User talk:Argo Navis/Archive/2006/06/08-2006/08/29

List of Croatians
Hello. Thanks for the message about the above. Unfortunately I would have to agree with the reply you received on WP:ANI that it's not a large amount of vandalism. One of the articles I have on my watchlist has the same problem, but, while slighty annoying, isn't too much trouble. So, for the moment, I would suggest continuing to revert any vandalism changes, if it gets bad (i.e. multiple people vandalising multiple times a day) then you can post on WP:RPP to request temporary protection.

Wrt the anon user, as it appears to be a static ip address, messages sent to the ip address talk page will be received by them. You mentioned that you think it mught be another user, this is only relevant in extreme cases (e.g. user evading bans and such like).

I must say, I'm not a great fan of list articles due to verification problems. To me a list should either be a) verifiably complete (e.g. football teams in X league) or b) comprised solely of notable (blue linked) items. Having an unbounded list with red links (like this one) is too open to abuse as it lacks sources. Take for example, "Antun Albini - architect" - there is no source given to show who he is, so other editors have no way of knowing whether the entry is valid or not. That's one of the reasons I'd hesitate to put it on my watchlist, as my preference would be to first remove all red links without sources, as per WP:V, and revert any new additions that were unsourced (either by not having an article or source). That to me, would be only way to deal with it fairly, as otherwise editors adding new material would have a valid critism of "why remove my unsourced material, when the unsourced material there is untouched".

I would suggest that a good thing to do would be find references for those people on the list, as if you ask for help stopping vandalism/unsourced info being added, you might find that more gets removed than you expected! Regards, MartinRe 09:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

More copyvio?
Compare Lora prison camp with http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR640022002?open&of=ENG-HRV --Ante Perkovic 09:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly is - I've it for now. I'm working on a complete rewrite of this article but life just seems to get in the way of wikipedia - Peripitus (Talk) 10:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The Lora prison certainly deserves its page and I am glad that someone who is not from Balkans (I'm really sick of serbian propagandist here) will tako care of it. If you need some help in translation from croatian, feel free to contact me. --Ante Perkovic 10:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Your reverting
You keep reverting the article Neo-Nazism without explanation. I am ready for discussion and have provided my arguments on the talk page, but you have not replied anything sensible. I do not intend to engage in an edit war. Therefore, I will give you a day or two to explain your position. After that, I will assume you are acting in bad faith and invite administrators to sort this out. --Zmaj 14:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Copied from User_talk:Zmaj:
 * As I said - you did not explain anything. To make you partially happy - I removed just two refereces. No need for re-wording the last paragraph--64.18.16.251 19:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Funny thing, You removed exactly those references that proves croatian police doing their work. Talking about NPOV... right.. like you are capable of ever writing something afirmative about Croatia. No, your prejadices are just to strong for that to happen.
 * Another funny thing is that one of the links is the one that I wrote you about (remember "thank you for proving my point" discussion?). --Ante Perkovic 08:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is not about Croatian police - either, they are pretending working against the Ustashe. Anyway, I've put back the reference I removed before. Hope it'll make you happy.--64.18.16.251 13:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)--64.18.16.251 13:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Croatian vandalism
The range 4.0.0.0 - 4.255.255.255 (16,777,216 addresses) is all the same ISP, see, so three of the four IPs are most likely the same person. The fourth appears to be a different ISP, but could quite possibly be the same person using a different service. — Jun. 9, '06  [14:43] < [ freak]|[ talk] >

Croatian Serbs
I told you hundert times, cause it will confuse reader. Do you understand now? Luka Jačov 17:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I ask you 3 simple yes-or-no questions on your talk page. I don't see the answers. --Ante Perkovic

I c u r talking to yourself now. You have gone totaly mad. :D. Luka Jačov 20:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked for editing Wikipedia for next 24 hours for edit warring on Serbs of Croatia. As you can see here, as a result of last edit war there, I promised to block undiscussed reverts. Here you can find link to your undiscussed revert. After your block expires, you might wan't to join discussion here. --Dijxtra 15:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I did explain every possible edit I make and I was blocked because Dijxtra obviously didn't have enought time to analyse every possible edit related to this edit-war.

The text we are edit-waring about is this:
 * According to the Croatian census 2001, most Serbs of Croatia declared that they speak Croatian. The opinion on the diaspora population has not been polled and the data for them is unavailable.

Luka Jačov is insisting that census data on language is irrelevant to Serbs of Croatia because it will "confuse readers".

Let's make detailed chronology of edit war on. Since I (and Zmaj too, after a while) have been blocked for making "unexplained reverts", let's go back to my first revert and follow the story afterwords...

Timeline

 * 16:36, 26 May 2006 Dijxtra warns Next person that makes undiscussed revert will be blocked for 24 hours


 * 08:10, 8 June 2006 Luka Jačov explaines the change he is about to make with words "What they declare is merely political preference and this will only make confusion among readers."
 * 08:14, 8 June 2006 Luka Jačov changes the text and deletes part including valid reference to census results


 * 08:22, 8 June 2006 Ante_Perkovic returns part of the text with valid reference with comment "Returned text based on cited resource, as per WP:Verify and WP:CITE"
 * 08:23, 8 June 2006 Ante_Perkovic makes additional comment on talk page


 * 09:48, 8 June 2006 Luka Jačov explaines his changes
 * 09:50, 8 June 2006 Luka Jačov reverts with comment "Explained in talk page"


 * 10:15, 8 June 2006 Zmaj returnes the referenced text, but removes some irrelevant bits
 * 10:15, 8 June 2006 Zmaj explaines the change he made


 * 12:57, 8 June 2006 Luka Jačov deletes disputed text
 * 12:57, 8 June 2006 Luka Jačov explaines its change with words "It is not cause we are talking about what they speak not what they declare."


