Talk:Republic of Ragusa/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Vandalism(s)?

DIREKTOR: since you have undone this edit - which I had done and that, to the best of my knowledge, was not vandalic and was accurate - without letting any note to explain why you did so in the editline or in the talk page, I suppose you should, at least, be so kind to explain why here. I shall also note that, by doing so, you have reverted also an English error which I had fixed, by replacing chlotes with "clothes". I shall also note that on Help:Reverting it is stated that "It should be borne in mind, however, that reverting good-faith actions of other editors (as opposed to vandalism) is considered disruptive when done to excess, and can even lead to the reverter being blocked from editing." and ,since I am quite confident that my edit was not vandalic at all, I hope you will politely offer your explanations here and refrain from blindly reverting valid edits again. Thanks. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the table in the "Languages" section in question was and is unsourced. It had a column which said "Ragusan" at the time I have done the edit you have undone. Afterwards, you have changed the column title which now points to Dubrovnik_dialect a redirect to Shtokavian dialect. Well, since a majority of the terms within the column are clearly related to Italian, I was at first intrigued by discovering that a Slavic dialect had so many words derived from a Roman language. Too bad that the Shtokavian dialect does not seem to make any reference to Italian language or dialects whatsoever. So, either the reference to the Shtokavian dialect is inaccurate, or the Shtokavian dialect page is incomplete, or the contents of the column are mostly wrong. And... I just checked and discovered another interesting thing... Any valid explanation, DIREKTOR? --Piero Montesacro (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, User:Piero Montesacro. That was your edit? I do apologize for any misunderstanding. It seemed to me like a near-verbatim WP:MEATPUPPET restoration of an absurd edit introduced by the banned Italian nationalist clique. Namely this edit, introduced by User:Ragusino (i.e. his sixth sock - User:Mljet) and the well-known IP of User:PIO/Luigi28. Am I to understand you will be editing for this (rather infamous) clique? :) User:Mokosica, the latest sock, was banned today I understand...

The edit was done in very bad faith. Classic POV-pushing we've all come to expect from "the clique". The table is there to compare the Dubrovnik dialect with standard Croatian, presenting the very few words that are different (among all the others that are completely identical). It is utterly absurd to add Italian there (which is completely different), and this was done solely out of spite and POV. That said, the table should probably be removed altogether because it has no place in a history article about the Republic of Dubrovnik.

I get the feeling that I should also clarify what exactly the table presents. There is no "Ragusan language" or "Dubrovnik language". What you have in there are words in two particular variants of the (modern!) Croatian language. You have the official standard Croatian form, and then you have words of the Croatian language dialect spoken in Dubrovnik (today as well, though less so, but you should note its not extinct or historical in any way - its Croatian).

I'll add in conclusion that I am indeed amused by your aggressive and offensive title? "Vandalism?" Right... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

DIREKTOR: I'd like to make sure that you confirm that my edit was done in "very bad faith", and that you have summarily enlisted me within a "clique". Please show proof of this, otherwise offer your apologies. And no, I do not feel I have to apologize about the title of this section, since it is not an accident it bears a *question mark*, and moreover, it refers to all possible people involved, including me, of course: In fact, actually, as per my previous message above, I was asking you to which possible vandalism of my part you replied with your undoing, which would be fully justified (without any explanation in the editline or in the talk page) only in response to a vandalism. About aggressivity and offensive behaviours, I'd like to offer you the opportunity of reviewing your wording and actions, since you're branding an innocent user as member of a clique (among other niceties) without any proof whatsoever and based on what appears to be your personal and quite blatant bias. Back to the topic, the table, as I said, it is unsourced, and this is enough to say that it should be removed althogeter, maybe along with the unsourced redirect that you have created in a very timely and convenient manner, and that I have exposed above. Otherwise, you should behave as any normal Wikipedian and respectfully discuss here the matter putting forth your sources and explaining - not commanding - why Italian should be not included since it is very blatant that most of the words included are clearly and directly derived from Italian. Bye. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Please where can I check that the edit you put forth above was actually done by such user:Ragusino? It seems to me that it has been done by an IP, 151.21.252.31. Is there any CU done on this address? Moreover, I have NOT restored this edit at all: I have done a series of edit regarding the table, including ONLY Italian (and not Venetian) and fixing various typos in the English words. In any event, you have to explain why English readers are not entitled to compare Italian words with Italian-derived words used in another language whatsoever. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of being part of any "clique". All I said was that you restored an edit introduced by the Italian nationalist clique that has been vandalizing a lot of articles. I will not be lectured on my behavior thank you so much. And you shall have to try and understand that I am sick and tired of "spokespersons" from itWiki mysteriously reappearing to restore the provocative nonsense introduced by banned users/their socks. I don't know if you heard things about me from these banned morons, but rest assured - I am an ok guy that is annoyed by the vandal socks (this time - real WP:VANDALS).

