Jump to content

User talk:Factanista

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Hello Factanista! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Alternatively, feel free to ask me on my talk page as well. :) Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, it is strongly encouraged to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you associate with Wikipedia and its community. Happy Editing! —Mirlen 04:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Middle-earth WikiProject[edit]

Hello, Factanista!

Thank you for your contributions to a Tolkien-related article. If you are interested, feel free to join WikiProject Middle-earth, a WikiProject focused on improving Tolkien-related articles in Wikipedia. We would be glad to have you join in the effort!

Here're some good links and subpages related to the WikiProject.

If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to ask on our talk page.

Thank you for your contributions and have fun editing! (Your edits to The Silmarillion-related articles were very helpful; it's always nice to have another Sil-interested editor around Wikipedia ^^.) —Mirlen 04:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, we don't bite. ;) As long as you read the guidelines and policies, I think you'll be fine. If you need any help around Wikipedia, feel free to ask me! Or if you want to just stop by and say hi, that's fine too. —Mirlen 22:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I signed up for WikiProject Middle-earth and I'll look around...hopefully you will be patient with me. :D --Factanista 04:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I promise. :) —Mirlen 05:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien terminology[edit]

Hey there, could you give your comments considering this issue here? (I'll even hand out free chocolate! ;) Surely you can't resist that...^^) It's about standardizing terminology usage in Tolkien articles, so it's crucial and a consensus is needed. Thanks! —Mirlen 05:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy! —Mirlen 22:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As promised. Thanks for replying! :) —Mirlen 22:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Thanks. ;)--Factanista 00:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Digitalized/cyber chocolate, who can resist? It just can't compare to the ones in real life, right? ;) —Mirlen 02:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop[edit]

If you will go on to vandalise my contribution I will report you to and administrator. I remebere you that there is a standard rule for historic names, so "Sabbionciello" is correct (article Giovanni Luppis). It was in use under the Republic of Ragusa (official languge was Italian) and under Austria. Don't insist to impose unsupported theories on Marco Polo. You must give sources for your thories. Stop with others edit war, with no discussion.--Giovanni Giove 23:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do report me. All the administrator will be you enforcing your POV and erasing links while putting non-existant ones. There is no article named "Sabbionciello" there is one called "Pelješac". Personally I don't see what is your problem there since both names are up. As for Ragusa the official language was not Italian it was Latin while the common language was Croatian(also referred as Slavonic or Illyric). --Factanista 16:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied[edit]

The response's there. --PaxEquilibrium 19:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply soon, don't worry. ;) --Factanista 19:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know - I'm just used to a quicker pace and just remindin' ya. :) Cheers! --PaxEquilibrium 00:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glorious struggle against Vandalism[edit]

According to this article's history, it has been repeatedly vandalized in recent time. This is classified as plain removal, and is to be as per Wikipedia:Vandalism reverted on sight and reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, or any administrator on notice. --PaxEquilibrium 19:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it seems I shall have to look into it. Thanks once again. --Factanista 15:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Np. If you need anything at all, please, don't be a stranger. Cheers! --PaxEquilibrium 19:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tesko je[edit]

Tesko je nesto prominit na Wiki u vezi naseg marka. Bolje i pametnije je pustit taljane namiru. Mene to muti kao i tebe, jer nije fair. Nije nikakva propaganda na nas racun nego bas njihova propaganda da je bio samo talijan. Borio sam se i ja kao ti. Gurao da se baren spomeni neke verzije (kako pise na drugim webstranicima) da je ipak moguce da je covjek bio dalmatinac pa i cak slaven po krvi. Kao evergreen kaze, Columbo ima 4 verzije, Spanjolac, Taljan itd... pa zasto nemore Polo imat baren dvije.

Nestima to taljanima jer su izgubili columba, vecina misle da je bio spanjolac. A sad da je polo bio nas mora da isto ih dira haha. Ja mislim da je to razlog. To su ipak dva velikana.

Vidit ces i sam da ima i mali broj srba koji mecu edit na sve hrvarske stranice, to je bio problem jer ovde moze svak minjat kako god on hoce. Vecina srba ovde su realni i dosta su fair, naprimjer Pax i Panonian su najfairiji. Ima mali broj drugih koji nisu ...ali sta mozes. A ima i nasih tako o Tesli da je hrvat a njihovi kako si boscovich i andric srbi. Gluposti ali neko dode to krivo, negdi je citao i nemoze to brisat iz glave. Isto ti taljani koji ne razumio da su hrvati minjali imena i spadali pod venecijion.

Pozdrav iz Australije Jagoda 1 02:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hvala. Nije problem u tome jel Polo bio Talijan ili Hrvat (moje misljenje jest da je ocito da nije bio nijedno) nego u tome da se u clanku odrazava neutralnost. Polo iskreno govoreci i nije bas toliko vazan za Hrvatsku i hrvatsku kulturu, stovise uopce ni ne postoji nikakva tradicija o njemu i njegovoj bilo kakvoj povezanosti s hrvatskim krajevima...barem u smislu kakvo bi neki zeljeli, iako je vjerojatno bio korijenima iz okolice Sibenika i Korcule. --Factanista 15:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Factanista, navrati na hr.wiki.
Za Paxa i Panoniana... neću se složit sa Jagodon. Profinjenijeg su ričnika, ali ideje su im druge.
Vidin, i ti si se sria sa talijanskim iredentistima na wikipediji i njihovim svojatanjima. Kubura 09:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sreo sam Paxa, Pannoniana nisam. Sto se tice ovih Talijana meni se cini kao da je to sve jedan user...doduse mozda dva ali cini mi se da imaju dosta klonova. Na hr.wiki odem tu i tamo, nisam registriran al' napravim koju izmjenu tu i tamo. Planiram jednom kad budem imao vise vremena preveti neke clanke i prebaciti ih ovdje na en.wiki. Pozdrav. --Factanista 15:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Koje ideje? Drukcije od koga?:) --PaxEquilibrium 11:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Treba neko da napravi neutralan clanak za Marka Pola. Ima mnogo dokaza da je mozda bio Hrvat i to se govorilo u ona vremena ne samo sad. Nije neka nova politika vjeruj meni. Istina je nije on bas potreban nasem narodu, niti je nase bas briga da ga preuzmu sebi. Ima istine i to se treba pisat, isto kako neki kazu da je Colubus bio Talijan , pa mozda i Spanjolac itd...to nije nitko izmislio --ima proof da je moguce. U vezi Paxa i Pane..decki su dobri, nemaju oni bas Srpski pov. Jagoda 1 21:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

request[edit]

Hello! I`ve got one request for you. I collect words in various languages. Now I`m looking for word "sugar" in other languages, but I can`t find an Andalusian dictionary. I`ve got counterparts of word "sugar" in Japanese, Ahmaric, Thai, Georgian and Chinese, so can you write me what is "sugar" in Bunjevac language? I`ve got this word in 383 languages and dialects of many regions and countries in the world so it is very important for me! Thank you very much! Szoltys <talk>