 * 13:10, 8 June 2006 Ante_Perkovic returnes disputed text
 * 13:15, 8 June 2006 Ante_Perkovic comments Jacov's changes
 * 13:25, 8 June 2006 Ante_Perkovic ask for explanation on User talk:Luka Jačov and ask simple yes/no question that so far still remaines unanswered by Jacov


 * 17:29, 9 June 2006 Luka Jačov explaines his change (but not answering my question)
 * 17:30, 9 June 2006 Luka Jačov deletes disputed text


 * 17:37, 9 June 2006 Ante_Perkovic reverts Jacov's changes
 * 17:42, 9 June 2006 Ante_Perkovic warns Jacov (at his talk page) that he didn't answer the question
 * 17:47, 9 June 2006 Ante_Perkovic warns Jacov that his comments are basicaly offtopic


 * 17:56, 9 June 2006 Luka Jačov explaining his changes on Ante's talk page


 * 18:01, 9 June 2006 Ante_Perkovic warns Jacov (at his talk page) that his (single and very important yes/no) question answer still remain unanswered
 * 18:02, 9 June 2006 Ante_Perkovic makes a comment on hid own talk page, after Luka's text


 * 18:03, 9 June 2006 Luka Jačov makes a comment on his revert
 * 18:04, 9 June 2006 Luka Jačov deletes disputed text


 * 18:06, 9 June 2006 Ante_Perkovic reverts Jacov's changes with comment "REV, Jacov keeps avoiding my simple yes/no questions", but makes no changes to Talk:Serbs of Croatia or any other talk page. This was the reason for blocking.


 * 19:01, 9 June 2006 Luka Jačov warns Dijxtra that I made "undiscussed revert"


 * 19:07, 9 June 2006 Estavisti deletes disputed part with comment "come now, really...", without changing Talk:Serbs of Croatia. This was the reason for blocking.


 * 20:04, 9 June 2006 Luka Jačov makes slightly insulting comment on User_talk:Ante Perkovic. ("I c u r talking to yourself now. You have gone totaly mad. :D.")


 * 20:18, 9 June 2006 Zmaj returnes disputed text with comment "Estavisti, "come now really" is no argument; please go to the talk page to justify your reverts", without changing Talk:Serbs of Croatia. This was the reason for blocking.


 * 21:49, 9 June 2006 Bormalagurski deletes disputed part with (misleading!!!!) comment "just a suggestion", without changing Talk:Serbs of Croatia. This was the reason for blocking.


 * 01:24, 10 June 2006 Joy returnes disputed text
 * 01:24, 10 June 2006 Joy explaines in detail why there is no way that disputed text could confuse anyone.
 * 01:28, 10 June 2006 Joy improves Serbs of Croatiawith detailed explanation af the language issue.


 * 15:10, 10 June 2006 Dijxtra announces massive blocking on Talk:Serbs of Croatia giving "list of undiscussed reverts".


 * 20:51, 10 June 2006 Luka Jačov, reverts page to his last version, effectively deleting Joy's usefull contribution to the last letter.

Comment
First, I must remind you that Dijxtra's rule was introdiced primarily because of Jacov's behaviour. Jacov was also responsile for blocking the article in the first place, see Talk:Serbs of Croatia

After the page has been unlocked, Jacov started reverting changes without even trying to discuss it:
 * 04:43, 24 May 2006 Jacov reverted the article with comment "no time 2 disscuss"
 * 09:09, 24 May 2006 Jacov reverted the article with comment "I ll discuss it later"
 * 12:25, 26 May 2006 I warned him that he must discuss his changes

I called Dijxtra and this led to this new rule by Dijxtra. - Now, regarding the edit-war after setting the rule:

Technically speaking, I (Ante Perkovic) did, at 18:06, 9 June 2006, make revert without changing any talk page.

I must admit that Jacov did make a change to some talk page every time he made a change to the article.

So, technically speaking, I did break the Dijxtra's self-invented rule, and Jacov didn't.

Unfortunatelly, Jacov's "changes" were almost completely limited to reverting page to is last version regardles of the fact that, in the meantime, some people made considerable effort to improve the article. As an example, see his change from 20:51, 10 June 2006. This is not the first time he showed disrespect for other user's contributions.

Regarding commenting changes:

First, I must admit that I totally overlooked "Dijxtra's rule". I commented my changes not because Dijxtra told me to but because I do it anyway.

Since Dijxtra set the rule, I made alltogether 4 changes to Serbs of Croatia. First 3 changes were accompanied with alltogether 3 comments to Talk:Serbs of Croatia and additional 3 comments to User talk:Luka Jačov. Since Jacov kept ignoring my questions on his talk page (see timeline), I made one last (4th) revert without any comment on any talk page. I wrote the only reasonably comment I could think of at that time - "REV, Jacov keeps avoiding my simple yes/no questions"

On the oter side, Jacov decided to "play by the rules". He did remember the rule set by Dijxtra and decided to make a "trap" for me by making endless reverts with poor (but regular) explanation until I, having nothing to add without senslessly repeating myself, made a revert without actually changing any talk page (but, I did write a comment, by the way!). When that finally happened, Jacov quickly contacted Dijxtra and reminded him about his rule. Dijxtra had no choise, but to block a few users, despite his feeling of "being manipulated by Luka Jacov".

What strikes me even more here is that, if I just copied some of previous explanations to the bottom of the Talk:Serbs of Croatia, I guess I wouldn't be blocked! You must agree that this is absurd!

