Archive 1 - Edits on "SC language"
Archive 2 - Srijem issues
Archive 3 - W.Herzog, Stjepan and Montenegro issues
Archive 4 - Cro-Ser questions, very interesting discussion, many topic being opened/touched/resolved
Archive 5 - Some Doclea and Dalmatia issues
Archive 6 - Farsi, Diego, NHL, Stjepan
Archive 7 - Republic of Dubrovnik, Haydn, various
Archive 8 - Mostly vandalism dealing, Zadar, Mikalja
Kubura, opet pokušavaju preimenovat "Split" u "Split, Croatia" i stavit ga u split (disambiguation). Ideološke razlike na stranu, pokušavam to spriječit i ako si protiv toga, dobro bi mi došla pomoć na talkpageu, hvala. DIREKTOR 04:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
See Illyrians Later usage of the term - section, please Zenanarh 20:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Naš stari prijatelj Giovanni Giove opet probaje promjenit sva imena u taljanski i ubacit da je taljanski bia službeni jezik. Ako nisi prezaposlen dobro bi mi doša neko za pomoć. DIREKTOR 20:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not saying I would not like to see the Republic of Ragusa article changed into Republic of Dubrovnik, what I am saying is that that is impossible because the country is called the Republic of Ragusa in English. The same way Hrvatska is not called "Hrvarska", but Croatia. This has nothing to do with Italian, but with the Latin name of the city (in Dalmatian it is also Ragusa). I won't revert your change of Ragusas to Dubrovniks, but I appeal to your common sense, that you please undo it yourself, because we are getting the appearance of radical nationalists due to this. I would also like to remind you that the English have different names for cities in different historical contexts, "Ragusa" is simply the name their historical science uses for the period of the Republic. In any case please let's first just concentrate on getting rid of our friend Giove here, to do this we need to be moderate. DIREKTOR 16:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Dobro bi mi došlo kad bi iznijeo svoje mišljenje o našemu priajtelju gioveu na Administrators' noticeboard/incidents, tamo sam ga prijavia za mijenjanje i editanje tuđih (uključujući tvoje) commenta na Request for Commentima šta ih je posta. Šta me više ljudi podrži to bolje. P.S. Pišem na Hrvatski jer giove i Brunodam uporno čitaju sve što napišem, pa neka sada guštaju. DIREKTOR 22:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You stated in an example for removing Yugoslavia on a football player that you will discuss when someone puts in that Karađorđe was born in Turkey. That would be a factual error to say so, he was however born in the Ottoman Empire and the second paragraph contains that information. Your edit was reverted. Evlekis 12:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
You have been named as a party in an arbitration request here. Please consider making a statement there. Regards,--Isotope23 talk 16:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed your message today; I've been working on Croatian wikipedia these days, so I was few days off en.wiki.
You've caught me by surprise. At least, you could announce this RfA to me, so I can plan my time. If you have send this message a week later, I'd be on vacation, and I wouldn't be able to see nor write/respond anything. At least, you should wait for my notification "I'm informed about RfA", and than "the time can go" (usually, as I know, notified users have to notify that they saw the message about RfA, otherwise, RfA fails, as I saw on some cases here).
One important thing. I think you should report... no, you must put the article Jakov Mikalja on that RfA also.
It's exposed to heavy vandalising and edit-slaughter by user:Giovanni Giove (edit-slaughter: while opponents respect the rule "don't do anything on the article till consensus made on Rf..", at the same time, vandal-slayer freewillingly and with attitude "who-cares-for-idiots-that-obey-the-rules-and-do-nothing", edits the article the way he wants it to be, or POV-ize it). Recent edit without discussion is [1], and after user Zmaj's revert (note: rv back - user Giovanni Giove reverted the edits of a total of 8 editors), he again made his actions [2]. Both his actions were made Aug 27. Of course, he gave no explanations on talkpage. I can copy this on RfA, wright?
Now, to business.
