Sign (~~~~) before you save.
Home
Talk
Contributions
Archives
Make yourself at home....
| ||||||||
Thanksto you too, for helping me about the article. I got a headache for more than a month because of that monkey. Zenanarh 10:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Republic of RagusaFirst, the infobox says that Italian was official, so I went with that. It says that Dalmatian was a vernacular language, but that Italian was, from 1492, an official language (and Latin was official until 1492). That doesn't mean that it was widely spoken, however, just that Latin had become too far removed from the reality of the situation to be useful even as a ceremonial official language by that point. Second, the infobox shows the dates 1358-1808 (the accepted dates of existence of the political entity that we can confidently call the Republic of Ragusa), and so the flags and links on either side must show the direct predecessor and successor states from those dates. Oh, and BTW, do you know what "Republic of Ragusa" would be in Dalmatian? Lexicon (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Administrative languageDIREKTOR, as administrative language, I see mostly documents in Latin, as well as some in Italian in Republic of Dubrovnik, but I haven't seen any official documents in Dalmatoromanic language. ZadarYes, I am being a jerk and attempting to win the argument with sarcasm. We seem to have moved past any rational arguments, if we ever even began that way. I don't know what else to say; we call it "Siege of Zara", and that's that. Adam Bishop 07:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Edits at Republic of RagusaThe sentence you keep changing from Croatia to Dalmatia refers to modern state of Republic of Croatia. So the sentence "The Republic ruled a compact area of southernmost Croatia" refers to the fact the Republic held the teritory which is the southernmost area of Croatia today. Do you understand? -- No.13 11:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Category "Former Towns of RSK 1991-95"Can you please check this matter out and cast a vote. The link for the actual category is here and the discussion and voting is taking place here. Thanks. -- No.13 07:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Warning (or not...?)Direktor, this, what you've wrtitten on Petri Krohn's talk page [1], is discrediting of the user, which is forbidden behaviour on Wikipedia. Kubura 10:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Oh come on, Kubura. People call each other far worse things than "not being indifferent to nationality". I was merely surprised No.13 was accused of being a vandal so I felt I had to say something. Truth is, I don't know anything about that guy... DIREKTOR ( TALK) 12:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Avoid such words. Who are you to judge him? You call him "level-headed", and at the same time you're spreading your POV here. Kubura 12:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Calm down. I did not "judge" him, do you even know what that means? Look I know we have ideological differences but refrain from senseless attacks. Fact is, we are both trying to do nearly identical things, I have been editing wherever there was an infringement of fact at Croatia's expense, just like you. DIREKTOR ( TALK) 12:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Kubura Direktor didn't write anything compromising or discrediting there, he was actually defending me. See defintion for "level-headed" here. I thank him for his kind words. Regards. -- No.13 13:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Split RQMPlease, no hard canvassing from any party. Let's try to reason each point. If you feel the need to get a wider range of views involved, a simple informative note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia or similar Wikiprojects would be acceptable (i.e. "There is a current ongoing debate on whether Split should be turned into a disambiguation page instead of pointing to the city in Croatia."). Regards, -- Asterion talk 18:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
HELLO!Hello Direktor, I' am Pippo Franco (your italian friend),how are you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.53.116.110 ( talk) 15:24:21, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
A note about speculationsHi! We both edited Serbs in Croatia recently. I think you missed a nuance in meaning which I consider important, so please let me explain. Yesterday, there was a sentence reading:
Thanks...for the star! It's half yours ;) Zenanarh 12:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC) No problem, you really did deserve it. DIREKTOR ( TALK) 13:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Look, now this article and my changes. Now article is speaking truth and not how Serbian despots has ruled Slavonia.
