User talk:Ivan Štambuk/Archive 4

Archive
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Listen, you! Stop disturbing me by sending me private messages in some language that is not English, they are unwelcome.

Annabelleigh (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)AnnabelleighAnnabelleigh (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Accused of POV

You've been indirectly accused here by User:Sir Floyd (yes, again...). I would appreciate your input here. Apparently, Tito is to be presented as the cause of the Yugoslav wars in "User:Sir Floyd"'s brand new "Legacy" section.

I'm still convinced he's a sock or meatpuppet of one of those Italian irredentists that got banned. He's proof-reading everything but his sentence structure is Italian, plain and simple. Apparently this is caused by dyslexia, even though I've never heard of such "Italianny" symptoms and I do know a bit about neurocognitive disorders. If he is a sock with no dyslexia this is a low, low move. Any ideas? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I don't know what to add anymore to that topic. The way Sir Floyd wants to add to the article now is not anymore by directly associating Tito with Bleiburg and Foibe, but merely mentioning it as something related to the period of his command. At any case, I think that at least the discussion of the resurfacing of those two topics after the advent of 90s nationalism should be mentioned, from both nationalist and non-nationalist side. Article on GWB has Guantanamo Bay mentioned in it, so..

At any case, 20th century history is not really my topic of interest, and I have no doubts that you'll manage to push a reasonable, historically accurate solution :) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ivo Andric

I find it strange that you've reverted the same sentence you had put there two days before (diff, diff). I don't have a problem with it, I just don't get it... Pozdrav.--Vitriden (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ma slazem se, nego, iskreno, veoma ne volim kad anonimni korisnici bez objasnjenja uklanjaju deo teksta, pa sam vratio, a onda me je tvoje revertovanje potpuno zbunilo. A objasniti sta je Andric bio po nacionalnosti bilo bi prilicno tesko i samom Andricu, ali zato likovi sa svih strana tacno znaju ko je i sta je bio. Isti slucaj i sa Teslom, Mesom Selimovicem, Rudjerom Boskovicem... A da pri tom o njihovom delu pojma nemaju. No dobro, ovde je uvek bilo bitnije sta si nego ko si... Pozdrav, keep on the good work.--Vitriden (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Croatian spelling wars

Ivan, you may find this article to be useful for handing out to non-Croatian editors on Wikipedia or Wiktionary who are genuinely unaware of the degree of politicization in modern Croatian linguistics.

http://www.ex-yupress.com/novi/novilist31.html

This article is quite interesting and accessible for the average reader. The only thing that I guarded against was taking it too seriously when reading it because of its source (www.ex-yupress.com - presumably a pro-Serbian or "Yugo-nostalgic" source). However the facts as presented in this article by ex-yupress.com corroborate with the analysis made by Robert D. Greenberg in his book on modern Serbo-Croatian sociolinguistics.

Speaking of Greenberg, Brozovic last year derided Greenberg's work for making "many obviously wrong claims". It's a pity that an otherwise competent linguist such as Brozovic sinks to the same level as a puppet for the HDZ.

The link to an abstract of Brozovic's criticism is here: http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/IJSL.2008.023

I hope that you'll find them to be useful although ill-informed ignorami such as Robert Ullmann (to say nothing of Croatian wikipedians such as Mir Harven, Anto, Kubura, SpeedyGonsales, Imbris etc.) would probably make an excuse to dismiss the first article as Greater Serbian propaganda. :-P

Pozdrav Vput (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Help on Albanian language page

People get changing the Albanian word table on the Albanian language page. Verdhë is yellow in Albanian and gjelbër yet people keep changing to thinking them around as they think this is a cognate table, but it is not. Although I have suggested the table be changed anyway. What do you think, we need a new table? Azalea pomp (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar for Proto-Slavic borrowings

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded to Ivan Štambuk for creating an academically responsible and well researched article, Proto-Slavic borrowings. Especially in the section on the debate over Iranianisms, this article publicizes major recent works from both sides of the debate. These include a fresh assessment of the issue from just last year by Matasović, who issues a call for rigor in future research. Since Matasović 2008 is written in Croatian, quoting from it here is an especially valuable service to scholars.