I'm not going to start some massive discussion here. The SOCK edit which you restored (without discussion) is utter malicious provocative nonsense, introduced by users blocked for their POV-pushing (User:Ragusino and User:PIO). The table lists words which are different in the Dubrovnik dialect of Croatian from the standard Croatian terms. The table compares differences within the Croatian language. It is likely not for this article, as that is a modern subject, and the table should be removed.

I'm sure you'll understand if I am sceptical - you reappeared just as the latest sock of User:Ragusino was being blocked and you restored his edit. There were a lot of itWiki users that appeared in such situations in the past - recruited by the esuli socks which told them a load of... nonsense about how enWiki is destroyed by the "evil Balkans Croats" or whatever. You may not be yet another one of these, but you have to admit: it sure looks like it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

For now let me state again that I have NOT restored any edit by any other user. In fact, I have not. More later. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You have, "in fact", restored the edit. [1] [2] Leaving out the Venetian dialect does not mean you did not restore Italian to a table pointing out the (few) differences between standard and Dubrovnikan Croatian. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Differences which, incidentally, mostly consist of clearly and undoubtedly Italian words lent to the Ragusan Croatian. At this point, I am dragged into asking you to explain why exposing this blatant fact sounds so controversial to you.

I made an edit, my edit, and I had not to discuss it beforehand, since I have never contributed before to this article and I was not supposed the check and much less to know its history as you claim I should do, sorry. One cannot "restore" something he or she ignores once existed, although in different form. At most, you can claim that I have accidentally replaced part of it. That's all, and using "restored", in this context, it's inaccurate, and tendentious (it sounds too much a suggestion that I have reverted the article to the other edit, which is entirely false).

In fact, I, as any other Wikipedian, have not to ask for (your) permission to edit an article, as well as you have not to ask mine. And, no, I shall not "have to" - as you claim I should - try to understand that you are "sick and tired by "spokespersons" from itWiki mysteriously reappearing to restore the provocative nonsense introduced by banned users/their socks". Despite the fact that you just formally - but evidently and unfortunately not substantially - denied of summarily putting me in your "clique", you are in fact reiterating and even worsening your exquisite and quite amazing set of accusations and, if you are not going to start "some massive discussion here", well, lacking your convincing apologies for a behaviour that - very unfortunately - seems to me (but maybe not only to me) beyond the realm of common decency, some discussion, be it massive or not, might be started on another page regarding the way you welcome a new contributor to this article, as it was your exclusive property and not a Wikipedia article as any other.

Also, you should explain why you say that I have reappeared here. As far as I can recall, it's the very first time I have the distinct pleasure to meet you, so why use re-appear, since, at most, I would expect you to appropriately use appear? What are you trying to imply with the apparently inappropriate use of "reappear" in this context? I am doing my best not to offend you, but please, try to read what you just wrote me as if you were not the author, but the recipient of your words, and frankly tell me if you, in my shoes, won't feel abused, and amazed.