Regarding blocking of Zmaj, if we suppose that Jacov comments didn't answer any of questions, we can say that Zmaj didn't need to make any comments because Jacov's revert was unexplained in the first place, so he just reverted the page to last version that is supported by explanation.

You don't really expect every and each of us to repeat the same question to Jacov, while he keeps ignoring it, just to do some formal change to some talk page, because we are afraid of being blocked by Dijxtra???

About Jacov's behaviour
I would like to shed some light on Jacov's "rules-obiding" behaviour, so You can judge by yourself does he writtes in good faith or just "Gaming the system".

First, regarding his "regular discussion" on talk pages. I asked Jacov a simple yes/no question (User talk:Luka Jačov that he still didn't answer. Instead, he decided to make unrelated comments just to avoid the answer. User:Joy wrote quite a good comment on Jacov's stubborn refusal to obey to the logic.

Gaming the system
Jacov's recent behaviour is called "Gaming the system" and is explained here: Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Let me copy that part of the text here:
 * Gaming the system is the use of Wikipedia rules to thwart Wikipedia policy. In many cases, gaming the system is a form of disruption.
 * A simple example would be obstinately reverting an edit exactly 3 times a day, and then "innocently" maintaining that no rules are being violated. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement to revert, and doing so is regarded as a disruption of Wikipedia operations. In fact, gaming the system in this way, over a prolonged period of time, is likely to lead to sanctions, and, in extreme cases, a permanent ban.

So, If you want to be a toy in the hands of a disruptive user who's only concern is to push his political preferences by "gaming the system", just go ahead. If You dont, read the part I bolded few lines above.

A story behind the edit-war - who is Luka Jacov
The story behind this edit war is simple. It's all about Luka Jacov's political preference and stubbornes. He is a keen supporter of reunification of Yugoslavia and he declared his mother language to be Serbo-Croatian (I have no problem with that). He showed many times that he is extremelly unwilling to accept any compromise on the issue of the language and he proved to be willing to disrupt wikipedia just to prove a point, no mather if he is right or wrong.

Example - he can't stand to see the language of Croats to be called Croatian language. For, example, few months ago, he lost te battle with Molise Croatian dialect that he wanted to rename to "Molise Slavic dialect". When he lost the argument, he still insisted on another vote. See Talk:Molise_Croatian_dialect. He is extremelly stubborn person and unwilling to change his oppinion after being proved wrong.

For more about Jacov, see his talk page, somewhere form this point all the way to the bottom.

My contributions to wikipedia
And, finally, I must express my frustration with my blocking. I am one of the most active users of croatian wikipedia and I made numerous interwiki links on croatian and english articles. I made simoultanious interwiki links on both wikipedias, so blocking my en-wiki account made this work impossible. This edit-wars are not my primary activity here (which couldn't be said for Jacov) and I spend less then 10% of my wiki-time on activities related to disputed articles.

Just see my contriutions. This numerous "+ hr" comments are marks adding interwiki links.

If you check my recent contribution, You will see I made great deal of effort to categorise Croatia-related articles just a few days ago.

I also must note that I'm not a nationalist and that I often revert vandalism of some idiotic croatian vandals on Serbia-related articles. Just today, I have been awarded my first barnstar by (pro-)Serbian user.

I wanted to continue this activities today, but, when I wanted to make my first edit, I realised that I was blocked for most exotic and most obscure reason that I could ever think of.

--Ante Perkovic 23:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar time!!!
For expressing NPOVness in all sitautions, for honoring every single Wikipedia rule and for such a talented work on Croat-related articles, I reward you this Barnstar. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Tjah...
Yeah, the fact is, I just worsened the situation by promising to block the person which makes undiscussed revert. And, yes, you have every right to be pissed off because I blocked you. But, please understand that I'm trying to stop this escalation of edit warring that's happening on Wikipedia. And it's not an easy job. I had some real nice interactions with you and I do not think you are a troll. But I had to act as I promised to act. And I agree that I did nothing useful by blocking you. But at the time, the idea of blocking undiscussed reverts seamed OK... What I'm trying to say here is that I understand that you are upset with the block and that I understand that the block maybe wasn't the most fair thing that I ever did. But I ask you to understand that I have to stick to my word if I wish to retrain my credibility. And being an administrator on Balkans related topics is not an easy thing but I try realy hard not to step on other peoples toes... and sometimes I don't have any other option. Sorry for the block, but I had to do that. No hard feelings. --Dijxtra 16:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A quick note: I just noticed your edit on my talk page. I wrote this before I read it. I'll now read it and reply to it. --Dijxtra 16:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:C-c-c-c
See my talk page, and WP:AN. --ajn (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks!
Well, one of the reasons why I gave it to you is just - the block itself. I think that you were unjustifyingly blocked - and this is not just for other admins/users to see when they come to your talk page, but also to make you chill off and not worry, as I know that you would be very frustrated by that block (I was right :) --HolyRomanEmperor 19:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Purger?
Hi,

If you are Purger, you broke 3RR. So, I'll have to ask you - are you user:Purger?

Avoiding to answer will only make you look guilty.

--Ante Perkovic 00:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I am not - so, am I guilty now?

1. Why don't you log? Trying to evade 3RR? 2. Please, comment my proposal on talk page. --Ante Perkovic 00:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No need to log in - it is perfectly legal to contribute and discuss anonymously. To talk to you - I'll use your talk page! I'll block myself for the next two days. Is it a deal?


 * What do you mean by block? Only admin can do that. And, plaese, comment my proposal. --Ante Perkovic 00:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I will not contribute anything within the next two days - this is a self-block. Your question: Why don't you log? My answer - I did not register myself under any name. It is perfectly legal to contribute and discuss anonymously. Happy now?

