User talk:Kubura/Archive11

Archive 1 - Edits on "SC language"
Archive 2 - Srijem issues
Archive 3 - W.Herzog, Stjepan and Montenegro issues
Archive 4 - Cro-Ser questions, very interesting discussion, many topic being opened/touched/resolved
Archive 5 - Some Doclea and Dalmatia issues
Archive 6 - Farsi, Diego, NHL, Stjepan
Archive 7 - Republic of Dubrovnik, Haydn, various
Archive 8 - Mostly vandalism dealing, Zadar, Mikalja
Archive 9 - Saborsko, RfARB, prop, ...
Archive 10 - Italianization, Pagania, diacritics...

Serbs in Istria

I recently spotted one of your edits stating that Serbs settled in Istria only after WWII as part of Yugoslavia's plan to populate the border region with Serbs, a trend inherited from the Kingdom of Serbia. Sorry to say but that is nonsense. Neither the Kingdom of Serbia nor the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1929-39) controlled Istria, therefore they could not have sent ethnic Serbs to settle there, and as you yourself say, they only arrived after WWII. Federal Yugoslavia was neither a channel for Serbian Monarchist Nationalism (right wing, Radical etc.), and neither had Istria ever appeared on the maps of the most extreme proposed maps of "Future Serbia" from the time of the 19th century (when such maps covered most of present-day Albania). Serbs, all be it in small numbers, are recorded on censa carried out in Istria before WWII and before WWI as well. Following WWII, there was suddenly a heavier concentration of them. Indeed they were encouraged to settle there by the federal multi-ethnic assemlby in Belgrade, but with them came Muslims, Macedonians, Montenegrins, and Croats who originated from outside of Istria, along with the smaller ethnicities: the purpose being to install Slavic peoples in larger numbers so as to dilute the Italian numbers, perceived after the WWII handover to be the biggest threat in the region. The only other way they could have ended up there would have been for them to have relocated by choice. You may be interested to know that during the interwar period, from the time Istria fell to Italy, it too conformed to the same trickery in that it sent its own citizens from various parts of Italy to Italianise Istria. The indigenous population of Istria who spoke the local Romance (not Slavic) language was the remnants of the Venetians, now virtually all dissimilated by the Italian model. Going back farther in history, Serbs & Croats (and other Slavic names used) settled along the Adriatic Coast from the hinterlands off their own backs to Slavicise the present-day Croatian coastline. It is not without reason that the indepdendent Ragusa changed its name to Dubrovnik. No Slavic/Croatian party ever called it Ragusa, and certainly no local Venetian/Dalmatian called it Dubrovnik. Collectively, the Slavic peoples shows resilience; within three centuries they outnumbered the overlord race, and achieved influence. I'm sure you know what you're talking about. I was just making a note as to how you phrased the terms. Evlekis (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Evlekis, I know that well.
"Neither the Kingdom of Serbia nor the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1929-39) controlled Istria, therefore they could not have sent ethnic Serbs .".
Evlekis, I was speaking about colonization of Serbs (and resettling of Albanians to Turkey) in areas surrounding the Kosovo and on Kosovo itself (during Kingdom of Serbia; Serbia took its first international loan for that purpose), while Kingdom of SHS/Yugoslavia settled Serbs in Croatia (families of Serbian military volunteers were settled in Slavonia; AFAIK, even new villages were created; if I remember well, even in Lika, but I'm not sure for Lika, I have to check my books).
Regarding Istria. Although you haven't found it on any Greaterserbianist map, Istria had such things. Some towns got the title of "small Belgrade", because of Serb communities settled there. They might have been registered as residents somewhere else, but they were residing mostly there. At last, you should see the surnames: it's easy to recognize Serb ones. The problems of Serbs became so big, that the Communist Party of Croatia membership has warned their leader, Vladimir Bakarić about the tendency of colonizing of Serbs there. Bakarić said: "I don't give a damn, as long as they spread socialism and self-governing" (he had a nicks "Parrot" and "Deadman"; the latter one because of his not doing anything, when he was supposed to react, and it was necessary to react). I'll give you the reference later.
Istria (and neighbourhood) lost part of its population during and after WWII: sympathizers and members of Fascist Party, those who were afraid of vendetta have fled. Further, Yugoslavia and Italy have later agreed "option to choose". So, many Italians, many pro-Italian Croats (Italianized or not), but also many Croats used this possibility to leave Communist country and go to western countries (e.g. Croatian academician Petar Strčić was supposed to leave for Italy as a child; he was few times "loaded and disloaded" from the bus or train, as he said himself on Croatian TV, in the special TV-show, made as comment about the movie Cuore nell' pozzo).
However, if you loose some population from certain area, you should replace it with population of original nationality (otherwise, economy suffers heavily, and consequences are even bigger depopulizing and economic retardation). So, in town with Croat majority, Croats should have been settled, not some other nationalities (as it happened somewhere, so-called "Yugoslavizing" of cities). But, on Istria, on some areas Croat families were settled (mostly from coastal Dalmatia). Still, they haven't exceeded the numbers of original Croats. It's easy to recognize by surnames appearing.
Regarding Dubrovnik: just a former Roman city, similar as some others on Eastern Adriatic (Spalatum, Tragurium, Jadera...). Ragusa hasn't changed its name: Slavs have always called it as Dubrovnik, Romanic peoples as Ragusa.
"Serbs & Croats (and other Slavic names used) settled along the Adriatic Coast from the hinterlands off their own backs to Slavicise the present-day Croatian coastline."
Serbs haven't settled on Croatian coastline by ways of natural migration of population. Second, Croats haven't settled from hinterland to coastline in order to Slavicize. Simply, natural migration, or migrations caused by wars and evasion of diseases. Also, we have to mention the fluence of Italians and Furlanians to Croatian coastline, that were the result of natural migrations (not the ones that are results of planned colonizing), e.g. the artisans, that receiving areas were lacking.
About original Istrians of Romanic origin (but not of Italian origins): yes, I know about them. AFAIK they are even from times before the Venice, the remnants from Ancient Rome. Local Italians call them "bumbari". These are mostly to be found in two towns on Istria. They speak some kind of Romanic language. However, they declare themselves as Italians, but you can find also ones that declare regionally or as Croats.
I hope I've helped you and explained you some things. Bye, Kubura (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