It's the same as in Croatian or Serbian - 'šečer'. Pronounced as 'she-cher'. 'she-' as in sheriff and '-cher' as in cherry. --Factanista 15:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

See [Template:User slav] - since you already have one your own. --PaxEquilibrium 20:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know about it. There is another one too which I had at first but I don't like either of those, thats why I decided to make one of my own. ;) --Factanista 20:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jel?[edit]

"and I will report you for 3RR and vandalising"

Pa ti mene ne možeš prijaviti za 3rr, jer ga ja nisam prekršio. Iako je komplikovano popunjavati taj formular za prijavu 3rr, prijaviću te u toku dana sigurno samo da malo budeš blokiran i da oladiš malo jajca od tog nacionalizma. PANONIAN (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mogu, mogu, I ti si ga preksrio. I o kojem ti to nacionalizmu pricas? Pa ti i Estavisti ste ti koji inzistirate da je hrvatska verzija njegovog imena "netocna" i "kroatizirana" sto je cisti POV i nacionalizam. Ajd smiri zivce i popij tabletu. --Factanista 17:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several notes: 1. Yah can't report him - he did not brake the rule and 2. That's not vandalism, but content dispute. Just a reminder of wiki-rules. Cheers! --PaxEquilibrium 18:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We shall see. This is classic content dispute as I understand it. --Factanista 18:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please stop to violate 3RR repeatedly, after several warnings. Please read the rule (I reported you, I'm sorry but I'm here only to fulfill wikipedia's policy). Cheers and hope you're not angry. --PaxEquilibrium 19:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I cannot. This is a content dispute. I find it unfair that you are trying to enforce this POV while I am being reported and I am sorry that you decided to go along with Panonian and Eastivisti with this. I considered you rational, maybe I was wrong? And no I am not angry, why would I be? --Factanista 19:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not even in the dispute. I only tried to orchestrate a compromise between the two warring sides (you on one and PANONIAN and Estavisti on the other). What do you mean "you cannot"? You cannot follow rules? --PaxEquilibrium 19:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was not a compromise, thats the same thing formulated a bit differently. And no I cannot follow rules in this instance. When three different users are trying to enforce POV and it is obvious that I need to break 3RR rule as I am in disatadvantage. --Factanista 19:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm sorry, at least I tried! :) I didn't think that my version was POV as well. You don't understand the 3RR - you simply have to follow it - or you will be blocked from editing the Wikipedia, my friend... --PaxEquilibrium 19:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well your version is POV. The article needs to follow wikipedia rules and if Wikipedia can cite Italian version of Rudjer Boskovic's name then it can cite the Croatian version of Josif Runjanin. As for 3RR I will take my chances, I consider it cleaning up of the article. --Factanista 19:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you fully understand - you must follow it. This is not a guideline. This is a policy. Why should you even bother to edit then? You will be blocked and your version reverted - securing the victory of your wiki-enemies. Is that what you want? Just play nice and all will be nice. --PaxEquilibrium 19:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Play "nice"? What does that mean? Does it means I have to accept disinformation and POV? Anyway 3RR project page says clearly that 3RR does not apply when there is a content dispute and/or revert of vandalism is in question. The situation with Josip Runjanin article is just that. --Factanista 20:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does refer to content disputes - and that's what's going on over there. It's Josif Runjanin article, not Josip (Josip Runjanin's a redirect). What disinformation? "Playing nicely" means following the rules - and nobody gets hurt. --PaxEquilibrium 20:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me quote you an excerpt from the project page: Please also be aware that this page is not the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behavior — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. We have a dispute resolution procedure which we recommend you follow. If you bring such disputes here, we will usually advise you to take them elsewhere, such as mediation, requests for comment, or requests for arbitration. We really do mean this; this is not the page to bring up accusations of bad faith, or POV pushing. --Factanista 20:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - the rule does not cover lodging appeals for that - what it is for however, is filing 3RR violation reports. The injunction you violated. --PaxEquilibrium 20:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 3RR is not for settling edit-war and content dispute. When one (like me) is cleaning up POV and vandalism this rule is not to be applied...as per explanation on the page. --Factanista 20:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have misunderstood the rule... this is exactly what the policy is for. To prevent edit warring. There is no "Cleaning up POV", and I repeat, the argument was a content dispute and not vandalism. Why do you think they invented the rule? To prevent the things that you have been doing. That which you cited is an explanation why such things shouldn't be reported on that page and not what doesn't count. Do you understand? --PaxEquilibrium 21:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dobro ajd ti meni odgovori sto vama Srbima tocno smeta kod toga da se njegovo ime na hrvatskom referira kao 'Josip'? Ajd samo to mi objasni? Sto vam to tocno smeta da u zagradi (i u clancima o Vinkovcima i hrvatskoj himni) stoji i njegovo ime na hrvatskom? Ako mogu i drugi clanci imati slicnu formulaciju (kao npr. Janus Pannonius ili Princ Eugen Savojski) zasto ne bi to mogao imati i Runjanin? Jel vam toliko smeta hrvatska verzija? Ajd samo mi to objasni? Pravite se neutralni a zapravo se svi jako dobro poznajete i podupirate, prozirni ste ko najlon vrecice...ajd postedite me vise. Jebo vas Runjanin i sve...stavite si koju god verziju hocete, mene vise nije briga... --Factanista 21:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ne znam da li ste imali u vidu da "vama Srbima" moze nekoga da vrijeđa.. no dobro. Ako mislite na mene - ne, ta kako mi moze smetati? Ivan Česmički je bio Hrvat, što Josip Runjanin nije bio. Evgenije Savojski je bio habsburški đeneral, u vojsci gdje se govorio njemački - a sam je cijeli svoj život govorio njemački. No, ni to nije slučaj kod Runjanina. PANONIAN živi u Vojvodini - ja ne, dok estavisti-ja baš ni ne znam. Vaše optužbe su neosnovane... --PaxEquilibrium 22:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pa ne bih se bas slozio da je cijeli svoj zivot Eugen govorio njemacki, to je zblja neosnovana tvrdnja. Njegov jezik komunikcije je vjerojatno bio vecinom vremena njemacki dok je bio u Habasburskoj vojsci ali to ne znaci da je on zaboravio svoj materinji francuski. Usto kako to mislit to nije slucaj kod Runjanina? Pa i sam Runjanin je sluzio u toj vojsci i takodjer je vrlo vjerojatno (100%) da se i on sluzio njemackim jer je to bio jezik komunikacije u toj vojsci. Po onoj logici da hrvatski nije bio sluzben onda i njegovo srpsko ime nema smisla buduci da se on rodio u toj istoj Habsburskoj Monarhiji i sluzio u toj istoj vojsci. Iz prilozenih primjera vidi se da neki ljudi imaju svoje verzije imena u vise jezika i to uopce nije nikakav problem. Ja nikad nisam ni tvrdio niti cu tvrditi da je Runjanin Hrvat, ono na sto cu inzistirati jest da njegovo ime ima i hrvatsku verziju jednako kao sto Princ Eugenovo ime ima i njemacku verziju. Nadam se da se sad napokon razumijemo? --Factanista 06:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pa, da; trebalo bi dodati njemacko ime Runjanina.. --PaxEquilibrium 11:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Why have you removed the tags?[edit]