It is perfectly legal, but is also perfectly in bad baith, because this twarth normal conversation since I never know am I talking to one user or to 6 users. This is just an example of avoiding conversation in rder to have excuse for mindless reverts. --Ante Perkovic 07:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

anonymous question
Please see User talk:195.29.145.165. --Joy &#91;shallot] 10:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) It's me. --Ante Perkovic 11:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ohladi
Napravio sam ono što bi ti sigurno napravio i meni a ti več mene cinkaraš dulje vrjeme. Na koji sam način ja to sam sebi? Pa nisam ja bio blokiran nego ti a ti se samo tješi. Druga stvar nisi ti taj koji određuje ko nam treba a ko ne na wikipediji. Da ti sad odgovorim na tvoje pitanje: odgovor na sva tvoja pitanja je da al samim time što je to više politička nego lingvistička kategorija odnosno ljudi koji su izjasnili jedno govore istim idiomom kao i ovi drugi pretvara popis prilično nerelevatnim po ovom pitanju. Ono što je prilično jadno od tebe da me prozivaš radi mojih političkih uvjerenja i na indirektan me način želiš zamoliti da se povučem iz rasprave. Ono što bi ja tebi mogo reč da prestaneš sa svojima kroatocentričnih ideja o nekom zasebnom hrvatskom jeziku koji je čvrsto odjeljen od srpskog jer taqe stvari nažalost prolaze u hrvatskoj al ne prolaze ovdje na wikipediji. nadam se da češ se urazumiti... Luka Jačov 21:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * E, moj, Luka, samo se ti tjesi. --Ante Perkovic 09:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dobra! -- xompanthy 21:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Opet ti sam sa sobom pričaš. Luka Jačov 18:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Purger sockpuppetry
Please see my comments at User talk:Purger. Thanks for bringing this to my notice - let me know if he tries this again. -- ChrisO 18:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack
Hey! I dont know how to send message to users like Ante Pederkovic. Can somebody tell how to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hahahihihoho (talk • contribs).

(I moved this text here and added the title --Ante Perkovic 11:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC))


 * Why did you feel the need to put a personal attack (if that) towards you on your talk page, when it wasn't there in the first place? Ch u ck(contrib) 16:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * ...it wasn't there in the first place? What are you talking about? Did you even chech the history? I just reverted blanking of previous attack! --Ante Perkovic 16:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My apologies, no I hadn't checked the history. You wrote "I moved this text here and added the title" and I assumed that you had moved it here from another page. That was my mistake. The reason I was on your talk page in the first place though was b/c of the 3RR report you made against Hahahih.... I agree with you that he violated 3RR (who couldn't) but (not sure if you saw my comment on the 3RR page) I don't believe the comment above constitutes a personal attack. At the worst it could be considered incivil, but barely. Just be sure someone is attacking, rather than being rude, before accusing them of so. Ch u ck(contrib) 16:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem :). I agree that this wasn't a real persdonal attack, but more like being uncivil. I don't know all the nuances :). --Ante Perkovic 16:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ante Perkovic:

What is your MSN? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hahahihihoho (talk • contribs)


 * Say what you need here. --Ante Perkovic 16:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it is too unpersonaly. Everything is easier at MSN.

Well, my is dj_rov@hotmail.com What is yours? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hahahihihoho (talk • contribs)


 * I would have to be umbelievably stupid and masohistic to give an email to someone like you. So, say it here. --Ante Perkovic 16:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