Rjecina
17:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
ThanksThanks for trying to talk some sense out of UstashkiDom. We will see how it goes. -- Asterion talk 19:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Chetnik and Italian irredentaYou know the truth as much as I. What sources? Sources to prove that GreaterSerb/Chetnik revisionism is GreaterSerb/Chetnik revisionism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UstashkiDom ( talk • contribs) 19:42, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
Your comment on User talk:UstashkiDomHey, DIREKTOR. Just as a heads-up, I did remove your last comment on UstashkiDom's talk page. I know you probably meant well, but you might have noticed he's got one heck of a short temper, and I'd rather not see the guy blocked indefinitely. Hopefully the block will give him some time to calm down, or something. Thanks, and happy editing. :-) Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 20:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration requestYou have been named as a party in an arbitration request here. Please consider making a statement there. Regards,-- Isotope23 talk 16:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Siege of LeningradDear DIRECTOR, I am an MD from Leningrad, now living in LA, CA. Thank you for your attention to the article Siege, your input is appreciated. However, you changed my line: "Along with the Battle of Stalingrad, the Siege of Leningrad was the most important battle on the Eastern Front, and the deadliest siege of a city in history." Your comment says: Kursk? Bagratian? I believe that you want to improve the article, so I'd like to help you understand the facts. 29 months of the Batlle known as the Siege of Leningrad are comparable in magnitude with 6 months of the Battle of Stalingrad. Each of thoes two giant battles are equally important. Leningrad was the LONGEST PROBLEM on the Eastern Front, exhausting the Nazis in every way: military and human resources, political and moral failure. The losses of about 1,5 million in each of those battles and their duration were greater than any other operation in WWII. The Nazi forces were stopped at Leningrad for 2,5 years, which completely destroyed their ability to move all armies to take Moscow. Hitler's plans were destroyed in Leningrad, then his next plans were destroyed in Stalingrad. Losing Leningrad means automatically losing Moscow, because huge Nazi armies could join the attack on Moscow next day. And that would be the end of war. But the Nazi forces were stopped and were seriously weakened by their failure in Leningrad - THEIR LONGEST FAILURE. That's why Russians had such resistance and tenacity in Leningrad - the city was key to end result, it's control was about victory for either side. That is why the Battle of Leningrad lasted HALF OF THE ENTIRE WAR. It was the strategic key, that was holding many bad problems from happening for the Soviets. Both sides knew that, so Hitler's propaganda tried to downplay their failure in Leningrad. The failure made some Nazi officers want to kill Hitler. Hitler's written invitation to loot the Tsar's palaces and celebrate the victory had documented his big failure. The damage done by the Nazis in Leningrad is impossible to calculate even today, when some of the losses are partially repaired. No other comparable city (about 4 million people with suburbs) in the world had ever suffered such a damage and destruction, loss of human lives, loss of immeasurable values of blown up Palaces, looted art collections (the Amber Room, gold statues, paintings and more). Big industrial infrastructure was destroyed, tens of suburban cities were leveled along with palaces, thousands of suburban homes were looted and burned by the Nazis. The story repeated at Stalingrad, but much faster, because it was a city 6-7 times smaller, than Leningrad in population and industrial power (no valuable palaces or museums). Still military resources and manpower in both battles led to comparable human losses and strategic effect. Each next effort of the Nazi machine was smaller in duration, in human losses, and had a less comparable impact on the outcome of the war. Still very important battles, but they were all AFTER, so sides were better prepared to deal with each next battle. Kursk battle was the last big effort of the Nazis to reverse the course of war, big but still a local battle in the same direction as was Stalingrad (both are way south of Moscow). It was the biggest tank operation in history, albeit still smaller than Leningrad and Stalingrad in general size, duration, human losses and strategic impact. It was between smaller cities than Stalingrad, and much smaller that Leningrad, many tanks in the open field, big casualties, but no precious art destroyed, and overall - too late for the Nazis. The Soviets had 254 thousand killed, the Nazi archives show 165 thousand killed, total number of documented deaths on both sides is under half a million. Many POWs. Still not comparable with Leningrad or Stalingrad. For 2,5 years all other (shorter) battles were swinging the frontlines south of Leningrad and Moscow, and those two capitals were originally the MAIN GOAL declared by Hitler, but the Nazis failed. All other operations were AFTER the main failure. "Bagration" (Prince Bagration was a general who ousted Napoleon) was an operation led by Zhukov in Belarus in the endgame of the war. It was a broad and strategically important operation, but still it was AFTER the other big ones, not comparable to both Leningrad and