I have answered each and every question of yours a long time ago. I reminded you and you said you will answer me. Then I waited some more and added to the talk pages that you're not replying (while obviously active) and waited some more. Then (now) I removed the tags. I apologize if you considered that unorthodox, but that seemed the reasonable thing to do. --PaxEquilibrium 19:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - you forgot to answer, right? --PaxEquilibrium 20:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There - I re-replied. --PaxEquilibrium 20:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There - sorry for these tiresome notes, but since you forgot the last time... :D --PaxEquilibrium 21:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ma znas sto napisi ti tamo lijepo i da su Kralj Tomislav i Petar Kresimir IV isto bili Srbi i ne samo to nego da su bili srbende veci od najveceg....ionako me vise nije briga..... --Factanista 21:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hej, molim Vas, to vrijeđa! Mogao bih da napisem da su Tomislav i Kresimir bili Srbi - no to nigdje ne pise (a i nije istina), pa zato i neću to napisati. Nemojte se opuštati, ta svi smo mi bili blokirani bar jednom!!! Congratulations on your first block!!! :D Ostanite, svaki korisnik (pogotovo iz srpsko-hrvatskih krajeva) je domalo neophodan projektu. Bog! --PaxEquilibrium 21:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon, bio sam isfrustriran i ono je bio moj post vise iz frustracije i ljutnje nego iz iceg drugog. U svakom slucaju volio bih da dodjemo do nekog konsenzusa na spomenutu temu, nastavak slijedi na talk stranicama spomenutih clanaka...cim budem odblokiran naravno. --Factanista 06:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Np. Zahtjevajte deblokiranje onda. --PaxEquilibrium 11:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reminding you about the Principalities again. :) --PaxEquilibrium 23:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'll get on it. Though I will probably not answer you until tomorrow. It's kinda late now. --Factanista 23:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad. I don't think I'll have much free time tomorrow... --PaxEquilibrium 23:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits[edit]

I have blocked you for 48 hours for violating the 3RR, and also because the pattern of your edits show that you indulge far too easily in edit-warring. Also, I was unfavourably struck by the ease with which you accuse other editors of vandalism in content-disputes; that is in open violation of WP:CIV. You are welcome to return once the block expires, but you must understand that you must make an effort to mend your ways, as such edit-warring is simply unacceptable. Cheers,--Aldux 21:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My "edit-warring"?!? This is the first I was in any dispute like this and it wasn't even started by me. Are you going to tell me you will support people who enforce POV and vandalize articles and who obviously all work together? I can't believe this...
Oh and 48 hours?!!?! --Factanista 21:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not vandalism, that's a content dispute. Please differ the two. And yes, it is you who started the edit war.
48 hours because you made 9 reverts, when the limit is 3. And, you continued to revert after 4 warnings of 3RR and that you may be blocked, and then with full conscience complied that you understand the rule and that you will ..take your chances anyway. Don't you think you deserved it? --PaxEquilibrium 21:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I didn't deserve it. I was reverting POV and incorrect information and I was fighting against two obviously collaborating users and it is me who gets blocked....svasta... --Factanista 21:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, request unblock if you think you didn't deserve it - no one's stoppin' yah. However, anyone who broke the 3RR rule (and that is, with all due your respect, You) deserves it... so.... --PaxEquilibrium 21:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I don't think I will. I must say I am very disappointed in all what has happened today. I thought Wikipedia is about fairness but it's not, it's about quantity over quality, it's about who has more power over who is more neutral and rational. I do not consider myself an epitome of neutrality but I always stride for utmost neutrality and objectivity and honestly I sometimes go so far to even torture myself (mentally) if I wrote something that is a bit harsh, biased or incorrect. I will strongly reconsider my further participation on Wikipedia as I have better things to do than "play" around with people like Estavisti, Laughing Man, Giovanni Geove, Hahahihoto and the rest of the bunch..... --Factanista 22:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Hahahahihihihohoho has been eternally blocked from Wikipedia, so if that makes you happier... They played nice, and arbitration request was drawn and Hahahihihoho got banned. Please do not lose your spirit. Your edits are indeed constructive; and you're more use to the Project than bad for it. --PaxEquilibrium 22:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please![edit]

Be advised not to leave offensive and meaningless messages on my talk page!!!

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Factanista 15:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC) --GiorgioOrsini 00:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O Pani i Paxu[edit]

Panonian i Pax jesu Srbi i sigurno obo dvoje imaju i citaju webstranice i knjige itd, koje imaju jak Serb Pov. To je sasvin normalno jer su Srbi, to je njima pred ruci....imam i ja knjiga i webstranica sto ima Cro Pov itd... Ja sam isto mislio kao ti da su oni dvoje malo zestoko za Srb Pov...ali sad vidim da su neutralni. Zasto??? Mozda je razlog jer oni su happy sto je sad na Wiki..mozda njima je sve to ok ali za Hrvate nije. Nevidim njih dvoje di minjaju stare articles. Opet mozda njima se svida sto pise na Wiki.

Kako ja vidim ovi su ok..ali ima budala sa jedne i druge strane koji rade bad edits.

These 2 guys are ok..trust me.

God Speed Jagoda 1 02:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I understand that but I don't understand why Runjanin's name for example which is the main reason of our dispute is so problematic. As I said it's common practice that certain men had more than one version of their names (in couple of languages) and Runjanin was one of them. We have an example in Nikola Zrinski, a Croatian noble, who is known in Hungary as Miklos Zrinyi. I as a Croats don't see this problematic. We have Prince Franz Eugene of Savoy who was born as Francois-Eugene in France but later became general in Austrian army and was also known as Prinz Eugen von Savoy. It was common practice and so I don't see whats the big problem in accepting this. --Factanista 05:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not oppose your suggestion for Runjanin... However your comparisons are somewhat wrong. Miklos Zrinni was a Hungarian noble/soldier and Franz Eugene a Habsburg General. --PaxEquilibrium 11:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS Giovanni hoce da se pripires snjime...zaziva bezveze. Pusti ga namiru. Estavsti nije bas tako los...neznam ga puno ali kako vidim nije bas neki zestoki Serb Pov. Covjek je sigurno proud serb, nista wrong with that.

U vezi Marka Pola, drago mi je vidit (ako si ti to editiro na toj stranici) da se ipak spominje da je moguce da je bio on Hrvat. Pise da je moguce na mnogo mjesta na webu itd,,, govorilo se i to treba da Wiki pise. Sad nije Taljnima drago (Giovanni) ali nemozemo brisat povjest..ako se zna za to, treba da se pise i ovde. Vjeruj meni i oni to znadu i brisu da niko ne sazna danas. A mozda su i brisali i una vremena. Nebi se iznenadio. Dokaza ima i treba ih spomenit, nista nije to Cro propaganda. Tajani to su vadalisti na toj stranici.