Finally, AFAIK, it's common courtesy, once a discussion has started, and is developing, to answer the questions submitted by the participants. Therefore, I will submit again some questions which have gone unanswered so far:

• Even though that the Table has been removed (but, as it seems, only after I pointed out it was unsourced: and I am under the impression that it was unsourced as well when you reverted 151.21.252.31; how come you didn't remove it in such occasion?), which I don't approve nor oppose at this stage, I am very intrigued and would be delighted if you were so kind to let me know based on which policies (links please) English readers should be not entitled to take a look, within an article, to a comparative table between Italian words and Italian-derived (or even Italian ones, like "fragola") words used in another language whatsoever. I am sorry to say that the "explanation" you offered above, sounds a bit selfish and unconvincing, to say the least. You said it's "the provocative nonsense" (?) but a comparative table like the one in subject does not seem to me so immediately nonsensical as such only because you think so, and provocative (???), even giving by assumed that it had been submitted by the Devil in person. In fact, AFAIK, in Wikipedia what counts are reliable and verifiable contents and sources, the edit authors are not relevant at all, as even the Devil can mistakenly say something true, and that makes sense.
• Where can I find independent proof that this clique you are talking about does indeed exist and has been positively identified as such, i.e. where the CU results are available? As you might understand, one expects overwhelming evidence to support such abundant accusations like the ones you are putting forth and, at this point, as you might understand, I'd like to investigate the matter myself.

Again, while I can understand that the feeling of "being lectured" about one's behaviour might sound unpleasant, you, on your part, should try to understand how amazing, unpleasant and yes, abusive, might sound the way you have welcomed me here. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I am investigating already and checking the edits of the user you mentioned above, Mljet (again it does not matter how evil s/he might be in other instances) and just discovered a couple of unconvincing edits of yours regarding links to this article, such as: this and this. You are reverting the official and undisputed historical name of the Republic, whose main article is this, and whose title is Republic of Ragusa, to Republic of Dubrovnik (a redirect): AFAIK, it is entirely correct to link to the main article about a subject (or even to name it!) by using the main title of the named subject. So where is the vandalism to justify your rollbacks, as above? And since when redirects must be preferred to direct links? I shall do more investigations to check where the Mljet faults are. More later. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(User:Demart81's familiar English skills lead me to believe this is yet another sock.)

Whatever, User:Piero Montesacro... You'll understand if I do not feel obliged to provide proof or evidence of any kind to you personally? You are not "in charge" here. The account is an exceptionally obvious sock. Not the first, not the last. We are actually required to remove all his edits. "Republic of Dubrovnik" is not the "unofficial" name. It is an English name equivalent with "Republic of Ragusa" and anyone may use it when they wish. Furthermore, an interesting fact to note is that the "official" name city itself (as opposed to the Republic) is "Dubrovnik" not "Ragusa" (bad redirect to a disambig page), yet we have "Ragusa" all over this article. The different names are used in articles where they are more appropriate, simple as that.

* The table was indeed perfectly correct, take it from a Dalmatian. It was not removed because of anything you did. It was removed for one reason only: it deals in detail with a modern linguistic subject and is not really appropriate for a history article. I am here to improve quality, not to push my language, or any kind of POV.

* As I said, I do not feel obliged to "prove" anything to you, and I'm getting the distinct feeling you are ordering me around and lecturing me - while possessing little or no knowledge on this subject ("Ragusan language"?) or this article's history.

If we agree about the table, what else is there to talk about? Discuss changes to the article, pls. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm a SP? Please look in it.wiki. I'm a sysop on it.wiki. --Demart81 (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I apologize then. English with an Italian accent is all to familiar it seems, and you should know we just had no less than four socks here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(User:Demart81's familiar English skills lead me to believe this is yet another sock.) -DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• I am taking due note that, according to DIREKTOR, socks are identified based on his own judgement about their "English skills". It's not surprising, then, if I think it's appropriate to ask him the actual proofs based on which he feels entitled to brutally and summarily accuse any user whose edits he apparently dislikes of sockpuppeting in the first place! However, as we can see, he proudly refuses to provide such proofs, albeit politely asked to do so several times. Nevertheless, he feels entitled to persist in invariably (and blindly, as shown by his more or less forced apologies to Demart) go on with what might be taken as a very exquisite - if not disruptive - way to "collaborate" with other people on Wikipedia.

