User talk:Kubura

Archive 1 - Edits on "SC language"
Archive 2 - Srijem issues
Archive 3 - W.Herzog, Stjepan and Montenegro issues
Archive 4 - Cro-Ser questions, very interesting discussion, many topic being opened/touched/resolved
Archive 5 - Some Doclea and Dalmatia issues
Archive 6 - Farsi, Diego, NHL, Stjepan
Archive 7 - Republic of Dubrovnik, Haydn, various
Archive 8 - Mostly vandalism dealing, Zadar, Mikalja

Split

Kubura, opet pokušavaju preimenovat "Split" u "Split, Croatia" i stavit ga u split (disambiguation). Ideološke razlike na stranu, pokušavam to spriječit i ako si protiv toga, dobro bi mi došla pomoć na talkpageu, hvala. DIREKTOR 04:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but Split is still Split, and I'll do my best to stop the renaming. DIREKTOR 14:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Illyrians

See Illyrians Later usage of the term - section, please Zenanarh 20:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Dubrovnik

Naš stari prijatelj Giovanni Giove opet probaje promjenit sva imena u taljanski i ubacit da je taljanski bia službeni jezik. Ako nisi prezaposlen dobro bi mi doša neko za pomoć. DIREKTOR 20:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not saying I would not like to see the Republic of Ragusa article changed into Republic of Dubrovnik, what I am saying is that that is impossible because the country is called the Republic of Ragusa in English. The same way Hrvatska is not called "Hrvarska", but Croatia. This has nothing to do with Italian, but with the Latin name of the city (in Dalmatian it is also Ragusa). I won't revert your change of Ragusas to Dubrovniks, but I appeal to your common sense, that you please undo it yourself, because we are getting the appearance of radical nationalists due to this. I would also like to remind you that the English have different names for cities in different historical contexts, "Ragusa" is simply the name their historical science uses for the period of the Republic. In any case please let's first just concentrate on getting rid of our friend Giove here, to do this we need to be moderate. DIREKTOR 16:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Tvoje mišljenje

Dobro bi mi došlo kad bi iznijeo svoje mišljenje o našemu priajtelju gioveu na Administrators' noticeboard/incidents, tamo sam ga prijavia za mijenjanje i editanje tuđih (uključujući tvoje) commenta na Request for Commentima šta ih je posta. Šta me više ljudi podrži to bolje. P.S. Pišem na Hrvatski jer giove i Brunodam uporno čitaju sve što napišem, pa neka sada guštaju. DIREKTOR 22:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Place of birth

You stated in an example for removing Yugoslavia on a football player that you will discuss when someone puts in that Karađorđe was born in Turkey. That would be a factual error to say so, he was however born in the Ottoman Empire and the second paragraph contains that information. Your edit was reverted. Evlekis 12:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh I don't know about citizenship and how things were then. To get down to a more serious issue than historical accuracy, I am writing as we speak a response for the Sabrsko Massacre. In it, I attack the Hague court, and the points that it makes. Nothing personal to you. It will be posted in a few minutes. OK? Evlekis 12:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Koruba, just out of plain curiousity. Why is it that you oppose Croatia's membership in the EU? Evlekis 09:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well although we havn't been agreeing 100% with each other on the Sabrsko Massacre presentation, I totally stand by everything you say about Croatia and the EU. You clearly see the facts with your own eyes and not "somebody elses", well good luck in trying to convince the majority of Croatian citizens this.

