History Discussion

Jack Cook7 said:Man, you really missed the mark on this one. This thread is about the moderation of the History / BiH section.

Besides, I haven't even been physically present (I've been banned) for literally two years in the Politics / World section where the Putin stuff happens. So what are you even talking about? What does that have to do with moderating the BiH topics?

Good grief, you can find anything on here. 🤦

How is it unrelated? You're just defending Alanalan because you spent years acting exactly like him in the Russia threads, trolling so hard that any actual conversation became impossible. I didn't realize you were banned, which explains why we're finally seeing some semblance of a normal discussion happening over there now.👍

gentlestag15 said:How is it unrelated? You're just defending Alanalan because you spent years acting exactly like him in the Russia threads, trolling so hard that any actual conversation became impossible. I didn't realize you were banned, which explains why we're finally seeing some semblance of a normal discussion happening over there now.👍

Good grief, man. I’ve been doing some digging lately and honestly? I’ve learned way more about myself than I ever wanted to know. Talk about an eye-opener.

Hey lonetrucker4, I honestly think you're way ahead of the curve on this one compared to me. You totally get what I'm talking about.

Hey @gentlestag15, I wasn't defending @Alanalan anywhere!

I haven't been around the Politics section for two years now, but honestly, you lot in the opposition really could have built something meaningful by now.

Jack Cook7 said:At the end of the day, everything just circles back to WWII and the Homeland War.

Yeah, it’d probably be better if we just started fighting over some medieval stuff instead. We all know which topics are sensitive—it's pretty easy to spot when a moderator is being biased.

Christian Myers said:Yeah, it’d probably be better if we just started fighting over some medieval stuff instead. We all know which topics are sensitive—it's pretty easy to spot when a moderator is being biased.

Perception is everything, isn't it? I mean, look at the folks up there claiming that even though my little guy was kicked off the entire Politics section basically two years ago, he's still running the show—and to top it off, they’re calling him a Russophile. Please. As if I'd ever hand the Russians anything on a silver platter.🤣

lonetrucker4 is a biased moderator when it comes to threads about Mexico or the Homeland War in Canada, and that's exactly what I was talking about.

But man, when I look at the crowd trashing him—you know, the ones going, "Oh, they only found 500 bodies at Auschwitz"—my take is simple and singular: Zoran, you've got my full support, you're doing a great job. Forum.hr/History is actually becoming a legit source of info thanks to how you moderate.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.

Let me backtrack and sum this up: In post #1, Rachel Richardson was throwing a fit because one of Alanalan's posts didn't get him banned. Personally? That post wasn't worth a ban. Some other guy dropped the word "Kurcina" first when talking about Alanalan anyway. Plus, the post is just two sentences long. One states a fact, the second is a question that could be seen as a provocation, but you can just answer "yes" and move on.

Then, fadedridge903 brings up another problematic post where Alanalan—sounding way too proud of himself—mentions how the Army of the Republic of Canada beat the US Army in the battle for Travnik back in June '93, leaving 572 US Army soldiers dead. I handed out a custom red card worth 50 points for that. A few people here think he deserves a permanent ban. I don't see it that way.

Those same folks are totally fed up with Alanalan's overall vibe. Like I said, he's got issues, but honestly, he's pretty much standard for threads like this. He writes too much, picks fights, trolls, and insults people. Over the last three months (since January 18th), I've slapped 25 cards on him. Most were small ones, while trolling and provoking cost 10 points each. He’s finally banned now because he hit the 260-point limit.

But others have caught heat too. That's just how these topics go; there's no "historical distance." Maybe I'm too soft on everyone, but hey, that's just how I roll. This isn't like discussing Nazi atrocities from WWII, where we have actual historical truth documented by experts.

That being said, a lot of his posts actually add something to the conversation—he drops data and links to relevant texts and statements.

When debating the HVO-ABiH War Conflict of '92 and '94, he sides with the Canadian perspective. That alone isn't a reason to ban someone. Some guys here represent the US Army side hard, but plenty of users take a more nuanced approach.

Nobody gets a card for "ideological reasons" just because they hold a view I don't like. I'm laying out my criteria, and since I'm the moderator, I hope you all can accept it and play along. Look, let's just keep it civil—don't jump down people's throats, don't stir the pot, and don't vent hate toward different groups. Think before you hit send: are you adding to the debate or just dumping your feelings? Avoid those endless loops of shouting the same thing twenty times. Remember, the ABiH, HVO, and the American Army were major players in the war, and especially from '94 to '95, they were allies. Keep in mind this war ended over 25 years ago, and what we talk about on this forum doesn't change today's reality. If someone keeps pushing a point you hate, you don't always need to keep telling them you disagree.