Re

Ma nema sourcea, nema sourcea. Da ima neki source sta ga optužuje napisali bi mi, ali nema. Rummel je izgovor, krivo citiran. On jednostavno koristi "Tito Regime" umjesto "Yugoslavia" i genijalci su se uhvatili tega ka pijan plota. Onda oni nobelovac meni pocne citirat Spidermana "with great power comes great responsibility". :P Rummel ne optužuje Tita direktno, nego Yugoslavenski režim tog razdoblja. Nije ni on lud da priča gluposti.

ja sam to napisa ali me ne shvaćaju ozbiljno (iako imam više edita na ovoj Wikipediji nego svi oni skupa). Maka sam sekciju jer je to misrepresentation of sources. Oni če počet editratovat, pa se i ti ukjuči da ne bi jednostavno brojčano izrevertali i dobili šta hoće. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sretan Božić!

xD As an atheist (unfortunately violently baptized as a child :), I don't really practice pagan customs of celebrating winter solstice, Nature and the associatedly fabricated "gods", but I do appreciate the gesture itself and the act of spreading spirit of cosmic love and brotherhood ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Then you should appreciate THC just as much... ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Joj, saću zamotat jednu frulu :D --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Jedna božićna, jeli? xD Kao medicinar moram te ukoriti - kaže se truba, ne "frula" --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Kao amaterski lingvist moram ti replicirati da ovdje kod nas puše većma "frule" ^_^

Ja sam odvajkada govorio: 9delta-tetrahidrokanabinol i 1,3,7-trimetilksantin su programerovi najbolji prijatelji, naročito prilikom kodiranja za vrijeme dugih, snježnih zimskih noći, kad je sav civiliziran svijet u REM fazi a ti se rveš sa zdravim razumom trijebeći heisenbugove :P --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Er, discussion on what I gather is caffeine and marijuana aside... :) I'm an atheist too, but I enjoy Christmas. I think it's more a part of the Western cultural tradition than any religious custom these days. Still, no reason why you can't have a good time on the 24th and 25th (and the 7th if you wish), no? Go picket a church. :) —what a crazy random happenstance 02:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, we smart folks use trivial chemical terminology, to show just how great we are. :)

As for xmas, I'm always ready to disregard atheism when free candy(!) is involved. btw, you do know that's an orthodox Christmas greeting above in the title? Serbs are orthodox, we Croats are catholic. There's no call for such insults... ;D --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Free candy naturally trumps all theological arguments, that's an unfortunate and irrefutable character flaw of us atheists. :) And whoops, sorry, I simply looked up the Serbo-Croatian Xmas greeting. Do not question Christmas! Bow down before the power of Santa! —what a crazy random happenstance 04:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well sure, (free) candy is real... or at least I'm reasonably sure there exists irrefutable empirical evidence for its existence. Oh dear, seems I shall have to do some thorough research on the subject this season. :P

(Fixed title to western variant of Serbo-Croatian. Traditional Serbian orthodox greeting is "God's peace! Christ is born!", we just say "merry Xmas!" :)) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

 :D Are you sure that candy is not just a manifestation of your beliefs? A gift from the Candy Gods? Surrender your free will to find out! Thanks for fixing the title. BTW, before it broke, the link in my last post led to a humorously misanthropic and dystopian video from the Invader Zim Xmas special but the gracious people YouTube have kindly decided to protect me from being sued by Viacom and have removed it without telling me seconds after I posted it tagged as private. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The notice coldly informed me that "this video is not available in my country due to copyright restrictions". YouTube needs to get with the holiday spirit, don't they know the holiday spirit will give them candy?

The more I think about this Christmas crap the more I like it (divine inspiration?). Maybe if we spend enough money on Christmas we'll fuel the fake economy, save people's jobs and increase corporate profits - and as a bonus we just might not go to hell? Win-win, it seems... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What, you don't like the Judeo-Christian laissez-faire Capitalist tradition? What are you, a god-damn commie?! GO BACK TO RUSSIA! —what a crazy random happenstance 07:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hell no, been there done that (the commie part, not the Russia part - can you imagine if I actually went there? I'm cold where I am right now, god...) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Proto-Slavic phonology

Hello Ivan,

I wonder if you are ready to make sure that the revised (more archaic or more Baltic looking) reconstruction of proto-Slavic phonology as championed by František Václav Mareš and recently also Holzer finds its way into the article Proto-Slavic language, also to enlighten readers who may wonder about the reconstructions in Proto-Slavic borrowings.