reply
I warned him again. I realize you are annoyed, but you should also realize that there exist people who are simply rude and inconsiderate. It's not a big deal. --Joy &#91;shallot] 09:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Srebs in Kravica
Umm.. what exactly did I do? I though that Serbs were captured and killed in Kravica. Or is that another "Greater-Serbian" propaganda story, the "Butcher of the Balkans" made up... Just stay away from me, I don't want to talk to you/don't respect you. Go away, you nationalist. -- serbiana -  talk  16:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't play stupid, Boris. Some Serbs were killed in that area in war, but that part of article was aboutb Srebrenica masacre in 1995, not about massacres in 1991/92. I stated it clearly in my comment, I find it quite hard to believe that any missunderstanding of my words was possible. --Ante Perkovic 13:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ivo Andric
Hi! I am concerned with the level of arguements, POVness and vandalism presented at Ivo Andric's article - now it doesn't even mention at all that he was a Croatian writer. Since You have been protecting it from Vandalism (as I see on its history), I would ask You to oversee my slight rewriting of the article. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ante...
'''STOP CONTACTING ME, I OBVIOUSLY HAVE NOTHING TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT, JUST DO YOUR OWN STUFF AND LET ME DO MINE! I DO NOT WANT CONFLICT, AND I JUST WANT TO MOVE ON WITHOUT DEALING WITH YOU! YOU KEEP PROVOKING ME AND I HAVE LIMITS. I WILL NOT LEAVE MESSAGES ON MY TALK PAGE THAT I CONSIDER TO BE HARRASSMENT, AND YOU MUST STOP HARRASSING ME, OR I WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTIONS. EVERYTHING CAN END NOW, JUST STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM ME, GOT IT?  -- serbiana -  talk'''  19:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll move it here so I can find it later. I can only promise that no vandalism of yours will past unnoticed. --Ante Perkovic 19:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope you understand how close your statement is to Wikistalking, so I suggest you stop it. -- serbiana -  talk  19:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not stalking you. You just happen to vandalise pages on my watchlist (which is quite long). If you could stop vandalising pages, I would make no problem to you. It's up to you, just like I said. --Ante Perkovic 20:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I vandalize pages? I don't think so. First of all, I don't know which pages are on your watchlist, and don't frankly care. I just try to be fair and neutral, but some people just don't appreciate that and would rather simplify some matters... -- serbiana -  talk  20:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Croatian history stubs
Interesing thing you did there... You created Category:Croatian history stubs and put WPSS-cat on it, but you didn't obey what's written on it :-) You are supposed to propose new stub categories before creating them. In cases like this (when new category is created without discussion), categories are reported here, and I did just that with the one you created: here. So you know. --Dijxtra 19:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I just copied it from Belarus or something history and changed the words. Can you take care of procedure? --Ante Perkovic 19:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Incident
I was merely informing Boris of the horrible (now questionable) news. He was the only one who had significant contact with HRE, to not get contacted by User: Sad News. I obviously thought Boris would like to know if something had happened to him. I don't know why you'd want a checkuser, you all of all people should understand my message ( since it was written in Serbo-Croatian because you speak Serbo-Croatian). This has been my only edit since getting blocked, and it was to inform Boris of a something rather important, and that had nothing to do with Wikipedia, Serb-propaganda, Anti-Croatinism, or whatever the heck else, all these things are set aside when horrible things like this happen. I didn't want Boris to just stumble upon it days later after realizing HRE wasn't there anymore. I hope you understand, and let's hope HRE is okay. Are you we okay now? (Sorry I put a rather pissed off comment earlier on the RfA talk page, I've been accused more than Hipi Zhdripi, yet there are no new users editing any Serb related articles)  C-c-c-c 22:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. Have you heard anything new about HRE? C-c-c-c 22:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits aren't mine
The electric guitar edit isn't mine Ante, I've been busy dealing with vandalism and such. PerfectStorm 21:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So you also have a nasty nephew ;))? --Ante Perkovic 22:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha too young to have a newphew, no it's just that there a load of people who share my IP. I'm usually unable to edit a lot of the time because of auto blocks on my IP. It's a home computer, not school, school is thankfully over until September for me. :D PerfectStorm 23:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Municipality maps
Entire conversation moved to Image talk:BHMunicipalities.png. --Ante Perkovic 23:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Croats south of Neretva
Hello. So far I never used Wikipedia and I just wanted to comment a part with Croats title. So, instead of commenting I replaced the word Croat with Serbian Catholic. It wasn't a vandalism. I'm just unfamiliar with using comments, editing etc. Sorry for the inconvenience.

I argue that German Catholic is not automatically a Pole. No relevant historical source never mentioned Croats southern of the Cetina or eventually Neretva river. That' the fact. Of course I'm talking about the historical period before let's say 1800.

I appreciate your effort in editing the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.210.226.182 (talk • contribs)


 * Sorry to say, but this looks like comment from either provocator or totally uninformed user. In any case, I'm not planing to waste my time with this. If you consider this as a fact, I suggest you to try including it in other articles, so let's see what will happen. --Ante Perkovic 10:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Would just like to show my appreciation for all the work you're doing on the BiH maps, and the locator map. :-) --estavisti 17:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You're too late, I've already done about 15 maps earlier today. :-) --estavisti 22:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Novo Goražde
Pogledaj zvanični sajt vlade Republike Srpske: http://www.vladars.net/lt/srpska/opstine.html Dakle službeno ime opštine je Novo Goražde, a u članku Municipalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina se očigledno radi o grešci koju treba popraviti. PANONIAN  (talk)  18:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Naprotiv, sajt vlade RS je upravo najrelevantniji za ovu problematiku. Ti sporovi su bili oko prethodnih naziva opština, i oni su rešeni. Na sajtu vlade RS možeš videti da Foča nije Srbinje, da Novo Goražde nije Srpsko Goražde (to je bio stari sporni naziv koji je promenjen), itd. Na tom linku se dakle nalaze upravo novi nazivi koji nisu sporni. PANONIAN   (talk)  19:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. Ako si upućen u to, nema razloga da ti ne vjerujem. --Ante Perkovic 19:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply
I responded to regarding maps and explained situation about Brcko district. I was going to make a Brcko district map in that way to color two municipalities that form district. And as i mentioned, articles about BiH, FBiH, RS and Brcko district should have maps with different colors, municipalities are one color, as it's already done. We shouldn't complicate situation, maps do the job. --HarisM 18:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hahahihihoho's editing
Hi, Ante. I saw your dialogue with Hahahihihoho on his page, and the way he's been reverting Bosnia and Herzegovina. It must be frustrating for you. I've warned him he'll be blocked if he goes on refusing to listen. Meanwhile, I can make a rough guess at what his non-English phrases mean... but, in case they're a cause for a longer block, could you please translate them for me? I'd appreciate it if you'd either put a rough translation on my page, or, if it's stuff I wouldn't want to see on my page, use e-mail. If your wikibreak allows, that is! Thanks. Bishonen | talk 12:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC).

Ante: I gave you a link were it clearly said that 250 000 died! And I didnt take away YOUR PART OF WERE IT SAID THAT 100 000 DIED, so why did you deleted my part? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hahahihihoho (talk • contribs)

Why? Why? I gave you a link and an evidence for gods sake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hahahihihoho (talk • contribs)


 * First: RTFM!!! I signed at least 20 of your posts.And you did none. You, idiot!
 * Second: I didn't deleted it. Go away, don't waste time of mentaly sane people here. --Ante Perkovic 18:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey...
What was the comment for? Was it for the map (opštine) or some other article? I understand the BiH is divided to some extend, but many, here and in other places, purposely try to divide it further (Just for their liking/pleasure). This is what agitates me, not so much that BiH is divided. It will be better in the future, so I'm not worried. What irritates me is some of the attitudes people bring out in Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not be a political website, that is why I am happy that most of the political templates have been removed. Thanks, Kseferovic 21:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edit summary...

