Talk:Vlastimirović dynasty/Archive 1

House of Vi&#353;eslavi&#263;?
Shouldn't this page actually be referenced under House of Vi& considering most of these rulers are relatives of the first Serbian Prince? The Serbian Unity Congress's page on &#268;aslav Klonirimovi&#263; recognizes this:"...With Caslav's death Serbia again splits into smaller units, and there also comes an end to the house of Viseslav, which ruled central Serbian lands possibly for three hundred years - the last hundred or so of which we have some specific information on."Regardless of how little we know about Vi&#353;eslav, Radoslav, and Prosigoj, it's a little disengenuous to omit these first few noble Serbs and not credit them with the founding of this dynasty.

I have found out through my families historic story telling of when I was growing up in Serbia in the 80s and How my Name Was changed because of a hidden secret and later Communism, they would have never surrvived a day with a last name of Vlastimirović for it meaning is to Rule ,and Stanimirovic means to stop Ruling this was ,solidified through online and DNA testsing that is being offered by the family tree researchers Ancestry.com ,and I have been bombarded with family crests and pictures of my Royal then family members ,I always knew that my blood was different and always healed superfast and my blood is stringy ,Mucuscoscis and jelly type thick ,that its hard to draw up in a needle ,we all got scared when A Proffesional lobotomist for 30 years said they never seen Blood So thick and like Stringy stretchy, is this considered Royal Blood and is this why royalty was passed down generation to generation for centuries for the blood in a royal persons body it it the same as everyone else and if not where does it come from ,My Blood doesnt even have a letter lor number to distinguish it from others ,very alien like ,then we went on to do research and then they found Starchild and this is exact ad to what I like and talent wise we are all freeking out ,and Had had visionary response from the future if certian bad people get elected again ,we just need to move foward with new ,organic ways to find food sources and to cease destroying the world with polution and we must stop allowing man to pillage and rape our earth oceans and other critical resources. ...Thanks just be a good person or you will be Bad. Pavle stanimirovic (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

royalty at this point in time means nothing unless I would be able to use this for good and not use it selflessly and act like I am better then everyother person and introduce narsasitc ways that couldn't possibly make me or anyone happy ,so it's not logical to live like a bad person and do bad things ,to start fires that people will not be able to put out ,for they are the fires of truth ,let not point fingers and these barbaric idiotic ancient ways are broken ,for the dame people pointing one finger has 3 pointing back at them ,so its bad to point ,Things should be handled with understanding first and foremost for the love of humanity and earth to make a good decision about a bad element in a person ,for evil is something that one has to accept to live with and if they have a broken conscious then they need to be separated for they are the only treat to a smart posotive growing member of Humanity that is good and wants good for all ,no matter thy religion ,race,color,sect .a human being is good from birth and what caused his hatred towards another is blame on the parents and broken system ...Must not put a bandaid and think it will not get infected. Pavle stanimirovic (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

royalty is loyalty towards humanity and the planet we were given to protect and father ,not rape ,pillage & destroy ,who give you right to murder a divine Lion ,who gives you the right to live like a king for what great deed and accomplishments have you achieved to have everyone worship and celebrate your name ? Who give you the right to cause WAR on Humans ? Its either GOOD 4 G-D ♡♡♡♡♡ or #bad for Garbage ♤♤♤♤♤. no religion ,no color ,no race ,no hate ,no lies Be loyal and thats true Royalty. Pavle stanimirovic (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Majka, Branca Teofilos Teofilovich. Pavle stanimirovic (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) PavleBranićVlastimirovic #Maj10,72Rođen U NYC ,Manhattan.Otac Vojislav Vlastimirović

Source?
Got this source from croatian WP: Историја српског народа. Књига прва. Од најстаријих времена до Маричке битке (1371), ур. С. Ћирковић, Српска књижевна задруга, Београд 2000, 147. (Obrazovanje srpske države, S. Ćirković)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem?
When the Serbs were mentioned in 822 (the oldest mention of them) in the Royal Frankish Annals ("the Serbs, who control the greater part of Dalmatia"; ad Sorabos, quae natio magnam Dalmatiae partem obtinere dicitur) one of those two must have ruled Serbia.
 * This primary information which exist in historiography is controversial and should not be used as one-sided historical fact. If the same information is used in the article then must be full context because there are and other informations(same historical source) which dispute this information.  Editor  explained about this problem  on talk page
 * "When the Serbs were mentioned in 822 (the oldest mention of them)"... "one of those two must have ruled Serbia.". As for this two informations, they are WP:OR because present source does not mention this informations. Mikola22 (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is it "controversial"? WP:EXTRAORDINARY that is WP:V states - claims need extraordinary arguments and sources; try to present some please.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  21:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * *Ali franačka Dalmacija prema kazivanju Anala na početku trećega desetljeća 9. stoljeća očito nije obuhvaćala svu rimsku provinciju, nije se protezala na gentilnu vladavinu Srba i na knezove koji su joj stajali na čelu, premda je i njihova zemlja bila na području rimske Dalmacije..But Frankish Dalmatia according to The Annals at the beginning of the third decade of the 9th century clearly did not cover all Roman province, did not extend to the gentile rule of the Serbs and to the Knyaz's who stood at its head, although their country was also in the area of Roman Dalmatia. (page 68, Radoslav Katičić (1990) Pretorijanci kneza Borne(Praetorians of Knyaz Borna )
 * *By employing the same term, Dalmatia, to the lands under the rule of Croat duke, as well as to the land where Serbs ruled, the annalist probably reflect aspirations of the Franks towards the whole territory of the former Roman Province of Dalmatia (page 395, Srđan Rudić, (2011) Споменица академика Симе Ћирковића (Homage to Academician Sima Ćirković) Mikola22 (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't cite WP:PRIMARY directly. the edit about Dalmatia isn't even related to the scope of this article, so instead of getting into an WP:UNDUE problem, you could just remove it.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In this case I will accept your advice. We must respect NPOV so that was intention of my edit. This information also exist and in other articles. Mikola22 (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)