Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:44, 24 September 2006

Please take your nationalist beliefs elsewhere, we don't want you here. GO AWAY! --KOCOBO 05:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on July 16 2006 (UTC) to Nikola Tesla

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.

Predrag Stojaković

Thank you for experimenting with Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.--Downwards 06:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

Please refrain from removing content from Misplaced Pages, as you did to Dado Pršo. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Lowg 16:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleting references

Does it make you feel proud? Do you actually believe that by deleting facts you can just make them 'go away' and disappear forever? If you are that much annoyed with Serbs and their contribution to world's science, culture and history, why do you use those same Serbs to present them as something they never were - Croats? Serbs are Serbs, and if you don't like them as they are, stop forging the data about their ethnicity to make them more likable to your preferences, it is impolite. Marechiel 00:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not deleting "serbian references whenever possible". The facts are there, my goal however is to make the Tesla article more objective and neutral. It is you and the others who are constantly deleting and editing the fact he was born in Croatia and considered Croatia to be his homeland. User:Afrika Paprika 03:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Lowg 00:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

All my edits are constructive and can easily be confirmed by facts. You cannot bully me into giving into your revisionism. You will get reported if you continue with your vandalism. User:Afrika Paprika 03:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You have not posted a single cited fact in all of your contributions. In two instances that I'm familar with, you have removed cited statements and references again and again with no explaination on talk, or cited sources for why you are going to remove it. That is vandalism. (example 1: Dado Prso, example 2: Nikola Tesla--Lowg 01:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did. Both are undisputable facts. Tesla was born in Croatia and considered Croatia to be his homeland thus it deserves to be mentioned. My edits are seeking to make the article about him more neutral as it is opposed to chauvinist version you are pushing in now. Also Prso is a Croat, those are his own words. --Afrika Paprika 03:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It is mentioned. You are just removing the mention of his ethnicity, and if you see the talk page on Nikola Tesla article shows what you are doing is vandalism. --Lowg 01:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but no, I am not "just removing mention of his ethnicity" I am correcting the article. The only thing removed is at the start of the article which is irrelevant since the article explains in detail that he has been born into Serbian family in Croatia and that he took American citizenship. I wonder though what agenda do you have against more liberal and neutral article? It is what you are doing that is vandalism and not only that but trolling and revisionism. Afrika Paprika

Tesla wasn't born in Croatia, but in what was then Austria, and today Croatia, and didn't consider Croatia his homeland, but Yugoslavia.

At his time, and the time he spoke about it, Croatia was but a region in Yugoslavia, populated with both Serbs and Croats, and not a Croatian national state. Tesla isn't Croatian, as Heraclites isn't Turkish, nor Archimedes Italian, nor Josip Jelacic Serbian. His birthplace is in Croatian state, but it wasn't at the time of his birth. He lived to see independent Croatia only once in his life, when he was 85 (in 1941), and then he sided with Yugoslav King Peter II against his alleged "homeland". Tesla's homeland was, by his own words, Yugoslavia and Serbia, and his ethnicity Serbian and Yugoslavian, in the sense of integral Yugoslavism, where Yugoslavs are one people of the same race, language and tradition as Serbs.

Besides, it is more than clearly stated that his bithplace was at the time within Austria, and that today is in Croatia. Is there any dillema left for any reader not to know where Smiljan is? Tesla was born in Austria, on the territory that is today in Croatia. Should we play silly and add other "significant" facts that the area was originally Illyrian or Roman 2,000 years ago, that it belonged to Yugoslavia for more than 70 years, that it was/wasn't part of Serb Krajina in the 1990's, that the village was ethnically Serbian only 60 years ago, while today it isn't? Two dates are important: the time of Tesla's birth, to give the historical context, and present time, for the geographical accuracy. Tesla was born in the Military Frontier region of Austrian Empire, and his birthplace is today situated in Croatia.

Plus, what is so annoyng and frustrating with Serbian-American reference? (See the Discussion on Nikola Tesla page). Tesla was Serbian-American: an American of Serbian ethnic background, like there are Italian-Americans, Greek-Americans, African-Americans etc. He could not possibly be "Croatian-American", because he wasn't an ethnic Croat. And what's the thing with recent editing Serbian-American to Serbian? Are we clear with the subtle distinction in between nationality and ethnicity? Tesla was an American of Serbian ethnic origin, and with his political activities and active cherishing of his Serbian culture, tradition, language and connections, he fully deserves to be called a Serb wherever possible. Finally, it was his wish, for the whole world to know that his deeds are "the deeds of a Serb". Marechiel 14:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but no. Tesla was born in Croatia which was at that time part of Austrian Empire(Habsburg Monarchy), if we would follow your logic Vuk S. Karadzic was born in Otttoman Empire. Also at the time he spoke it is clear that he meant Croatia. Also your example of Jelacic is wrong since Jelacic was born in Croatia since Petrovardin was part of Croatia since 17th century. Also there is nothing frustrating about Serbian or American references what is frustrating and annyoing is that you are trying to remove and hide the fact the man was born in Croatia, considered Croatia to be his homeland and by that fact is Croatian scientist. The only thing with Serbia(where he was only one or twice) is the fact he considered himself a Serb.

He also considered Yugoslavia his homeland, therefore he should be a Yugoslavian inventor (he wasn't a scientist!). He also considered Serbia, Austria and Hungary his homeland, therefore he should be Serbian/Austrian/Hungarian invenor. But he was neither, he was Serbian-American (do you comprehend what Serbian-American means?).

And Vuk Karadzic was born in what was at the moment Ottoman Empire, in the region that soon afterwards became the state of Serbia. Tesla wasn't born in Croatia, his birthplace became a part of Croatian state when he was 85, before that it was part of Austrian and Yugoslavian state. What's the point in forging the facts and the name of the state? Any independent Croatian state has been nothing but extremely hostile to Serbs, and Tesla wasn't born in such a state, but in a Serbian-Croatian region of multi-national and tollerant Austria. Marechiel 22:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that you are hopeless. Tesla was born in Croatia, considered it his homeland and thus belongs equally to Croatia as much he belongs to Serbia as an ethnic Serb. As I said you can rant as much as you want facts are there and there to stay and no matter what you say, write or falsify. Also he was both a scientist and inventor. Afrika paprika

Tesla wasn't born in Croatia, and isn't Croatian in any way, especially not in the way of modern Croatian state, which is a national state of Croats, while in Tesla's time, it was but a Serbo-Croat (not Croatian) region in a multi-national Empire. You should rather stop insulting nad take more interest in the man you are trying to present as a Croat - he was a unitarian Yugoslavicist and against any Croatian secession from Yugoslavia, and any perspective that would allow Croatian people to be any different from the Serbs. Plus, he was a supporter of Mihailovic's Chetniks. Presenting Voivod Djujic as Croatian would make more sense: he at least lived in Croatian state... Marechiel 11:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Tesla was born in Croatia since more specifcally in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia which was at that time constitutive part of Habsburg Monarchy with it's own administration and regional parliament which was far more than any other region besies Austria and Hungary had in the Empire. He alone admitted Croatia is his homeland and that he is proud of it. Also I seriously doubt he supported fascists(Chetniks) or anything similar since he was humanist and pacifist. Afrika paprika