Boscovich je bio Hrvat 50% i Talijan 50%, da je Srbin i barem 20% su gluposti. Jagoda 1 02:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me who wrote that about Polo, I only added that he was "presumably of noble origins from Sebenice(Šibenik) and Curzola(Korčula) in Dalmatia" which can be substantiated and was mentioned before.
Anyway can you please do me a favor? Report this "GiorgoOrsini". He keeps removing content from List of Croatians and the very sentence I mentioned above from Marco Polo and that has been characterized as vandalism before and not by me (Pax made it known to me). As I am currently blocked I think it would, obviously, be good that someone else does it...I am really tired of this guy. Thank you. --Factanista 05:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get involved in an edit war over Marco Polo. As for Giovanni he has done many edits on Croatian related articles. He should be blocked but he has a right to his opinion. Look at Ivan Lupis for example. He says Ivan Lupis was Italian origin while on the other hand he doesn't accept a possible origin of Marco Polo as Croatian. Contradiction and heavy Italian pov but again that't his view. I would't worry too much what's on Wiki...many other places show that Marco Polo did have a link with Croatia, either by blood or by birth. Everyone knows Wiki is open to edits so no need to read things here as fact...just popular opinion.

Take Care

Jagoda 1 21:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock lifted.

Request handled by: Misza13 21:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:A bit of help please[edit]

I'll see what I can do. Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 23:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. However, the best thing is to simply as any administrator, if you feel like filing boring formulars is something you don't really have time to do. --PaxEquilibrium 23:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, I checked that page but it says I need to warn him first. I did but he erased it so I am kinda worried that if I do report it will be dismissed because I failed to warn him prior. I also thought about reporting him to some admin, the thing is I don't know any admins. There is Mirlen but she deals more with Tolkien related stuff. --Factanista 23:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
!!! Removing/deleting warnings (when they're justified) is a violation. Excuse me, but I'll have to take care of it. --PaxEquilibrium 23:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blah, blah, blah[edit]

Hmmm.. ne znam otkuda mi da je Ante iz Smiljana... No, ajd da zavrsimo vise svadje oko Travunje-Konavlja/Zahumlja/Duklje/Paganije. --PaxEquilibrium 12:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mozemo mi to odmah zavrsiti ali s kompromisom. Mislim stanje kakvo je sada je cisti POV, jednostavno ne vidim opravdanje za pravljenje neceg sto nije bilo, a te spomenute sigurno nisu bile srpske knezevine. Nemam nista protiv sadrzaja ali protiv formulacije i nekih tvrdnji definitvno da i one su u suprotnosti s politikom Wikipedije. --Factanista 22:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pa to, to; ajmo da sto prije preuredimo clanak. Vidim da provodis gomilu vremena mijenjajuci razne clanke, a uopce se ne posvjecujes Sklavinijama... --PaxEquilibrium 23:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ma problem je sto mi je to vrlo zamorna tema, onako teska. Nakon svake replike treba mi rehabilitacije od soka bar dva dana. :) --Factanista 23:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Np. Milosevicevo sudjenje je trajalo 6 godina (i nije se zavrsilo). Cijele ove godine pregovaraju o statusu Kosova. Trebale su godine za donosenje ustava Srbije. --PaxEquilibrium 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== Other names ==[edit]

Why do you want the Hungarian and German names on the pages of Croatian cities? Neither language has a majority or even a significant minority in the cities, so I don't understand why they need to be there. Just because Croatia was ruled by the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, does not mean we still need to have traces of their names for our cities. There are hundreds of thousands of Croatians that live in Germany, I don't see Croatian names listed on German pages. --MilaLika 21:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not "want" them. They are simply there and should thus be shown as well. It's part of Croatian history so I don't see why would that bother you. --Factanista 22:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I removed these name versions. I did left and explanation in Osijek article because Osijek once had rather large German minority (in fact it was a majority) and the Hungarians still call it by their version. As for Djakovo you are right, I don't see a reason because it never had any significant Hungarian minority so I removed it compeletely. As for Beli Manastir I left it due to still large presence of Hungarian minority and due to rather controversive history about of the name. --Factanista 22:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almost no Croatian city articles have Cyrillic (Serbian) versions of their names - not even Knin would have if I didn't add. :))) --PaxEquilibrium 23:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is because Cyrillic script is not legal in Croatia and also due to the fact that most (if not all) cities are spelled same in Serbian as in Croatian. --Factanista 23:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you accidentally used wrong wording. "Not legal" means "illegal". If you are referring to officialism; where is Greek, Latin, Hungarian or whatever official? And just like you said - there are exceptions. --PaxEquilibrium 16:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cyrillic is simply not officially regulated for use and is thus "not legal", that is what I meant. --Factanista 17:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, neither is Latin, Greek, Hungarian or Italian (although the latter is indeed somewhere). By the way, come to Dalj, for instance; there is a Cyrillic inscription "Welcome fo Dalj". --PaxEquilibrium 22:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again[edit]

You have been blocked for renewed edit-warring, including skirting the 3RR with 5 reverts in 25 hours on Marco Polo, and more revert-warring on other articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 02:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I wasn't edit-warring and I certainly am not involved in any edit-warring now. As for your claim of "skirting" the 3RR rule with 5 reverts in 25 hours that is just ridiculous and the difference is over 25 hours (almost 26h). That is not breaking of any existing rules on Wikipedia and I have certainly deserved better. Furthermore you refused to block a certain user I reported who clearly broke the 3RR and has been involved in the edit-warring on the Josip Runjanin article for a very long time and has recently on the very page (3RR project page) insulted me personally (challenging my understanding of English?!). --Factanista 03:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gaming the system (with the extra edits just past 24h) would be seen as a 3RR vio -- Tawker 08:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't "gaming" anything, if you look carefully at my edits they are simple reverts of the removed content by various members. They keep removing the content without any explanation and despite the fact it is substantiated with evidence. --Factanista 17:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you've clearly been edit-warring, and have shown little understanding of WP:V, which says that "any edit lacking a source may be removed". And when you add a source, remember to respect WP:RS.--Aldux 11:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I was edit-warring so was Estavisti who also recently broke the 3RR and you did nothing and continue to do nothing. As for Marco Polo article I didn't broke any rule and I have been merely reverting and bringing back the removed parts of the article (which is still being removed) which is generally considered vandalism, yet I get blocked. --Factanista 17:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? No, please stay![edit]

--PaxEquilibrium 13:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree[edit]

Jagoda 1 02:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Croatians[edit]

Hi! In response to your message, I have contacted User:GiorgioOrsini and left them a message. Please read it as well (sorry, I don't feel like repeating/spamming), since I believe you are not without fault in this what seems like an edit war. I encourage both of you to resolve this matter by means of dispute resolution on the article's talk page. Thank you, Misza13 20:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia (in WW II)[edit]