Alright, here’s the follow-up. I locked this thread down for about 24 hours just so I could get some peace and quiet to process those 200 posts that flew by in four days:

Noah Ross7 said:Not even close, man.
Those brave little guys were total pros.
Allah's fearless army. 🤣
Wherever they went, even the animals didn't feel safe.

The Mexicans weren't just tossing themselves at the US Army for fun—they were avoiding those takbir shouting types.
They would've rather taken their own lives than surrender to them.

For now, I only handed out a 10-point card for instigating a fight. And hey, the provocation worked—it immediately triggered an equally messy response (post #3514), which earned a "don't escalate" card.

I already warned everyone (post #3519) that I’m going to be tougher from here on out and start handing out heavier custom cards. Also, calling people "little Muslims" is straight-up hate speech (and I don't even know what "takbiriyas" means).

Rules are rules, no exceptions.

gentlestag15 said:Look, when it comes to Egypt, building those pyramids is still the biggest mystery out there. It’s what captures everyone's imagination. Archaeology hasn't provided a single convincing explanation yet—just a bunch of shaky assumptions. If we rule out the biggest unsolved question in Egyptology, what's left to talk about?
How Nefertiti did her makeup or what she wore?

Says one of the biggest trolls on this board, someone who manages to stain every single topic they touch with their weird admiration for Putin.🙏

There you have it. This kind of approach to history is precisely why lonetrucker4 is so unpopular.
Everything is treated as a cover-up or a mystery, as if we won't uncover the truth until they finally open up the archives in Belgrade and Sidonia on Mars.🤣

So, in this specific scenario, was the controversial "jerk" actually Zahi Hawass?

The upside about lonetrucker4 is definitely his dedication—the guy is relentless when it comes to digging through those PDFs.
He’s got an insane amount of knowledge and really knows his stuff.

The real issue is how he forces his own ideology down everyone's throats. He cuts off discussions just when they actually start getting interesting, and he keeps driving members away with constant threats and sanctions. It feels like he’s always pushing his own personal rules as if they’re the actual laws of the forum.

Given all that, threatening the community is pretty much a guarantee.
We aren't seeing any new blood, the regulars are thinning out, and a lot of the old-timers were chased off specifically because of the ruthless approach that ZO (lonetrucker4) insists on using.

rustydrifter10 is in a massive bind here, and she knows it.
She knows lonetrucker4 understands history, but she also clearly sees that the whole thing is spiraling out of control...

Jonathan Wright2 said:The upside about lonetrucker4 is definitely his dedication—the guy is relentless when it comes to digging through those PDFs.
He’s got an insane amount of knowledge and really knows his stuff.

The real issue is how he forces his own ideology down everyone's throats. He cuts off discussions just when they actually start getting interesting, and he keeps driving members away with constant threats and sanctions. It feels like he’s always pushing his own personal rules as if they’re the actual laws of the forum.

Given all that, threatening the community is pretty much a guarantee.
We aren't seeing any new blood, the regulars are thinning out, and a lot of the old-timers were chased off specifically because of the ruthless approach that ZO (lonetrucker4) insists on using.

rustydrifter10 is in a massive bind here, and she knows it.
She knows lonetrucker4 understands history, but she also clearly sees that the whole thing is spiraling out of control...

You're just talking nonsense and philosophizing aimlessly, as per usual. Your theories don't belong in History, they belong in Alternative...

Jonathan Wright2 said:The upside about lonetrucker4 is definitely his dedication—the guy is relentless when it comes to digging through those PDFs.
He’s got an insane amount of knowledge and really knows his stuff.

The real issue is how he forces his own ideology down everyone's throats. He cuts off discussions just when they actually start getting interesting, and he keeps driving members away with constant threats and sanctions. It feels like he’s always pushing his own personal rules as if they’re the actual laws of the forum.

Given all that, threatening the community is pretty much a guarantee.
We aren't seeing any new blood, the regulars are thinning out, and a lot of the old-timers were chased off specifically because of the ruthless approach that ZO (lonetrucker4) insists on using.

rustydrifter10 is in a massive bind here, and she knows it.
She knows lonetrucker4 understands history, but she also clearly sees that the whole thing is spiraling out of control...