He did not "admit it", it was one courteous private message that meant nothing, since in all his public speeches he called Yugoslavia and Serbia his homeland, and denied Croats any right for exclusive state separated from Serbs and Serbia. In fact, much more times he called Austria-Hungary his homeland, than he spoke of Croatia. And he did support King Peter II and Mihailovic's Chetniks who fought fascists (Croats), since both of his Governments (USA and Yugoslavian) did. Moreover, the leader of Chetniks was a Minister in his Yugoslavian Government. Marechiel 14:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Dado Prso

Your edits to Dado Prso are quite disruptive, and in violation of Misplaced Pages's policies on NPOV and V. We have a reliable source that says that he is an ethnic serb, and do not have a reliable source that disagrees with this. While this is not vandalism, you can still be blocked for this if you continue to do so without any discussion. A better use of your time would be to find a reliable source that says he is not an ethnic serb. --Philosophus 11:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My edits are not in violation of anything. The "reliable source" you are talking about is wrong as Prso himself has stated that(which I have provided sources as well) he is a Croat and that everything else is bullshit. I think he is by far more reliable source than the article from some ignorrant. I will continue to edit this false information as long as I can and you will find me I am quite persistant. Afrika paprika

Misplaced Pages does not present the truth. Rather, it presents reports by reliable sources. Since the AFP is a reliable source, we need to report on what it says even if it is wrong, not disregard it because of the error. The appropriate thing to do is to add that the AFP states ..., but (some other reliable source) states .... --Philosophus 11:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that AFP is reliable source. It's a news service as any other and it makes mistakes. This is a mistake by them. I have reliable sources which repeat exact words of Prso saying he is a Croat....on more than one occasion. You and and some others here disregarded it which is your problem actually. Afrika paprika

They do make mistakes sometimes, yes. All sources do. But since that is apparently one of only a few sources on the subject, the discrepency should be noted in the article. Otherwise, if someone reads that article, and the Misplaced Pages article, they will most likely think that Misplaced Pages is wrong. Furthermore, I don't see the sources that you are talking about. You should add a reference in a similar manner to the reference to the AFP article if you have such reliable sources. I really have very little knowledge or interest in the matter of Serb/Croat ethnicity, which I think is quite childish on the whole. I just noticed that you seemed to be disregarding WP:V in your edits, and other editors seemed to be disregarding the fact that you are not vandalising, and that their test templates were entirely inappropriate and could be seen as personal attacks. --Philosophus 17:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no discrepency, AFP article is just wrong and thats that. Both articles I have are in Croatian and have never been translated or mentioned in any foreign source(though for what reason is not clear to me), however they are there. One of the sources where Prso plainly states he is a Croat is still on the official site of Croatian Football Association(HNS - Hrvatski Nogometni Savez). The other with the title "I am a Croat and everything else is bullshit" has been published in 'Sportske Novosti'(Sport News) which is most distinguished sport news daily in Croatia. Both are mentioned in the talk page of the same article yet certain memebers disregarded this fact and continue to push for the false information....and may I notice these users are mainly Serbs who are also ashamed that certain Serbian sportsmen and other people were born in Croatia. Also there is nothing childlish with the matter of Serb or Croat ethnicity, at least no more than with any other ethnicity. And finally I have nothing against Serbs nor any other user here, I just want this article to be according to Prso's own statements and to be truthful. --Afrika paprika

Misplaced Pages does not report on the truth, it reports on what the sources for the article say. If your sources are not reliable sources or if they cannot be added to the article for some reason, then we must report that Prso is a Serb even if he isn't. That is just how Misplaced Pages is. Prso's own statements are not considered reliable unless they are published in a reliable source that is included in the article. The AFP is considered a reliable source. If the AFP article is just caused by a mistake, then feel free to contact AFP about it. Otherwise, we must report on what it says. --Philosophus 02:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Honestly thats quite an idiotic policy. But anyway the articles: "Dado Prso:I am a Croat everything else is bullshit" - http://www.index.hr/clanak.aspx?id=172002 ; Interview after 2004 EC game with France - http://www.hns-cff.hr/vijesti.asp?id=56 (official Croatian Football Association website). I'd say these are more than reliable sources unlike AFP who speculates. Afrika paprika

Then when you make your edit to Prso, add something like "Although ... describes him as an ethnic Serb , ... and ... describe him as ...". An edit like that will be much more effective. --Philosophus 14:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

Your extremely high number of reverts to the Dado Pršo article over the last few days are unacceptable. Revert wars are highly unproductive and disruptive to Misplaced Pages. I can see you've been informed of the 3-revert rule, and have chosen to take that as license to revert as often as you like as long as it's not more than 3 times in a day. When you return, I suggest you place a tag such as {{disputed}} on the article and continue the discussion on the talk page, and stop reverting. You may contest this block by adding {{unblock|reason}} to this page, which you can still edit. Mangojuice 02:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked again

You are re-blocked for jumping into the same revert wars right after you block. Please explain your changes in article talk pages in cases of disagreements, or you will continue to be blocked for disruptive behavior. `'mikka (t) 21:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Samo da znaš da od sada pratim sve tvoje izmene i da ću svako sranje koje napraviš u bilo kom članku revertovati. Ceo dan sam na netu, i imam vremena za to veruj mi. Ili malo smiri svoj nacionalizam i postani konstruktivan korisnik, ili pređi na neki nacionalistički forum. Hvala. PANONIAN (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Poljubit ces me u guzicu. Sve sto ti "revertujes" ja cu revertirati nazad. Svoje velikosrpske proljeve ostavi za neki drugi sajt. User:Afrika paprika

Warning number two

Ne znaš s kim se kačiš fašistička pičkice, ali ćeš to shvatiti pre ili kasnije. Zato bolje pali sa Wikipedije odmah da ne trošiš svoje beskorisno vreme, jer ozbiljno ti kažem da te neću pustiti da napraviš ni jednu jedinu izmenu iz koje izvire mržnja prema Srbima. Fašisti zadojeni rasizmom kao ti nam ne trebaju na Vikipediji, a veoma brzo ćeš biti ponovo blokiran ako nastaviš tako. PANONIAN (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Super mi se gace tresu. Kao sto rekoh mozes me samo poljubit u dupe. Inace ironicno je da ti mene nazivas fasistom, mozda da se pogledas u ogledalo bi shvatio neke stvari. Afrika paprika

Ja nemam šta da shvatim, ja sam pacifista i protivim se svakom obliku fašizma, a ti se visoko kotiraš na skali zadojenosti fašizmom. PANONIAN (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL...daj ne lupetaj gluposti. Molio bih te da me ne zamaras svojih glupostima vise. Zahvaljujem. Afrika Paprika 15:32 13 August 2006

(UTC)

Prestani pisati da je Ivana Milicevic hrvatska glumica jeli nije NIKADA ZIVELA u Hrvatskoj, nije nikada ni bila tamo!!!