Bok. Nisam htio odgovarati na Talk:Croatia, da se ne uključe drugi i ne započnemo nekakav edit war o broju žrtava u WWII. Premda se slažem s tvojom izmjenom moje rečenice (ja sam, dok sam bio €ro, stavio navedenu brojku), već je jednom napravljen revert slične formulacije, čak puno konkretnije (pogledaj povijest). Zato sam i stavio, zajedno s poveznicom na izvore koji su službeni, "up to ...". Ovako, "many" - ne kazuje puno. Ajde, barem stavi moju poveznicu, ili se referenciraj na službeni članak WWII- Casualties, gdje je zadnja fusnota posvećena upravo problematici Juge. O cijeloj priči pogledaj, molim te, i članak o Vladimiru Žerjaviću, kompletno sam ga preradio, pa me interesira što misliš, ako imaš vremena. E, da, nešto sasvim načelne prirode. Poštujući Wiki bonton, ja sam sugerirao izmjenu i ostavio je na Talku da se kiseli par dana, da ne bi bilo flejmanja, a tek sam onda promijenio. Plantago 19:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem u brojkama koje si ti stavio (i neki drugi takodjer) su da se radi o cistim procjenam, dakle nedokazive su. Stovise imamo i sluzbene podatke SFRJ koji nisu ni blizu tim ponekad daleko pretjeranim procjenama. Samo stavljanje tih u vecini slucjeva jako dvojbenih brojki je cisti POV pa zato u clanku koji zapravo nema veze s tom temom nije uopce potrebno unositi te gluposti i praviti problem nego treba jednostavno spomenuti te dogadjaje i gotovo. Naravno slazem se da se moze referencirati na clanak o zrtvama 2. svj. rata ali kao sto rekoh ovaj clanak nema bas puno veze s time, a uostalom postoji i clanak koji se bavi time. Nadam se da se slazes? Namjera mi nije bila nista drugo do neutralnosti. ;) --Factanista 20:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Naravno da se slažem, u potpunosti. Vidjet ćemo da li će se i drugi složiti. Plantago 13:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ed[edit]

Pitaj Paxa..on ima 9,000 edits na njegove ime...ja nemam ni 4-5 haha. Neznam uopce kako se to radi.

Slusaj, i ja mislim kao ti, mislim da ima puni POV na Wiki i dode dana kad bi se i ja ostavio ovog sajta... Ali svaki put kad sam isao, posjetio sam opet ovaj sajt i opet vidio neku novu nepravdu. Zato je tesko ostavit da neki mute svoje lazi na Wiki. Razumis? Narod ipak cita ovo i glupo se pripirat. Ja mislim da Panonian i Pax zele kao mi da bude sve istina na Wiki, samo treba pomalo dokazat njima da nije sve kako oni misle. Imaju Srpski Pov ali nebi reko da je totalan, dosta su 50/50 na stvarima. To mi je dokazao Panonian u vezi Boke itd....


Jagoda 1 22:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS Evo tek sad vidim da je Pax isao na neki odmor. I njemu je dosta ovog Wikija hahaha Jagoda 1 01:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed tag?[edit]

Why did you return the tag to Travunia and said see talk when you said nothing at the talk...? --PaxEquilibrium 18:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will, don't worry. --Factanista 19:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nada Klaic[edit]

I personally do not consider her a very prominent historian, but rather second-class. She appears to have written with a lot of passion and Bosnian patriotism; looking for example at her historical maps alone - well, some are totally unreliable. See this - a map of Tomislav's Dukedom. --PaxEquilibrium 10:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find her rather objective on the whole matter. I don't see anywhere this so-called "Bosnian patriotism" you are referring to. --Factanista 12:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She seems to be impressed by Bosnia itself, and undermines always Croatia and/or Serbia. You did not answer - do you find that map objective? --PaxEquilibrium 17:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do find that map objective....to a degree. The only thing I don't agree with it is that the area (It seems like a triangle actualy) between the rivers Sava and Vrbas and northern border of "Kraljevska Hrvatska" was ambigious territory but was actually also part of Croatian kingdom. --Factanista 18:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. You should see the other maps. --PaxEquilibrium 22:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No... a far better comparison of A. Starcevic is Ilija Garasanin rather than Karadzic... although yet again not to that far extent. --PaxEquilibrium 11:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. --Factanista 12:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Not really"? What, are you claiming that he was much more extremer than Vuk - or less that him??? --PaxEquilibrium 17:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that Garasanin was far more extreme than Starcevic was ever. They cannot even be compared. --Factanista 18:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see how. Ilija expressed his Serbian nationalistic feelings in a far better sense, seeing the Balkans as "Balkan Balkancima" - a loose confederacy of Serb, Croat, Greek, Albanian and Bulgarian nation-statehood. Ante on the other hand did not forge intricate plans of liberation of the Balkan peoples, but was just obsessed with Croatian nationalism alone (and even anti-Yugoslavism - totally contrary to Garasanin's Pan-Slavic patriotism); Garasanin also wasn't a racist at all (his bad opinions about the Muslims were actually expected, contrary to Starcevic's extremist opinions); Ilija G. also didn't express anti-semitic feelings, but worked with many Jews himself. --PaxEquilibrium 22:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Garasanin pan-slavic patriot? LOL!!!! Thats a joke. Garasanin is the ideological father of today Serbian radicals and extremists as he was the one who said basically all South Slavs are Serbs. Calling Croats "Catholic Serbs" or Bosniaks "Muslim Serbs" etc. is not done by any valid pan-slavic patriot. Starcevic never made one racist remark, the man was a legalist and politician who advocated for Croatian statehood right, meaning the right to be indepdedent and to have their own state and political autonomy. Claiming he was anti-semitic is ridiculous since one of the main people in his party was Josip Frank, a Croatian Jew. --Factanista 23:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like your latest actions. Some say that by supporting you at Joseph Runyanin's article, I fed a troll (wikipedia's policy is not to feed the trolls). You sneakily removed Bosnian and pushed Croatian to the first place at the Kosaca article. I think that you just showed your true motives (especially considering that it's very unlikely that there ever were Croats who're Orthodox Serbs). Please, what's going on? --PaxEquilibrium 11:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sneakily removed? What are you talking about? All name versions are there. --Factanista 12:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Ah you mean the 'House of Kosača' article...I only polished it a bit and thought it will not be a problem. Well since it bothers you I reverted it to the old version prior to my changes. --Factanista 13:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the necessity to apologize. I've been far too rude in my last post. But I also must re-criticize - what is "polishing" when you removed totally "Bosnian" and then pushing the Croatian name? You have also expressed some weird beliefs (are Orthodox Serbs = Croats?). That, your constant edit-warring and the fact that your wording at the Talk pages we've been discussing has went far beyond civil, make me doubt very, very much about your good intentions. --PaxEquilibrium 17:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but that is just not true, I didn't touch the name. I made the article say that they are Bosnian-Herzegovinian noble family and that they are sometimes claimed to be of Croatian or Serbian backround. I think that is quite clear and ambigious. Now since it bothers you I reverted it to the status quo. And what do you mean "my constant edit-warring". Where am I "constantly edit-warring"? And what about your "good intention"? What about your POV on articles Pagania, Zahumlje and the rest? I have far more reason to doubt your "good intention" then you mine....after all it was you that reported me for the first time although it was clear that Estavisti and Pannonian were as much "edit-warring" as I was. Similar thing happened on Marco Polo where I haven't even broke any of the rules. I have far more reason to doubt the good will of some members here.... --Factanista 18:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for WP:3RR[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Francesco Patrizi. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Francesco Patrizi).