Whatever, User:Piero Montesacro... You'll understand if I do not feel obliged to provide proof or evidence of any kind to you personally? You are not "in charge" here. The account is an exceptionally obvious sock. Not the first, not the last. -DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• I would understand that if you would drop the pattern of accusing users of being sockpuppets, based, as far as you let me know, exclusively on you very personal and possibly quite biased point of view. AFAIK, this is not the way these things should work on Wikipedia. AFAIK, this is not what the policies seem to say. AFAIK, you are not entitled to falsely accuse someone to be an SP - as it's the case here - and then get away with more or less forced apologies or stating that you have not obligations to show the proofs - if any are actually available - based on which you issue your rather careless and outrageous accusations. If I am not "in charge here" - and certainly I am not - I have to ask you who made you think that you are "in charge here", since your behaviour seems to suggests that you think you are. The account might be well a sock, but all I had asked for was a CU result positively showing this, because, AFAIK, this is the usual and more straightforward way to identify socks on Wikipedia. That's all I had asked for, and it seems to me that it was not too much to ask. But, maybe, you like best to push me to think that maybe there is not a positive CU whatsoever to show, and that, maybe, here some people might get blocked as SP's based - more or less - on your own judgements and suggestive suggestions only. And I am taking due note about this as well.

"Republic of Dubrovnik" is not the "unofficial" name. It is an English name equivalent with "Republic of Ragusa" and anyone may use it when they wish. Furthermore, an interesting fact to note is that the "official" name city itself (as opposed to the Republic) is "Dubrovnik" not "Ragusa" (bad redirect to a disambig page), yet we have "Ragusa" all over this article. The different names are used in articles where they are more appropriate, simple as that. -DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Very interesting. It seems that, as shown by your apparently rather questionable rollbacks that I have exposed above, people are free to use the form "Republic of Dubrovnik" (which, about the Republic, is historically not accurate as "Republic of Ragusa" is, at least within the English- and Western- based literature, and the Republic's document's themselves), but not the other way round. Interesting. I hope you realize that actions such as the ones I pointed out above - your rollbacks and your unconvincing explanations - do seriously undermine your own credibility when you accuse others as POV-pushers. So, please, try to avoid to put forth rather weak excuses such as "The different names are used in articles where they are more appropriate, simple as that", since it is clearly not the case of the edits we are talking about.

The table was indeed perfectly correct, take it from a Dalmatian. It was not removed because of anything you did. It was removed for one reason only: it deals in detail with a modern linguistic subject and is not really appropriate for a history article. I am here to improve quality, not to push my language, or any kind of POV. -DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• As matter of fact, the table carried several English typos (but I will refrain from issuing judgements about the possible origin of the "accent" those typos seemed to have; and no, I have not yet checked who has made the typos) and I would expect that a so (self-named?) zealous defender of "quality", which seems to acts as he was "in charge" here, would have noticed and fixed them well before my "appearance". Instead, you restored "chlothes" [sic!] when apparently (or allegedly?) urged by "quality" to rollback my edit. Alas, the table might be well accurate, and I personally have no problems whatsoever about what you say on this subject, but problem is, it's unsourced, and your statements on this, or mine, have no value as source here. Anyway, the table was removed 'only after I pointed out it was unsourced. Sorry.

As I said, I do not feel obliged to "prove" anything to you, and I'm getting the distinct feeling you are ordering me around and lecturing me - while possessing little or no knowledge on this subject ("Ragusan language"?) or this article's history. If we agree about the table, what else is there to talk about? Discuss changes to the article, pls. -DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Again, if you were not carelessly and point blank accusing, you would be not called to justify your behaviour, so the problem it's entirely upon you and your utter refusal to apologize for your unwelcoming and aggressive pattern of accusations. And I'm getting the distinct feeling you are calling me an "ignorant", which someone might take as a personal attack. In fact, I am not the user that originally named the column "Ragusan language" (sorry!). And, again, no contributor has an obligation to a (be it profound or not) knowledge about the article history in order to contribute, no matter how many times you try to make us believe this and to enforce your own "rules".