How many times do I have right to give statements on that RfA case? Or, how many time do I have for statement? It'd be fair if my time counts from today, Aug 27, 17:17.
Thanks for patience while reading this. Sincerely, Kubura 15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The case of Giovanni Giove on administrator's noticeboard /incidents is archived here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive289. Kubura 15:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
(notification to Zenanarh)
Do you know that user Brunodam had a sockpuppet, that he used for edit-warring?
Here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Brunodam.
I'm telling you to have this in mind, to let you know that he's prone to do such things.
I'm notifying you, because you and Brunodam have intersections of interests; you're a party concerned here, and there's a chance that you'll have problems with his editwarring and sockpuppetry.
So, if you notice something suspicious, if somebody gets into edit wars on the article (and always "someone new" jumps in to save someone from violating 3RR rule), have in mind whome you're dealing with.
Especially when these "newcomers" have particular interest in same articles... and their interventions are theirs only contributions. First edits, and already edit-warring. Kubura 07:33, 28 August 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)
Many others states are having local notice boards so that interested users can know everything about article problems (edit wars and similar). This way we like Serbian, Hungarian users will know when there is problem in article and we will not fight alone revert wars. It will be nice if you will send this message to other users which write about Croatia or Croats. Rjecina 18:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
List of Croatian Americans, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of Croatian Americans satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Croatian Americans and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of Croatian Americans during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Leuko 18:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
User:PIO, or a close associate, has been editing under these IPs, which are all in the 151.33.**.** block owned by Italia Online, continuing agitating while claiming to be 'unlogged for technical problem' [3]. Under 151.33.89.84, PIO made various person attacks and repeatedly removed warning messages from the IP's talk page.
Using these IPs, PIO has many times exceeded WP:3RR on Istrian exodus.
Such use of IPs, particularly when they're all involved in the Istrian exodus dispute, is a serious violation of WP:SOCK. PIO has also been accused of being a sockpuppet of User:Jxy, but claims that they are 'friends who use the same computer'.
Note that User:DIREKTOR has been heavily involved in the Istrian exodus controversy as well. However,given the amount of flak PIO and associated IPs have given, I'm impressed by DIREKTOR's restraint.
Hope this helps. Michaelbusch 23:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
On the Marco Polo ethnicity RfC (on the Marco Polo talkpage), Giove insists on constantly posting this apalling statement:
* The idea of a Croatian nationality was developed after the 1840s, in the time of the Romantic Nationalism, 600 years after Marco's dead. In the XIII century, Croatia was a small possession of the Hungarian Crown, quite far from Curzola (which anyway retained a population of romance language). In no case Marko could be called "Croat". --Giovanni Giove 11:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I keep removing it and explaining to him it is simply fundamentally incorrect and very offensive, but he constantly restores it. I was wondering if you could take a look... DIREKTOR 21:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
It seemed rather redundant to me at the time. My apologies. --Jesuislafete 19:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with you. It should be a place of peace here; sorry if my tones appear aggresive, I hope you know that I never wished to become enemies with you. That's partly the reason I briefly discussed the Croatia-EU topic with you some time back; conscious civilised talk, that was all. I also agree that the edit war has gone on a little too long, and it seems to be ignored by admins. It maybe that they see how long you have been here, and how long I have - and have decided that we know the rules of the game and should be able to solve disputes without interference. Naturally, I don't know as much asbout the Saborsko chapter as you do, it was after all you who introduced the article. It certainly makes every contribution of yours very important. When we revert each other, it seems that we blank out a whole host of minor edits from here and there, some maybe minor and grammatical, others more sinister. As I am writing to you, the other user Paulcicero has reverted you. Let me assure you that this is not a sockpuppet of mine; you need to take my word for it because I really cannot prove it to you. But as a gentleman, I am not using additional accounts on Wikipedia; I publish as an anon occasionally if I have not logged in etc, but those edits are minor. Back to the massacre, I think we can resolve each edit piece by piece. I will now make an edit to the introduction so that it is not made to sound softer than it was. I hope it will be more agreeable for you. I will also refrain from "reverting" once you have adjusted the article to how you wish for it to be; but for the bigger issues, such as the ICTY, we'll discuss those on the talk page itself. I think we can find a way of strengthening the article to look good, and be agreeable for all of us. Puno pozdrav. Evlekis 08:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
KUBURA I ASK YOU TO APOLOGIZE, for the accusation of sockpuppetry.--Giovanni Giove 15:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Giove is now editing Republic of Ragusa. He once again claims Italian was the official language, with no sources at that, can you do something about this? DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Molija bih te da mi se javiš u svezi nikih stvari. vezano za Dalmaciju , Iredentu i sličnu tematiku na en.wiki.