 * "did someone recently mentioned alphabetical order here? ;-))"

You obviously forgot that those guys think Cyrillic. Both "Р" and "С" precede "Ф". :-)) Duja 15:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

How many dead in the Bosnian War?
Hey, Ante. I don't know if you saw me offering (like an ignorant fool) to input Hahah's figure of 250,000 dead and his 2002 WHO source in Bosnia and Herzegovina? Well, as soon as I saw what Bosnian War says about it I realized it wasn't on--please see my post on Hahah's page. But don't you think it might be a good idea to explicitly mention in Bosnia and Herzegovina that the figure 250,000 has been disproved? I do realize that you can't mention everything in a summary. Still, as long as it simply says 100,000, I'm betting it'll keep getting changed to 250,000, and not necessarily only by Hahah either. But I'll leave it to you. Bishonen | talk 17:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC).

The serbs commited genocide, everyone knows that.

ICTY have very, very many evidence.

Hahahihihoho 21:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sela
Pa i ja sam razmišljao gde da stavim ta sela. Ako ti baš bode oči što su tu, pomeri ih u kategoriju "Geography" ili napravi novu kategoriju "Villages". PANONIAN  (talk)  22:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Zar ova galerija slika što sam je danas napravio nije konstruktivan posao? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_of_the_Federation_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina Što se tiče odeljivanja gradova i sela, upravo to odeljivanje i jeste problem. Pogledaj kako je to urađeno kod Srbije: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cities%2C_towns_and_villages_in_Serbia Dakle, predlažem ti da zamoliš nekog administratora koji ima bota da da botu nalog da automatski promeni bosanske kategorije da uključe i sela. Ako ne, napravi posebnu kategoriju za sela, pa ih razdvajaj. :) PANONIAN   (talk)  22:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Aaa, lijepo :). Ajde neka :). Sto se tice ostalog, sorry, malo sam kratak s vremenom, zabavljam se sa hr wiki. --Ante Perkovic 22:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

spelling
sorry about that, fixed --Lowg 23:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Eh,
Eto mene "iz mrtvih" (mene je ovo previse izmucilo, procitaj moju stranicu ako ti se dade). Veceras putujem u Karlovac, pa onda na more (u Hrvatsku), pa da ti javim. --HRE 00:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

How to write the waves like you did
Ante, Hahahihihoho left a question for you here. Since he's trying, could you please explain to him how to write the tildes and where they are on the keyboard? I would, but my keyboard is pretty different, I'd likely only confuse him. Bishonen | talk 11:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC).

Ante Perkovic:

Vladimir Prelog is from Bosnia and Herzegovina and not Croatia!!!!!!!!

Vandalism?
I'm not sure whether Hahahihihoho needs a warning or a block. Can you explain the song names, please? (I see Hitler in there..) Bishonen | talk 21:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC).


 * "Jebemti tri Prsta" - f*ck 3 fingers (orthodox simbol)
 * "Volim te Ante Pavelic" - I love Ante Pavelić
 * "Svi smo mi Ustase" - We are all ustasa
 * "Zivela Ustasa" - Long live ustasa
 * "Dragi nas Hitler" - Our beloved Hitler

These are not real songs, it's just a childish vandalism. Hahahihihoho doesn't need any warning because we gave him plenty of warnings so far. What he needs is very long block. Hahahihihoho is either infantil (spelling?) or mentaly chalenged. --Ante Perkovic 23:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Dobar dan Ante Perkovic! Sta ima? // Hahahihihoho

Mostar Municipality
In Image:BH municipality location.gif you have included both West Mostar and East Mostar municipalities. For example, in your Mostar map (Image:BH municipality location-Mostar.gif), you seem to have included only East Mostar.

However, I was under the impression that they have since been united back into one municipality. Whatever the case, either your map must be changed or there must be some mention of East and West within Herzegovina-Neretva Canton and Mostar articles. Thanks. --Thewanderer 15:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not positive, but it's something I have noticed from these maps. For example, look at this map of Mostar municipality from Croatian wikipedia. Then compare with your map at the commons: . It's as if the first municipality map of Mostar was split into two.


 * This map: seems to verify that for some time there was an East and West, but I'm not sure if they still exist or have been unified as in the first map. --Thewanderer 15:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but this map from 2004. shows even more divisions in Mostar municipality. Also, note that Image:Mostar_Municipality_Location.png image, used in Mostar article, has not only the same borders of Mostar municipality as my maps, but doesn't have Brcko district at all! I'm quite sick of this issue, I can't believe that goverment of Bosnia Bosnia can't produce one single relevant map of their country with municipality borders included. --Ante Perkovic

Ilok
Pogledaj ovo: Talk:Ilok. Ako znaš nešto više o tome da li su porodice Gorjanski i Iločki bili Hrvati ili Mađari, molim te da napišeš tamo. PANONIAN  (talk)  13:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Philately Subjects
Hi Ante. Sorry about the confusion around article names. We are trying to get all our material into a project structure using appropriate categories but we're still a long way short, especially with postal sections tucked away in country articles like these are. We have these articles in a list and we'll go through them to extract the postal parts into new articles. Thanks for your interest and I wish you all the best. --BlackJack | talk page 13:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Boscovich
It's enough to read the discussion, to see that the subject is NPOV. Don't delete the sign again, thank.

--Giovanni Giove 12:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Ante stop with edit war!!!

I remember you what really means NPOV, because it seems you don't have clear ideas. It does not mean: "I tried to change, add or delete some parts of the article, I gave valid references, but some people keep reverting my edits." as you say.