• Finally, it is quite hard to contribute to an article when someone like you does his best to make editing it unpleasant (to say the least) and subject to unexplained and relentless undoing. Such behaviour - maybe not a mere coincidence? - is likely to discourage if not frighten people and induce them to abandon the editing entirely. Which is not exactly the aim of Wikipedia, I were told last time I checked. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:TLDR, User:Piero Montesacro. From what little I've read, I get the impression you have no idea what you're entering into, or about the maybe 20 confirmed socks this article has seen. Suffices to say you can rest easy that we at enWiki are not so stupid as to ban people for talking funny ("an ignorant" in not a word [3], by the by :). This page is not a forum where one expresses his/her thoughts and opinions on various subjects. Please concentrate on actual changes in the article. If there are no conflicts there, I respectfully suggest you stop arguing. If you feel I've violated Wiki policy in some way, feel free to report me. If you simply do not like me as a person, well that's just something I shall have to live with I suppose. Regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe too long, I might agree. But it could make an useful and quite interesting reading one day, you never know: here is someone summarily and routinely branding users as socks and summarily and routinely reverting edits, without giving convincing explanations about this, and refusing to do so. I believe it's wise and useful for Wikipedia's sake to leave a memo about this here.

That's what I tried to do, as well, so far. (And yes! You contributed quite a bit, being good part of the text quotations from your script!). Just to be sure: I've never claimed that there are not actual socks around. I asked something entirely different. And asked you to refrain from branding any user whose edits you evidently dislike as a sockpuppet. Besides, it is funny to read that an IP is a sock (you seem to like this word quite a bit). AFAIK, it might be, at most, a blocked user evading the block. I am making no forums here. I am duly replying to your quite questionable behaviour. And yes, you are free and even encouraged to report me as a sock and for allegedly transforming this page in a forum, all alone. Yes...

In fact, the sad truth is that it seems very hard to find a way to talk constructively about the article, because your behaviour looks designed precisely to scare people you don't like and induce them to stay away and leave you "in charge". Please, take a deep breath, and refrain from random and unexplained rollbacks, and we might well do something more useful here. As simple as it is. (Thanks for the Webster link: Any chlotes for the king here:?) Better "funny" that obsessed by socks! :-P) Bye, and a Happy New Year, in the event you will not restart the "forum" before... --Piero Montesacro (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

House of Bona page

Bravo Montesacro. You have hit the nail on the head. Anyone who is a threat has to be kept away or is accused of being a sockpuppet, often with no proof (but I do agree that there are sockpuppets around). Things are reverted, changed, etc. with no explanation, no source. Basically, we are dealing with a small group of mostly young, very aggressive, (extreme) nationalist/jingoist/chauvinist, passionate (24/7), degree-less students who have decided that Wikipedia is their domain/soap box and a no one should get in their way. The House of Bona page is up once again up (against my wishes) even though it had been deleted in the past. Of course, the name Bona has once again been changed to "Bunic" on the English page. I would like to once again take this opporunity to say that the BONA family living in Dubrovnik to this day still uses the name BONA, not Bunic, there are no graves in any of the cemeteries in Dubrovnik with any Slavic version of the Ragusan aristocracy names (although most of the epitaphs are in Croatian!!) and no one has so far been able to show any document with a Bunic signature. The name Bunic may appear in a lot books written on Dubrovnik but if everybody is quoting from the same books then of course everybody will be saying the same thing. The oldest sources should be checked to see what documents the writers are basing their information on. The Dubrovnik archives do not have any documents with the name Bunic. 82.226.211.122 (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC). Sorry, I didn't sign off properly. Debona.michel (talk) 09:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your good buddy User:Ragusino (banned) restored the article, not I. Feel free to file for speedy deletion WP:SD under criteria G4. I myself do not generally like to delete information that I know is accurate but I'm also in favor of following Wiki policy. However, one thing you're not supposed to do, User:Debona.michel, is simply blank the page. You do realize that does not really delete it? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

How is Ragusino my good buddy? Ragusino may have restored the article but you are contradicting yourself by saying it should be deleted, yet you went ahead and made changes to the article, replaced Bona with Bunic and never bothered to explain your source or why you made the changes. You started the edit warring!!! The article, as it was, listed all the sources. Isn't your change called vandalism and shouldn't you be BANNED from Wikipedia for that? You are always quoting Wiki policy and crying wolf (sockpuppet is your favorite word)...Should I assume your disruptive behavior is condoned by someone who is protecting you?