javi mi se preko moje adrese na stranici! --Anto 20:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
You mentioned [4]., which is indeed inexcusable, and I will say so, but please also see [5] and [6]; true there is also [7] and [8]--and a good deal else from various people. I warn you as well. I suggest you refer just to the edits, and never to each other, and certainly no using each others' names or mentioning each other's ethnicity. ethnicity. It will help a little. Restricting the discussion to this particular event will also help. I'll keep watch.
Talk:Zagora_(Croatia)#Serb_exodus
You either can't read or are truly, extremely obsessed by Serb propaganda seeing it where there are no Serbs. LOL, man. :))) --PaxEquilibrium 18:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't play dumb. You've inserted this [9].
You obviously don't read the material I gave you on wiki, on few places. Kubura 13:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Neznam, čini mi se da oni stvarno jemaju prav' kod imenaDubrovnika, ovo trenutno je englesko ime za tu državu, i ide po vikipravilima. Al' neka, ne smeta ;D ...
More bit da i uspije ovi move, al' neće ti to oni ostavit na miru, bojin se. DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Malo si manje ovdi od mene, a i puno manje si pročita od mene. Ne želin strašit sa babarogama, i pi*dit bezveze, ali ja vidin podle igre. Nisi ti vidia kako su sve izgledali članci. To je bila obist i izdivljavanje u njihovim željicam.
Danas su podmukliji i lukaviji, pa neupućeni in lako nasidnedu. Ali ja vidin puno veću sliku, pa se ne dan priveslat.
Primjerei: Spominjanje nas Hrvata se izbigava ili umanjiva, a nazočnost ovih drugih se priističe i priuveličaje. Malo šaljivo ću ti reć: godišnje su nekad, kroz čisto hrvatske krajeve, jednom ili dvaput prošli dva kamiona iz Srbije sa gudinima, i ovi ti to odmah prikazuju ka' njihovu vikovnu nazočnost. Vratimo se na ozbiljnu priču. I onda, šta će inozemac pomislit? Da nas nima nikako ondi, da šta mi hoćemo, još će ispast da išćemo višje nego nas zapada.
You're less here than I am, and you've read less than me. I don't want to scare with boogie-man i bulls*it around, but I see perfidious games. You haven't seen the articles the way they looked before here. That was orgy of their wishie-wishes.
Today, ther're more perfidious and more clever. Those who don't know things easily buy what they say. But I see the "big picture", so they cannot fool me.
Examples: Mentioning of us, Croats, is being avoided or decreased. The presence of those others is overaccentuated and overpresented. To say it in comical way: during Yugoslavias, once or twice a year, two trucks from Serbia (that were selling pigs) would pass through purely Croat inhabited areas. These new smartas*es from en.wiki find that as reason to say that they were always present here. Now, let's get serious: what would foreigner think? That we weren't there at all, that what we want at all, someone may think that we want more than we're supposed to get.