Some time before the fighting in our region started, the early architects of Croatia's present-day republic were stating their reasons for why Croatia should not be a part of Yugoslavia. Like with the Slovenian lobby, one of the key reasons given was "economy"; obviously the millions of dollars our post-war country received helped build Slovenia's and Croatia's infrastructure; such as the hotels along the coast which cater for the millions, but more so the solid industries in both republics (factories built in the 1960s etc, you know them better than I do). Now, obviously, the people who voted along those lines must have realised that their own living was good as it was - and so their intention was to make it better. Looking at it from other people's viewpoints, (ie. Macedonia and Bosnia for its larger part), well with these places, "own economy" was not a reason for wishing to split. So, I always thought, if Croatia (and Slovenia, I don't forget them) wanted to split from a larger unit so as to enjoy more of their own benefits, why is it that those same people want to join another even bigger organisation where they'd be forced to share? If living in Slovenia means a good standard of living for Slovenes without help from outside, then they will have to help those less privileged, such as the Portuguese whom you mentioned. For although Portugal and Spain look nice, although Greece is a favourite for holiday makers, and even though Italy is a member of G8, those four ALWAYS had their snouts in the trough when it came to "receiving" from the EU; Germany and the UK are the two biggest donors. Now look, you've got Malta and Cypurs, neither bad but neither brilliant; and eleven other Eastern European states (discluding Slovenia); well, Slovenia is now a donor itself. Its poorer people (and there are a fair few) are suffering whilst Ljubljana nurses the Portuguese and the Southern Italians. Croatia is potentially strong, I always knew that; its products are all good quality, they always were, even 40 years ago. You already see that there is a two-tier system in this "Union", where-by sadly, the Eastern European lands are one "union" and the long-timers form the other. But I think it is crazy to wish to join the EU, splitting from Belgrade's control in the name of Hrvatska also meant parting company with Slovenia, and vice-versa. Now you will join hands again, and soon after, with the rest of the sewer rat republics whom you split from...and all in an economical free-for-all. About the ITCY, that is not so relevant; you are wasted here on Wikipedia, your best bet is to gather individuals who think the same, and then spread the message: show the world that Croatia is not another "pro-west microstate". I have written about Macedonia (poorer bur prosperous) on my user page, that if Norway doesn't need to be an EU member, neither does Macedonia. Evlekis 12:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. Kubura, I was absolutely shocked and somewhat disheartened that you brought my user page to the attention of admins; I feel a little betrayed. Now I know that we were not in full agreement over one or two issues but I never thought that those small things would hinder a healthy editorial relationship between you and me. After all, we can discuss things and I felt that we have done this in a civilised manner. We're human, we have strong feelings towards things - but when we play a fair game, two people with initially different views can both influence the other to a certain degree and I felt that this could happen in our case where we've discussed the ITCY etc. I developed a lot of respect for your personal views, and as you know - with regards the EU, I fully stand by what you have stated. Naturally, my story was ficitonal, but it was only confined to the user page itself. But swearing has offended you? Kubura, are you not a Croat? Since when did swearing offend Croats and make life "intollerable"? I have never known anyone swear so casually as the Balkan population. Down the years I have had many Croatian friends and acquaintances; and I have met and conversed with thousands. They may vary in a number of respects but not with regards to foul language. In August 2000, I sat with a Dubrovnik Catholic priest, I mean - this man was devout - as Croatian as you are and very friendly; but did he ever swear. As I sat explaining the poor situation in Macedonia; he was agreeing but by saying "ma jebo this, jebo that"; he even continuously said (when surprised), "jebo te Papa" (The pope fucks you), unheard of in English. When my father served in the JNA in Osijek in 1961, he recalls the local population in the bars and cafes using the same language and using /Bog/ after it (God). I've heard Croatian nuns using foul language; I've even come across school teachers talking in foul language to their pupils; all of this in Split, your town. And one thing I will never forget; in 2001 I was in Istra - Rijeka to be precise. I sat at a trendy bar having a coffee with a friend, on the table to my left was a party of local Croats speaking in the Istian Slavic dialect, on the other side, a group of lads who spoke Italian. The Italians ordered their food and drink in standard Croatian; I realised that they were not from Italy herself, but from Istria. Of course, I don't speak Italian, but something odd happened. After ten minutes, these Italaians downed their drinks, paid quickly and left. My friends and I bumped into the same Italians two hours later in another cafe; we managed to get talking (in Croatian). They explained the reasons that they left; obviously speaking Croatian aswell, they fully comprehended the conversation of the Croats sitting to my left. I wasn't paying much attention to them because to me, everything sounded the same and I am used to the way locals speak. But everything these Croats were saying was followed by "Pički katolički", and other things which involed "matera", (of the mother), and in Italian culture, it is seen as a severe offence to speak badly of the "mother". The irritable Italians just walked away, yet they are from the same city. Now you tell me how often young Croatian men swear and leave out the "mother". Not often is it. I am sorry if you were personally offended by a silly little story, though I am still surprised that you could find it offensive. The words don't come from a website; I happen to know them. They are purposely chosen to reflect how I really feel about politics, about governments, about leaders, about polititians, about promises, about everything in that department. Politians are one and the same, all liars, all "where the wind blows", you may be a proud Croat but don't ever fool yourself that Franjo Tudjman cared about you or your family. Sure he is the father of the nation, but he was a Partisan once upon a time. Now on the one hand, yes, the Communists supressed opposition, and so to be in politics, you had to be one of them. He spent a fair section of his political career persecuting disloyal individuals. In reality, if you live under a system which you don't believe in and that system does not recognise opposition; you either join rebels and take what comes, or you stay out of public life until such time as the climate naturally changes, then jump in. But you don't publish 10 books about Presdient Tito and his good works (as did Vojislav Seselj), and then emerge as an anti-hero. If the tide should change again, you watch every one of those "democratic people", Mesic, Tadic, Drnovsek, Jansa, Silajdzic, Komsic etc. squirm like dogs and join the new movements. They have no shame. Neither has Tony Blair; in the early 80s, he was an outspoken activist in banning the nuclear bomb. Well, he didn't voice his concerns about "banning the bomb" in the 10 years he was in power. Polititians are scum, and so are their organisations. So for that, there is no apology for me calling a president Ben Zona ("Son of a bitch" in Hebrew), and his land "Arsehole" in Dutch. That's how I feel about ALL countries. Evlekis 15:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration request