lots of text

Yes you explained a lot of things. You appear to have changed your tone from your original remark but that was made well back in March 2007: about a planned Serbian colonisation of Istria inherited from Serbian nationalist regimes who had previously ruled over Serbia. But we all learn with passing time. Now don't take this wrongly, but your comment about having to replace a "lost population" with its own ethnicity is elitist, jingoist and over-all incomprehensible, or to use another term: pathetic! If a settlement in Croatia comprising an ethnic Hungarian majority loses a major part of its population, and a sudden requirement to occupy vocational positions becomes urgent, you believe that rather than encouraging unemployed Croatian families to relocate and assume local responsibilities, it is better to reserve the jobs for the first ethnic Hungarians who become available for the programme; even if it means calling them in from Budapest, as though there is only a "Hungarian" way of doing something, which cannot be accomplished by another race. Naturally, you weren't referring to Hungarians losing out to Croats, merely Croats losing out to Serbs. How can you possibly think that the economy suffers with Serbs there, and that the economy will prosper with Croats there? What if the ethnic Serbs had previously been settled in modern-day parts of Croatia such as Gospić? Would you have personally moved in people from Herzegovina or Janjevo, Kosovo just because they were Croatian? If so, then it is only because you have a Pan-Croatian ideology over all Croatia-based issues, past or present. Post War Yugoslavia did not have a Pan-Croatian ideology over other nations; the country was formed primarily by a merger of left-wing political groups and their supportering familes and paramilitaries, who came from every corner of the former Kingdom, and all with a single Yugoslav idea; and secondarily, by individuals carrying the identity of their designated ethnicities seeing a united Slavic republic as being in the interests of their respective ethnic groups; as such, they viewed their fellow ethnicities as equals. People with these ideologies spilt blood to create the post-war republic, against German soldiers, and the security forces of the NZH and Nedić's Serbia, and others. So, when an emergency occurs in the areas of Yugoslavia captured from Salo, the Germans, and previously, Italy, how could a federal assembly have been acting in its interest in tackling a population crisis with one constituent nation? The assembly comprised different ethnicities and ran a country in which those ethnicities were primary nationals. I know that some populations are more advanced culturally than others: to take an example, Slovenia, was Yugoslavia's best; and we, down south in Macedonia, had the worst (on a league table). However, 1) it is a stereotype, and 2) in any case, it appeals to the population and not the various ethnicities. So, Vojvodina, is unofficially "better cultured" than Kosovo. This means that you can expect a different "stereotypical" appraoch by a Vojvodinian Serbs from a Kosovan Serb; but they are still serbs. The same applies to Albanians, whom you do get in Vojvodina. Likewise, Kosovo is multi-ethnic, with Croatians, who chew their food with their mouths open and "shlurp" their black coffee with nineteen spoonfulls of sugar just like the local Albanian sheppards. Trust me, I know. But then if you meant that Istria only needed to be replaced with local people meaning Croatian in that sense, it still raises a question: why?, and as Croatia too is multi-ethnic (like any country), if 96% of Croatia is Croat, then a 96% average of new settlers whould also reflect the demographic structure! The other 4% can be anything, they are handpicked and offered new lives not for being Serb or Hungarian, but for not being Italian, deemed in 1945 to pose a threat. And when you move people in somewhere, you're going to do it from all corners of your territory. Even today, a shift of Croats could send you close to a thousand kilometres from Neretva County to Istria. People are different from one part to another because of different histories. And another thing about this ethnicity business. Just how real do you honestly think all of this rubbish is? Hardline Serbs & Croats like to think that ones ethnicity is engraved on their foreheads, as though one ethnic group is totally orange and the other, pink. They think that the only excpetion is when one is born to mixed parents and the child chooses to adhere to one nationality's trends; thus appearing totally orange or pink. In fact, there are about 20 Slavophonic ethnic groups in the former Yugoslavia, probably many more, but just on the tip of my tongue. Are they syonymous? No. Most of them create doubt and conflict with their very existence, prompting hardliners in the bigger groups to call the smaller group "a subgroup of who we are" whilst totally refusing to recognise others. People forget that "ethnicity" is about people in the present day embracing each other to work on achieving a centralised national goal and celebrating a common identity. When the name of this "ethnicity" dates back centuries, it is customary for newcomers to adopt the history and make it their own, and outsiders may never know that one man walked into his ethnicity just as he left the Islamic Mosque to convert to a Protestant Christian. What is my point? The ancestors of many of today's Croats were not Croatian before the mid 19th century; the ancestors of many of today's Serbs were not serbian before the same time; other ethnic/national names existed in history which dissappeared; names not to have existed among other nations prior to 200 years ago now come to represent whole countries. You declare your ethnicity on the census, and you choose what you wish for it to be. In Macedonia, there is a discrepancy between those who declare Albanian as their first language and those who declare Albanian ethnicity. It appears that fewer people speak Albanian, yet there are more Turkish speakers than there are Turks. Numbers on some censa go up for one thing, and down for another. So if you find two speakers of Turkish identifying as Albanian: do you tell them, "Oi, you're Turks, not Albanian!"?, what does it mean to be Turkish anyway? For centuries, non-Turks freely assimilated the Ottomans, now we may be seeing it happen in reverse. One Turk may trace his roots only to find that his ancestors were from every population which stewed in the Balkan melting pot. But he embraces Turkish nationality now, perhaps because his parents did and so on, but somewhere down the line, someone had to relinquish his ethnic identity for today's man to be who he is. Anyhow, I don't know what you meant about serbs not having settled in Istria by natural migration etc. Obviously, some Serbs from some places settled there: no they didn't previously do so in big groups, they did so as individual familes just as from 1963, Yugoslav citizens did in Switzerland. But I don't know what you're worried about. Throughout the civil/homeland war, the area was peaceful. No pressure groups emerged offering support to any of the conflicting parties, from any ethnicity. It just proves, where politicians keep their affairs out, people can live peacefully. In so far as Istria is a tourist attraction, its hotels and industries are well managed by the local people, whether they be Croat, Serb or Italian. As for the "bigger Croatian" involvement with Istria, I believe that the longer term Slavophonic population predominantly identified as Slovene. I don't think that the heavy Croatian population goes back so many centuries. I believe its inclusion in the Socialist Republic was a result of how the borders were drawn, with various reasons as to why Slovenia got its part, and Croatia got its. I know that the border is not a traditional ethnic border where Slovenes & Croats abruptly halt, and all modern Croats in Slovenia relocated there, individually or in a big group, but not as a result of settlement from the 7th century. Maybe Croats did settle in those parts then, but their descendants are sure to only call themselves Slovenian now. This leaves one thing, Slavicisation of the Adriatic: you and the Serbs may have had problems with each other during WWII and in the 1990's, but there were no problems earlier, not atleast before the nationalist awakening of the 19th century. Thousands of Serbs & Croats jointly occupied parts of the Adriatic throughout the centuries. They did so as Catholic/Orthodox people, as well as in the form of different ethnic nominations. The redistribution of ethno-religious groupings in the previous centuries caused the overwhelming number of citizens to be one of three nationalities evn though they hadn't previously been. This, believe it or not, is the voice of Croatian nationalism coming from me: when proclaiming that Krajina's population, whilst not necessarily Croatian, and certain to have originated from over the border, shouldn't have called themselves Serb. And similar twists exist among Serbs who believe all of Dubrovnik-Neretva is Serb. Thankfully, I am neither because I'd be banging my head against the wall. The Morlachs on the other hand, were a non-Slavic race who with time Slavicised, and even went through the stage of calling themselves Serbo-Croats first, before eventually releasing themselves to the "ethnicity to match the faith". It was about 80% catholic, but then that is more evidence that there is no purity in neither Croatian nor Serbian pedigrees. In addition, the Morlachs were a coastal people. No significant Serbs there would not have enabled them to takine on Serbian identity for being Orthodox; any more than Belarussian. Alltogether Kubura, I am speaking about things which are as I personally read them from the literature I have stumbled across. If you know my points to be wrong, I rather you linked me to yours: I know things can be misconstrued, and conflict even exists among my own sources. If you respond, try not to be angry with me because I am not promoting anti-Croatian sentiment. I'm not Serb (even though Radical Serbs believe my people are).