Open your eyes. Kubura 13:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
If I do not make mistake you are very interested about Dalmatia so you will be interested about anti-Croatian edits in article Vrlica. This is easiest way to show you changes [10] . I have reverted today but in my thinking user:Kukar will revert again. My demand for administrator intervetion has been refused ..-- Rjecina 20:26 13 October 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention. Yes, i reported it and that IP was blocked or even still it is. Have a nice day. Laku noc. --Koppany 20:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Giovanni Giove and DIREKTOR are each subject to an editing restriction for one year. Each is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kubura, I'd just like to turn your attention to the Marco Polo article's Birthplace and ethnicity controversy subsection, there are basically two problems here:
Thnx, DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, will you lend a hand with the matter? DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You're right, of course. The "Korčula theory" is a valid historical theory wich has not been disproven in any way (see [12], for example). I'm trying to ensure our "friends" don't make it sound like we're saying Polo was an alien from outer space.
Get this sentence, for example:
DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Just have a look at the subsection ([13]), its turned into a regular POV-fest. You can see a short list of the problematic statements of fact on the talkpage of the article. The scientifically accepted concept of Marko Polo (possibly) being Korčulan is riddiculed and discredited with weasel words.
Should you decide to give this a article the benefit of your attention, please read the discussion concerning the problematic statements (in two short sections, here [14], and here [15]). DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
LoL!! Ja se zajebajen cili dan da reportam giovea, a ti si ga već reporta prije dva dana! U svakom slučaju pokaza sam arbitratorima šta je bilo i Newyorkbrad je reka da će ih požurit tamo u Administrators oticeboard/Arbitration enforcement da šta prije riješe tog lika. DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
If you do not cease to insult me you will be properly reported. --Giovanni Giove 11:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Go on, Giove.
When you go to admins' noticeboard, don't forget to send them my greetings, and don't forget to explain them this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Giovanni_Giove.
Have you forgot what was told on the RFARB? Kubura 14:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Kubura, Giove was blocked for six days I think. Why are you saying the admins took no action, I'm confused... DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you lend a hand with the Split article? Basically I wonder if you know how to remove the annoying "[[Image:|200px|none|]]" text from the new "city infobox" I implemented? DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured as much. I will try to find a map simmilar to the Zagreb article map. Could you lend a hand? DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Probably the fact that I live there. I don't contribute to Wikipedia that much anymore so I might as well remove it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keaze (talk • contribs) 15:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I am POV about this but category of this article is Political parties in Croatia ??? They are in category with modern parties of Croatia !! Problem is that I do not know how to delete this category.... Rjecina 18:00, 21 November 2007
I've never heard of them as a political party. They were the political movement. Kubura (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't get it...why is there even a revert war going on for this and the Voćin massacre page? You should contact the admins, you definitely have sources to back up most of your claims, this shouldn't even be happening. Is there something going on that I am missing (besides the fact that the user automatically reverts anything you write)? --Jesuislafete (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:Giovanni_Giove/personale
AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha! In an earlier 'contribution' (Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (4th)) he was on about me being your sockpuppet. If you and I are really the same person, can you lend me 100 euros till next week? Promise to pay you back, honest... :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
You should check this out too. Apparently we are "Barbarians":
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:Giovanni_Giove#Thatcher131
AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I saw your contributions here earlier. This article is totally destroyed. It should be restored at last version before removing Iranian theory. Gothic and Avar theory were empty, I can edit it. Iranian theory was too long it should be shortened but not removed. What do you think? Zenanarh (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I will try and translate that article in a week or so. Right now I am in the middle of university finals so I apologize if I can not do it too quickly. Nokhodi (talk) 07:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Kubura (or one of your sockpuppets), you are a Croatian nationalist who believes that even in Wikipedia can be done the crazy Balkan wars! Only ridiculous Croats can go down to "Stamp" level and see Italian irredentism menaces on simple stamps!! Your lies are astonishing: you started the attack on Giove in the Italian wiki, successively you wrote to many admins against him until you got him irritated with your group and finally you got him "banned". Now is it my turn? What else in the future....? Tito times are gone, open your fanatical eyes: Croatia is going to be part of the European Union, even if you don't like it! And within the European Union all the opinions (and even our Italian opinions) will be democratically taken in consideration (in one way or another) by the "European Croats" in the future. Be sure of this, even if you don't like it. From today I am no more going to deal with you and your group of fanatics. But I will monitor what you and your group do with the Dalmatian related articles and notify (with precise references about your changes) the authorities & the serious admins of Wikipedia.--Cherso (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that was related to a name change. I don't mean to give you an equivocating answer, but I am not at all familiar with that user. If the situation is as you describe, I have no objection to tagging the user page appropriately. -- Cecropia (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Good work for finding that edit and undoing it. Really, these irridentists are unbelievable. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
If you have little time can you look my new article because of my poor english. With his edits Prevalis has really helped this article.