Stalingrad in its influence on the course of war. Thanks for your participation. Please restore my original phrase, and let's help Wikipedia in every reasonable way, including this one. Regards, Steveshelokhonov 01:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Re: Removal of my editOK, I sincerely apologize. I just thought it was something that vicious troll ( User:Afrika paprika) added. In 1202 Hungary (under King Emeric) invaded Serbia and imposed as Grand Prince its Catholic protegee, a pretender to the throne named Vukan. It then included in its name "King of Rascia" (later turned to "King of Serbia") and it was in the title of the Hungarian rulers actually until Habsburg ruler Karl I stopped ruling the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary in 1918. And Rama, Bosnia (and yes, Dalmatia) and many lands were too usually found in the title of the Crown of St. Stephen. -- PaxEquilibrium 19:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Well, he did rule in 1202, with Vukan Nemanjić as his vassal. It is in 1204 that Stefan Nemanjić ran off Vukan and restored independence. And Ban Kulin was a Hungarian vassal (who acted independently, though), as the Bosnia was introduced into the crown already in the 12th century I believe. -- PaxEquilibrium 20:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Marc PolPlease be patient, the source is well referenced by international scientific literacy. It's coming. I wonder what our gnome is doing here with his kind of discussion... in general... Zenanarh 22:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC) MostarI think you should be interested in this. A user is saying Mostar isn't majority croat even though there are sources to prove it. That user is Visca el barca and he is a sockpuppet. That user has been banned 7 time because of his nationalsit propaganda views. visit category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hahahihihoho —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.134.213 ( talk) 07:29, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Hello, An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Workshop. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 20:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC) We've been reportedLaughin Out Loud pause Laughing Again pause Rollin On The Floor Laughin
IstriaIn your edit "wars" you have maybe forget this Free Territory of Trieste . I have made few changes (question about sources). Rjecina 17:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi DIREKTOR, Regarding your recent edits, consider this as a friendly warning, in place of a short cautionary block. I have protected the article for a week, which should allow you and the other parties in conflict to work out your differences on the article. Please note that it is not my role to rule on any content conflict but to avoid further disruption. Regards, -- Asterion talk 18:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
IstriaPlease try to maintain somewhat more civility when dealing with this topic. There are a lot of hot tempers on the matter, and editors such as User:PIO who aren't following policy, for whatever reason. Also, please don't violate WP:3RR. The best option is to let other editors pick up on something - I've learned that one the hard way, by miscounting and getting short blocks. Michaelbusch 16:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Marko PoloThat contribution of Giovanni Giove you gave me, is an evidence about his anti-Croat attitude, or, in the mildest form, his total lack of information.
Riva?Hi Direktor, I understand you are from Split. Is this the Riva? -- Asterion talk 23:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Herzegovinian RebellionYou do know that all weren't Croats there... right? -- PaxEquilibrium 01:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Serbs of CroatiaWhat the heck is this supposed to mean? You now have me completely confused? -- PaxEquilibrium 16:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Marco PoloCan you give me short version about Marco Polo revert war. My italian sources are telling that he is born on Korčula and that his family is from Dalmatia (or Dalmatian islands) [3] and Italian historian Alvise Zorzi. Ulmost nobody question fact that his parents has lived in Korčula in minimal few months of 1254. He is not from Croatian origins but from Roman-Illirian origins. OK Italians like to say that all Romans in Dalmatia are Italians but this is another story. To finish this story tell me about what is problem and if you need Italian sources which are telling that he is from Korčula or Dalmacija. -- Rjecina 02:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: Alternative solution proposal for the Dalmatia issueI'm very sorry, but given that the two of you have just been blocked for further edit-warring, I'm somewhat skeptical of the idea that it could be brought to an end without the need to restrict your editing. It's not necessarily impossible; but, in all honesty, the two of you would need to come up with some really convincing evidence of peaceful cooperation to bring me around. The other members of the Committee may view the matter in a different light, of course. Kirill 12:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Removal of some additional funeral infoWhy did you remove the additional info on the funeral of Josip Broz Tito? As far as I can tell, it was referenced. DIREKTOR ( TALK) 14:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
|
Sign (~~~~) before you save.