— Nearly Headless Nick {L} 15:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why am I blocked for 7 hours longer? --Factanista 15:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because you have a history of edit-warring, incivility and disruption. Blocks are supposed to be preventive; and I hope you will understand that revert-warring is not-productive at all and you will be blocked for longer periods, in case you switch to edit-warring again. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 15:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a history of "edit-warring" because I was doing exactly what I did with Giovanni Giove...I was reverting his POV changes. What do you suggest I do next time when a user like him who avoids all discussion and accepts only what suits him alone? Should I let him do it? Also you might want to check him, I have a strong feeling that the User:GiorgioOrsini is his sockpuppet. --Factanista 15:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what you think, you indeed have a warmonger history - be it a lawful Paladin, or a cunning Thug - and that is not acceptable. --PaxEquilibrium 17:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So how should I deal with such people if not by reverting? What else is there? --Factanista 18:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps discuss on the talk page of the article? Invite other users who might be possibly interested in joining the discussions. Invite a neutral party to mediate? File a WP:MEDCAB request? There are many ways, and can be done peacefully. If you are patient and nice to everybody; they will assume good faith with you. Also, spamming user talk pages might not always be a good idea, perhaps you could post a note on the talk page of the WikiProject or notice-board the article is related to, or send out emails. Yours truly — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 06:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll see if that works. --Factanista 11:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re[edit]

Not true? Are we being sneaky again? Please see this edit of yours. You replaced They are often claimed to be Serbs, but also of Bosnian or Croatian background. with They are often claimed to be of Croatian or Serbian background. Me reporting you has nothing to do with "edit-warring" - but the prevention of your further edit wars. And sure, PANONIAN and Estavisti were edit-warring too - but have a reputation of an edit warmongeror. My record is "clean", technically-speaking - and I expressed good will, you however constantly edit-warred and made very sneaky edits like this one and many, many others. --PaxEquilibrium 21:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said for me that sentence doesn't have sense so I polished it thinking it will be ok, obviously it was not...seems like it is very important for you that it says they are often consider Serbs as opposed to stating they are sometimes consider to be of Serbian background...which is essentially the same thing. If you reported me due to "prevention" of edit-warring why didn't you report Estavisti and Pannonian as well? Instead you placed yourself on their side...which is IMO not a surprise but then you shouldn't pretend like you are neutral when you are not. I have not been constantly edit-warring nor have I made any "sneaky" edits and my record speaks for itself. Btw. what exactly is Serbian about Pozze-Pucić family? --Factanista 22:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and please do not address me here anymore. We can talk on Pagania or Travunia talk pages where we shall discuss our dispute but here I don't have nothing else to tell you anymore. You have proven yourself to be extremly hostile to me. --Factanista 22:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no can do - you get blocked all the time ;). --PaxEquilibrium 23:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See...you are extremely offensive and hostile. And then you pretend you are not...I mean this is just disgusting behaviour... --Factanista 23:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What mostly ticked me off was your removal of "Bosnian" completely. Then I thought a little why you moved "Croatian" to the first place and "Serbian" to the last. Tell me, does that really not tell you anything? I reported you because you broke 3RR. Estavisti did not brake the 3RR and not did PANONIAN; however if they did, I would of course report them as well - it is my duty.
What removal? It clearly said "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" nobility, where did you see this removal, in what alternative reality was that? You reported me because you worked together with Estavit and Panonian. --Factanista 23:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In case you didn't notice, I opposed their version and supported yours - but that obviously doesn't matter to you... and here you accuse me of being hostile to you. You should ask yourself a big question - is the error of the world around that you get constantly blocked and warned - or do you need to look for the answer within yourself?
Opposed them? ROFL...you reverted my changes to their version more than once, what are you talking about? --Factanista 23:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A better question would be what is exactly Croatian about the Pozza? Their most prominent member, Medo Pucic (Orsatto di Pozza) was a Serbian nationalist. He was the mentor of prince Milan Obrenovic (the future King) in Belgrade and his works are among the best of the Serbian romantic lyric works. In his many "Poems" he glorified the "Serbdom" of Dubrovnik and invited the unification of all Serbs (Serbian unification or Greaterserbianism?), literally crying for Serbia's "liberation" of the "Old Ragusa". He also wrote the history of the Serb people in two volumes (from 1395 to 1423). He was a member of the Serbian Dubrovnik Society and is known by his greatest Poem to Karadjordje. He is also famous for "More" and "Zivot" - the two poems that have achieved wide-scale Serbo-Croat fame. They are amongst the first Ragusian nobility (since the 13th century) and also the very last of the "old noblemen". The other members like Niko weren't prominent enough, but they all shared their common thing - Roman Catholic religion and Serbian nationality. --PaxEquilibrium 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should have write this on the discussion page not accuse me of "sneakily removing" content. I saw Dubrovnik nobility, I saw Croatian categories on the article and then I saw the supposed Serbian version so it seemed logical to remove it as there was nothing speaking of any connection with Serbia. What am I a psychic? --Factanista 23:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hrvatstvo Bunjevaca[edit]