Evlekis (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

My God, Evlekis, you gave me material for a whole month to read. It's very hard to promptly respond to your messages.
The hardest thing for me is, that, many of things you wrote I already know. Problem is, that your text has lines with wrong information/stereotypes/falsifications of that somehow came to you (and you believe that that is truth), that need correction. Kubura (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

All right, I'm only an individual commentator; one of 6,000 million on this world. I know my facts may be distorted. But I also know that I am not scientifically wrong about anything, and the philosphophical aspects are of more interest to me. Do me one small favour. When you wish to respond, all be it piece by piece; alert me on my own talk page, otherwise observers will think I backed down. "Silence speaks louder than words", but neither you nor I are silent and give up contrasting discussions just like that. Have a good weekend. Evlekis (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Place names & Wikipedia policy

I have noticed that there are many articles that include geographical place names in more than one language, such as, for example Rijeka/Fiume or Zadar (Zara) etc. I would like to draw your attention to the relevant Wikipedia policy on this matter, which is strict and explicit, and says that this is not permitted. It is WP:NCGN and you should read it carefully. Basically, it says that:

• On the English Wikipedia, only English names should be used. This means, except in a few cases, the modern most commonly used modern name, such as Trieste, Istria, Montenegro etc.
• Non English names can be mentioned once, in the lead section.
• Where an article is explicitly about a period of time in a place (eg the Republic of Ragusa) it seems the foreign name is acceptable.

Therefore, under this rule, non-English place names must be removed from all articles to standardise the encyclopedia and avoid confusion. Please remove non-English place names, and edit summaries that do so should mention this policy WP:NCGN. I have started this standardisation but I cannot cover all the articles. Please help out here and encourage other editors to comply with official policy. Many thanks. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

PIO

Hi Kubura,

Since I know you are active at it.wiki, perhaps you could have a look at these [1][2][3]. I've been watching this for a while, but left it alone, as it didn't seem to do any harm, but it's getting beyond a joke now. Mat003, one of the editors he's been canvassing has turned up at Talk:Istrian exodus today. I've left him/her a note about it at User talk:En.mat003. If necessary, remind them that PIO is banned there too [4][5] and a sock [6]. We really don't need PIO trying to destabilise en.wiki articles from over there. Thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Jr. is definitely Bruno. See the three articles at enwiki, itwiki and eswiki on Salerno fascist Pompeo D'Ambrosio. Old Pompeo was Bruno's father. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of 62.63.212.10

A tag has been placed on 62.63.212.10 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. CultureDrone (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of 62.63.212.2

A tag has been placed on 62.63.212.2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. CultureDrone (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of 62.63.212.143

A tag has been placed on 62.63.212.143 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. CultureDrone (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of 62.63.212.13

A tag has been placed on 62.63.212.13 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. CultureDrone (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletions

No interest in hiding anything, but user accounts (i.e. IP addresses) should be in the Wikipedia userspace, not the main namespace, which is reserved for encyclopedic content (see WP:USER). CultureDrone (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No, no problem with your reaction - besides, I could see you've been contributing to WP for a while and weren't a troll :-) Hope it cools down soon ! CultureDrone (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Kirker

Yes his edits are strange but now I am asking again and again checkusers for block of User:PaxEquilibrium puppets so they will not be very happy if I start new action... If you want to ask checkuser you will have my full support --Rjecina (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I am fighting about quotes... For me books are not so important, but you need to read my version of article where all controversial statements about Drakulići massacre are confirmed with official documents [7].--Rjecina (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are you hiding behind Rjecina?

lots of text

If you think I'm someone's sockpuppet, why don't you have the guts to pursue that yourself, instead of hiding behind Rjecina? Why not have the courtesy to tell me what you're doing, instead of burying your insinuations on someone else's talk page where will have assumed I would not see them? Why not simply have the matter checked out in the normal way?

Quite apart from being thoroughly spineless, your approach is utterly lazy or you might have taken the trouble actually to read some of my posts, and compare them with those of my alleged "alter ego". Here's an extract from the Prebilovci discussion:

1) Rjecina, I am not supporting justiceinwiki, only agreeing with him that I have never heard of an atrocity in thatarea being described as the "Prebilovci massacre." Surely there were enough Ustaša atrocities without Wikipedia having to give them two articles each? If there is an argument to have the Prebilovci massacre article, I will listen to that. But then we would not need to say much about it in the Prebilovci article. It would be enough to mention it and refer people to the massacre article for more information about that.