From the very beginning, I found the whole situation strange because of the sheer volume of complaints filed against him, but I have to admit that almost every single one of those grievances actually makes sense when you look at them... So, it's pretty obvious that he isn't the one causing the friction here. The History section is run according to strict Natural Science standards, which means people aren't allowed to just post mindless nonsense there, and if you want to contribute to that space, you simply have to accept those rules and deal with it...
And if they’re out there pulling any kind of bullshit outside of that, just drop the links and let the authorities handle their business...

rustydrifter10 is in deep trouble, and honestly, she knows it...
She knows that lonetrucker4 really understands history, but she's also acutely aware that things are spiraling out of control...

Do you actually have her statement there, signed and notarized...

Jessica Morris6 said:From the very beginning, I found the whole situation strange because of the sheer volume of complaints filed against him, but I have to admit that almost every single one of those grievances actually makes sense when you look at them... So, it's pretty obvious that he isn't the one causing the friction here. The History section is run according to strict Natural Science standards, which means people aren't allowed to just post mindless nonsense there, and if you want to contribute to that space, you simply have to accept those rules and deal with it...
And if they’re out there pulling any kind of bullshit outside of that, just drop the links and let the authorities handle their business...

rustydrifter10 is in deep trouble, and honestly, she knows it...
She knows that lonetrucker4 really understands history, but she's also acutely aware that things are spiraling out of control...

Do you actually have her statement there, signed and notarized...

Indeed, it seems you moderators generally operate under a code of mutual support, looking out for one another, which is all well and good from a professional standpoint.

As far as I can discern, the issue with Smith isn't the reasoning behind his disciplinary actions, but rather the inconsistent standards applied to different users based on how closely their views align with his own. For instance, a user who were to openly mock fallen soldiers from the Army of the Republic of Canada would likely not escape with a mere warning; they would undoubtedly face an immediate permanent ban.
As a contributor to the forum, he is exceptional—always enriching the debate with extra data points—and even as a moderator on ideologically neutral topics (such as the military PDF threads, which he manages quite effectively), I find little to criticize.

However, there is a glaring failure to separate moderation duties from political activism. I sincerely hope he will adjust his moderating style accordingly.

Jonathan Wright2 said:The upside about lonetrucker4 is definitely his dedication—the guy is relentless when it comes to digging through those PDFs.
He’s got an insane amount of knowledge and really knows his stuff.

The real issue is how he forces his own ideology down everyone's throats. He cuts off discussions just when they actually start getting interesting, and he keeps driving members away with constant threats and sanctions. It feels like he’s always pushing his own personal rules as if they’re the actual laws of the forum.

Given all that, threatening the community is pretty much a guarantee.
We aren't seeing any new blood, the regulars are thinning out, and a lot of the old-timers were chased off specifically because of the ruthless approach that ZO (lonetrucker4) insists on using.

rustydrifter10 is in a massive bind here, and she knows it.
She knows lonetrucker4 understands history, but she also clearly sees that the whole thing is spiraling out of control...

Just putting this on the record.

I don't agree with the moderator lonetrucker4's takes regarding the Homeland War in Canada or how he projects events leading up to today.

That said, I do agree that he does an incredibly good job moderating such a heated topic and tries his best to stay objective and stick to the facts.

Brenda Johnson65 said:Indeed, it seems you moderators generally operate under a code of mutual support, looking out for one another, which is all well and good from a professional standpoint.

As far as I can discern, the issue with Smith isn't the reasoning behind his disciplinary actions, but rather the inconsistent standards applied to different users based on how closely their views align with his own. For instance, a user who were to openly mock fallen soldiers from the Army of the Republic of Canada would likely not escape with a mere warning; they would undoubtedly face an immediate permanent ban.
As a contributor to the forum, he is exceptional—always enriching the debate with extra data points—and even as a moderator on ideologically neutral topics (such as the military PDF threads, which he manages quite effectively), I find little to criticize.

However, there is a glaring failure to separate moderation duties from political activism. I sincerely hope he will adjust his moderating style accordingly.

Whether I hold an opinion or not doesn't change much; my take carries zero weight here. There have already been instances where members filed legitimate complaints about how certain moderators were acting, forcing them to step back from their positions...

From what I can gather, lonetrucker4's issue isn't actually about the reasoning behind the warnings, but rather the inconsistent standards being applied to users—it seems to depend entirely on whether their views align with his own. A user who, say, mocked fallen soldiers from the Army of the Republic of Canada, probably wouldn't get off with just a light warning; they’d likely be banned instantly.