You have been named as a party in an arbitration request here. Please consider making a statement there. Regards,--Isotope23 ^talk 16:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed your message today; I've been working on Croatian wikipedia these days, so I was few days off en.wiki.
You've caught me by surprise. At least, you could announce this RfA to me, so I can plan my time. If you have send this message a week later, I'd be on vacation, and I wouldn't be able to see nor write/respond anything. At least, you should wait for my notification "I'm informed about RfA", and than "the time can go" (usually, as I know, notified users have to notify that they saw the message about RfA, otherwise, RfA fails, as I saw on some cases here).
One important thing. I think you should report... no, you must put the article Jakov Mikalja on that RfA also.
It's exposed to heavy vandalising and edit-slaughter by user:Giovanni Giove (edit-slaughter: while opponents respect the rule "don't do anything on the article till consensus made on Rf..", at the same time, vandal-slayer freewillingly and with attitude "who-cares-for-idiots-that-obey-the-rules-and-do-nothing", edits the article the way he wants it to be, or POV-ize it). Recent edit without discussion is [1], and after user Zmaj's revert (note: rv back - user Giovanni Giove reverted the edits of a total of 8 editors), he again made his actions [2]. Both his actions were made Aug 27. Of course, he gave no explanations on talkpage. I can copy this on RfA, wright?
Now, to business.
How many times do I have right to give statements on that RfA case? Or, how many time do I have for statement? It'd be fair if my time counts from today, Aug 27, 17:17.
Thanks for patience while reading this. Sincerely, Kubura 15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I did inform you here. This arbitration has not yet been accepted, so you still have time. If you want to make a statement at the request you can certainly include the Jakov Mikalja article as another that should be considered; please note thought that this arbitration is strictly about editor behavior issues, not article content. At this point you can make a brief (500 word) statement at the arbitration request. As far as I know there is no set amount of time you have to make a statement, at this point it is simply being established if there is enough of a reason for ARBCOM to get involved here. If this case is accepted it will move to an evidence gathering phase where you can make additional statments and present evidence that you wish the committee to consider.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The case of Giovanni Giove on administrator's noticeboard /incidents is archived here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive289. Kubura 15:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A sockpuppetry