2) For the record, justiceinwiki, you are really pissing me off. Constantly changing what you have already said here on the discussion page and editing articles under different identitities looks to me like bad faith. Why are you frightened to use your own name for what you are doing? Also, why are you going back and editing this page to put all your own contributions into bold print? Do you think you are more important than everyone else? Well you are wrong. You are just bad-mannered. Kirker (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

1) I wouldn't agree that I have constantly changed what I have said before. (Giva an example. . . ). But that isn't what we should all be focused on, we should insteed turn the attention upon Rijeca, and more seriouse matters, for instins: why is Rijeca constantly changing back the article, deleting the part of the Bosnian Civil War and the Virgin Mary (which is based on an article from a Catholic newspaper in the US, about Prebilovci). At the same time, Rijeca is dared to talk about Wikipedia policy. He is changing back an article with references. (Before, I just thought the problem was that I hadn't enought references.) And the article is not just about the massacre. Soon, I will be able to write more, in the present day section, but untill then, I hope Rijeca will stop vandalising without a cause - against Wikipedia policy for the matter!. And now when most of us agree that the "Prebilovci massacre" page should not exist any further, I hope someone with more higher autority will do something about it soon, so Rijeca can be cooled down for once! --Justiceinwiki

2) 'My problem with the "Prebilovci massacre" page is that there is nothing refered as that - at least not outside Wikipedia - the free encuclopedia. The fact that the one who created the page hasn't turned up in the discussion page, says a lot already - doesn't it? --Justiceinwiki —Preceding comment was added at 11:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] November edits

Would recent editors of this article please grow up. And would justiceinwiki, in particular, please stop his childish behaviour of putting all his comments on this discussion page into bold text, as though he is somehow more important than everyone else.

Let's remember we are talking about a place with a population of about 50 people. In the normal way of things it would hardly warrant a mention. But the place IS of interest, because of the atrocities and because of the religioius nonsense nearby.

It seems that justiceinwiki wants to mention graves that may date back to the Bogomils. Rjecina does not want that. As justiceinwiki has cited a reference. I don't understand why Rjecina is objecting, though I accept that there might be a reason. Then there is the very important question of whether we should say National park or National Park. (LOL) The term is not used here as part of a proper noun, therefore in English national park is correct. But probably this detail just got caught up in bigger changes when people leapt to use the revert button. To help take the heat out of the debate, it would be better if editors limited themselves to changing only one thing in each edit, even if this means doing several edits. It would then be clearer to see who is arguing for what.

Lastly it would be a welcome courtesy if justiceinwiki would give a brief summary of each change he makes, like most of us usually try to do. Regards Kirker (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I wish you the best of luck in pursuing your little theory. Don't forget to come back and tell us how you got on, will you?

Kirker (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"He knows the matter much better than me." Well it's certainly obvious that you know sod-all about it. I would be interested to see any "coincidences" that suggest justiceinwiki's contributions and mine are pushing the same agenda. Kirker (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise! Rjecina, the King of sockpuppet referrals, has decided that this is one case he dare not pursue. So get on with it. Or have you lost your nerve too? Kirker (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Kubura, have you lost your tongue as well as your nerve? A cruel fate for a gossip-monger.Kirker (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't perpetuate this annoying (this is not discussion, you're annoying me).
I'm not here to keep you company or to entertain you, since you have noone else to talk to or nothing else to do. If you need adrenaline, some adrenalin-addicts go on roller-coaster or go bungee-jumping. I wouldn't advice you that. But - I'd advice you not to search or make adrenaline-situations on project of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be like a library, not a shouting place for persons who enjoy disturbing people who teach or learn.
I gave you previously [8] (8 days ago) on your talkpage the explanation of my action. Maybe you never had one or more trolls on your back, so you don't understand my reactions. Trolls kill the joy of editing Wikipedia and sharing knowledge.
Wikipedia is not a forum.
Consider yourself being informed and warned. Kubura (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I suppose that response on my talk page does explain why you preferred to get someone else to do your dirty work. But as you know, Rjecina doesn't want to make a fool of himself and would much prefer to hide behind you. At this point any normal, decent individual who had been acting in good faith would either withdraw his snide tittle-tattle and apologise, or would see through what he had started, and do it in his own name. Of course, if you're too spineless for that, don't worry. I fully understand. Kirker (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't use Wikipedia as a place to insult other persons.
First, you've called me an "snide arsehole", now you called me "too spineless". And you perpetuate fruitless discussion infinitely.
You were warned once before here. Now I'm warning you again, because you've repeated your bad behaviour. Kubura (talk) 06:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Kubura, I see that the complaint you made about me on another page has disappeared. Before it disappeared, I asked how I could instigate a sockpuppet investigation of myself, and Animate answered that point on my talk page. Apparently I can't do it. So I have no option but to ask you again to see through what you started. Your excuse earlier was that there was no point two of you raising the same matter. But as you know, there is no risk of that. Rjecina doesn't want to get involved. Unless you can think of some other excuse, perhaps you would now instigate a sockpuppet enquiry in your own name. If you don't have the guts for that then simply withdraw your insinuation.

(If it was you who had your complaint deleted from that other page, I will settle for that, and let the matter rest. I never had you down as the type who might apologise.) Kirker (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There are two venues where one can initiate investigations into possible sockpuppets: WP:SSP and WP:Requests for checkuser. Checkuser is the only definitive tool we have to check people with, and the SSP pages are used to gather evidence about obvious socks or as preparation for a checkuser. If you feel confident kirker is a sock, take the evidence to one of those places for wider community input. If you don't feel comfortable doing so, do not make anymore allegations or insinuations about kirker. Simple. AniMate 23:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

My talkpage is not a noticeboard for trolls that infinitely perpetuate and annoy (I'm not speaking about you, AniMate) .
I've told you, Kirker, several times, I don't want to participate in an infinite fruitless discussion, but you're still pushing it.
Was I right when I connected Kirker with Justiceinwiki, I cannot tell yet. But I was right when I suspected we possibly have a troll that edited that article, I'm completely sure now that we do have a troll. Annoying to others is trolling. Also, read some definitions.
Troll: "a person who is deliberately inflammatory on the Internet in order to provoke a vehement response from other users". "someone who posts controversial and irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community... with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion".
Please, don't perpetuate the discussion on this talkpage, I've told you that I don't intend to participate in wasting my time in reading your novels. I'm not here to keep you company. Subject is closed much long ago. When someone tells you "It's over", than it's over, he/she doesn't want to play with you anymore, learn that. Kubura (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

noticeboard news--Rjecina (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I caan understand you raising your eyebrows at that remark I made about Rjecina's parentage. Let me explain that it was provoked by Rjecina, who had asserted (with absolutely no evidence at all) that my parents are from Yugoslavia. I assume he did this to imply that I don't have a detached view of west-Balkan matters. He followed that up by saying that if I denied his assertion he simply would not believe me. And I am supposed to assume good faith with this guy, LOL. (I didn't explain that background to Ricky81682 becauses it's all on my talk page which I assume Ricky looked at before stepping into the dispute.) Kirker (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Pax puppets