O Hrvatstvu Bunjevaca. I nije za vrijeme Milosevica, vec demokratske vlade poslije njega. Oni nijesu "vjestacka tvorevina Srbije" - sada su dobili slobodu da se izjasne nacionalno ono sto jesu - ta sloboda ne postoji, primjerice, Makedoncima u Bugarskoj, Muslimanima u Bosni, Sokcima i Bunjevcima u Hrvatskoj ili cak svim neGrcima u Grckoj. --PaxEquilibrium 20:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ta tvoja Sloboda=financiranje a zauzvrat odricanje hrvatskog nacionalnog identiteta. Molim te postedi me srpske propagande. Kao Šokac i manjim dijelom Bunjevac smatram tu vasu propagandu odvratnom i uopce me ne zanima. Zato kao sto rekoh postedi me. --Factanista 20:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Molim da se oslobodis tih "nacionalnih generaliziranja" (vi, mi); i ja sam (jednim majusnim) dijelom Bunjevac - a ako ides tim tokom, onda mozemo slobodno ici kako su Crnogorci hrvatska, a Makedonci srpska "komunisticka izmisljotina". --PaxEquilibrium 21:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ne ne mozemo "slobodni ici" da su Crnogorci i Makedonci "komunisticka izmisljotina". Bunjevci, Sokci, Janjevci, Boduli...to su sve "pod-etnicke" grupe koje su se uvijek izjasnjavle kao Hrvati i kao takvi ce ostati bez obzira na vasu velikosrpsku propagandu. --Factanista 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ovo je licni napad.
Prije komunistickoga perioda Bunjevci nikada nijesu bili smatrani Hrvatima, primjerice (iako su dovoljno bliski da budu). Dakle "velikosrpstvo" je negiranje velikohrvatstva... vrlo zanimljivo. Tvrdite li da nema ljudi koji se izjasnjavaju kao Bunjevci i da ih nikada nije ni bilo? A sto s Crnogorcima? Da li isto tvrdite i za njih? --PaxEquilibrium 21:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Netocno, itekako su bili smtrani Hrvatima i ne samo to nego su se smtrali Hrvatima. Velikosrpstvo je sada vec stoljetno nijekanje hrvatskog identita Hrvatima (Bunjevcima i Šokcima) u Vojvodini. I sto s Crnogorcima? Niste li vi ti koji tvrdite da su Crnogorci Srbi? Dobro da mi nisi poceo pricati da su Hrvati zapravo "katolicki Srbi". Inace obrisah tvoje gluposti o tzv. "licnoj uvredi" jer to nema veze s icim slicnim.
Ako cemo tako, onda mozemo reci Crnogorci su se smatrali Srbima. Pa tu je i stoljetno nijekanje srpskog identiteta u Crnoj Gori (poznato kroz nacionalisticku ideologiju Crvene Hrvatske). Ako su se smatrali Hrvatimo - sto onda nijesu navodjeni pod "Hrvati" prije 1944 godine? --PaxEquilibrium 21:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
U jednom periodu da, recimo da prije kasnog 19. stoljeca Crnogroci nisu poznavali pojam "Srbin". Drugo ja nikad nisam ni rekao da su Crnogorci Hrvati...zbilja ides iz krajnosti u krajnost. --Factanista 21:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nijesi ti - ali drugi jesu. Smijesno je to sto tvrdis, pogotovo zbog Petra Petrovica Njegosa koji je zivio u prvoj polovici 19. stoljeca. A prije njega, glavari su pisali "s ponosom" i kroz 17. stoljece. No i prije, to je tvrdjeno i kroz srednji vijek (razni medieval-nacionalisti nalik Ivanu Crnojevicu)... pa tu se i dalje produbljuje... no previse ima da bismo o tome pricali... a da nijesu poznavali pojam, "Srbin" bi bilo isto kao tvrditi da u Zagorju nijesu znali pojam "Hrvat". :) --PaxEquilibrium 22:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prije doticnog spomenutog Njegosa nije bilo nijednog pisanog dokumenta koji je spominjao ikakvu vezu Crnogoraca sa Srbima, dapace izvori govore da oni nisu znali za pojam Srbin. Stovise i slavene u Hercegovini i danasnjoj juznoj Srbiji su nazivali jednostavno "krscanima" dakle nisu imali etnicke odrednice. Inace tvrdis da nisi Srbin a retorika ti je identicna onoj Srpskoj....pa cak na trenutke i nacionalisticka. --Factanista 22:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pa, nalik vasoj o Bunjevcima. ;) Ne vidim sebe u nacionalnosti - ali povijesti srpsko-hrvatskih naroda su mi duboka strast, pa je neizbjezno. Dobro - no da citiram Petra I iz druge polovice 18. stoljeca: "Vodeca uloga u restauraciji Srpskoga carstva pripada Crnoj Gori". On je inace stvorio plan o stvaranju Srpskog Carstva sa prijestonicom u Dubrovnik na teritoriju Dalmacije s Bokom, Crne Gore, Brda, okolnjih 8 okruga, Hercegovine i Bosne ciji bi car bio Ruski car a Petrovic-Njegosi suvladari. No i prije, ime je vrlo "poznato" kroz cijelo 18. stoljece. Mogao bih reci (kao ti) da sada negiras srpski identitet i da kazem kako ti (eh, vase velikohrvatstvo, bla, bla) ali necu - jer to su besmislene nacionalisticke uvrede. :) --PaxEquilibrium 22:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nije ni slicna. Crnogorac je uz etnicku i regionalna oznaka slicno kao Sumadija, Vojvodina, itd., a Bunjevac je pod-etnicka oznaka za odredjenu skupinu Hrvata, slicno kao i Sokci, Boduli, Janjevci....vec sam to rekao pet puta ali cini se da ti to nikako ne ulazi u glavu. A "velikohrvatsvo" ne postoji, ono je izmisljeni pojam da bi se izjednacio sa pojmom 'Velika Srbija' koje su srpski nacionalisti sami izmislili i koristili. --Factanista 22:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! So you're one of those claiming that there's no Greater Croatia, but yes Greater Serbia. Isn't that POV? For instance, Greater Croatia was realized in the history - but greater serbia - never ever. You also never heard of the Ustashas, HSP, Ante Starcevic or (to an extent) Franjo Tudjman? The things you say are cliche... and I heard them many times from Afrika paprika and others like him... --PaxEquilibrium 22:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ne, ja ti govorim da je pojam "Velika Hrvatska" izmisljen kao pojam i pandan "Velikoj Srbiji" koji je legitiman pojam koristen i izmisljen od strane sprskih nacionalista. Isto tako ja nemam veze s tim Afrika papriko ili kako vec. Zbilja je smijesno kako stalno izvrces moje rijeci, zar te toliko ugrozvam? Ili imas nekakvih drugih problema? Inace zamolio bih te jos jednom da mi se vise ne obracas....stovise ako nastavis pocet cu brisati tvoje gluposti sa svoje talk stranice, zbilja si ga sad prekrdasio. --Factanista 22:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Dujo Markovic (Bunjevac) je bio pravoslavac - no kasnije je pokatolicen kao i mnogi u Backoj. --PaxEquilibrium 21:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
E ajd postedi me...sad ces mi jos pricati i o nekakvom pokatolicavanju...tipicno. --Factanista 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
O cemu Vi pricate? Znate li vi uopce tko je bio Dujo Markovic? I tvrdite li da u povijesti nijedan nekatolik nije postao katolik ovako ili onako? Da li ste svjesni sto tvrdite? --PaxEquilibrium 21:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dosadan si. Uopce me ne zanima tko je bio Dujo Markovic niti me zanimaju tvoje fantazije koje nemaju veze s bilo cim a ponajmanje s ovom toboznjom raspravom. Iskreno moram reci da me pocinjes me ozbiljno zivcirati. --Factanista 21:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Da li si ti svjestan sto ti govoris? --Factanista 21:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Da... da je Dujo (jedan Bunjevac) bio pravoslavan prije pokatolicenja. --PaxEquilibrium 21:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Da i? Koja je poanta? Zelis li reci da zato sto je bio pravoslavac nije mogao biti Hrvat ili porijeklom Hrvat? --Factanista 21:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doduse, rado bih odricao hrvatski nacionalni identitet - no ne samo njega, vec i sve ostale, kako vise ne bi bilo nacija. Vjerujem da ce u bliskoj buducnosti svi misliti da smo fasisti zato sto imamo popise stanovnistva po nacionalnosti. --PaxEquilibrium 21:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Da, trebalo bismo se praviti blesavi da nema etnickih grupa pa bismo bili u istom loncu sa Francuzima, Svedjanima, Grcima koji imaju ogromne probleme sa imigrantima i doseljenicima. --Factanista 21:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Govorim za cijeli svijet. --PaxEquilibrium 21:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mozes ti govoriti i za cijeli svemir, to je cista utopija. --Factanista 21:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pa to mi i pise na stranici - ja jesam utopist. :) --PaxEquilibrium 22:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Na stranici ti pise da si otisao. Steta zbilja sto to nije istina.... --Factanista 22:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petar I and other[edit]