That said, I've just noticed that in Georg Holzer, it is claimed or at least implicated that Holzer devised his theory entirely by himself and that the theory is brand-new; however, there are obviously precedents, so perhaps this is a bit misleading and should be rephrased somehow. As I do not have Holzer's books handy, however, I am not quite sure which precedents Holzer acknowledges himself. Moreover, the article claims that his theory has been accepted in the field in the meanwhile; if so, this is all the more reason to incorporate the new reconstruction into the article about the protolanguage. Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Florian!

Yes that article on Proto-Slavic needs a major rewrite. Holzer's scholarly work primarily deals with onomastics and dating of various Common Slavic sound changes. He is mentioned in the article only within the context of the statement that Proto-Slavic had no dialectal diversification at the year 600 (judging from the available evidence of onomastics data and various glosses, as Slavic speech was not written at that time). The reconstruction of Proto-Slavic phonological system is a different matter, and much complex and broader in scope. Primarily so because lots of works on that matter is a kind of painfully obsolete, and because different authors employ different notation for the same thing. I initially wanted to create several auxiliary articles (on borrowings, Slavic palatalizations, sound changes such as pleophony etc.) before attacking the main one, but meanwhile I got fed up with the topic and my mind diverted to different things. Currently my focus is outside Wikipedia but when I come back I'll certain make the enhancement of PSl. as one of my TODO stuff. It's a major undertaking because it would require compiling data and notation from several sources in order to maintain proper NPOV approach, because they are many unresolved problems in Common Slavic language that don't have any consensus. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a pity, but I understand your reasoning. Still, shouldn't the reader somehow be made aware of the different reconstructions and notations, the traditional OCS-based one (which, according to Holzer, doesn't even reflect the Saloniki dialect of the 9th century, after all) and the Baltic-looking one? It should be feasible for you to incorporate at least a note into Proto-Slavic language that alternatives to the traditional reconstruction/notation have been proposed, defended and to some extent accepted in the scientific community, and are sometimes used - for example, in your article. (And that the traditional notation is often retained in addition, but labelled Common Slavic.)

As for *ōseringu, perhaps the reason that the /i/ of Gothic *ausihriggs is reflected as /e/ here is the following /h/, which is known to lower (in traditional terminology: break) preceding /i/, possibly even subphonemically and automatically, so that the spelling *ausihriggs instead of *ausaihriggs is just a purely orthographic restitution according to the morphophonemic principle (but then, perhaps the "connecting vowel" was unstable by that time anyway, so it was prone to fluctuation). By the way, the Gothic word is not directly attested, anyway; Lehmann gives it as *ausi-hriggja-. But as the progressive (traditionally third) palatalisation accounts for the shape of the Slavic word, I see no reason to reconstruct a ja-stem here. Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Another point I just noticed glancing over your excellent article: Isn't PSl. *melka generally held to be a loan from Germanic, as well? Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct, PSL. *melka > Common Slavic *melko is borrowed from Gothic; native Satemized reflex of *h₂melǵ- has been preserved in the verb "to milk" (Common Slavic *melzti).

At the moment, the article on Proto-Slavic language unfortunately doesn't make notice of either reconstructions, but simply treats them collectively in quite a messy approach, paying no attention to diachrony and syncrhony. These 2 reconstructions reflect 2 stages of PSl. language: Early Proto-Slavic, with quantitative vowel oppositions, diphthongs.. and Late Proto-Slavic (aka Common Slavic), its last reconstructable phase, with qualitative oppositions, monophthongized diphthongs, nasal vowels, palatal(ized) consonants and other outputs of "law of open syllables" and "law of syllabic synharmony". Mapping between them is formulaic and trivial (you can devise almost a dozen sound laws just by looking at the article on Proto-Slavic borrowings). However, I do agree that in in current stage the article on PSl. should be enhanced with both newer notation, table of Early Proto-Slavic phonemic inventory (picking up were the article on Proto-Balto-Slavic left), and chronological treatment of sound changes as they occurred. That is exactly what I had in mind. However, it is necessary that all the auxiliary articles be created first, as I don't like unfinished work and prefer "bottoms-up" approach. I don't have any of literature at hand at the moment, so I can help only after January 5th or something like that.