This are new puppets of Pax: user:PaxVendetimus, user:Seth Monarch , user:Loopextra , user:VelikaBugarska , user:Palomapi ,user:MustafaHadzispahic, user:PrincipGavril.--Rjecina (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe even user:PrimiceXeNe and few others but now I must demand check of old account user:Loopextra because of which he can edit semi-protected articles.--Rjecina (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You can look my demand to checkuser and his answer--Rjecina (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia

Can we talk about other things and not about Kirker o Filipović ?? In that article we are having this population data (without source): Croats 62.5 %, Serbs 24.6 % but in Classic Encyclopedia from 1911 data for 1900 census is: Croats 75 % and must of others are Serbs.

Similar to that because of Pax there has been edit warring in article Pagania because of his fantasy that they are Serbs. Now this old Encyclopedia is saying that they are Croats. All in all you must read article about Croatia in this Encyclopedia because I am sure that you will find other interesting informations.--Rjecina (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

In article Pagania only Pax is only user which has writen about Serbs but evidence for this user is really weak. We will see (Hi to Pax which is reading all my edits)!--Rjecina (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Dejan Cukić

Molim te, ne politiziraj članke o muzici. Rečenica "As Yugoslav wars started, Cukić made a three-year break" je bila sasvim odgovarajuća. Ostalocutanje (talk)

Upravo sam na ono što si ti napisao i mislio kad sam ovo iznad napisao, i čini mi se da si i ti svestan toga... Slažem se da bi trebalo biti malo određeniji, ipak Cukić nije napravio pauzu zbog bilo kojih sukoba koji spadaju u ono što nazivaju "Jugoslovenskim ratovima" jer se pod tim terminom obuhvata prilično širok vremenski raspon, ali nisam siguran da je ono što si ti napisao potpuno korektno... Sve okolnosti koje su pratile ratne sukobe na ovim prostorima su, čini mi se, još uvek sporne, što je normalno kada se ima u vidu da se radi o relativno bliskoj prošlosti, ili barem protivurečne, zavisno od toga sa koje strane dolaze... Ono što se u Hrvatskoj naziva napadom Srbije na Hrvatsku i Bosnu i Hercegovinu u Srbiji (i najvećem delu sveta - ovaj termin "Yugoslav wars" prilično dobro to ilustruje) naziva se građanskim ratom, ali to je u ovom slučaju potpuno nebitno... U svakom slučaju, članci o muzičarima nisu mesto za raspravljanje o tome... Kada istorija sa jedne izvesne distance sve bude postavila na svoje mesto (a mene nimalo ne interesuje rad na člancima koji se bave tom problematikom), tada bi trebalo prepravljati i ovakve članke. Do tada će neutralna fraza "Yugoslav wars" sasvim lepo poslužiti. Ne slažem se sa tobom da sam te maltretirao na bilo koji način, već mislim da sam pokušao da vodim jedan konstruktivan razgovor. Nije bilo potrebe da mi odgovaraš na engleskom, ja hrvatski savršeno dobro razumem, i izvinjavam se što sam trošio tvoje dragocveno vreme. Pozdrav!

Ostalocutanje (talk), 00:28, 31 August 2008

In English, please. As far as the message isn't written in English or Croatian (but the author is still obliged to translate it in English - these are the rules of Wikipedia), I don't care for the text you wrote, for me your message doesn't exist. The message above is not in English neither in Croatian (and you declare your Croatian "hr-5"???). So, translate it or drop it. Kubura (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sve mi je jasno. Zaboravi... Sa takvima kao sto si ti nema komunikacije i dogovora... A na mojoj stranici pise da je moj hrvatski hr-4... Ako se ne varam, to znaci da ga razumem a ne da ga govorim kao maternji... Ostalocutanje (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.59.48 (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate a straightforward discussion

In response to your comment at User:Rjecina, yes, I have read the policies. If you have an issue with my conduct, I will appreciate it if you discussed it with me personally rather than behind my back, so to speak. In regards to User:Kirker, he is discussing the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ricky81682:_an_acceptable_level_of_adjudication.3F. If you have an opinion, I would suggest you say it there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, there is a discussion at WP:ANI. Right now, everyone see Kirker versus Rjecina and nobody else. The more individuals comment, in either direction, the more admins pay attention. Everyone is used to a one-on-one personal argument. I again suggest you add a comment if you wish. I was not going to block him again so soon (I was more than willing to admit that I had a biased while others chose to create a new section trying to hiding that), but I do have any problems blocking him if he continues acting up. At the same time, I am going to listen to his complaints and review them (and continue to repeat that he would do a lot better if he stopped with the long diatribes and insults). Also, I'll note that he does have a point: constant accusations of sockpuppetry when the prior ones haven't been proven are not the way to act civil. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Violent threats

Hi, Kubura. User Kirker has let his true violent side be known: [9]. Interesting. Can you do something about it? Rjecka-budala (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/Participants

You are added on this list. If this is mistake you can delete your name from this list.--Rjecina (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Change is deleted --Rjecina (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding two suspected sockpuppets of PaxEquilibrium...