Ona je americka-bosanska glumica ali je hrvatica po etnicitetu. Razumijes li? Hahahihihoho 12:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Zao mi je ali ona sama za sebe kaze da je Hrvatica prema tome moze biti samo Americka glumica hrvatskog porijekla ili americko-hrvatska glumica. Bosanska nikad nije ni bila niti ce biti....sto je to uopce "bosanska glumica"? Ukratko postedi me... Afrika 03:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please

Please, try to me a little more objective and read WP:POV,WP:CITE and WP:NOR? Thank you. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you're the right person to call on other people's objectivity...especially not mine. Afrika 19:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And why is that? Look at us - you've got me, who expresses his will to discuss and posts on the talk page - and on the other side is you, who refuses to discuss and refers to edit-warring and insulting in the manner of an internet troll (please see the article). I don't want to seem harsh, but I'm being objective. HolyRomanEmperor 11:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not have the will nor the desire to "discuss" anything with a nationalist troll and revisionist such as yourself. You and 'objectivness' in the same sentence is an oxymoron with you being the latter part of that term. Cheers. Afrika 03:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That is where you are wrong, my fried - you don't have a choice. Your edits will be reverted until you wish to discuss them - and continuing to refuse democracy might only get you banned. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"My edits" are already discussed, if you actually cared about objectivity and referred to the talk page you would see that it was Pannonian who made the edit due to reached consensus. His version is most NPOV and objective. You keep pushing your nationalistic version and it is you who will get banned...for the second time. :-))) Afrika 04:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't banned - this account was (under my suspicion). I operated as User:HRE until I got it back and had it unblocked (safety measures). Go ahead and read the whole story. If you see Talk:Pagania, you'll noticed that your arguements have reached a deadend. Additionally, PANONIAN questioned your arguements and asked you further (that you woulod've known had you read the talk page). --HolyRomanEmperor 18:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that the account was banned thus your were banned. I don't care under what circumstance that ban came...just as you don't care why I had 3RRR block for three hours but you're ready to point it out...so there you have it. Also it seems that you need to look up better at Talk:Pagania and also Pannonian did asked me further but has in the end agreed to make a more neutral stance and made an excellent NPOV article...now you come back again pushing for NPOV nationalistic version. Sorry but no. Again it is you who needs to read the talk page not me. Afrika 23:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope - I continued under User:HRE. This forcing and misunderstanding has made me come to a conclusion that you were involved in the hiijacking of my old account. I am ready to point out an error that you made - however, you pointing out how I was terrorized and abused and then misinterpreting it won't do you any good. PANONIAN has suggested compromise - and then he himself asked you to prove arguements for the current version, which you failed to do - so the deal's "off" :). I read the talk page around 10 times by now and only can see your silence. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Your 'conclusion' is hillarious. Furthermore I have nothing to 'disscus' with you as you showed total lack of objectivity and neutrality. Afrika 21:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not your choice - you have to discuss, or your good faith will be highly questioned. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

WARNING

This is a warning. Continue to push an edit war and you might be blocked. Please, try to be more disscussive and less lenient on edit-warring. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL! I don't think you have the right or the ability to push wrnings...especially if one knows your past here on the forum. The article was settled until you came so it is in fact you who are pushing the flame and edit war. Afrika 04:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Settled? What are you talking about? I wrote that article from scrap to what it is until you barged in. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You are totally derranged.... Afrika 18:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks!

You have made a personal attack. Please read Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Just a reminder - because people get banned for that. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Calling you derranged? You call that a personal attack? What about calling someone "internet troll" without provocation like you did? Please do not make me laugh... And stop playing like you are some kind of moderator...your "warnings" are laughable. :-))) Afrika 20:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. You can disagree with someone as strongly as you want, but do not insult them. Okay? DS 17:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If you look a bit further up you will see that he insulted me far worse. Strange how you didn't notice that. Afrika 20:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the entire situation yet.

Incidentally, changing an article to a version that you don't agree with... that is not vandalism. Vandalism would be, for example, changing every tenth word into "penis", or adding a picture of dogs having sex - something silly and stupid and deliberately useless. Simply because you don't agree with what was done, that does not make it vandalism.

I'm going to read through what was said now. DS 21:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. He said that you were behaving like a Troll. And, in fact, now that I've read your statements... I am forced to agree. I'm willing to believe that you did not mean this. However, you need to modify your behavior. Do you understand? DS 21:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't care wheter you agree with him or not(although it was clear you are here to support this troll from the first moment you appeared here) nor you or anyone have validity to tell me I "need to modify my behaviou". My behaviour is quite in order and unlike the person you defend I do not go around Misplaced Pages and change articles so it would suit my own nationalistic agenda....the only agenda I have is neutrality and objectivity. Afrika 18:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The worst thing about yourself is to claim neutrality and objectivity. I don't say that I am neutral. No one is neutral... nor objective (at least the way they should be). Except bots, ofcourse :D. Anyway, if you wish to head for neutrality and objectivity so fiercly, why don't you come and talk. Don't get me wrong, but starting a discussion and then abandoning it but continuing to push a version of an article is mostly self-evident as "oh no, I am wrong! well, anyway, I'll try to push it still" - a desperate user. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The worst thing I could is to run across Misplaced Pages changing what it doesn't suit me to my political views like you are doing. And I did have come and talked. While you were banned the discussion was concluded and consensus was reached. Afrika 20:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

AFAIC that is what you seem to be doing. And I repeat again, even though I've told you a thousand times this before and you mysteriously overheard, I wasn't banned, but my account hijacked and blocked under my behalf and I worked temporarely under User:HRE. Careful inspection of Talk:Pagania, though, clearly shows how you evaded discussion and resorted to edit-warring. --HolyRomanEmperor 08:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

6 million?

Any proofs? References? --Ante Perkovic 21:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

6 million what? Afrika 17:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

6 million Croats. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If he(and you as well) is interested he should count the numbers on the very page. Afrika 00:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Please, read WP:CITE and WP:NOR. You have to support your arguements, or they are to be dismissed without discussion. Additionally, please read WP:V and note removal - in that case, your edits shall be reverted without second thoughts. Please stop pushing versions at Pagania, Zahumlje, Duklja and Travunia and start bringing sane arguements to the corresponding talk pages. Thank you. I look forward to (this time good) cooperation/collaboration regarding those articles. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Pagania

I have been asked to express my opinion on this dispute. I admit I am not familiar with the subject but I could not fail to notice some issues. As far as I see this, you are disputing the article version reworked by him but have failed so far to provide any sources to back up your actual claim (i.e. some historians consider them as possibly Croats or non-Serbs). Another point to consider is whether giving both positions the same importance would result on undue weight. Basically, what I mean is that whichever the more accepted view is, it would have to be clearly identified as such. Regards, Asterion 21:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have provided sources and I have also asked him to answer and clear some issues...he did not do that. Also consensus on all the articles(Pagania, Duklja, Zahumlje, Travunja) has been reached and in the spirit of NPOV policy of wikipedia...now he returns after his ban and pushes for some fantasy version of his own. If you observe the NPOV versions have all been written and promoted by other people not me....I am just here not allowing him to revert it back to his nationalistic version. Afrika 02:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