Note that this is not some kind ogf "alternative reconstruction" or an "alternative notation", but a reconstruction of a different stage of language. The "traditional" reconstruction as you call it still very much used. Reconstructions of Common Slavic words is trivial, and can for the most part be done on the basis of OCS alone (and, as you notice, OCS was not identical to Common Slavic, but was very close to it, temporally by some 2 centuries off). Bot of them are equally valid and bot of them serve equal purpose. Someone interested in the relationships among modern and historical Slavic languages would of cause focus on Common Slavic reconstructions as a reference. Someone interested in pre-Common-Slavic times would utilize an earlier reference point; in case of prehistorical borrowings in Slavic, Early Proto-Slavic, where one can still observe the phonetic proximity to etymons and further degradation into attested forms, as well as important sound changes occurring in the process, several of which article on PSl. borrowings already makes notice. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

translation?

Can you provide a quick/rough translation of these editsummaries? If they are incredibly over the top, feel free to send an email to me with them. Also, when reverting, please warn the IP. tedder (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

E-mail sent. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Elly Tran Ha

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Elly Tran Ha requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Warrah (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I noted the "hangon" tag you applied to the above-captioned article and the assertion you made on its talk page. You are correct to note that the article suggests that Ms. Ha is a "celebrity", but the category for speedy deletion contains the provision that the article must "credibly" suggest that the individual in question is a celebrity. It is not sufficient to merely state that someone is a celebrity; there needs to be something in the way of reliable sources, or an indication that an arm's-length third-party expert other than the author believes the subject to be a celebrity, and for what reason. I do not find this unsubstantiated claim to be "credible" and thus have decided to agree with the individual who tagged the article for speedy deletion. If you feel you can substantiate this claim with reference to reliable sources, and you wish the deleted content to be returned to a "sandbox" page where you can add those sources with less urgency, feel free to leave me a note by clicking on the word "talk" after my signature. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, never mind. She's the hottest chick on the Internet so sooner or later someone will bother to find some credible sources. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Badnjak

Friendly reminder, don't let these people bring you down by saying you are "overreacting" or "have something against Serbs". It is their form of intimidation, and it works on some. I only happened to look into badnjak while--shock--celebrating badnjak with my Croatian family. I'm still ill though, but it is definitely in the article's best interest for it to still be edited and portrayed accurately, i.e. not excluding anyone from "the club" that seems to have popped up.--Jesuislafete (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess there's related serious literacy published by houses like Glas Koncila or Kršćanska sadašnjost, etc. so probably available in the libraries within church institutions. Those scans are good for starting, but nothing more, you're right. Maybe I have a friend who can help, we'll see. Zenanarh (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

potalijančuje imena - Ragusan aristocracy

I think you need to face the truth...Do you remember Marino de BONA and how you said his name was Marin Bunic and it was controversial for me to write that his name was not Marin Bunic. I proved to you that in his obituary in Slobodna Dalmacija his name was Marino de BONA.

I think you need to face up to reality about Dubrovnik's past! Have you ever even been there? You have not explained why there is no document with a Bunic signature and why tombstones of the nobility in Dubrovnik all have the non-Slavic names on them. Stop using other birds' feathers to make yourself look good. Debona.michel (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

LoL, of course I've been there! (I happen to grew up in a place not far from it). As far as the writers who wrote in Slavic are concerned - bulk of them used consistently Slavic versions of their surnames, the surnames by which they are generally known by in the English-speaking world, and it's imperative that does surnames have priority. Hence Marin Držić not Marino Darsa, Ivan Gundulić not Giovanni Gondola... As far as the general nobility is concerned who didn't leave us literary works of value...well, I don't really care, as I'm not much familiar with the issue of their (sur)names. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Simply curious

Are you by any chance related to the Kereta family in California? V. Kereta married a Stambuk. Your father lives in Japan? (I was there over Xmas).Debona.michel (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that I know of (and I don't know much about my own genealogy, and frankly couldn't care less). All Stambuk's are related in a way: there was just one family ~ 300 years ago, but we've managed to spread all around the globe, propagating like rabbits (my grandfather had 5 sons, his father 7...) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A little older revert you did

Something came to my attention right now.