Debona.michel (talk) 12:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I could not care less what you assume, think whatever you like. I however, must assume you have little or no idea what "vandalism" means on Wikipedia. So far your accusations and "conspiracy theories" have served as little more than a source of light amusement because of this. I have violated not a single WP policy. WP:3RR does not apply to reverting socks. I suggest you educate yourself in that respect.

As for the article: the family is virtually insignificant, I do not care what happens to the article. File for deletion or don't, just be sure not to start your edit-wars again or I'll file for G4. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

G4...oh no, help! I agree with you that Bunic is virtually insignificant but not BONA. Maybe you should remember this (I assume you can read Italian):

Nel XIV secolo e XV secolo, i Bona diedero alla Repubblica di Ragusa ben 629 alti funzionari statali, pari al 7,13% sul totale nell'intero periodo[2]. Allo stesso modo, essi fra il 1440 e il 1640 contarono 240 membri del Maggior Consiglio, pari al 10,90% sul totale[3]. In questi duecento anni, ottennero anche 383 cariche senatoriali (11,70%), 280 volte la qualifica di Rettore della Repubblica (11,80%), 194 membri del Minor Consiglio (8,96%) e 105 Guardiani della Giustizia (12,80%)[4], risultando la seconda famiglia ragusea più rappresentata nelle alte cariche pubbliche. Debona.michel (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, I'm not "threatening" you with WP:SD, its like I said - I do not care. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Debona.michel, I tend to believe that you should add a translation to English of the Italian text you added, so other contributors may read it and evaluate it. Also, I tend to think that the matter you are raising here, the way you are raising it, doesn't seem to be very related to this page. And yes, DIREKTOR, I assume that when you say "I have violated not a single WP policy" you refer to a particular set of your edits, isn't? In fact, I have just checked, and your block log doesn't seem to confirm your claim. Who knows, maybe not all the users you declared as socks were actual socks, and maybe, who knows, you disrupted Wikipedia by summarily reverting good edits. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm sensing renewed hostility. Well, User:Piero Montesacro, let me say in turn that maybe, just maybe, you have been recruited here by the banned nationalist crowd to push their POV in their stead, as I openly suspected from the start. You curiously surface only when I talk to banned users such as User:Ragusino and/or with User:Debona.michel. Let me be perfectly frank: I am tired of having to deal with the personal attacks ("vandal") and slander being piled on me by banned socks and their "spokesperson" WP:MEATPUPPETS on enWiki. And yes, in my years on Wikipedia and in my making more than 22,000 edits on the hostile Balkans articles, I have indeed been blocked three times for 24 hours due to minor 3RR violations. Congratulations on your discovery of this "character evidence".

This is where you can file for a checkuser. The banned User:Ragusino does not seem to be terribly smart, or perhaps he is not even trying to hide his sockpuppets. His socks have a Croatian toponym for a username, his English is terrible (he makes the exact same mistakes all the time), and he edits the same articles which almost nobody else edits, where he pushes the exact same POV by making exact same edits over and over again. The cases are so obvious that after the first dozen stupid socks, admins generally do not consider it necessary to file a checkuser. Again, if you want to file one, be my guest: you will find the instructions here, on WP:SPI.