Has anybody checked if user Cherso is puppet of Giove ?--Rjecina (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy New Year to you too buddy. Whoever this guy is (my bet is it's GG) he's a fanatic, and needs to be watched. I'll write something in support of your report on the noticeboard. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
...čime je sirotica zaslužila tako oštre riječi? Morao sam staviti POV tag, možda da malo ublažiš ili dokumentiraš svoj dodatak? I inače u članku nema referenci osim na njene radove. Plantago (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Kubura, I hope that you are fine. I would like to make it clear to you that our actress Mara Croato is not "of of Croat origins", therefore please refrain from adding such comments on her biography. Thank you and have a nice day. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
You wrote:
Listen, her father is Tony Croatto.
It wasn't me who gave the info that his father is of Croatian origins.
For your information, westernmost parts of Croatia were in areas that were after 1918. given to Italy (peninsula of Istria), after the division of Austria-Hungary.
After the Mussolini's fascist became ruling party in Italy, authorities started with violent Italianisation of area. There were fascost laws, that regulated the forced Italianization. Laws, in which "funny Slavic names" (beside others) were forbidden and was ordered to "restore them in original Italian form". (e.g. "Regio decreto legge 10 Gennaio 1926, n. 17: Restituzione in forma italiana dei cognomi delle famiglie della provincia di Trento").
Many Croatian surnames were violently Italianized then. Same was with surname Hrvatin (it literally means - Croat). Here's location of that village on fallingrain.com [17].
So, I don't understand you. How do you think that she cannot be of Croatian origins? Why do you find that categorization as problem? Kubura (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
My reply:
This is not about what you, nor I nor what some other person may believe. Wikipedia is about "facts" which can be verified with a reliable source. I believe that you are aware of that.
We cannot assume that the Croatto surname was of Croatian origins nor that it originated from the Hrvatin nor that it was Italianized by Mussolini's government. It is not our job in Wikipedia to assume. Unless, a verifiable source is provided and cited as required by Wikipedia policy that the Croatto surname is of Croatian origins or that Tony or his daughter Mara have themselves publicly expressed the fact that their surnames are of Croatian origins, then it will be considered a "rumor" which is unacceptable under policy.
To give you an example, we cannot pretend nor assume that because Mark Cuban's surname is "Cuban", that it is of "Cuban origin".
You ask and I state:
1. I am not saying that she cannot be of Croatian origins. You provide a cited a verifiable reliable source where she states that "she" is of Croatian origins or that without a doubt that the Croatto surname is of Croatian origin and the issue will be solved.
2. I do not find categorization a problem. I find categorization of what is assumed without a cited verifiable source as "required" by policy a problem.
Tony the Marine (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I am interested to hear your thinking. Today I have started to delete all edits of this user and his puppets during time when they have been banned. Yes you know this user under name user:Velebit and user:Purger but I like to use this name (which he has choosen). My question for you is if I am right (wikipedia rules) to delete his edits during time when he has not been allowed to write on wiki or not ? --Rjecina (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Just as a fair warning, I have started an ANI complaint against your disruptive !votes on the RfA page.Balloonman (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there anything that can be done about poor Vrlika's page? It has been sabotaged over and over; any help would be appreciated. Hvala. --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)