Mate, you've got it all wrong. User:Milan B. and User:Pravi Gusinjac are not sockpuppets of User:PaxEquilibrium, but rather of User:CrnaGora, as confirmed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ACrnaGora&diff=96568792&oldid=96507701 . Of course, however, be aware that this edit to User:CrnaGora's userpage was made by an anon, most likely by User:CrnaGora himself. CrnaGora, looking through his conversations, was a big-time supporter of PaxEqilibrium, no doubt. He started up requests for adminship, at least three times I believe, THREE TIMES. And to ensure PaxEquilibrium's victory, he created sockpuppets such as these and used them to vote in support for PaxEquilibrium, who's been requested for adminship five times, if I'm correct. This isn't the first time either, using a sockpuppet to ensure victory in an RfA. He's used another sockpuppet, by the name ofUser:EditMan9000, as one of the very few supporters of his (CrnaGora's) request for adminship, made in January 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/CrnaGora). I took the liberty of clearing this up for you, not everyone is too careful when looking over the facts, right?. Cheers! --Prevalis (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Canderous

It was a username i used in the past before i took this one, and in case you're wondering i'm not HolyRomanEmperor, though i did vote for him years ago. Texcarson (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sveta Gera

Sveta Gera/Trdinov vrh is new name of that article according to the international court consisting of the judges: User:Eleassar, User:Prevalis and User:Yerpo [10]. Zenanarh (talk) 09:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

See "False renaming" section [11]. Zenanarh (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

sorry about my original version on Yugoslav Wars. I thoght it would be a good idea to explain to the world outside what the actual stages of the war were about. Ofcourse you know what most of the rest don't, each war was fought to rid themselves of Serb agression even if the Serbs hid behind the so called JNA uniforms, it was all Serb, whether we are talking Slovenia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Croatia or Kosovo. If you feel that such a statement is a bit radical, then we can go without it. Thanks friend. X Ray Tex (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Towns in the Republic of Serbian Krajina

Please stop your nationalistic ustashe(croatian nazi fascist) aspirations of finishing the genocide on the serbian people by deleting the towns in the republic of serbian krajina page - would not surprise me if you wanted to delete the main krajina page too. While it is true that the category was to be deleted, the decision has been made to "LISTIFY" the towns into one page. Therefore please stop your vandalism and disruption, trying to delete that page. You are saying that it should be deleted because of that ruling... but the ruling explicitly says that it should remain as a listified page isntead of a category, which is its current situation. If you have any issues with this then too bad, because it was decided that it remains. (LAz17 (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC))

If the third reich had specific borders that included certain places then why not? At any rate, the decision was to delete the category, and that decision has been carried through. The current topic could be thrown into the current RSK page, as a last resort for keeping geographical knowledge of what places were in the former RSK. You see, I get the feeling that you do not want people to know much of the geography of the former RSK. This is very important. Unlike Nazi Germany, whose borders we known, the ones of RSK are not as clear and therefore could very well use such an article. I however strongly suggest the creation of a topic that says which lands outside of Germany were in the third reich Germany. The displacement of Germans since the end of world war two from many lands was a real shame, and so therefore it would be fascinating to see which lands where they used to live and that used to be part of Germany. Of course, it wouldn't be a category, but a listified page. There has been no voting on listifying... if you see a problem with that, then go ahead and go through the proper channels. Voting was on the category, not the listifyed topic. (LAz17 (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)).

I prefer to look at it as expanding the knowledge about these regions. I don't quite get what is provocative about the listings. It's merely helping explain what was where. Now, we can look at another case... the Kosovo case. It is arguably much more provocative, yet they have a similar thing. You speak of provocation... but that word is relative. Just telling someone truth could be provocation, depending on the situation. I will however consider having the stuff in the Krajina main page... it depends if I can find or make a map that shows where the towns are. It might in fact be better to do it that way, but it's complicated and there are so many of them. (LAz17 (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

Could you explain this stuff tome? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipalities_of_Kosovo (LAz17 (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

You do not answer my question about the Kosovo towns and municipalities. They are just like the Krajina ones, no? Towns in Serbia that were part of the NDH are already well known. That is this region - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srem_District , plus the small part of belgarde like zemun and the then nonexistant novi beograd. I would like to know exactly which places were in Albania during world war two. That is useful information. Yes, I did make that topic, because of a recent shift in voters to say for it to be listified. Listifying the towns is completely acceptable. While it is not like making a category, it is none the less a legitimate and important page for information concerning the geography of the RSK. If you feel that this page is not appropriate then bring up the need to delete it, but please, be aware that this page has nothing to do with that category. Voting was on the category, not on the page. The category has been deleted as the voting said so. Therefore you will need a new voting on a new matter, this page, if you want to delete that page. This page is not a category, keep in mind that this is a very big difference. You don't seem to understand that, and therefore are saying that this page should be deleted. So, put it up to a vote, and if you guys win then I will put the information from it onto the regular Krajina page - and there it will stay. This information is not going away, no matter what. It is of great geographical importance. (LAz17 (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC))

You call Krajina a controversial and provocative - is Kosovo not more controversial and provocative? It is true that some states recognized Kosovo, but this has nothing to do with the fact that their independence is just like Krajina's was because independence was not recognized from the state that they were breaking away from in the first place. They are contested territories and deserve to have their pages. If it is okay to have it on the main krajina page, then it is okay to have it on this separate page, as it goes into more detail, too much detail and more than necessary for it to be on the regular krajina page. Those people who said delete had specifically said delete the category, not delete the information. There has been no vote on deleting the page, and you are trying to make that vote be BOTH For the category and the page. It does not work like that. Make a new page. Lastly, you are clearly anti-serbian, and have a bias. You say that Krajian is a terrorist entity which is very provocative. The entity is merely a creation to avoid the genocide as the neonazi croat president and government outright reduced serbian people to second class citizenship, and glorified the genocide done on the serbs in world war two. Krajina's government was not a puppet government. Most of that land had a Serbian majority, so it was not really a conquest. Old maps are not enough to see what was where. I can not know exactly which parts of Slovenia were in Italy. I would like to. This needs a topic too. I am a bit busy to work on that right now though. (LAz17 (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

Thanks

Actually, vacations long gone, but plenty of ordinary work :-( Plantago (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Yugosval wars...