(notification to Zenanarh)
Do you know that user Brunodam had a sockpuppet, that he used for edit-warring?
Here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Brunodam.
I'm telling you to have this in mind, to let you know that he's prone to do such things.
I'm notifying you, because you and Brunodam have intersections of interests; you're a party concerned here, and there's a chance that you'll have problems with his editwarring and sockpuppetry.
So, if you notice something suspicious, if somebody gets into edit wars on the article (and always "someone new" jumps in to save someone from violating 3RR rule), have in mind whome you're dealing with.
Especially when these "newcomers" have particular interest in same articles... and their interventions are theirs only contributions. First edits, and already edit-warring. Kubura 07:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 20:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Croatian Wikipedians' notice board

Many others states are having local notice boards so that interested users can know everything about article problems (edit wars and similar). This way we like Serbian, Hungarian users will know when there is problem in article and we will not fight alone revert wars. It will be nice if you will send this message to other users which write about Croatia or Croats. Rjecina 18:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Croatian Americans

List of Croatian Americans, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of Croatian Americans satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Croatian Americans and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of Croatian Americans during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Leuko 18:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:PIO and Socks

| 151.33.89.104

| 151.33.92.29

| 151.33.95.148

| 151.33.89.84

User:PIO, or a close associate, has been editing under these IPs, which are all in the 151.33.**.** block owned by Italia Online, continuing agitating while claiming to be 'unlogged for technical problem' [3]. Under 151.33.89.84, PIO made various person attacks and repeatedly removed warning messages from the IP's talk page.

Using these IPs, PIO has many times exceeded WP:3RR on Istrian exodus.

Such use of IPs, particularly when they're all involved in the Istrian exodus dispute, is a serious violation of WP:SOCK. PIO has also been accused of being a sockpuppet of User:Jxy, but claims that they are 'friends who use the same computer'.

Note that User:DIREKTOR has been heavily involved in the Istrian exodus controversy as well. However,given the amount of flak PIO and associated IPs have given, I'm impressed by DIREKTOR's restraint.

Hope this helps. Michaelbusch 23:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Michaelbusch is right to bring this to your attention. I really could use some help in the Istrian exodus matter. The main problem is that User:PIO is trying to make me look like a lone "POV warrior" with the involved Admin, Riana (talk), and on the Istrian exodus talkpage. DIREKTOR 10:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The Marco Polo RfC

On the Marco Polo ethnicity RfC (on the Marco Polo talkpage), Giove insists on constantly posting this apalling statement:

* The idea of a Croatian nationality was developed after the 1840s, in the time of the Romantic Nationalism, 600 years after Marco's dead. In the XIII century, Croatia was a small possession of the Hungarian Crown, quite far from Curzola (which anyway retained a population of romance language). In no case Marko could be called "Croat". --Giovanni Giove 11:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I keep removing it and explaining to him it is simply fundamentally incorrect and very offensive, but he constantly restores it. I was wondering if you could take a look... DIREKTOR 21:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Re Marko Polo

You are right, of course. However, let me correct you in one detail, wether the dinasty was Polish, or Neapolitan or English is not important, but the title held by the King. The Kingship titles of an Anjou king make him the King of Hungary and of Croatia. The fact that he's from Naples is immaterial, and it certainly does not make Croatia-Hungary a Neapolitan possesion (or vice versa). He might not even speak Hungarian (or Croatian). DIREKTOR 13:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Saborsko

It seemed rather redundant to me at the time. My apologies. --Jesuislafete 19:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Saborsko

