User:Kubura/temp

A material for RfC, transferred from the talk page of Republic of Dubrovnik, as admin Isotope23 suggested.

"Shtokavian"
Is somebody trying here to tumble Slavistics upside down? "Shtokavian" language ??? Put your original researches and original works somewhere else. Historical documents speak about Croatian language. Read above. Regarding some other changes in text: I had restored one previous version, but the wrong one.Kubura 09:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

GiovanniGiove persists on his POV and tumbling of Slavistics upside down, as well as his... I can't use the expression "original research", that's is original crap. No milder word. I've put the proofs about the Croatian language on the talk page, but Giovanni Giove AGAIN pushes his "story" about "Shtokavian language" or "South Slavic language" in the article. He's persistently inserting some invented languages from his head. He's persistently ignoring the facts/sources, written on the talk page (with external links to academic institutions). This is a matter for the admins's intervention. Giovanni Giove's behaviour is getting seriously vandalistic, trollistic, nationally extremistic. He has no proper argument. His only argument is naming the opponent as "fanatical nationalist". If he wants to live in his fake world, than he can do that in his home, but not on the Wikipedia. Giovanni Giove's anti-Croat opsession is getting into a serious problem. I don't know how long'll Wikipedia tolerate his behaviour. He's trying to avoid the mentioning the word "Croat", "Croatian", "Croatia" or any Croat toponyms in any possible way. He can't made in his mind a picture of Croatian language as primary. See this. "Serbocroatian"??? No Croat called his language that way. Do you need sources? Then, in his anti-Croatian obsession, he removed the info which told that painter Vlaho Bukovac croatized his name. Where the hell is Bukovac known as "Faggioni"? Niko and Medo Pucić were signing themselves as "Pucić", not "Pozza", see the pictures of them on the articles about them. But, Giove had again italianized their surnames. ,. If he couldn't find Italianized name, than he removed the name of an noble's family (Zlatarić) written in modern Croat ortography. Shall we write English medieval history in medieval English? Giovanni Giove's anti-Croat HISTERY continued with denying the "Croat" word in the name of Croatian language and  (on the talk page is info that Illyric language was one of the names for Croatian). His anti-Croat opsession has went so far, that in the part of the text, where the position of the Republic of Dubrovnik was described, he inserted Italian names as "first". The territory is not bilingual, and Italian is NOT OFFICIAL on the territory where old Republic of Dubrovnik was. Which touristic map shows you "Capo d'Ostro, Sabbioncello, Meleda, Sipano, Isola di Mezzo..."? None. Kubura 13:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

GiovanniGiove REPEATED his anti-Croat work. After he was warned here. Kubura 08:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Giove REMOVED the text above. That's third time. The day before he removed the warning about his behaviour on the talk page. Kubura 06:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Micaglia/Mikalja
I've copied this ''section from Giovanni Giove's talk page. It's important, because it shows the opinion of an other user.'' Kubura 06:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The beginning of section Hello Giovanni, please visit discussion page of that article and answer, prior to just reverting the page. It is just rude and stubborn, and as all Croat nationalist do. Are you one of them, but in the opposite direction?--Plantago 11:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not a natinalist. All my edits are sourced. Discuss your own edits, please.--Giovanni Giove 11:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong target. My additions are: He is Jesuit (sourced). He is of Croatian origin (sourced). Illyric is name given to language for long time now called Croatian by Vinko Pribojević (sourced!), and accepted specially in Italy. I wrote original name of his dictionary in literature (what's wrong with that? -also sourced).
 * Now some things about your new additions to introduction to article: You really don't understand anything about languages on Balkans, don't you? To say that Shtokavian, Kajkavian and Chakavian are "ancient separate Slavic languages" is just wrong as you say that north-Italian is separate language from language talked in south Italy. They are just dialects. If you have any source for that, try to write that and document that on the right places, either Croatian language, or Serbo-Croatian language, wherever you like, and take thunder and fire on your head, but not in the article about this cosmopolitan Jesuit. Cheers. --Plantago 12:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition, I would like to ask you to read Resolving disputes. Ciao, Plantago 13:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The end of section

Giovanni Giove AGAIN removed this section. See the difference between revisions. That's fourth or fifth time, does anybody counts this? Kubura 19:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of Giove's POV with languages. In order to avoid the use of word "Croatian", he puts the name "Chakavian" (as even worse, with POV of "Serbo-Croatian"). Under the comment "the slavic dialect was Illyric, later reconignzed as a Serbo-Croatian dialect ". I call this expansionism. "Former Italian state"? After that category has been removed, G.Giove repeted that (with adding of "Category:Repubbliche Marinare of Italy") and again. Someone once put a remark "reference needed" (for the fact, that Republic of Dubrovnik) is called "Dubrovačka Republika" in Croatian. User Pannonian put that reference. Giovanni Giove removed that. User Jesuislafete warned on these inaccuracies and attempts to diminish Croatian culture. But, G.Giove persisted in his POV about "Chakavian", as well as removing the contribution about "Croatian language works" (his comment was "Rv: non need to comment some paranpid claims"). Then he removed the title "Role of Ragusan literature in the Croatian literature " with "Vernacular literature in Illyric (Chakavian)". . He obviously hasn't read the talk page. This change is serious problem. He removed the line "and following writers, beside others from 16th - 19th century (before the Age of Romantic National Awakenings) were explicit in declaring themselves as Croats and theirs language as Croatian ". He obviously doesn't read the talk page (his comment was "deleted unsourced lines"). He continued with his unknowledge of language questions and here  ("Chakavian" as "Serbian"???). Suddenly, he changes his "I'm 100% wright", with changing "Chakavian" into "Shtokavian" and. That language (Croatian) has a name, but G.Giove avoids again the name of the language, mentioned in historical sources cited on the talk page. Then, he saw that he somehow omitted the mentioning of the languagename "Croatian" (solely) in the text, so he quickly removed it .Kubura 20:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)