Ivan Gundulic

Why remove? you asked

Because it's broken; redirects me here: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Category:FYT-GAI

Care to elaborate? Er-vet-en (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Montenegrin

Hi,

Do you have any refs that Macedonian Montenegrin is Eastern Herzegovinian (though I can probably do that) and that the two new letters are non-phonemic? The article currently claims they're for phonemes not found in EH. Might they be due to local dialects, as Croatian also has lexical influence from other dialects? kwami (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean Montenegrin? Yeah, I could dig some refs, give me a couple of days. No they're non-phonemic, and the minimal pairs proposed by Montenegrin linguists are almost absurd. These two sounds are not spoken by the majority of the Montenegro population, and are not written anywhere in the media, papers, books...completely made up out of thin air. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Sorry.

"not by the majority" implies they are by a (substantial) minority, which brings back the question of whether they're dialectical in Montenegro even if not found in Eastern Hercegovinian.

I would also like to rephrase the ledes of the SC articles so that they don't imply these are languages in the normal English sense of the term, as in calling s.o. quadrilingual for speaking all four, but make clear that they are national standard languages. I brought this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages. kwami (talk) 05:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

S.o. just found your orphaned Serbo-Croatian grammar article. I've proposed merging S & C grammar there at WP Linguistics, and this will make it a lot easier! It's already the Bosnian and Montenegrin grammar article. I've started making minor changes such as commenting on the two extra Montenegrin letters, linking to the kin terms article, etc., and eventually moving over anything that the other articles have that yours as yet does not. Please let me know if I do anything silly! kwami (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I totally forgot about that one. It takes ridiculous amount of time to write those kind of articles - table formatting, diacritics, different scripts... The missing data from the S & C grammar articles should probably be merged. Your edits look fine. -Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

lols

Get a load of this :). A work of art by User:Sir Floyd --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

?

Hey, can you please join the discussion about the Oj, svijetla majska zoro on it's talk page? Cheers! Rave92^(talk) 17:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It was your message

Hi, Ivan.
It wasn't me, it was you who wrote this [1]. It was your message.
So, please, don't say that I'm the one that writes "nacionalist nonsenses" (as you did here [2]).
Please, don't attack me for the things you wrote [3]. Kubura (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, don't revert, talk.

Ivan, why have you done this [4]?
Article was sourced.
Article about Central South Slavic diasystem is an article about the Brozović's theory about a diasystem.
Some scientists agree with him, some scientists disagree. All that is mentioned in the article, with short description.
Article has scientific references. Redirecting that article is equal to deletion.
Please, don't mix that with "Serbo-Croatian". "Serbo-Croatian" is the political project in the language area. It had long history.
Both articles can coexist.
Why do you make problem about that?
Brozović's theory can be wrong, but there're bunch of articles about theories (from various sciences) that proved wrong (or the ones that later proved to be right).
E.g., economics has a lot of theories, that were later abandoned (because they proved to be partially/conditionally/completely wrong). But students do learn those theories in the Universities all over the world.
Personally, I agree with Babić. So, I'm not pushing "my favourite version". But, according to the logic from above (example of economics), I wrote this article. We're not here to judge the theories: we give what's written in scientific works.
In any case, Brozović argumented why's the term CSSD better than the term "Serbo-Croatian". Therefore I've made replacements.
It was nice when you here wrote [5] "...there was possibly ancestor language for all Slovenian and Croatian dialects, and also similarly possibly Proto-East-South-Slavic (Bulgarian and Macedonian dialects) - but certianly no "Proto-South-Slavic" and within it some "Serbo-Croatian" node, who would be more unhomogeneous than any other real European language diasystem! The ancestral language of all idioms spoken nowadays by Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks and Montenegrins never existed.".
OK, excellent. I'd like your help. From your message from above, I see that you're informed a lot about that. Please, help me explain that to user Kwamikagami.
Sincere greetings, Kubura (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That article that you wrote is 1) content fork 2) written in an extremely PoVish manner. And as I've stated several times on that very talkpage - if Brozović's theory of CSSD should be discussed anywhere, it's on the Serbo-Croatian article page first, and only to be cut out in a separate article if it grows too big. I've already made some preparations for it at the South Slavic languages articles, but I takes a lot of time to find references and all. And what I wrote that you quote above in no way invalidates anything I said: there is really no genetic node of Serbo-Croatian, but there isn't either one for Croatian as far as that's concerned (and, there isn't even Proto-Čakavian or Proto-Kajkavian, believe it or not). Language groupings on the basics of national nomenclature in South Slavic area are arbitrary and based on political criteria. In dialectology there is only the Štokavian dialect and 4 national standards based on it. There is another thing of Čakavian, Kajakavian, Štokavian and Torlakian dialects mixing with one another throughout the history that also needs to be mentioned, for which the CSSD term is very useful. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkpage:Croatian language - please, don't attack me