There is a lot about the "Serbdom" of the Montenegrins - and yet it would be highly POV to consider them as Serbs (at least those who self-identify as ethnic Montenegrins)... it's a lot deeper than just 19th century as you present. I'm trying to show a parallel here with Croats-Bunyevs --PaxEquilibrium 22:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 48 hours. Here are the reverts in question. This is also for List of Croatians, Francesco Patrizi and An­drea Meldolla. Nishkid64 19:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet[edit]

You argued how I insulted you when I said that you may be the sockpuppet of User:Afrika paprika - and yet - it has been confirmed through CheckUser... read: I have been trying to get you unbanned. Anyway, if that's the way you want it... then bye, I guess. --PaxEquilibrium 17:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed in what way? How can it be confirmed when it's not true? I've explained on that very page where you listed me as supposed sockpuppet of this person "Afrika Paprika" that all T-Com Croatian ADSL users have an identical generic IP awarded to them (starting with 89.172.) each time they log on. There is no way you can confirm this but to trust a person. Now ask yourself why would I go on and appeal if I am this person? Wouldn't I just log off and evade the block as that person is obviously doing? This is ridiculous. --Factanista 20:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW where have you been "trying to get me unbanned"? Ridiculous...you were trying to get me banned from the first moment I questioned some of your edits. This latest accusation of me being a sockpuppet is just one of the many things you've been doing. Ridiculous as it may appear it seems you have someone doing your dirty job. Let me just ask you do you really think I am such an idiot that I would go reply to myself on the Pagania talk page?!?! And also how do you figure that each ADSL user not registered here (whose IP will appear 89.172.) is this "Afrika Paprika" idiot? --Factanista 21:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...and you just self-confirmed that you're Afrika paprika's sock... --PaxEquilibrium 17:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I confirmed nothing, the only thing confirmed is that I just as "Afrika Paprika" am a user of T-com ADSL and my IP changes each time I log on thus you cannot block me. Any unsigned or unregistered person (user of T-com) would appear with 89.172 first five digits. Thats the whole absurd and ridiculous part...I was blocked because of your ignorance and suspicion including that one of the moderators. Ask Djixtra what is his IP. ;) In any case I have decided to leave Wikipedia already before so this didn't fall too hard on me. It opened my eyes and greatly diminished my opinion on this whole supposed "encyclopedia" where trolls and nationalists are enforcing their POV, not to mention ridiculous policies such as supposed "verifiability" where anything that is not written on the internet is less valid than that which is even if it is hilarious, wrong and fallacious. --Factanista 00:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heheh. ;) this IP made a conclusive edit of being Afrika paprika (and similar IPs) and it claimed that it's actually you when it edited your talk page (or better said, when you edited your own talk page trying to forge that you're actually a sockpuppet of myself [sic!?!?] - aside from repeatedly telling me to f**k myself). Also, Afrika's anon sock mysteriously blanked this talk page..... come one - who are you fooling, Afrika paprika? --PaxEquilibrium 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Err...sorry but no. I wasn't saying I was "Afrika Paprika" nor was that a "confirmation" of anything. If you didn't noticed I was following you around to see what you are saying and I come upon that talk page (just as I came upon your recent talk at Duklja) and thought I give people a definition of what you consider "a disruption". :)) I don't have nothing to do with this "Afrika Paprika" save for the fact we are obviouly both ADSL users in Croatia...maybe you'll understand one day. -- Factanista —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.172.197.124 (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Nice try...almost convincing.... you negated not one time that you're Afrika through anons (when after precisely 37 times, a normal man would usually deny the meatpuppetry accusations at least once), and you have made the very same disruptive and heavily insulting contributions as Afrika. If you are not really Afrika (very unlikely), then take this block as a prevention of future heavy disruptions. Cheers, Afrika --PaxEquilibrium 15:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I couldn't care less what you think, it's obvious I can't do nothing about this although I am not this person you accuse me of. I never negated that I am that person because I have nothing to negate as I have nothing to do with that person. And btw. why reverting some of my changes when they are factual and even improvements? Thats sheer stupidity. --Factanista
Neither I care what I think. :) I am just exposing facts. I know that some of your edits were useful to the Wikipedia, but I have to obey the WP:BLOCK policy. --PaxEquilibrium 13:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing you "obey" is to erase every trace of you being challenged and proven wrong. WP:BLOCK policy doesn't apply when the edits are improvement to the articles which my edits to Charlize Theron or Ivan Rakitić are. - Factanista —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.172.193.230 (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Citing WP:BLOCK: A blocked user cannot edit any pages other than his/her own talk page..Edits made by blocked users while blocked may be reverted. (Many admins revert all edits from blocked users... I erase every trace of your edits, and no challenge to me (besides, I haven't been proven wrong ;) --PaxEquilibrium 18:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Edits made by blocked users while blocked may be reverted. (Admins can revert all edits from blocked users and re-make the good edits under their own names, to avoid confusing other admins who may be monitoring the same users.). Point out any unconstructive and diruptive edit I have made. I was banned because of edit-warring (since I was faced with packs of users, you included, who enforce their POV in groups) not because of unconstructive edits. -- Afrika/Factanista
Adding insulting homosexual connotations to my user page and returning it for 17 times. --PaxEquilibrium 17:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After reporting me and stabbing me in the back for 50th time you bet... --AP/Factanista

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.172.224.174 (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Factanista (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet. What the hell is this? I request an immediate unblock. Blocking people on the presumtion that they are sockpuppets of someone else based on the similar awarded non-static IP is not proof of someone actually being a sockpuppet. Just the opposite. I've explained it here -> [1]

Decline reason:

Unfortunately the checkuser result was pretty conclusive. --WinHunter (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusive about what? How can anything be conclusive on non-static IP? I am not a sockpuppet. My IP is not static, it is awarded each time I log on the net. I have nothing to do with this person "Afrika Paprika" and it is ridiculous to suggest I am someone's sockpuppet. Again I have explained it here -> [2]. Blocking people and accusing them of being clones of someone else because they have similar IP's (which are not even static but awarded by the same provider) is anything but conclusive. --Factanista 14:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Too bad[edit]

Uh, too bad. --PaxEquilibrium 22:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Factanista&oldid=1145848860"