India, Iraq, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zeeland, Pakistan, Poland, Slovak Republic, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the United States, Yugoslavia and Italy." The source is clear in showing that Albania was an Allied country of the official Treaty ending WW2.

The participatory status of Albania to the Peace Treaty in Paris is bullet-proofed by another official source by The United States Department of State "A List of Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States in Force on January 1, 2013"" ^[3]

Albania contributed militarily against Axis through the Albanian National Liberation Front ^[4] and the resistance was supported by British emissaries ^[5].

Over the course of the war the casualties of the Italian and German armed forces were 26,595 killed, 21,245 wounded and 20,800 prisoners.^[6]

The definition of an Ally is "countries that opposed Axis militarily" and according to the provided sources we have both a military opposition and an official recognition of Albania as an Ally. This satisfies the inclusion criterion.

These sources explicitly support my claim and I am surprised on your blocking action without paying any attention on reading the sources I provide, given that they are present in the article and talk page.

On the other hand, the fact that a group of connected editors/admins oppose me despite my clear sources is a very serious situation you should handle.

Wikipedia is about facts and sources and in case a single editor has sources, that is sufficient to prevail against non-sourced opinions of multiple editors/admins, being them senior Wikipedians or not. If the quality of Wikipedia is the priority, then it is the hegemony of senior Wikipedians, opposing sourced edits, what you should sanction.

Decline reason:

I'm declining your request as from my perspective the blocking admin was correct in his judgement about your editing. PhilKnight (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

LupinoJacky (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Sorry, the opinion of the admin blocking my request based on a statement that "I provided no sources" is not grounded. Please find below numerous sources supporting my claim.

Albania was recognized as an Ally during the Peace Treaty Conference in Paris 1946 ^[7] and signed the treaty of the "Allies and Associated Powers" with Italy on February 10, 1947 ^[8]. Pages 823-824 of the source states explicitly: "The first peace treaty concluded between the Allies and a former Axis nation was with Italy. It was signed in Paris on February 10 , by representatives from Albania, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, France, Great Britain, Greece, India, Iraq, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zeeland, Pakistan, Poland, Slovak Republic, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the United States, Yugoslavia and Italy." The source is clear in showing that Albania was an Allied country of the official Treaty ending WW2.

The participatory status of Albania to the Peace Treaty in Paris is bullet-proofed by another official source by The United States Department of State "A List of Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States in Force on January 1, 2013"" ^[9]

Albania contributed militarily against Axis through the Albanian National Liberation Front ^[10] and the resistance was supported by British emissaries ^[11].

Over the course of the war the casualties of the Italian and German armed forces were 26,595 killed, 21,245 wounded and 20,800 prisoners.^[12]

The definition of an Ally is "countries that opposed Axis militarily" and according to the provided sources we have both a military opposition and an official recognition of Albania as an Ally. This satisfies the inclusion criterion.

These sources explicitly support my claim and I am surprised on your blocking action without paying any attention on reading the sources I provide, given that they are present in the article and talk page.

On the other hand, the fact that a group of connected editors/admins oppose me despite my clear sources is a very serious situation you should handle.

Wikipedia is about facts and sources and in case a single editor has sources, that is sufficient to prevail against non-sourced opinions of multiple editors/admins, being them senior Wikipedians or not. If the quality of Wikipedia is the priority, then it is the hegemony of senior Wikipedians, opposing sourced edits, what you should sanction.

In addition, the discussion on the Administrator Noticeboard was recently closed as a content dispute. In that case, why I am being sanctioned as a scapegoat of a multi-lateral dispute. This makes no sense at all to me.

Decline reason:

I had a look at the sources you provided here and which you claimed prove your points. Of the two sources available online, neither does so, with one explicitly supporting The Banner's line of reasoning. This does not inspire the least confidence that the offline sources will be any more helpful to your cause, and I have to conclude that you have indeed been misrepresenting sources and/or engaged in original synthesis, including in this very unblock request. In this context I'm declining the request to be unblocked. Huon (talk)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I keep my comments for the reviewing admin short: signing a treaty together with Allied and other associated powers does not make Albania an Ally, especially when there is clear evidence that they were just an associated power. The Banner talk 10:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now you see what the problem is, some editors like TheBanner which do not "like" the CLEAR sources given based on "whatever personal interpretation" and then in an absurd fashion they claim "I do not have sources". This is beyond being a ridiculous situation. LupinoJacky (talk) 10:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user made a lot of disruption over the status of Albania, but I believe indefinite block is not fair. I propose he be unblocked, but topic-banned from editing any article connected to Albania. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I disagree. Given that the above sources explicitly support my claims, then the only topic-banning should go to those editors which persistently reverted my sourced edits, based on non-sourced interpretations. Please let me re-iterate, sources of a single editor should prevail against opinions of multiple others. LupinoJacky (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, your sources do not support your claims. There is no evidence that Albania was an Allied power, only that it was an associated power in relation to the treaty with Italy. Nothing more. The Banner talk 12:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source above is clear, whether an editor likes it or not. The treaty was signed by the "Allied and Associated Powers" of the WWII with Italy and was the first plenary agreement of the Allies with an Axis country that ended WWII (The Potsdam agreement with Germany was signed only by UK, USA, Soviets). The term "Allies and Associated Powers" is an atomic term used in the treaty to identify Allied forces with no statutory difference between words Associated Powers and Allies. No separate enumeration of Associated Powers or Allies exists, neither any difference in the classifying roles of Nations according to such non-existing categorization. That simply is your personal interpretation of this historic treaty. And based on that personal, unsupported, and wrong interpretation of the treaty, you are blocking all my source-backed inserts on the article. You even went so far as to revert as "POV", simple factual edits such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allies_of_World_War_II&diff=646980483&oldid=646979313, where I simply stated a fact:

Over the course of the war the casualties of the Italian and German armed forces were 26,595 killed, 21,245 wounded and 20,800 prisoners.^[13]

And now there is even an attempt to block, which I find irrational. LupinoJacky (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]