I'm inclined to agree with you. It should be a place of peace here; sorry if my tones appear aggresive, I hope you know that I never wished to become enemies with you. That's partly the reason I briefly discussed the Croatia-EU topic with you some time back; conscious civilised talk, that was all. I also agree that the edit war has gone on a little too long, and it seems to be ignored by admins. It maybe that they see how long you have been here, and how long I have - and have decided that we know the rules of the game and should be able to solve disputes without interference. Naturally, I don't know as much asbout the Saborsko chapter as you do, it was after all you who introduced the article. It certainly makes every contribution of yours very important. When we revert each other, it seems that we blank out a whole host of minor edits from here and there, some maybe minor and grammatical, others more sinister. As I am writing to you, the other user Paulcicero has reverted you. Let me assure you that this is not a sockpuppet of mine; you need to take my word for it because I really cannot prove it to you. But as a gentleman, I am not using additional accounts on Wikipedia; I publish as an anon occasionally if I have not logged in etc, but those edits are minor. Back to the massacre, I think we can resolve each edit piece by piece. I will now make an edit to the introduction so that it is not made to sound softer than it was. I hope it will be more agreeable for you. I will also refrain from "reverting" once you have adjusted the article to how you wish for it to be; but for the bigger issues, such as the ICTY, we'll discuss those on the talk page itself. I think we can find a way of strengthening the article to look good, and be agreeable for all of us. Puno pozdrav. Evlekis 08:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to say, the Saborsko Massacre article is about 98% how you originally wrote it. I feel that both Paulcicero and I have given in; if you have some decency, I request that you accept the page as it is now. It would be appreciated; I simply cannot stretch my edits any further. The Gospic massacre did contain elements of anti-Croatian propaganda and I have done what I can to ammend that; I am equally set on seeing that the Croatian position is not misrepresented, and the Muslim too. It's up to you now Kubura. Regards. Evlekis 20:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean about the JNA from after September 1991, without its Slovenes and Croats. There is no dispute there. There are technical differences between Serbs fighting for a Serb state and Serbs within a federation, but that is neither here nor there. Elliminate is a good word which could mean either kill or displace, another word you may wish to use is remove. The best thing you can do is extend the sentence so as to say that X-number were victims, so many were killed whilst so many were expelled. I'll see if I can improve that part for you (so if I edit it, it won't be to change the effect, just to reitterate your precise message). Evlekis 14:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your accusation

KUBURA I ASK YOU TO APOLOGIZE, for the accusation of sockpuppetry.--Giovanni Giove 15:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Ragusa

Giove is now editing Republic of Ragusa. He once again claims Italian was the official language, with no sources at that, can you do something about this? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Dogovori

Molija bih te da mi se javiš u svezi nikih stvari. vezano za Dalmaciju , Iredentu i sličnu tematiku na en.wiki.

javi mi se preko moje adrese na stranici! --Anto 20:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

language

You mentioned [4]., which is indeed inexcusable, and I will say so, but please also see [5] and [6]; true there is also [7] and [8]--and a good deal else from various people. I warn you as well. I suggest you refer just to the edits, and never to each other, and certainly no using each others' names or mentioning each other's ethnicity. ethnicity. It will help a little. Restricting the discussion to this particular event will also help. I'll keep watch.

I very strongly urge a similar approach to other articles. The events of the recent years are bad enough, and can only be described fairly with a great effort at objectivity, which is best obtained by writing as impersonally as possible. I know it's easy advice to give and hard to follow, but it really is the only way. It has been attained on other topics. 11:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

as for the article, I think it is relatively descriptive now, and you are right that most un-involved people would indeed accept the ICTY as at least a relatively neutral source. I altered one change you made in the lead which is awkward--and does not really add anything--the responsibility is clear enough without that phrase. Lede paragraphs should not attempt to resolve all specifics. Not worth arguing over, frankly. DGG (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Serb propaganda

Talk:Zagora_(Croatia)#Serb_exodus

You either can't read or are truly, extremely obsessed by Serb propaganda seeing where there are now Serbs. LOL, man. :))) --PaxEquilibrium 18:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

More bit da i uspije...

Neznam, čini mi se da oni stvarno jemaju prav' kod imenaDubrovnika, ovo trenutno je englesko ime za tu državu, i ide po vikipravilima. Al' neka, ne smeta ;D ...
More bit da i uspije ovi move, al' neće ti to oni ostavit na miru, bojin se. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)