It means that the article MUST be written from a neutral point of wiev. Read this link to learn more NPOV):

I quote:

"Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, that is, they must represent views fairly and without bias. This includes maps, reader-facing templates, categories and portals. According to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."

The article about Boscovich is NOT neutral and I've wrotten why. Don't insist in your behaviour or you will be reported to a moderator.

--Giovanni Giove 13:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey!
Hello, I'm glad to inform you that the mixup has been solved and I am glad to see that you supported me at times (and at times not - but who am I to blame objectivity? :) Anyways, what do you think about my compromise to the Boskovic affair (that didn't pass)? HRE 21:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ivana Miličević
I don't know about you, but I'm rather tired of the daily reversions of the anon change. I'm thinking of requesting semi-protection for a while... perhaps that will discourage the anon (who is almost certainly 1 motivated individual) from constantly adding Croatian back in. Thoughts?--Isotope23 13:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

?
Sto je bilo? --HolyRomanEmperor 12:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * U vezi čega? --Ante Perkovic 12:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Pa, moje sugestije za Rudjera - i da li mi vjerujes da nijesam totalni bolesnik (moja "smrt"). HolyRomanEmperor 21:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A, to. Sorry, imam jako malo vremena ovih dana, pa nisam baš razgovorljiv, a ni pretjerano koncentriran na wiki. --Ante Perkovic 21:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Gundulic a Serb...
The ethnic question of the Ragusan population is very obscure. They are claimed both Serbian and Croatian. --Djordje D. Bozovic 21:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, Boskovic is a Serb since his father was a Serb. In one place you have said that one can't just stop being a Croat (refering to Andric). Well, one can't just stop being a Serb either, you know. And once again, the people of Dubrovnik needn't necessarily be Croats. They have never actually refered to themselves as Croats, just Ragusans or Slavs (Slovini). --Djordje D. Bozovic 21:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right about being a Serb except one thing. Boskovic's father wasn't a Serb. So neither was him. --Ante Perkovic 21:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How do you know that he was not a Serb? There is a Serbian family of Boskovic in Herzegovina today. Perhaps the Serbs are those who claim everybody in the region, but the Croats are no better. They claim all the Catholics in the region, including the people of Dubrovnik. And also including the Krašovani (Serbocroatian-speaking Catholics from Romania), which Croatian president Stjepan Mesic refered to as cvijeće hrvatskoga naroda. Nevertheless, they are settled in Romania from the east of Serbia! I really didn't know that Croats have ever migrated to Timočka krajina region... :( --Djordje D. Bozovic 21:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, You don't know manw things, obviously.

1. Surname: As you can read in House of Boshko
 * ... Another branch of Boškovićes, or most probably a completely unrelated family which shared the same surname (Bošković was a common patronymic surname in Dubrovnik at the time) settled in the city at the end of the 18th century, coming from the village of Orahov Do in the neighbouring Eastern Herzegovina. ...
 * ... Nikola Bošković ... went to the Republic of Dubrovnik as a trader in the service of Rad Getaldic, who then dispatched him to Novi Pazar ...
 * ... His travels through Rascia ... Bošković describes the historical and sacral monuments of Rascia including several Orthodox monasteries ... also comments on the sad state of Roman Catholic Church in these lands ...

This answers your question. And more!

2. Krašovani page says:
 * ... It is estimated that there are around 5,000 Krashovani in Romania, with only some 200 opting for the nationality itself, the remainder chosing the Croatian ethnicity..

Maybe they have been brainwashed by croatian TV? As for migrations - there are some Croats in Austria - Burgenland. Following your logic, they must be Slovenians. Right?.

Any more questions? --Ante Perkovic

Ha? They choose to be Croats. Just like Andric chosed to be a Serb. But their tradition says that they have come from Timocka krajina. Just like the traditions of Bunjevci says that they have come from northern Dalmatia or western Bosnia. Obviously you don't know many things. And the fact that there is a House of Boshko in Dubrovnik doesn't mean that Boskovics are Croats. Like I said, the Ragusans weren't ever actually saying that they are Croats, just Ragusans or Slavs. --Djordje D. Bozovic 22:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You didn't get the point. I didn't say house of Bosko were Croats. I copied that part to ilustrate that Bošković is patronymic surname, and since Boško is common clavic name, you can expect bošković to be common slavic surname.
 * Regarding Keršovani, some of them claim to come from Turopolje. Anyway, I don't see how you can make Serbs to change their nationality to Croatian hundreds of km from the rest of Croatian people. I see no logic there. --Ante Perkovic 22:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Boško is not a common Slavonic name, it appears only in some South Slavonic languages. I'm sorry, but I don't want to argue any more. I shall refer to Serbian Embassy here, so they can, together with you and other users who support the different point of view, try to make the articles as much NPOV as possible. If our grandfathers and grand-grandfathers had just accepted king Alexander Karageorgevic's Yugoslav model, now we could all be at least a little bit more happy together... (since we are, obviously, pretty much related, as well as our languages are) --Djordje D. Bozovic 23:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Boscovich a Serb?
Yes.... I've forgot the "Serbian problem". I don't know if Boscovich is Serb. A Serb could say, but I know that Serbs keep the memory of Boscovich and it is correct to mention it, because Wikipedia must show all the points of wiev.

About the father: he was from Hergovina. How can you say he was Serbian or Croatian?... they are today's categories, born in XIX century. For sure the father, never in his life, wondered if he was Serbian or Croatian.