AFAIC - I have just skimmed Talk:Pagania, and could find no arguement presented in your edits. As can be seen, I cleared out and answered all of the issues that you have presented me. There was no consensus on the Duklja article. Other "consensuses" were brought mainly through "giving in" to all that Misplaced Pages opposes - intetnet trolling, vandalism and Original Research - and I can't let that happen. Define "nationalistic version". All I care is sourcefullness/accuracy. Now that this is the 7th time that you mention that I was banned - even though I was not, but was a victim of such actions like in the manner of yours (it was a hijack). I can this only interpret as an intentional provocation from you. - either you intentionally plan on frustrating me, or even worse, you don't read a thing I say. Either way, this will not seem nice on your carreer here - so please, stop that. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You have not answered all and you keep avoiding giving the answers. I really don't care what you think...you have lost all credibility long time ago with me. Afrika 21:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just reskimmed Talk:Pagania and could see no posts made by you. It is thus you who keeps avoiding discussion/answering. The fact that you don't care what I think also speaks a lot from your side and neglecting of the fact that Misplaced Pages is free, so you cannot undermine my opinion. Instead of commenting the User, comment the content of articles (as Misplaced Pages's policies state) - I have - you haven't. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider getting better glassess? And it is interesting that you speak how I 'undermine' your opinion when it is you who is doing that exact thing...and not just my opinkon but Pannonian and of other people as well. Instead of a compromise and NPOV version you keep pushing for some fantasy version of your own...well be sure that my patience is great and I will be persistant until you realize you cannot force unfounded and ridiculous nationalistic claims. Regards. Afrika 20:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

User:PANONIAN asked you to prove your claims - and you ignored that. I still overlooked the page and could no claim/arguement/source to support your version. Could you give one? --HolyRomanEmperor 21:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Pannonian changed it himself...I didn't forced him to which means he as well doubted the version you are pushing for and if you had any objectivity and knowledge of historical facts you wouldn't either. Afrika 00:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you did force PANONIAN through edit-warring of our articles and resorting to personal attacks against him. After PANONIAN was forced by you to an uneasy compromise he invited you to give statements/sources - which you didn't - and I waited for some time, but your silence made me revert back as I saw you were arguementless. I very much doubt that he doubted an article that me and him were writing from scrap. :D --HolyRomanEmperor 10:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how I am able to force anyone to anything. You are ranting. What he did was his will alone and unlike you he at least has some decency(at least it seemed at the end) and more objectivity then you'll ever. Afrika 18:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You're easily able to force, by the way of vandalising, or reverting the articles that they edit. I'm not ranting - let's ask User:PANONIAN. It wasn't his will alone, but your will, rather (as he later asked you to source your claims and you remained silent). I am objective - but I need to see arguements. --HolyRomanEmperor 09:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof is not on my side but on your side. It is not me claiming Neretvians or Docleans as Croats but it is you who claims they were Serbs and nothing else...that is wrong. If you notice the articles I want to preserve have neutral stance and every single person can come to their own conclusio according to info present in the articles. And I repeat I did not 'force' anyone to anything...least Panonian. Afrika 17:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I give you my hat - but I don't claim that they were nothing else. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No you claim they were Serbs when such claim is highly and easily disputable and cannot be confirmed. Afrika 00:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It is confirmed - it isn't that highly and easily disputable. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not confirmed. Find me one other source which undoubtably confirms this? Also show me a credible explanation why 'your source' contraditcs itself? It is indeed highly and easily disputable and refutable Afrika 01:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Please STOP

You know, ignoring of friendly advises and/or "peace treaties", to call 'em; and silently continue your edit wat, it will only backfire on you. Consider this a friendly warning as well. This way won't get you anywhere - and you'll only damage me (who is intent on defending his creations from destruction), you and the globality appeal of Misplaced Pages, this 💕. Please don't break everything that it stands for. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am done "disscussing" with you. You have proven to be thickheaded and stuborn extremist. Please stop vandalising the mentioned article and please remove yourself from my talk page. Thank you. Afrika 02:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually - please understand what is classified as Vandalism. You appearently didn't read (or read and forgot) the last time I pointed you out to that rule - but here's the link again - Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. According to it, plain unexplained removal is considered vandalism - which you have been doind - which is to be reverted as soon as possible. Tell me, why is my editing classified as vandalism? It's merely a content dispute (please differ that from vandalism - its very different). Actually, one must look who is extremist - extremists often resort to violence, ignorring the peace talks (which you have been doing). You have also expressed stubborness by defending your personal aims no matter what - and at all costs of jeoperdizing this encyclopedia. --HolyRomanEmperor 11:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I must say it is quite ridiculous that you accuse me of things that you do. As I said you exhibit total lack of neutrality and objectivity. Pushing for your own nationalistic and unfounded/unsourced version of the history will not be tolerated. Afrika 21:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