P.S. I know User:Debona.michel is actively trying to find ways to get me banned by any means necessary [4]. So incidentally, if you're "maybe" trying to provoke me in some way, be sure to try harder next time. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, your comments about me have been clearly hostile since my very first edit here. Full evidence is provided above, included who started the hostile behaviour, and what counts more, it can be retrieved by any admin within the page history, even if it had been mistakenly deleted by any other admin. Once again, I have to tell you that I DO believe that there are INDEED some not only stupid, but I should add IDIOTIC socks around these pages (included some stupid extremists of every flavour), BUT I do not tend, so to speak, to believe that all of the users that happen to make edits you do not like are socks. Yet you seem to accuse everyone you do not like to be a sock, which might be very convenient to revert their edits and get away with it, isn't? Moreover, for what concerns myself, the accuse of being recruited by someone (letting apart by whom, according to you, which makes the accusation even more ludicrous) is plainly ludicrous to say the least. Believe me, I'm telling you entirely in your own interest. I see some personal attacks, here, yes, but all of them, for what concerns me and you (I'm not talking about the niceties you trade with others, of course, just speaking about you and me), have been made by you. Sorry. You are talking of slander being piled upon you, which is surely regrettable, but rest assured that on WP, politely pointing out the block record of another user who claims what you claimed, as I did, is not even a minor violation, and much less can be viewed as "slander". Viceversa, routinely and obsessively hinting that another user is a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet recruited by a clique, without any evidence other than your not so neutral opinion, as you are doing, might be a quite serious violation and a problem once embarassing evidence on the contrary should surface. And, once again, I am patiently waiting for your apologies for calling me names. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, the admins on enWiki are not stupid. I feel I must point this out this since you seem to be implying the contrary (I cannot ban anyone). Users DO NOT get blocked/banned for no reason. You stated that there are some "IDIOTIC" socks here? Well then, here's a leap of logic you could've made yourself: socks which are "IDIOTIC" are blocked without a checkuser. If the sock is not "IDIOTIC" it is always checked - with a checkuser. I do not know why I'm trying to convince you, if you do not believe me you can always voice your suspicions and ask for a checkuser for any sock blocked without one. In fact how about this: either you state plain and simple which sock was unfairly blocked and file for a checkuser, or you stop with the vague nonsense accusations. Otherwise it is plainly obvious to anyone you are simply trying to ("politely" :) slander me with accusations I cannot defend myself from.

The reason why socks are always opposed to me is simple: these are the socks of the same nationalist group that managed to get itself banned due to its POV-pushing (I must stress: this is a checkuser-proven fact). This group includes maybe 8 or 10 users that managed to get themselves blocked by socking, WP:NPA, exposing personal info, unbelievable revert-warring, and just plain vandalism (section blanking). Their behavior is a testament to their fanaticism, and it is that which got them blocked in the first place. I repeat: I cannot block anyone. If I have a few admin friends on Wiki, they are obviously not allowed to help me or they would lose their adminship. These guys were blocked by impartial admins, and they were blocked because of blatant breaches of policy the likes of which noone I know here even came close to emulating. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Montesacro, perhaps this is not the best place to talk about the House of Bona page. However, since we were discussing vandalism, I thought it was appropriate. Debona.michel (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not helping the dialogue. For the final time, User:Debona.michel: my edits by no means constitute WP:VANDALISM. You have also completely misunderstood the talkpage section title. "Vandalism" up there is meant in the sense that User:Piero Montesacro is wondering if his edits (not mine) constitute vandalism, as they have been removed (of course, he knows that they do not, as I know that they were removed because they were sock edits). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I guess I should have created a new section called edit warring -- changing the original page with no explanation and not allowing the page to go bakc to the original content. Debona.michel (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, come on, I have not hinted that administators on en.wiki are stupid: I don't think so. And I have not hinted that you are an administrator: as you know, I am able to read the user logs, so I was already aware that you cannot block anyone. Instead, I have, at most, said that the actual occurrence on certain pages of some socks might be exploited in order to declare innocent contributors as socks even without CU confirmation. As above, you erroneously declared me and Demart81 as socks already, based on - as it seems - your quite amazing attitude of immediately branding as a sock any user that dares to add anything that you don't like to your favourite pages or, maybe more accurately, as it seems, that even remotely smells (I suppose you deem this verb appropriate, isn't? :-P) "Italian" and "Italy". If this is "slander", and certainly is not, what about your calling me names? And what about your statement above: "as I know that they were removed because they were sock edits"? They were not, they were mine, and I am not a sock. You should understand that "edits" are just "edits" and, until you have no positive proof that an edit has been actually made by a recognized (non only by you, much of course) sock, you should consider them as legitimate edits, and behave accordingly. And if a recognized sock, for istance, adds to an article "Zagreb is a Croatian city", well, I bet DIREKTOR would not hurry to remove it, and neither would I: it's the simple truth, even though written by an evil, evil sock. And, in the event it had been nevertheless removed by someone else, because "it's a sock edit", well, I doubt DIREKTOR would hurry to remove such an edit added by me just because a similar edit had been previously done by a sock, and removed under such pretext. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