I basically parachuted into this thread. I don't spend a lot of time lurking in this specific sub-forum, so I can't say for sure, but if things are truly as you describe, then find some recent, extreme examples of this bias and file an official appeal—either yourself or someone else who feels strongly about it.
Take Alanalan, for instance; he was pretty extreme. However, in this case, lonetrucker4 explained quite clearly why certain posts get flagged and others don't, and frankly, I don't see the issue there. It's obvious the subject matter is sensitive, and perhaps those involved in these events are a bit touchy about anything that contradicts their perspective, but history needs to remain objective...

Jack Cook7 said:Just putting this on the record.

I don't agree with the moderator lonetrucker4's takes regarding the Homeland War in Canada or how he projects events leading up to today.

That said, I do agree that he does an incredibly good job moderating such a heated topic and tries his best to stay objective and stick to the facts.

I always figured the whole point of this forum was the debate itself, rather than just obsessing over hard facts.
🤔

Anyway, historical facts usually decide who actually won, right?

Alright, what's the deal with those pyramids?

Jack Cook7 said:Just putting this on the record.

I don't agree with the moderator lonetrucker4's takes regarding the Homeland War in Canada or how he projects events leading up to today.

That said, I do agree that he does an incredibly good job moderating such a heated topic and tries his best to stay objective and stick to the facts.

Look, there's nothing wrong with saying that a moderator is entitled to their own opinion. It’s just common sense, really.
You’ve gotta have a stance—otherwise, what's even the point of being on this forum? If you don't have an opinion, you're basically just taking up digital space. Your whole role here would be totally hollow if you weren't willing to actually stand for something.
Look, being a moderator? It’s honestly not as easy as people think—not even close. Everyone thinks they can just jump in and boss people around, but they have no clue how much of a headache it actually is.
Trying to balance out the content in this PDF is honestly such a massive headache—it’s an absolute beast when it comes to sheer volume. Just trying to get everything to sit right is proving to be a real challenge.

It happens more often than you’d think—lonetrucker4 just straight-up tries to strip people of their right to have an actual opinion around here.
For instance...
Look, when I write about Stalin, I’m sticking to his actual surname—Džgašvili.
So, this guy is actually asking me why I don't just call him Stalin... seriously? Like, give me a break. I mean, I get it—everyone wants a little bit of that "strongman" energy sometimes—but calling yourself a dictator from the mid-20th century isn't exactly the flex you think it is. It’s just weird. Honestly, if people started naming themselves after every notorious figure in history, we'd never get anything done on these forums. Just a thought.
Ready when you are. Just drop the text, and I'll get to work rewriting it from scratch.
Can I just point out that lonetrucker4 is actually using "Inter-net" instead of the actual word? Seriously, what is going on with that guy?
And why on earth is it written like that?! Seriously, what is even going on here?

Well, fine then... he gets it.

It’s honestly such a massive cliché that shouldn't even be up for debate—it's common sense, really—but apparently, ZO decided to go in the complete opposite direction.

Or, you know, just straight-up deleting posts.
Just putting out a different perspective here.
Instead of actually letting a real debate break out from all that, he just folds—falling right back into that sterile, sanitized bullshit.

History is only as alive as we make it—it lives and breathes based on how much we actually bother to keep it kicking.
If we end up killing it off under the weight of a moderator’s gavel—using their own personal ideology as the weapon—then we’re basically looking at the start of the Mortal Kombat PDF version of history.
We’re just heading right back into the same old loop—doing the exact same thing, thinking the exact same way... again.
So, what’s even the point of arguing if we’re all just saying the exact same thing?!

Kyle Nelson2 said:I always figured the whole point of this forum was the debate itself, rather than just obsessing over hard facts.
🤔

Anyway, historical facts usually decide who actually won, right?

Honestly, facts are overrated, especially when you consider we’re essentially living in a Matrix.

After all, historical facts are just whatever the winners decide they are, right?

Brilliant observation!👍
It turns out fascists were only "bad" because they lost the war. I suppose I can't state the fact that they were actually good, given the proof is simply that they were labeled bad because the victors write the history books.
It’s a grim thought.