AFAIC, let me make a comparation. You come and claim that Putin is white, however; I attack you, insult you and barge claiming that any claims of Putin's caucasianess is highly nationalistic and can't be tolerated (claiming that he's black), but without any sort of arguement whatsoever, sources, evidence, discussion or even mild claims. That's what you have been doing. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL. This is simply ridiculous. :-))) Afrika 20:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You might consider it ridiculous and this project a thjing to play with - to me, it is an important thing. --212.200.83.94 19:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I fiund your comments ridiculous and this is important to me as well...thats why I will not allow you to 'change' history as you see fit. Afrika 00:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Which comments of mine did you find ridiculous? And, you are not authoried to put the article under your personal martial control. I don't "change" hisory as I see fit - if you notice the history of those articles, you will see that I wrote them entirely - so it is you who is changing them. For every piece I used sources and valuable statements - unlike you - so it is you whos is changing it as you see fit. Don't get me wrong, but you have misunderstood Misplaced Pages entirely. --HolyRomanEmperor 09:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comments here are increasingly ridiculous...hillarious even. You have even gone so far to accuse me of hacking your account?!?! LOL! And yes you do "change" history as you see fit...Neretvians, Zahumljans, etc were not Serbs as you claim and as you try to enforce. You intnetionally disregard sources and take the ones which suit you...I don't see a reason why DAI would have the advatage of LPD for example. Furtherore you have failed to explain the contradictions of the source you claim to have the advantage and also to provide additional source or more correctly to explain the lack of your claims in many other numerous and far more prescise Arabian and Venetian chroncicles. Afrika 18:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole thing might seem ridiculous to you, but what we're making here is editing an Encyclopedia. I am not accusing you of anything - I am just pointing out what you're throwing at my face. How do you know that they were not Serbs? Which sources are those? DAI is much more credible that LPD, as fully explained at Talk:Pagania. Which contradictions are those? What did I fail to provide? What Arabian & Venetian chronicles? --HolyRomanEmperor 09:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but claiming that DAI is more 'credible' than LPD is just ridiculous. LPD is basically the transliteration of text from first hand...chronicles of people who lived there while DAI is chroincle of the hearsay of the future emperor who NEVER VISITED these areas and was writting down legends, hearsay and rumors. You still haven't answered me - if they were Serbs as you claim how come NONE of the Venetian sources mention them as such...we only have Croats and general 'Slavic' in their charters, chronicles, etc.? Can you explain that? Afrika 17:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Look:For example: LPD was discovered in the 16th century - there are no traces of its existence before (which cannot apply to the always-there DAI). The LPD was written in 1171-1189 by the Serbian Archbishop of Antivari Gregory and speaks of everything that happened in our lands from the beginning to its date. However, for the oldest of history, it sources a mysterioys "De Regno Sclavorum" (which isn't mentioned anywhere else in the world) from the year of 753 (!). Additionally, it is the Chronicle that is based mainly on the oral tellings of man-to-man that lived in Doclea, or even more stricly limited to the citizens of Antivari. On the other hand, DAI has been composed by a Roman Emperor (!), who took it mainly from various texts from the Imperial library as well as the tellings of his most trusted strategists, advisors and historians, which was written around 950 (so its closer to the years it tells about). LPD doesn't exist in its original form, but after at least 10 overwritings - whereas DAI is kept as an original. LPD was written (thus) in a poetic manner, fulling the romantic nationalism of the people (where lived 200 years after their sons) - as one of its soal goals was to be a propaganda pamphlet; it was written in the Serbian dialect of the Old Slavonic language and then translated to "pig latin"; the oldest known version of LPD (and there were tens of it) is that of a Croat linguist from the 16th century - and it bears no mention of Red Croatia, nor Croats in the southern Dalmatian Principalities at all. The latter Latin version is the only one that mentions Red Croatia (and as such its modern Serbo-Croat translation). On the other hand, DAI has been written in a masterful (Old) Neo-Greek language and it's written encyclopedicly; its sole existence is the Emperor's desires to educate his son. Whereas LPD never reached international recognition, DAI did and was the center of research of the Western Monarchies that modelled themselves with Roman infrastructure. LPD concetrates on only that thing - but DAI is a lot more wider (only its small bit deals with the history of Croats & Serbs), whereas the rest deals with how to wage wars, the Orthodox Church, planned construction, politics & war and generally, as its name states, how to rule an Empire.

We have neither "Croats" nor "Slavs" in any Venetian source that mentions them that way. We have simply "Marians" or the "Narentines" (hardly Slavic - as some Venetian sources even tended to openly consider them Illyrians). That is, if we disregard the modern Italian/Venetian sources from the Age of Nationalism that generally considered the Dalmatian population Serbian. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, now read my previous comment. And also the modern Italian/Venetian sources did not considered Dalmatian population Serbian...that is greatly incorrect...and even if they did it has nothing to do with what happened 1000 years ago and even less to modern history since we know that Dalmatian population identified and identifies with Croatian...Neretvian descendants included. As for the matters about LPD and DAI I already said what I had to say....if someone would answer me these: Why does the DAI contradicts itself? Why does it goes against numerous other Byzanatine sources? Why doesn't any Venetian or Saracen/Arab chronicle or source from that time confirms what is written there? And most interesting question of them all - why do the Serbs discard LPD so quickly when there is a discussion about 'Croatia Rubea' but are quick to call upon it when there is a discussion about the supposed 'Serbian Bosnia'? Interesting. No? And you said it yourself most of DAI does not concerns Slavic populations...it's main theme are other matters concerning the empire. The things written about Slavic populations(Croats, Serbs, etc...) is something Porphyrogenitus didn't know much and was thus calling himself upon various legends, rumors, 2nd, 3rd, etc. stories. Afrika 22:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes they did; search for Serbo-Illyirans. Ofcourse it has nothing to do. Neretvian descendents included? On what do you base that? My tutors tought me errourosly how the Narentines are simply Croats, simply because their descendents are (allegedly) Croats. The population of medieval Herzegovina was almost exclusivly Orthodox Serb. The majority of the old Zachlumians live now either in Vojvodina or in Timocka Krajina, or God knows (we can't trace 'em everywhere! :) DAI doesn't contradic itself. It doesn't go against a single Byzantine source. Because there were very little Venetian and Arab/Saracen (as I said some Venetian chronicles don't even consider Pagans Slavs - but Illyrians rather)... God knows - I can't answer that question, no one can. Why do Serbs do what because what? I'm sorry, what are you talking about? I don't belong there. Ironicly, Croats discard as fast when Serbian Bosnia is mentioned - but quickly call it upon when they dispute the southern Dalmatian Principalities :) - that's why I don't refer to LPD as a source (regarding those arguable parts). Not upon various legends, rumors, stories; but like I said - the Imperial library, Imperial advisors, historians and strategists. LPD on the other hand is based almost exclusivly on oral stories & legends. For instance, did you know one of LPD's most interesting legends - the construction of Ragusa (Dubrovnik). It claims that Belo, the grandson of the Serb "King" Ceslav is the one who built Ragusa in the 9th/10th century from scrap, connecting it with a wonderful love story (oh and right - LPD claims that Serbs had built Dubrovnik, by the way :) --HolyRomanEmperor 21:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Serbo-Illyrians? What is that? I hear this for the first time. I even tried Google it...nothing solid comes up...only articles related to Illyrian movement and other similar articles. And DAI does contradicts itself...you have still not answered my question why does Porphyrogenitus at one points writes that they are Serbs but in other instance he mentions Serbs and Paganians separately...with others such as Croats, Zaclumians, Docleans, etc...if they were Serbs as you claim why did he listed them separately? Also what of numerous other Byzantine sources that speak of Docleans and Zachlumians as Croats? And the main point is that Venetians who dealed with Neretvians more than anyne else never referred to them as Serbs...ever. All you base your claim is one highly doubtful and not very credible source. LPD is not very credible either....the whole point I am making is that there must be some neutrality towards these medieval principalities...they were neither Serbian nor Croatian and that is my whole point. Sure later they did acquire Croatian and Serbian character and identity but that was much later when most of these principalities were fused into Croatia or Serbia anyway. Show some good will and common sense man. Afrika 00:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That is just irridentist Italian (supported by Serbian) POV on the non-national Roman Catholic Christian population of Dalmatia based on the Serbian-nationalistic minority. I did respond - he does not seperate them in other stories, but in the same paragraph. Additionally, that can't refer to all Serbs, but just Pagans - accuracy. Just as one would say "Rascian" or "Doclean" or "Bosnian" instead of "Serb" for accuracy. DAI doesn't contradict itself. They are listed as per Serb state; Empress Anna, John Skylitzes, Kekauman (next to Porphyrogenitos), Constantine the Philosopher and numerious others; so what if they didn't? maybe they didn't know? Maybe they didn't want to generalize? There was often usage of "Dalmatian", but we all know that it meant "Croat". As a part of the international cultural historical bastion - its not doubtful and/or uncredible at all (at least not that much). LPD is far less credible - as its purpose is more to entertain, and not teach. I would like neutrality too - but I can't reach it with that kind of attitude of yours. Nonsence - they were either Serb-like or Croat-like (much lesser possibility the latter); their indiginousness is even more unsourced than the both; the southern Dalmatian principalities were always fused into a unfied Serbian state, except for some exceptions (Croat/Bulgarian/Byzantine occupations) until the loss of the western half to Bosnia in the 14th century (800 years after) and the final fall of Serbia in the 15th/16th centuries. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but that is just ridiculous 'explenation'. Why would he in one paragraph write that they are Serbs and then in another he seprates them explicitly? Perhaps maybe because he doesn't know what he is talking about? Again DAI is just not credible enough to be considered a valid source...especially as I say it contradicts itself...other numerous sources contradict it as well including other Byzantine sources and Arab and Venetian sources which mention ne affiliation of Neretvians with Serbian identity. And no they were not always fused with Serbian state. Pagania especially. The only other valid alternative for a Serb would indeed be Rascian even though that may have designated a man from Rascia of any ethnic origin...same for Dalmatia(and Croatian medieval state within it). But to claim the same for Doclean or Bosnian is just absurd and goes along the lines of Serbian megalomania and revisonism. Rather strange for someone who claims to be apolitical to spread such propaganda around like yourself. Afrika 01:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Afrika paprika, please stop. you are on a wrong path.