lots of text

Yes there is a problem with your edit. "Greater Serbia" is conjecture, and at most, an ulterior motive. The commentary is not encyclopaedic and does not belong on the article, and it is entirely POV; so either keep it to yourself, or share it with other Serbophobiacs on the forums. More to the point, you used it to describe the wars, you didn't insert a comment stating that it was the cause, or a pivotal feature. Even so, you tried to: by stating that a "Greater Serbian conquest of military campaign" was what the wars "mostly" had in common; followed immediately by Serbian activity in Kosovo in the 1980s, totally separate from the actual hostilities taking place in the 1990s. In other words, you are entering a statement into a long standing paragraph for no other reason than to blame the Serb position for every battle over a ten year period. Firstly, who cares what they've got in common?? Who even asked?? Can people not make up their own minds?? Or are you frightened that excluding it might guide the reader into developing an opinion detremental to Croatia's vantage point? If you wish to say that the wars were every republic's battle against Serbian expansion, then say so, and provide your evidence: don't give me this "mostly had in common" cobblers. In one of your previous reverts, you made a sarcastic summary about Helen of Troy starting the wars: what has that got to do with your edit? You're not saying who started it, you are giving your professional opinion as to the "commonalities" of the Yugoslav wars. The battle which took place in Slovenia was an attempt to prevent the region from leaving the federation; it was not an attempt by Belgrade to rename the territory surrounding Ljubljana as "Greater Serbia", so that is Slovenia out of the picture. The remainder of the first part of the 1991 hostilities involved the final remnants of the YPA trying to maintain regions of interest to local Serb minorities, such as Dubrovnik, and majorities, such as in your rebel-held regions. However, in 1992, Serbia entered a new federation with Montenegro and sealed its own borders to exclude the four other former republics. From that point, Belgrade's support for Croatian Serbs was limited to helping them stand independent rather than incorportating them back to the entity of which Serbia was a part. Now you may can call that "legal Croatian territory held by Serbs", but that is not Greater Serbia. If you think that the strings in this region were being pulled by Belgrade, then that amounts to a sphere of influence, not "one expanded territory", otherwise you could say that Moscow's former sattelite nations (eg. Hungary, Czechoslovakia) were a de-facto Greater Russia. Then there are the barron regions: "Greater Serbia" is supposed to include all of Bosnia and Herzegovina, not just the area which Serbs held from 1992 until the Dayton chapter, that means areas where not a single Serb gunshot was fired; but what about local Croats? Did they not hold a vast chunk of Bosnia and Herzegovina for two years? You can hide as much as you like behind this "but we voted for its independence and only delcared a canton which we recognised as being in Bosnia" mask, but it doesn't change a thing: call it Bosnia and Herzegovina if you like, to me, that only means a region independent of Zagreb, just as the RSK was independent of Belgrade; the point is that the relationship between Belgrade and the RSK was every bit the same as between Zagreb and Herceg-Bosna before 1994. Bosnian Croats stated that they were a part of Bosnia, but Sarajevo's internationally recognised government - for all their own problems against the Serbs - did not recognise your canton. As such: Croats, by repelling all forces loyal to Sarajevo, held the region no differently to how they might have done if it were independent. What about Velika Kladuša? Was the Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia a segment of "Greater Serbia" just becuase its administration was on friendly terms with Belgrade during its short time in existence? So what about the rest of "Greater Serbia"? Why would Belgrade be a part of a federation with a republic (Montenegro) which itself wholly occupies a territory considered to be "Serb" by nationalists? Again, you could try to argue that Belgrade was the powerful office, but if it were so powerful, why did it not impose itself on Montenegro by cancelling its status and informing its citizens that they were now a part of a single Serb entity? As for the suggestion that Montenegro is ethnically Serb and there was a tradition of it wanting to be a part of the rest of Serbia, why again was it different? Why couldn't Raška have the same status? Did you not know that believers in any form of Montenegrin entity (whether he calls himself Serb or not) is based on the region being separate from anything else around it which calls itself "Serbia"? This applies even if Montenegro is a part of the same country as the rest of Serbia: so long as a central body with oversight exists and Montenegrins form a part of it, and Montenegro has the same local rights as its partner. Now that, is not Greater Serbia. How about Macedonia? There is a 2% Serb minority there, doesn't sound like much, but the 5% in Kosovo isn't much greater. If your Yugoslav Wars had "Greater Serb" shared properties, why was there no resistence in this territory? What does it matter if the number of Serbs was low...the purpose for including a region is based on the territory and not the population: so when one nation lays claim to a neighbouring territory, then that nation knows that to capture it (or defend it from local dissidents if it is legally within it in the first place), it must deploy an army of loyalists all of whom live outside. If you try to argue that Belgrade was expending much of its resources in Bosnia and Croatia, how does that equate to the fact that Belgrade itself cut itself off from Macedonia when it entered the FRY; and even if their tied hands could do nothing to stop Macedonia from leaving, why did Belgrade recognise Macedonia and maintain diplomatic relations with the land? You'd have thought that a "Greater Serbia" regime would atleast refuse to recognise Macedonia if nothing else; as it happened, the two countries FRY and Macedonia maintained good relations during that time. I'll tell you, that if the Radical Party of Serbia had power in the 1990's, there'd be no Macedonian embassy in Belgrade. Members of the SRS may have occupied important government seats in the 1990's, and the Socialist Party of Serbia (of Milošević) may have twice been in coalition with them, buy anyone who knows his politics knows that the SRS had zero power in the FRY. Their very continuation within a federal Serbia with a partner on its own territory which recognises Macedonia and doesn't fight for sections of Bosnia populated by Muslims and Croats goes against everything they stand for: in addition, Šešelj and Nikolić both landed prison sentences in the 1990's when they excercised their "political freedom" which was disagreeable to someone who had the power to lock them in cells. So if Šešelj had power in 1999 during the Kosovo conflict whilst the same administration who previously imprisoned his was in power, you need to ask yourself "how free was he to do as he pleased?"

Kosovo: your statement about the Albanian rights being cancelled by a "Greater Serbia regime" is even an bigger POV than the last. Fact: the region of Kosovo was taken back to its pre-1974 status, do you know when the last modification to Kosovo's ever-growing freedom had last been modified? It was 1971, not exactly 544 BC. If the "regime" had cancelled its autonomy completely, it would have taken it to pre-1946; and although some Croatian "intellects" often like to say this when talking unchallegend on HTV, to have cancelled it altogether would have meant that Milošević could not rely on its vote in the 8-entity system because Kosovo would have been abolished completely as it had been between 1912 and 1946. The actions of the "regime" affected Kosovo's government, particularly the way in which it served pro-Albanian interest. Even so, if you wish to make a statement concerning who upset the balance in Kosovo in the late 1980s, then it is correct to refer to "Serbia's League of Communists" and not the "Greater Serbian regime", that is POV-orientated rubbish. Kosovo was in Serbia in the first place: if you try to argue that "Serbia had no control over Kosovo", that again, does not makes it "Greater Serbia" once it has reestablished its control. Furthermore, if indeed Serbia didn't have any control of Kosovo before 1989, what was preventing it? Who was policing it? If nobody, then Serbia always had control, but was sitting back. If a system was in place however, ensuring no interference from Serbia's federal authority in Kosovo, then how was the "cancelation of rights" effective? Unless it was endorced by the wider authorities (ie. the authorities of the other federal republics). So for Slovenia to cry Wolf immediately after and cry that the same thing might happen to it is ridiculous; but these are the contradictions in term which exist when a thousand people each make a different allegation about the same thing with no grounds in the first place. And it goes without saying that, if Belgrade's crackdown on Kosovo was supposed to be "Greater Serbia" at work, then surely the Preševo Valley conflict was also a "Greater Serbia" affair, even though that continued into 2001, months after the SPS were ousted. Was the Macedonian conflict an example of "Greater Serbia"? Or should I be sensible and say that this was Macedonian nationalism expanding their already existing territories to form a "united Macedonia"? A thousand issues require a thousand answers from you before you can go inserting that remark.