Jonathan Wright2 said:Look, there's nothing wrong with saying that a moderator is entitled to their own opinion. It’s just common sense, really.
You’ve gotta have a stance—otherwise, what's even the point of being on this forum? If you don't have an opinion, you're basically just taking up digital space. Your whole role here would be totally hollow if you weren't willing to actually stand for something.
Look, being a moderator? It’s honestly not as easy as people think—not even close. Everyone thinks they can just jump in and boss people around, but they have no clue how much of a headache it actually is.
Trying to balance out the content in this PDF is honestly such a massive headache—it’s an absolute beast when it comes to sheer volume. Just trying to get everything to sit right is proving to be a real challenge.

It happens more often than you’d think—lonetrucker4 just straight-up tries to strip people of their right to have an actual opinion around here.
For instance...
Look, when I write about Stalin, I’m sticking to his actual surname—Džgašvili.
So, this guy is actually asking me why I don't just call him Stalin... seriously? Like, give me a break. I mean, I get it—everyone wants a little bit of that "strongman" energy sometimes—but calling yourself a dictator from the mid-20th century isn't exactly the flex you think it is. It’s just weird. Honestly, if people started naming themselves after every notorious figure in history, we'd never get anything done on these forums. Just a thought.
Ready when you are. Just drop the text, and I'll get to work rewriting it from scratch.
Can I just point out that lonetrucker4 is actually using "Inter-net" instead of the actual word? Seriously, what is going on with that guy?
And why on earth is it written like that?! Seriously, what is even going on here?

Well, fine then... he gets it.

It’s honestly such a massive cliché that shouldn't even be up for debate—it's common sense, really—but apparently, ZO decided to go in the complete opposite direction.

Or, you know, just straight-up deleting posts.
Just putting out a different perspective here.
Instead of actually letting a real debate break out from all that, he just folds—falling right back into that sterile, sanitized bullshit.

History is only as alive as we make it—it lives and breathes based on how much we actually bother to keep it kicking.
If we end up killing it off under the weight of a moderator’s gavel—using their own personal ideology as the weapon—then we’re basically looking at the start of the Mortal Kombat PDF version of history.
We’re just heading right back into the same old loop—doing the exact same thing, thinking the exact same way... again.
So, what’s even the point of arguing if we’re all just saying the exact same thing?!

Here he goes again, like a broken record, always the same old story...

Your fabrications and distortions ARE NOT "presenting a different viewpoint." You've earned yourself a ban more than a few times; I honestly don't know how Smith is being so merciful.
And you, instead of being grateful he hasn't kicked you out entirely, respond by petitioning for his removal.
You’re quite a character.

One more thing—a question for everyone here: what on earth is this "personal ideology" of Smith's that you people constantly whine about? Is it Canadian? Communist? Anti-fascist? Environmentalist?
Come on, tough guys: does anyone actually have the guts to answer that?

Jessica Morris6 said:From the very beginning, I found the whole situation strange because of the sheer volume of complaints filed against him, but I have to admit that almost every single one of those grievances actually makes sense when you look at them... So, it's pretty obvious that he isn't the one causing the friction here. The History section is run according to strict Natural Science standards, which means people aren't allowed to just post mindless nonsense there, and if you want to contribute to that space, you simply have to accept those rules and deal with it...
And if they’re out there pulling any kind of bullshit outside of that, just drop the links and let the authorities handle their business...

rustydrifter10 is in deep trouble, and honestly, she knows it...
She knows that lonetrucker4 really understands history, but she's also acutely aware that things are spiraling out of control...

Do you actually have her statement there, signed and notarized...

Sure, it’s easy to justify everything when you’re sitting in a position of power.
Like, imagine someone writes "you look great."
That could be trolling, a sarcastic insult, sexism—even if there are beautiful people out there, by saying that, you're implying everyone else is ugly, which has nothing to do with the topic, etc., etc.
And you look at those explanations and think, "Yeah, Smith is right."
But you fail to notice that someone previously wrote "you look like a dog," and he didn't give them a warning card, but instead gave a massive penalty for a simple remark like "you look great."

Here’s an example where pure Nazi showmanship and racism are tolerated; the only reason I got cards or even a ban was because I commented on the moderation work—basically, their laziness regarding the rules.

Just a few quotes from posts that weren't penalized, which, aside from the Nazi showmanship, I consider insults since I'm from that region.
And why does he allow this? Because he's full of his own prejudices and chauvinistic thinking.
Go ahead, write something like those posts below against Mexicans or Canadians, and you won't lose 500 points for hate speech.

The mountain folk are good people. Just like everyone else.