List

Mr IP, that list is kind of nonsensical and really lacks notability. You wont find stuff like that in other history articles, just randomly included lists of parliament members and such. However if you must have it in, leave it in English. The fact that an Italian language source uses Italian language names only means that somebody should "translate" them into the English variants. The foreign language source should not be copied verbatim because its "original"... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide the wikipedia guidelines of unreliability of sources in Italian?

Every single ancient primary source available about history of Republic of Ragusa, is in Italian or in Latin, cause even if spoken, proto-Croatian wasn't use for written works that time neither by Italian historian or authors, nor by Ragusan. - Theirrulez (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Theirrulez, do Italian language sources use the Italian language, or the English language? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ancient, just Italian; modern usually both.--Theirrulez (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR, do Ragusan sources use the Italian language, or the Croatian language? In other words: can you show here a single official Ragusan document with the name "Dubrovačka Republika"? Not thousands: just a single document.--80.74.186.202 (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Rationale for use of the name Republic of Ragusa

It is the traditional name. As for the Persian Empire, it is still referred to as such now that the country's name has changed (not refferred to as the Iranian Empire). It also contradicts the article about the republic on Wikipedia.Brutal Deluxe (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I' ve taken a look at how the republic is called in other languages, going by the consensus reached on wikipedia.

Ragusa

French: République de Raguse

Belarus: Дуброўніцкая рэспубліка

Bulgarian: Дубровнишка република

Catalan: República de Ragusa

German: Republik Ragusa

Spanish:República de Ragusa

Finnish: Ragusan tasavalta

Dutch: Republiek Ragusa

Norwegian Bokmal: Ragusa (Kroatia)

Polish: Republika Raguzy

Portuguese: República de Ragusa

Russian:Дубровницкая республика

Albanian:Republika e Raguzës

Serbian:Дубровачка република

Turkish: Ragusa Cumhuriyeti

Ukranian:Дубровницька республіка

Hungarian:Raguzai Köztársaság

Dubrovnik

Bosnian: Dubrovačka Republika

Czech: Republika Dubrovník

Slovenian:Dubrovniška republika

SerboCroat:Dubrovačka Republika

Swedish:Republiken Dubrovnik

My conclusion is that worldwide consensus is that it is indeed the "Republic of Ragusa" the name we should use. For political reasons, only ex-Yugoslav countries and the Czechs chose the Dubrovnik version (Sweden has a high concentration of refugees/immigrants from ex-Yugoslav countries that can easily dominate discussion, plus the Serbs seem to disagree, for the usual reasons). I really don't think that I can be accused of siding with irredentists after this.--Pjesme (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This is either the disruptive 172. IP (a suspected sock IP of User:Theirrulez) or another sock of User:Ragusino. This post is a copy of User:Brutaldeluxe's post [5], and is consistent with Ragusino's modus operandi (copying posts of other users due to his blatant lack of English skills). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really want to get involved in this, but I'd just like to note that the Belarus, Bulgarian, Russian, Serbian and Ukrainian names (interestingly, all in Cyrillic) translate as "Republic of Dubrovnik", and not "Republic of Ragusa", and should be listed in the corresponding group. I would also like to know exactly what does "SerboCroat" represent there, considering Serbian is listed separately, as well as Bosnian. Is there any other group I missed? Or is it supposed to stand for Croatian? Roundchild (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)