This page is full of grammar errors and factual errors. An editor corrected them but was twice reverted. His corrections seemed good to me, not that I am an expert.
If the reverts were because of perceived vandalism or pushing of POV, I'd suggest to only revert the relevant points, but make good use of his grammar and factual corrections. Leopeo 15:40, 11 December 2007 (EST)
- That's true, but I don't have the time to go over all of it. Most of the edits are the traditional Comintern position, so I did a wholesale revert. Rob Smith 15:58, 11 December 2007 (EST)
I see you are questioning the political orientation of my edits. It's true that I tried to neutralise the article, but in no way write from a "Comintern" viewpoint. It's an overall accepted truth that chetniks collaborated with the occupator since the end of 1941 and performed ethnical cleaning in Bosnia and Croatia, as I pointed out in my sources. --Qwertz 09:04, 12 December 2007 (EST)
- Then stop deleting the subhead, and the phrase, "Mikhailovitch, an Atlantic Charter ally, was shot by Tito as a traitor." Rob Smith 15:54, 12 December 2007 (EST)
- Very well. Qwertz 08:13, 13 December 2007 (EST)
What did I do wrong now? Qwertz 08:29, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Is reverting the solution?
I really have no knowlege or interest in Tito's life, but it seems to me that the version RobSmith is opposed to corrects many mistakes, mainly grammar and factual. If he feels that it is a politicized version as well, could he or someone knowledgeable EITHER a) correct those (grammar, factual) errors by himself, OR b) instead of reverting, leave the changed version and just correct the parts he feels politicized? Greetings, Leopeo 10:32, 14 December 2007 (EST)
- Precisely. I would also like to hear from RobSmith about which parts of the article are still controversial. As I said, my work was neutralizing the article and correcting the part about chetniks fighting for freedom. As I didn't get practically any information about what I did wrong, I would like to see either that the changes are accepted or that we debate over "the real role" of partisans and chetniks. Qwertz 15:16, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Why are we using a copyrighted book cover photo when there exists a nonfree photo at ? I don't see any commentary or parody on the specific book cover photo; rather, a photo of Tito like that seen at the link would be equally effective in enhancing the quality of the article. GregG 21:03, 1 June 2012 (EDT)