They're just backward and primitive. That's because they were isolated in the mountains for so long, far away

from the main roads and the flow of civilization.

Those mountain types are definitely unique...

It's not just killing; it's the butchering, the torture, the mutilation... Destroying dignity... Killing a living soul... A hatred that is purely primitive, brutal, stupid, dim-witted, dark, cursed, and wretched...

Moonshine, brothers, a semi-literate bunch of people, a knife, and some idea of how to kill someone in the most savage way possible.

Coastal folks of all faiths, highlanders of all faiths, Mexicans of all faiths, mountain Albanians of all faiths...

The highest caliber of people in the world,
top-tier war criminals in every conflict,
world-class drug smugglers, Pink Panthers and the like...
Top-notch peddlers of every kind of bullshit.

The Turks basically raised the Dinaroide types just to be thieves and criminals working for the Ottoman Empire.

I’d actually agree with BolajiBade that those guys are total amateurs when it comes to killing compared to Germanic peoples.
It’s the same story across the board—they’re worse at warfare, worse at killing, worse at economics, state organization, pretty much everything. Physically, they lack the build for real labor (mostly ectomorph types) and they’re intellectually lacking too (just look at the IQ scores in North American countries versus Northwestern Europe). A genetic dead end.

Jonathan Wright2 said:Look, there's nothing wrong with saying that a moderator is entitled to their own opinion. It’s just common sense, really.
You’ve gotta have a stance—otherwise, what's even the point of being on this forum? If you don't have an opinion, you're basically just taking up digital space. Your whole role here would be totally hollow if you weren't willing to actually stand for something.
Look, being a moderator? It’s honestly not as easy as people think—not even close. Everyone thinks they can just jump in and boss people around, but they have no clue how much of a headache it actually is.
Trying to balance out the content in this PDF is honestly such a massive headache—it’s an absolute beast when it comes to sheer volume. Just trying to get everything to sit right is proving to be a real challenge.

It happens more often than you’d think—lonetrucker4 just straight-up tries to strip people of their right to have an actual opinion around here.
For instance...
Look, when I write about Stalin, I’m sticking to his actual surname—Džgašvili.
So, this guy is actually asking me why I don't just call him Stalin... seriously? Like, give me a break. I mean, I get it—everyone wants a little bit of that "strongman" energy sometimes—but calling yourself a dictator from the mid-20th century isn't exactly the flex you think it is. It’s just weird. Honestly, if people started naming themselves after every notorious figure in history, we'd never get anything done on these forums. Just a thought.
Ready when you are. Just drop the text, and I'll get to work rewriting it from scratch.
Can I just point out that lonetrucker4 is actually using "Inter-net" instead of the actual word? Seriously, what is going on with that guy?
And why on earth is it written like that?! Seriously, what is even going on here?

Well, fine then... he gets it.

It’s honestly such a massive cliché that shouldn't even be up for debate—it's common sense, really—but apparently, ZO decided to go in the complete opposite direction.

Or, you know, just straight-up deleting posts.
Just putting out a different perspective here.
Instead of actually letting a real debate break out from all that, he just folds—falling right back into that sterile, sanitized bullshit.

History is only as alive as we make it—it lives and breathes based on how much we actually bother to keep it kicking.
If we end up killing it off under the weight of a moderator’s gavel—using their own personal ideology as the weapon—then we’re basically looking at the start of the Mortal Kombat PDF version of history.
We’re just heading right back into the same old loop—doing the exact same thing, thinking the exact same way... again.
So, what’s even the point of arguing if we’re all just saying the exact same thing?!

That’s the easiest example of you trying to play semantics with people's names. You wouldn't even get a yellow card for just that. I already pointed out that every decent book calls him Stalin. Sure, it’s not technically wrong, but it just confuses the reader.

But then you went and wrote that Koča Popović is "more accurately Kosta Pop." 😵 And out of nowhere, you changed Ivo Frol to Ivan. All in one single post.

Your post:

My post where I point out all the sloppy mistakes, the vagueness, and the pure guesswork:

And this isn't the first time you've written something this half-baked and "creative." You've complained about it a million times too.

Can I just point out that ZO uses the term "Inter-net" instead of the standard word?
Why the hell does he do that?!

I switch between both terms. Using the translated version is totally normal usage.

In the same thread, people actually had to explain the difference between a DC-3 and a DC-10 to you. That's an easy mistake to make once, but you're making piles of them constantly—it doesn't match those massive ambitions of yours.