Regarding Ivana Milicevic article, please explain why is "Croatian actress" better than "Bosnian actress od Croatian descent". Croatian actress is ambiguous because it may relate to Croatia while Bosnian actress od Croatian descent precisely explains who she is. So, I really don't understand what are you trying to prove here. This issue is quite simple and I'm beginning to think that your only motive is to provoke other people (notably - Serbs and Bosniaks). I hope that isn't the case. Please, explain why do you think that your version is better then mine. --Ante Perkovic 20:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

We have a source saying(where she states actually) she is Croatian. Please refer to sources.Afrika 00:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article states she is croatian. Now, if you click on the link croatian, you will se that it has several meanings. One of them is related to "croatian people". She never even lived in Croatia! --Ante Perkovic 00:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter wheter she lived or not in Croatia, she is Croatian. Period. Afrika 02:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

But she is also Bosnian. Isn't she? You deleted that. --HolyRomanEmperor 09:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

'Bosnian' in the mentioned article is only territorial designation which is already given in her birthplace and further in the article. By ethnicity she is Croatian and she declares as such and the sources confirm it. Afrika 18:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

But the intentional removal of "Bosnian" can only be understood as generally against Bosnians (with the exception of Croats, perhaps). That's how your edits are being seen here. --HolyRomanEmperor 09:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It can be understood as whatever you wish. The source however is undisputable. If there were some other source which says she is 'Bosnian'(whatever that might be) then you could make an argument. Afrika 17:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute veryfiability - I argue what made you make such a case, except disrespect towards the Bosnians. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no disrespect whatsoever to anyone from my side. Afrika 22:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Then why are you a fierce opposer of "Bosnian" (or Serbian in the southern Dalmatian principalities)? --HolyRomanEmperor 21:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not "fierce opposer" neither of Bosnian nor Serbian. We have a explicit source where it is said she is Croatian. That she is born in Bosnia-Herzegovina is up there as well. Don't see what is the problem. As for medieval princpalities in southern Dalmatia it is absurd and ridiculous to call them Serbian...or for that matter Croatian. Afrika 00:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Then why do you oppose to mention that she's Bosnian in the preface. "Croatian" is also misleading - connects her to Croatia. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how can it be 'misleading'. She is Croatian as her both parents are Croatian and as she sees herself as such. She can't be anything else. Afrika 00:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Croatian and bosnian

If you click on the bosnian, you will se that you can say that she is also a "bosnian" as much as "croatian" since those adjectives have several meanings (as all ethnic/national adjectives). So, your insisting on declaring her solely "croatian" and not "bosnian" looks like very clear case of WP:POINT.

Now, I must admit that I really hate stubborn users pushing their own POV here. I had clashes with few tens of POV-pushers here and they were mostly Serbs. I was really proud to see that great majority of Croats here are very nice and tolerant people, unlike wiki-Serbs, among whom, as you will propably agree, there are many radicals and vandals. If You were a Serb, I might even let you go with ewhat you do, because 15 or 16 vandal doesn't make much difference. But, since you are obviously a Croat, your vandalism really ruines out stats here on wiki.

So, if you keep disrputing wiki the way you do, I'll alert every possible admin here.

--Ante Perkovic 16:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact she is Bosnian(territorial designation) can be observed from her birhtpalce, ethnically she is Croatian and is considered as such. And what is most important we have a valid source(s) which supports that notion. I've already discussed this prior and I've made out the points...now if you would refer to talk page you would see them. And please do not threaten me...it means so little to me. Regards.Afrika 19:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No, no - the point is that you were removing a part of info - "Bosnian" - and you need to explain why is that irrelevant. --HolyRomanEmperor 08:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How did I removed part of the info if her birthplace 'Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina' is still up there?! LOL! Afrika 17:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't - you removed the fact that she's Bosnian. What's wrong with stating that in the intro? It doesn't replace her being of Croat descent. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

She is not Bosnian...she is Croatian. Afrika 22:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

She is not Bosnian - but that's the problem, she is Bosnian. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

She is Croatian. Afrika 00:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

...and what makes her not Bosnian? Additionally, "Croatian" is a little misleading - "Bosnian Croat" is better. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What is Bosnian? Does it denotes nationality? No it does not. It only designates where she is born. Will Predrag Stojakovic(baskteball player - for example) be a Croat because he was born in Croatia? Or a Croatian basketball player? Of coure not. Afrika 00:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed...

...how you talked how you care only about neutrality and objectivity. You also kept constantly removing DAI wikiquotes (which is vandalism, by the way), under the excuse of them being repetitions. However, I checked which you kept removing and which you didn't. You removed from the articles Pagania, Zachlumia and Travunia; however, not from Doclea. And I compared the differences - DAI proves that Serbs inhabited Pagania, Zachlumia and Travunia - but mentions no Serbs in Doclea, just ordinarily Slavs... This tells a lot about you - you only wanted to remove the mentions of Serbs anywhere, appearently. --HolyRomanEmperor 09:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not removed the DAI referances which says explicitly what is in those quotes as well. Perhaps you should read more carefully. Afrika 17:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Pagania, Zachlumia and Travunia - you have removed all wikiquotes from there. All wikiquotes quote them as being Serbs. Doclea - you didn't remove the wikiquote from there. It doesn't mention them as being Serbs. Is that a coincidencial error from your side? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

See my previous comment. Afrika 22:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