Home
Talk
Contributions
Archives
Make yourself at home....
| ||||||||
Thanksto you too, for helping me about the article. I got a headache for more than a month because of that monkey. Zenanarh 10:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Republic of RagusaFirst, the infobox says that Italian was official, so I went with that. It says that Dalmatian was a vernacular language, but that Italian was, from 1492, an official language (and Latin was official until 1492). That doesn't mean that it was widely spoken, however, just that Latin had become too far removed from the reality of the situation to be useful even as a ceremonial official language by that point. Second, the infobox shows the dates 1358-1808 (the accepted dates of existence of the political entity that we can confidently call the Republic of Ragusa), and so the flags and links on either side must show the direct predecessor and successor states from those dates. Oh, and BTW, do you know what "Republic of Ragusa" would be in Dalmatian? Lexicon (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Administrative languageDIREKTOR, as administrative language, I see mostly documents in Latin, as well as some in Italian in Republic of Dubrovnik, but I haven't seen any official documents in Dalmatoromanic language. ZadarYes, I am being a jerk and attempting to win the argument with sarcasm. We seem to have moved past any rational arguments, if we ever even began that way. I don't know what else to say; we call it "Siege of Zara", and that's that. Adam Bishop 07:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Edits at Republic of RagusaThe sentence you keep changing from Croatia to Dalmatia refers to modern state of Republic of Croatia. So the sentence "The Republic ruled a compact area of southernmost Croatia" refers to the fact the Republic held the teritory which is the southernmost area of Croatia today. Do you understand? -- No.13 11:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Category "Former Towns of RSK 1991-95"Can you please check this matter out and cast a vote. The link for the actual category is here and the discussion and voting is taking place here. Thanks. -- No.13 07:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Warning (or not...?)Direktor, this, what you've wrtitten on Petri Krohn's talk page [1], is discrediting of the user, which is forbidden behaviour on Wikipedia. Kubura 10:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Oh come on, Kubura. People call each other far worse things than "not being indifferent to nationality". I was merely surprised No.13 was accused of being a vandal so I felt I had to say something. Truth is, I don't know anything about that guy... DIREKTOR ( TALK) 12:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Avoid such words. Who are you to judge him? You call him "level-headed", and at the same time you're spreading your POV here. Kubura 12:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Calm down. I did not "judge" him, do you even know what that means? Look I know we have ideological differences but refrain from senseless attacks. Fact is, we are both trying to do nearly identical things, I have been editing wherever there was an infringement of fact at Croatia's expense, just like you. DIREKTOR ( TALK) 12:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Kubura Direktor didn't write anything compromising or discrediting there, he was actually defending me. See defintion for "level-headed" here. I thank him for his kind words. Regards. -- No.13 13:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Split RQMPlease, no hard canvassing from any party. Let's try to reason each point. If you feel the need to get a wider range of views involved, a simple informative note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia or similar Wikiprojects would be acceptable (i.e. "There is a current ongoing debate on whether Split should be turned into a disambiguation page instead of pointing to the city in Croatia."). Regards, -- Asterion talk 18:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
HELLO!Hello Direktor, I' am Pippo Franco (your italian friend),how are you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.53.116.110 ( talk) 15:24:21, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
A note about speculationsHi! We both edited Serbs in Croatia recently. I think you missed a nuance in meaning which I consider important, so please let me explain. Yesterday, there was a sentence reading:
Thanks...for the star! It's half yours ;) Zenanarh 12:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC) No problem, you really did deserve it. DIREKTOR ( TALK) 13:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Look, now this article and my changes. Now article is speaking truth and not how Serbian despots has ruled Slavonia.