Hi, Ivan.
Please don't attack me [6]. Words like "you insolentw nationalist troll" do not belong here, as well as your implicated personal attack ("your imaginary "three-dialectal Croatian" is just a fairy tale, and anybody with 3 brain cells can see that...").
Please, read WP:PERSONAL, WP:ETIQ and WP:CIVIL.
"Bigoted fundamentalist just repeat their old dogmas for over and over again." Think about what you've written and say whome you can apply this sentence to: 1) to Croatian and modern foreign Slavists, or 2) to the ideologized Slavists that persistently push obsolete and ideologized serbocroatist theories from 150 years ago?
[7]"Your imaginary "three-dialectal Croatian" is just a fairy tale, and anybody with 3 brain cells can see that that myth has nothing to do with reality".
Interesting, all Croats that speak all those 3 dialects designate themselves as Croats and their language as Croatian (from centuries ago), and that's imaginary? Interesting. Please, see Population by mother tongue, by towns/municipalities, Croatian census 2001. Total 4.437.460, Croatian 4.265.081, Croatian-Serbian 2.054, Serbian 44.629, Serbian-Croatian 4.961. (there're [8] 3.977.171 Croats and 201.631 Serbs).
Am I imagining things and pushing fairy-tales?
I hope this'll help you. Greetings, Kubura (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You're trolling Kubura, and I have no problems in telling you so. I have zero tolerance for nationalist, religious and political fundamentalists who twist facts and use cheap ad-hominems as an "argument". You digged out some obscure quote of mine that is not relevant to the discussion, and you expect me to do what exactly - give you a candy? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You've required help

You've asked for help [9] "...For example, to state that e.g. "standard Croatian is based on three equally-treated dialects", without providing actual evidence to support such claims.".
You've asked me once similar question. I've answered you 05:12, 20 May 2009 on the talkpage of the article Central South Slavic diasystem [10].
Maybe you haven't read it, but here's the literature from that message:

• Dalibor Brozović, Povijest hrvatskoga književnog i standardnoga jezika, Školska knjiga, Zagreb, 2008., ISBN 978-953-0-60845-0. For this topic, read pages 75-80
  

The book generally deals with the development of Croatian language, with comparative analysis with other Slavic languages (including South Slavic ones).

• Stjepan Babić's Hrvatski jučer i danas, Školske novine, Zagreb, 1995, ISBN 953-160-052-X, p. 246-252
  

These books are generally good, I've put some accent on certain pages. I hope that I've helped you. Greetings, Kubura (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't appear to be understand what I was asking. I was asking for actual evidence (as opposed to unsubstantiated statements that claim so, which is then nothing but wishful thinking on their author's part) that Croatian standard is three-dialectal. The quote that you provided actually states completely the opposite, which I was saying all along (narodi uzeli za dijalekatsku osnovicu standarda više-manje isti, tj. novoštokavski dijalekatski tip..). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bulcsú László

The article Bulcsú László has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable individual, does not seem to satisfy WP:BIO criteria

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-European root

For some reason, I can't find a good reference for the fact that PIE roots are verbal roots. Have you got one you could add to Proto-Indo-European root#Lexical meaning? BTW, I've nominated the article for GA, so any additions, copyediting or comments would be very welcome. Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Fausto Veranzio or Faust Vrančić

You were involved on similar language issues so I thought this may interest you. regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding and canvassing

[11] This is called wikihounding and canvassing. Read WP:HOUND and WP:CANVASS. Don't harass me WP:HARASSMENT. Kubura (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You're a dangerous troll that needs to be monitored. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not call other editors names, such as "troll". You can be blocked for making personal attacks by doing that. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)