Evlekis (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about the "lots of text", DIREKTOR took care of the page. Although I'm far from happy, I know that I am alone and cannot win. So Congratulations on winning yet another battle!! Evlekis (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a problem. As things are at the moment, I'm not disputing anybody's edits anywhere; I feel that although this is a free encyclopaedia, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia is always correct, as the organisers state in several places: it must not be taken as a primary source. To be honest, I lately use Wikipedia for figures and statistics more so than for private investigations, as before. Those things lead to bitter conflicts which you and I both know, Kubura, are down to people's own interpretations. Unreasonable as I may often appear to be to some, I do get tired sometimes, even with myself! :) So, about Yugoslav Wars, the contents of that introductions were recently revised by DIREKTOR. I'd prefer to remain out of this one now, so if you're not happy with his edits, it is now very much between you and him! In the meantime, there will be an absence of Evlekis edits, because I am going on vacation for a few days. Why I am telling you this? Precisely because it is your precious city to which I fly on Wednesday, and I shall spend the night in a Split hotel, so will see much of the fine city throughout Wednesday! Then from Thursday onwards I head south to visit more of the Adriatic, finally into Montenegro before heading back to Split next Wednesday, so from Thursday 24th October, I'll be back!!! If you see me walking about, you'll know I am not local, as being only 1,82cm in height is a give away in th Dinaric Alps...if a man is less than 1,96cm, he probably isn't a Dinarian! :) So I am told. Anyhow, just so that you know, there is no rush to respond to or even read anything. See you soon. Evlekis (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

Have a userbox, on me :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This user abhors the vandalization of Split's Riva.

:P hmmm, you have a point there... will fix. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Towns in the Former RSK

Please see this edit by Kbdank71 (talk · contribs). He is an administrator as well and I am not going to second guess his closing of that discussion where he said to change it to a list. If you think it should be deleted then create an AfD for it. AfD's, etc are not votes but discussion and User:Kbdank71 had no doubt been pursuaded by the comments that the correct thing was to create a list. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Hola KUbura, I've got some problems with Laz17, and I would need your advice. I've puted this map [12] on the net a long time ago. Some inaccuracies were reported (and I puted that info onto it's main page). 2 years after another Laz17 says he's got a correct map and that existent one was changed. Ok, I instruct him how to put new map onto the net, but now he has begun accusing me for nationalistic POV and fraud with maps. I gave him some links to NPOV and assumsion of good faith, but to no avail. Can you advise me onto some of my future actions ?
--Čeha (razgovor) 16:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved, as two of Ceha's propaganda maps have been removed, the two in question. I also do not think that kubara is the best one for advice, as he has demonstrated much POV and stubborn nationalism in the towns in the former rsk topic. (LAz17 (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)).

Interesting. When LAz17 appears with his map, than his maps are "neutral and given by God himself", but when you upload a map, than it is by default "POV and propagandism".
LAz17, learn to respect international borders and international order. As we see, you propagate territorial expansionism by promoting and romanticizing so-called RSK (Greater Serbian puppet formation). If you think opposite (that so-called RSK wasn't territorial expansionism, give us proof). Otherwise, don't mess into the topics you don't know what you're talking about. And especially, stop accusing and etiquetting other users with such phrases. The phrase "nationalist" has very negative conotation in Western sociology. Read WP:ETIQ. Consider yourself being informed.
About my "POV" about territories of Republic of Croatia occupied by greaterserbianists (from Serbia, B&H and local rebel Serbs; all strings came from Serbia), so-called RSK: I've won all argumentations about that. Are you (and your alikes) think that you'll wore me out with your persistent pestering (like: "no, it's not", "totally disputed", "that's not true", "Kubura's POV")? Forget it. Every argumentation you loose makes things worse for you. The only thing you'll prove is that you're trolling.
Čeha: LAz17 has to give you proper sources. Otherwise, you can put that on WP:ANI, so that admins can give you advice. Someone may appear there as "third opinion". Draw their attention to LAz17's behaviour. Kubura (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for advice Kubura, puško stara:) I saw it just now, but it will be usefull never the less. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I am only interested in maps which are correct. Ceha has a number of maps which are good, but a number which are also bad. RSK has nothing to do with these bosnia maps. As has been seen, two of Ceha's maps are gone from this site. More are going to go soon. I do not get what you are talking about when you speak of winning or losing. All sides are winners in my opinion. Also, it may be good to actually look at how long ago you replied to a question. In this case your time to reply has passed long ago. (LAz17 (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)).

Laz, there would be no problemes if you had be more civil and willing to cooperate. Fortunately some Pax's bad map got deleted and after this discussion on wikipedia should be a valid sub-municipal map. Progress of wikipedia should be in everbody's common interest. As for me, I think I prove my point. --Čeha (razgovor) 21:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Kolubara

I see you've edited the article at hr:, I wonder if you'd compare. Verifiable reliable sources in English seem to be in short supply. We'd like to find some balancing Austrian or Hungarian views to better achieve WP:NPOV. Thanks.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, LeadSongDog.

Thanks for contacting me.
The sole thing I've done on hr.wiki with that article is a translation into Croatian (from Serbian, mostly military terminology), improving of style, and in the other edit, fixing of lines in template (grammar errors).
Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you spare the time to comment on differences between the different language versions or the references in them? Polyglots are in a rather special position to do this. Thanks, LeadSongDog (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No rush, but appreciated when you can do it.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)