Rjecina
17:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
ThanksThanks for trying to talk some sense out of UstashkiDom. We will see how it goes. -- Asterion talk 19:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Chetnik and Italian irredentaYou know the truth as much as I. What sources? Sources to prove that GreaterSerb/Chetnik revisionism is GreaterSerb/Chetnik revisionism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UstashkiDom ( talk • contribs) 19:42, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
Your comment on User talk:UstashkiDomHey, DIREKTOR. Just as a heads-up, I did remove your last comment on UstashkiDom's talk page. I know you probably meant well, but you might have noticed he's got one heck of a short temper, and I'd rather not see the guy blocked indefinitely. Hopefully the block will give him some time to calm down, or something. Thanks, and happy editing. :-) Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 20:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration requestYou have been named as a party in an arbitration request here. Please consider making a statement there. Regards,-- Isotope23 talk 16:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Siege of LeningradDear DIRECTOR, I am an MD from Leningrad, now living in LA, CA. Thank you for your attention to the article Siege, your input is appreciated. However, you changed my line: "Along with the Battle of Stalingrad, the Siege of Leningrad was the most important battle on the Eastern Front, and the deadliest siege of a city in history." Your comment says: Kursk? Bagratian? I believe that you want to improve the article, so I'd like to help you understand the facts. 29 months of the Batlle known as the Siege of Leningrad are comparable in magnitude with 6 months of the Battle of Stalingrad. Each of thoes two giant battles are equally important. Leningrad was the LONGEST PROBLEM on the Eastern Front, exhausting the Nazis in every way: military and human resources, political and moral failure. The losses of about 1,5 million in each of those battles and their duration were greater than any other operation in WWII. The Nazi forces were stopped at Leningrad for 2,5 years, which completely destroyed their ability to move all armies to take Moscow. Hitler's plans were destroyed in Leningrad, then his next plans were destroyed in Stalingrad. Losing Leningrad means automatically losing Moscow, because huge Nazi armies could join the attack on Moscow next day. And that would be the end of war. But the Nazi forces were stopped and were seriously weakened by their failure in Leningrad - THEIR LONGEST FAILURE. That's why Russians had such resistance and tenacity in Leningrad - the city was key to end result, it's control was about victory for either side. That is why the Battle of Leningrad lasted HALF OF THE ENTIRE WAR. It was the strategic key, that was holding many bad problems from happening for the Soviets. Both sides knew that, so Hitler's propaganda tried to downplay their failure in Leningrad. The failure made some Nazi officers want to kill Hitler. Hitler's written invitation to loot the Tsar's palaces and celebrate the victory had documented his big failure. The damage done by the Nazis in Leningrad is impossible to calculate even today, when some of the losses are partially repaired. No other comparable city (about 4 million people with suburbs) in the world had ever suffered such a damage and destruction, loss of human lives, loss of immeasurable values of blown up Palaces, looted art collections (the Amber Room, gold statues, paintings and more). Big industrial infrastructure was destroyed, tens of suburban cities were leveled along with palaces, thousands of suburban homes were looted and burned by the Nazis. The story repeated at Stalingrad, but much faster, because it was a city 6-7 times smaller, than Leningrad in population and industrial power (no valuable palaces or museums). Still military resources and manpower in both battles led to comparable human losses and strategic effect. Each next effort of the Nazi machine was smaller in duration, in human losses, and had a less comparable impact on the outcome of the war. Still very important battles, but they were all AFTER, so sides were better prepared to deal with each next battle. Kursk battle was the last big effort of the Nazis to reverse the course of war, big but still a local battle in the same direction as was Stalingrad (both are way south of Moscow). It was the biggest tank operation in history, albeit still smaller than Leningrad and Stalingrad in general size, duration, human losses and strategic impact. It was between smaller cities than Stalingrad, and much smaller that Leningrad, many tanks in the open field, big casualties, but no precious art destroyed, and overall - too late for the Nazis. The Soviets had 254 thousand killed, the Nazi archives show 165 thousand killed, total number of documented deaths on both sides is under half a million. Many POWs. Still not comparable with Leningrad or Stalingrad. For 2,5 years all other (shorter) battles were swinging the frontlines south of Leningrad and Moscow, and those two capitals were originally the MAIN GOAL declared by Hitler, but the Nazis failed. All other operations were AFTER the main failure. "Bagration" (Prince Bagration was a general who ousted Napoleon) was an operation led by Zhukov in Belarus in the endgame of the war. It was a broad and strategically important operation, but still it was AFTER the other big ones, not comparable to