A kingdom in the Balkan Peninsula, on the east coast of the Adriatic Sea; the territory was in ancient times a portion of the Roman province of Dalmatia. Emperor Diocletian made Southern Dalmatia a separate province, Praevalis (Dioclea, Dioclitia) with Dioclea as its capital. From the seventh century the north-western portion of the peninsula began to be invaded by Slav tribes; one of these, the Serbs, settled in the territory which they still possess, and founded there several principalities (Zupanate), the most southern of which was called Zeta, or (after the ancient Dioclea) Duklja. From Zeta sprang the Nemanjiden family, under whose autocracy the Servian Empire attained its greatest power. Stefan I Nemanja was recognized as Chief Zupan by Emperor Manuel I, in 1165; having reduced into submission the stubborn lesser Zupans, he embraced the Orthodox Faith, and then began to organize the Servian Church. His youngest son, Sawa, or Sabas, after being appointed first Orthodox Archbishop of Servia in 1221, founded a see for Zeta in the monastery of St. Michael near Cattaro. In the Empire of the Serbs, each heir apparent to the throne was first appointed administrator of the Province of Zeta. However, under King Stefan Dusan (1331-55) a member of the Balscicz family was named Governor of Zeta. From 1360 to 1421 this family ruled in Zeta, notwithstanding the constant opposition of the Cernojevic family, settled in Upper Zeta. On the destruction of the Great Servian Empire by the Turks after the battle of Amsfeld in 1389 Zeta became the refuge of the most valiant of the Serbs, who refused to submit to the Turkish yoke.

On Montenegro, from the Catholic Encyclopedia. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What are the sources? On what do they base these claims? Do you really consider 'Catholic Encyclopedia' to be valid source? Afrika 17:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How should I know? Anyway, the Catholic Encyclopedia is a wide-known encyclopedia - and as such deserves at little a little drop of respect from you. It may base it on DAI - it may not; let's go to Vatican and find out. According to the Misplaced Pages policy, we should look what other encyclopedias say and arrange edits in accordance to them. It might also seem interesting to you that Encyclopedia Britanica and the Brockhaus Encyclopedia both support the Catholic Encyclopedia's claims. It's a source. Additionally, if you're going to dispute "on what do they base these claims", we might as well dispute on what Ferdo Sisic bases the Pagans' Chakavian dialect (if he does state that). Additionally, Encyclopedia Britanica states that the father of Roger Joseph Boshcovich is a Croat - despite him being of Serbian/Bosnian origins, and a convert from Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism - however, it is thus proper that we style him as Croat - just as it is proper that we style Dado Prso as a Serb. Get it? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

A 'little drop of respect' is all what they will get from me anyway. After some things I've read there I don't have good opinion about this encyclopedia. As for Boskovic's father there is not one source which mentions him as Serb...he is either referred as Croatian, Dalmatian and at one instance 'an Orthodox Slav'. Don't see what does that have to do with anything. Afrika 22:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem - after you've read some parts of DAI, you don't have a good opinion; after you've read this - you don't have a good opinion on it. Here's Encyclopedia Britannica

Actually my opinion on both DAI and Britannica I've expressed here also are much older than this discussion with you. Afrika 00:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

History.The history of Montenegro as an independent state begins with the battle of Kossovo (1389), but the country had enjoyed periods of independence or semi-independence at various epochs before that event. It formed a portion of the district of Praevalitana in the Roman province of Illyria, and, lying on the borderland of the empires of the West and East, it alternately shared the fortunes of either till the close of the 5th century. It was then conquered by the Ostrogoths (A.D. 493), but half a century later definitely passed under Byzantine rule, having already acknowledged the ecclesiastical authority of Constantinople, a circumstance which determined the course of its subsequent history. Illyria and Dalmatia succumbed to the great Serbo-Croat Slavic invasion of the 6th and 7th centuries; the Serb race by which Montenegro is now inhabited occupied the country about the middle of the 7th century. A confederacy of Serb states was formed under thu pans, or feudal princes, dependent on the grand zhupan, who was nominally the vassal of the Greek emperor. The Serb principality of the Zeta, or Zenta, originally included the Herzegovina, Cattaro and Scutari, as well as the Montenegro of to-day, and was ruled by a zhupan resident at Doclea.

Are you going to like it after you read this? How will you act if I show you the German Brockhaus Encyclopedia? Can you see that you're giving me the picture that you just don't like them because of what they say. Historicly, if you see good ol' Encyclopedia Britannica article on Serbian culture: After Gyorgyich the Servian literature of Ragusa and Dalmatia during the 18th century has no great name to show, except that of the mathematician, Ruggiero Boshkovich (see Boscovicu). His two brothers and his sister Anitsa Boshkovich were known in their time as poets. But on the whole Servian literature on the Adriatic coast showed little originality in the 18th century; its writers were content to produce good translations of Latin, Italian and French works. However, his father is a subject of the Catholic Schism (conversion of Orthodoxes to Catholics); for his full origin see , , , , . There are other sources, such as Luko Zore, a Dubrovnik Catholic historian that wrote the book "Dubrovcani su Srbi" in the early 20th century. Aside from this, there are other sources (mostly Italian and Serbian). However, this is not what most Encyclopediae say - so it is unacceptable - just as that which you claim. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually both the Britannica and the German encyclopdia which is more-less transliteration and Gerrman version of the British one. Britannica when founded has some outdated and old data still present as they are not prone to change...it must be said here that this encyclopedia was just like the official British policy under the influence of the Serbian ally during the begining of the 20th century and Serbia excerted this advantage over Croatia which was part of Habsburg Monarchy and had no say...it was the enemy anyway. You will not find one neutral source which will claim Dubrovnik Serbian...in fact there are books from Italy in the begining of the 1th century showing Ragusan ships bearing Croatian coat of army....no encyclopedia can beat that. As for the few of the few in Dubrovnik who claimed such things they were really a minor element there. You see at the begining of the century it was the official policy and opinion of linguists and especially historians in Yugoslavia that chakavian was "true Croatian" and that shtokavian dialects are solely Serbian. This ridiculous and preposterous claim was soon after abandoned and we know today that it was not, it is not and cannot be true. Afrika 09:44, 21 September 2006

Actually, Brockhaus is a lot more against the Serbs, as it keeps talking of Greater Serbia and puts the blame of the 1990s misfortunes at the Serb side (mostly, still refering to neo-fascism in Croatia and Kosovo and religious zeal in Bosnia and Kosovo), unlike Britannica which remains NPOV. Anyway, what are you trying to say? That no encyclopedia is OK? That all those encyclopediae are unreliable? --HolyRomanEmperor 22:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not 'against the Serbs' that IS NPOV. Are you going to claim 'Greater Serbia' claims are a myth? For gods sake the strongest party in Serbia still claims they will get the so-called 'historical Serbian lands' which it must be said were NEVER Serbian. As for the 1990s events we all know who started and who is to blame. I would claim that none of the encyclopedia has everything right...but Britannica mostly....referring to the South Slavic area which is of my immediate interest. Afrika 00:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on September 20 2006 to Pagania

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.

