User talk:Hambla

This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of Raguseo (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation for evidence.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Welcome!

Hello, Hambla, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --PaxEquilibrium 21:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet & other

I have started a checkuser because I think it has become a very high possibility that you're Uvouvo's sockpuppet.

LOL!

LOL you may - but the suspicion is more than obvious. --PaxEquilibrium 23:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your suspicion your problem.

Yours too, you're going to be banned if it turns out you're a sock. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 23:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pants are shaking.

I do not understand why are you deleting data, just because it's related to Serbs. They took the island as Croatia went into a sort-of civil war by 948.

I don't understand why are you putting "Serb tag" on everything you see.

And I do not understand what you mean by that. --PaxEquilibrium 23:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't understand why you play dumb.

Please stop this child-play

I can't stop what I didn't started. Ladies first.

The Serbian Orthodox Church (refer to the article) was abolished in 1532. Again you remove this just because it's about Serbs.

Source says "Greek Orthodox".

However, that thing was founded in 1832. The SOC disappeared in 1532. --PaxEquilibrium 23:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source says "Greek Orthodox".

Sources are wrong. --PaxEquilibrium 23:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ROTFLMAO!

The correct title of the Bosnian King is Stefan.

No it's not.

Yes it is. ;) Read history on a little bit. --PaxEquilibrium 23:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read history a bit, I don't read nationalist propaganda like you.

All Kotromanics have taken the title directly from the Nemanjics. The title was Stefan. Obviously, you do not. :))) --PaxEquilibrium 23:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the article Stjepan Tomasevic, is that just me or it says Stjepan not Stefan?

Ah, will correct that when I get a hold of his edict (I have of all Bosnian rulers from Tvrtko to Tomas, and they're all "Stefan"s - I saw no reason why should this one have that name, especially when he ruled in Serbia). --PaxEquilibrium 11:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits at Andrija Zmajevic make no sense.

So you say.

Please details. --PaxEquilibrium 23:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Details of what?

That it makes no sense. --PaxEquilibrium 23:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You sure?

Uskoks: Why do you think there is no reason for Serbian?

Uskoks were Croatian rebels, they have nothing with Serbs.

Ever heard of Stojan Janković? --PaxEquilibrium 23:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about him? How many Uskoks were there in Serbia? Uskoks are Croatian rebels exlusively, have nohthing to do with Serbia.

Not Serbia, but Serbs. --PaxEquilibrium 23:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Serbia, Croatia.

Ivo Andric has nothing to do with Croatia, yet he's Croatian. --PaxEquilibrium 11:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matija: "not" and yet you recognize that his uncle was? :)

I don't recognize anything. Andrija and Matija were both Catholics and Croats from today Montenegro.

They weren't. They were Catholic because of Roman Catholic proselitism, originating from the Njegusi Serb clan. --PaxEquilibrium 23:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they were Catholic Serbs only they didn't know about it, right? Stop with the Serb clan shit. No one buys it.

No, they weren't. They were Slavs (Slovini). --PaxEquilibrium 23:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why are putting Serbs?

I'm not. I am putting the Njegusi Serb clan (and clanmen of Serb clans were/are, next to Serbs, Montenegrins, Albanians, Vlachs,...). --PaxEquilibrium 11:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mljet: it is sourced, please do not remove it.

It's not. Mljet was never populated with Serbs and will never be.

Please stop denying the existence of sources. This is plain vandalism. They were taken as far as early as the 7th century, and it was the very last island Serbs owned, up to the 14th century. --PaxEquilibrium 23:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serb owned for a brief period of time, Serb populated definately not.

Right, 700 years is a brief period of time. :))) DAI clearly states that the Serbs use the island for growing food cca 950. --PaxEquilibrium 23:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You sure it was only 700? I thought it was more like 7000, Tokyo the capital of "Old Serbia", right? LOL

Boccan Croats: reasons why you claim them Croats? --PaxEquilibrium 10:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are. Hambla 22:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting answer.

Glad you think so.

Will be reported. This actions are those of an internet troll. --PaxEquilibrium 23:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pot calling the kettle black.

In the end, all your edits have shown 0% interest in Wikipedia, showing absolutely nothing at all (culminating with "Yes they are") and qualify your edits as plain vandalism, hence you are leaving me with no choice but to revert your edits. --PaxEquilibrium 23:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can say the same about you. If you revert me I will revert you. Woop-dee-doo. Hambla 23:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, this child-play is obvious ("Woop-dee-doo"). I will report you. --PaxEquilibrium 23:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go cry to your mommy. Hambla 00:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reported. --PaxEquilibrium 11:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please see WP:3RR. You have broken that rule. You are entitled only to three reverts per day. --PaxEquilibrium 23:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

I've blocked you for following PaxEquilibrium (talk · contribs) around and reverting their edits to make a point. [1] [2] [3] (and more) This is extremely rude and unacceptable behavior. This seems to be a single purpose disruption account, so it has been blocked indefinitely. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]