both Leningrad and Stalingrad in its influence on the course of war. Thanks for your participation. Please restore my original phrase, and let's help Wikipedia in every reasonable way, including this one. Regards, Steveshelokhonov 01:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Re: Removal of my editOK, I sincerely apologize. I just thought it was something that vicious troll ( User:Afrika paprika) added. In 1202 Hungary (under King Emeric) invaded Serbia and imposed as Grand Prince its Catholic protegee, a pretender to the throne named Vukan. It then included in its name "King of Rascia" (later turned to "King of Serbia") and it was in the title of the Hungarian rulers actually until Habsburg ruler Karl I stopped ruling the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary in 1918. And Rama, Bosnia (and yes, Dalmatia) and many lands were too usually found in the title of the Crown of St. Stephen. -- PaxEquilibrium 19:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Well, he did rule in 1202, with Vukan Nemanjić as his vassal. It is in 1204 that Stefan Nemanjić ran off Vukan and restored independence. And Ban Kulin was a Hungarian vassal (who acted independently, though), as the Bosnia was introduced into the crown already in the 12th century I believe. -- PaxEquilibrium 20:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Marc PolPlease be patient, the source is well referenced by international scientific literacy. It's coming. I wonder what our gnome is doing here with his kind of discussion... in general... Zenanarh 22:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC) MostarI think you should be interested in this. A user is saying Mostar isn't majority croat even though there are sources to prove it. That user is Visca el barca and he is a sockpuppet. That user has been banned 7 time because of his nationalsit propaganda views. visit category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hahahihihoho —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.134.213 ( talk) 07:29, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Hello, An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Workshop. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 20:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC) We've been reportedLaughin Out Loud pause Laughing Again pause Rollin On The Floor Laughin
IstriaIn your edit "wars" you have maybe forget this Free Territory of Trieste . I have made few changes (question about sources). Rjecina 17:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi DIREKTOR, Regarding your recent edits, consider this as a friendly warning, in place of a short cautionary block. I have protected the article for a week, which should allow you and the other parties in conflict to work out your differences on the article. Please note that it is not my role to rule on any content conflict but to avoid further disruption. Regards, -- Asterion talk 18:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
IstriaPlease try to maintain somewhat more civility when dealing with this topic. There are a lot of hot tempers on the matter, and editors such as User:PIO who aren't following policy, for whatever reason. Also, please don't violate WP:3RR. The best option is to let other editors pick up on something - I've learned that one the hard way, by miscounting and getting short blocks. Michaelbusch 16:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Marko PoloThat contribution of Giovanni Giove you gave me, is an evidence about his anti-Croat attitude, or, in the mildest form, his total lack of information.
Riva?Hi Direktor, I understand you are from Split. Is this the Riva? -- Asterion talk 23:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Herzegovinian RebellionYou do know that all weren't Croats there... right? -- PaxEquilibrium 01:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Serbs of CroatiaWhat the heck is this supposed to mean? You now have me completely confused? -- PaxEquilibrium 16:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Marco PoloCan you give me short version about Marco Polo revert war. My italian sources are telling that he is born on Korčula and that his family is from Dalmatia (or Dalmatian islands) [3] and Italian historian Alvise Zorzi. Ulmost nobody question fact that his parents has lived in Korčula in minimal few months of 1254. He is not from Croatian origins but from Roman-Illirian origins. OK Italians like to say that all Romans in Dalmatia are Italians but this is another story. To finish this story tell me about what is problem and if you need Italian sources which are telling that he is from Korčula or Dalmacija. -- Rjecina 02:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: Alternative solution proposal for the Dalmatia issueI'm very sorry, but given that the two of you have just been blocked for further edit-warring, I'm somewhat skeptical of the idea that it could be brought to an end without the need to restrict your editing. It's not necessarily impossible; but, in all honesty, the two of you would need to come up with some really convincing evidence of peaceful cooperation to bring me around. The other members of the Committee may view the matter in a different light, of course. Kirill 12:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Removal of some additional funeral infoWhy did you remove the additional info on the funeral of Josip Broz Tito? As far as I can tell, it was referenced. DIREKTOR ( TALK) 14:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
|