You have blocked me for being full 3RR rule breaking on Pagania article? Could you specify, when was that?! I am looking here at times when I edited the article and can't seem to find where did I break this rule? Also the user User:HolyRomanEmperor did 5(!!) reverts on 19th September (yesterday) and he is not blocked!?! WTF?! Afrika 14:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I see 4 clear reverts in 24h in the history list William M. Connolley 15:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What is 24h to you? Does it means literally or 24h as in not editing the article more than 3 times in one day - say 3 times in 19th September? Because truth to be said I thought that the rule is perceieved as in the latter case? Also may I ask you do you see that HolyRomanEmperor broke the rule as well? I don't see you blocking him as well. Whats up with that? Afrika 19:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Its the number in 24h, as the rule clearly states William M. Connolley 20:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: HRE: no: contiguous edits count as one. Again, read the rules. If you're going to skirt 3RR, read the rules. Better still, try WP:1RR and be safe William M. Connolley 20:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Only three of his edits are contigous and could be considered one. The other two hardly. That is still 3RR. Now if you are going to block me you must block him as well. Please do your job fairly. Afrika 00:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No - I'm not going to get blocked because I didn't violate the 3RR rule. --HolyRomanEmperor 07:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually you did break the 3RR rule and it can be seen still on Pagania history page. Unlike you however I will not report you because I find this to be cowardly act. Afrika 09:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You have a rather weird sence of honour. Misplaced Pages is not a battlefield - but an encyclopedia. I didn't break the 3RR rule - thus, you cannot report me, even if you would. There is nothing cowerdise in obeying Misplaced Pages's rules!. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You did break the rule and if you persist in claims you didn't I will report you. I do not respon well to lies and arrogance. Be sure of that. Also for someone who claims wikipedia is not a 'battlefield' you have a rather agressive stance. Afrika 00:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Name & other

You might notice that the link leads to an empty page. Your real user page is Afrika paprika, not Afrika Paprika; if you dislike the name, you could change it at Misplaced Pages:Changing usernames.

P. S. I hope that you'll return to the discussion - you abandoned it but I don't see you off; you're discussing with your blocking administrator. --HolyRomanEmperor 07:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

All replies

(from Pagania) It doesn't contradict itself. It isn't so easily disputable and arguably as you claim.

(from Please STOP). what do you mean in another paragraph?

At the paragraph about Serbs, the Emperor says: And because present Serbia and Pagania and the land of the Zachlumoi and Travunia and the land of the Canalites were under the authority of the Emperor of the Romeii, and those lands were deserted by Avars, the Emperor inhabited in these lands the same Serbs and they were subject to the Emperor of the Romeii, the emperor baptised them bringing priests from Rome and, teaching them to correctly commit the acts of divinity, gave them the Christian though.

And then the paragraph on the Pagans says: The land which is populated by the Pagans now was also held by the Romans Those same Pagans descend from the unbaptised Serbs from the times of the archont that refuged to Emperor Heraclius Pagans are called because they weren't batpised in the time all Serbs were... etc.

Where does it contradict itself? What contradicts with it? Megalomania? Look, I just cite sources/quotations. If you continue claiming that - we'll reah nowhere. The Serbian national unification/birth of a unified state/awakening was achieved in 1166, when all southern Dalmatian principalities became a component of that state. The majority of the Serbian population lived along the coastline - while the hinterland (Bosnia and Rascia) were pretty much deserted. This just prooves that you didn't read what I already pointed out to you several times.

It's highly nationalistic pro-Croat to claim she's Croatian and nothing else. The concept of one being something is a lot wider. "Bosnian" means citizen of Bosnia or Bosnian-born. Additionally, it is a nationality. Predrag Stojakovic isn't a Croat because he is an adherent of the Serbian Orthodox Church; he is a declared Serb (not Croat). He isn't Croat because he was forced to flee Croatia because he was a non-Croat (or at least he was considered by those who opposed his people). He isn't a Croatian basketball player because he didn't/doesn't play in a Croatian basketball national team. He however is most definately Croatian (or better Yugoslav), and there is nothing he can do to change the place of his birth. Croatian is misleading because it connects Ivana to Croatia - but it should connect to Bosnia.

What are you talking about? Well then, if you approve Brockhaus' statement that Croats inhabited north of Cetina and Serbs south - then where's the arguement? I just said that it talks more bad about the Serbs than other encyclopedias (so it can't be pro-Serb); LaRousse encyclopedia for instance can't stop presenting the bad image of Croats, whereas Britannica's in the middle, but when it talks about Bosnia it tends to talk bad mostly about Serbs. Those are just some insignificant variations. Additionally, the "strongest party in Serbia" has no power in Serbia whatsoever; what do you mean by "must be said were NEVER Serbian" We don't all know who started and who is to blame. If you are refering to who started, then are you refering to the Republic of Slovenia? And when there's to talk who to blame - most are either in Hague or will be (is that what you though?) --HolyRomanEmperor 10:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I said it several times and I repeat it again (you constantly don't listen - why, I listen to everything you say?) I didn't break the 3RR rule. I never lie and tend not to be aggressive. Please, look at my contributions and see the tons of articles I wrote. And now see yours and point at ONE constructive edit. How can you compare me being abusive next to you? --HolyRomanEmperor 11:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

We are done 'discussing'. I've tried to reason with you but you do not wish to listen. constantly repeating the same crap over and over again. Note that I will not allow perversion of historical facts. Pagania, Zahumlje Duklja and Pagania were not "serbian lands" and I will not allow any revisionism of these historical facts. Now if you wish to complain to someone please do, but spare me already of your rants. I am done with you... Afrika 14:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am rather dissappointed that you "surrender" - we're not fightig, we're just debating the contents of an article - which is in the spirit of Misplaced Pages's being - so I encourage you to continue. If you don't have the strength to continue but have the strength to push your version that goes against Misplaced Pages's policy - well, that's selfcontradicting. I hope that you either continue the arguement or abandon your claims (but I hope more for the first). --HolyRomanEmperor 19:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Operation Storm

Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Misplaced Pages articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- ChrisO 09:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the content of Operation Storm could you please explain what you think is wrong with it? It isn't very helpful to just say "this article is full with propaganda and fallacies" and then not say what those "propaganda and fallacies" are. The accuracy dispute tag will be removed if you can't substantiate your claim. -- ChrisO 08:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

1. There is no source which confirms the claims it caused an "ethnic cleansing". The link it refers to does not states no such thing. 2. There is no such thing as "Krajina region" nor has there ever been...this is a construct from Serbian radicals and extremists. Taking into account only these two totally wrong and POV claims which are present all over the article makes the whole article to fail totally on accuracy. Afrika Paprika 13:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

Regarding this diff of yours. While there is no doubt that Serbia commemorates the killing, you also added "relativly modest" - which is both POV and incorrect in its context. Also, please stop Edit warring on Pagania, Doclea, Zachlumia and Travunia without discussion; your editing at Operation Storm is also considered an Edit War - and an act of vandalism. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule on Duklja, Pagania and Travunia. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Please note that the 3RR does not grant you a right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. You have already been blocked for edit warring in relation to these articles. The duration of the block is 48 hours in recognition of your resumption of edit warring. -- ChrisO 08:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)