It's correct to keep all the categories, and, by the way, you have again deleted the Italians ones.... that very bad. I should repair them again, now. Stop it! --Giovanni Giove 21:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if nations didn't exist back then, let's put him under Bosniak category too. Why not?
 * I agree.Boscovich father was from Herzegovina. We can not say if he was Serbian of Croatian. Religion criteria to divide them, is born only in XIX century.--Giovanni Giove 21:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC) --Ante Perkovic 21:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly
Pre svega, odavno sam to predložio na strani za razgovor tamo, što se tiče promene imena samog članka. Drugo, ja ovde ne menjam ime samog članka, već naziv u drugim člancima što je potpuno drugo pitanje. Nadam se da shvataš koliko je naziv "Croatian war of independence" netačan i koliko izvrće karakter ovog rata. Inače, ja ovo menjam u potpuno neutralan naziv "war in Croatia". Možda bi ti se više svidelo da promenim u "Civil war in Croatia"? :) PANONIAN   (talk)  00:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Čuj, ako je naziv članka Croatian war of independence netočan, izvoli pokrenit proceduru da se promijeni. Pa, ako upali, dobro, ako ne, očito ni za ovo nemaš opravdanja. Očito sumnjaš u svoje argumente kad ideš na ovaj način, zar ne? --Ante Perkovic 00:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, a šta sa ovim: Neutral point of view? Hrvati to zovu domovinski rat, ali ga Srbi zovu građanski rat, i ako je hrvatski naziv spomenut, zašto ne bi bio i srpski? Po čemu i naslov članka i njegov sadržaj moraju biti bazirani na hrvatskom gledištu? Dakle, ja sigurno nisam "wrong" kad je u pitanju Neutral point of view u ovom slučaju. PANONIAN   (talk)  00:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Naslov nije baziran na hrvatskom gledištu jer bi se članak inače zvao Homeland war (Croatia). Eto, jel ti sad bistrije? --Ante Perkovic 00:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Naprotiv, jer suštinski gledano, Srbi iz Krajine su se borili za nezavisnost od Hrvatske a ne Hrvatska za nezavisnost od njih. Sadašnji naslov je "misleading". PANONIAN   (talk)  00:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm, da, s bitnom razlikom da je Hrvatska po ustavu imala pravo na nezavisnost, za razliku od Srba u Hrvatskoj koji su se jednostavno htjeli odcijepiti - stvoriti granicu gdje je nije bilo. --Ante Perkovic 00:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "NPOV policy" Vikipedije nema nameru da određuje ko je imao pravo na nešto a ko ne, već da TAČNO opiše događaje. Ajde mi molim te objasni kako se to Hrvatska borila za nezavisnost od Krajiških Srba? PANONIAN   (talk)  01:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ne odrđuje tko što ima pravo??? Naravno, ne određuje to wikipedija nego povelja UN-a, ustav SFRJ i slično. A Hrvatska se za nezavisnot borila protiv JNA, a kasnije protiv onih što je JNA naoružala, a Milošević plaćao. --Ante Perkovic 01:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Znači upravo tvrdiš da se Hrvatska za nezavisnost borila protiv RSK? E, ali pitao sam te da objasniš kako (a nisam video odgovor) :) PANONIAN   (talk)  02:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Jel se Izrael bori protiv Hezbolaha ili Irana? --Ante Perkovic 02:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Izrael se bori protiv Palestinskog naroda (eto ti odgovor, a svaka sličnost sa ratom u Hrvatskoj je namerna). :) PANONIAN   (talk)  02:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Issue with photo illustrating vicious attack on Duch tourist
Hi, I see you have an issue with photo on the page tourism in croatia, which is downloaded by me under fair use pretense. It seems to me that you dont understand what historicPhoto tag is meant for - it is meant for illustrating events that are not repeatable, regardles of when they happened and historic is used in this sense. In any case, fair use provision is met.

Also, I see you apparently accusing me of doing something illegitimate; please do mind your manner and do not try to intimidate people that come to wikipedia because they present facts that you dont like! If you have been here for long time that does not give you the right to bihave like a bully.

- I see that you accuse Duch tourist of being a peadophile, just as did police. However, there is not a grain of truth in that accusation. The guy is a well known photographer and making photos of people on the regular beach is completely legitimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berane (talk • contribs)


 * It is perfectly legitimate and also perfectly stupid and suicidal. And it perfectly doesn't say nothing about Croatian, except if your sole purpose here is to defamate. --Ante Perkovic 01:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I see that you question which article people can edit here. This is free encyclopedia, and anyone can edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berane (talk • contribs)


 * No, I don't - everyone can edit. But noone can't use sock-puppets. --Ante Perkovic 01:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I see that you are a biased editor that pushes Croatian nationalism. If all people in Croatia are like that, than people should know what to expect! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berane (talk • contribs)


 * Stoping other people from defamating my country by making very bad-faith edits here is really the definition of nationalism. It's more like anti-vandalism. --Ante Perkovic 01:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

- I remind you that you should not accuse people and act like a bully. I dont think you are right in calling someone a vandal just because he is editing article in a way you dont like. Do you not know that, or just pretend? I am not doing anything wrong, and I think you also know that. So - your behaviour can only be interpreting as bullying.

And btw, in any civilized society, it is not suicidal to take photos of regular beach with people on it, so people should be informed that in Croatia, this may lead to broken bones - it is not defaming, the incident has been reported in the west and it should be reported. --- to answer your question about a Duch guy - this incident has nothing to do with nationality. It could have been a French guy, or a German or a Croat. That is not the point. The point is that the attack happened under these circumstances, and that attacks like that happen to tourists. such attacks do not happen in some other parts of the world. peadophilia exists everywhere. Perhaps, there are prejudices agaist western people in croatia, that they must be peadophiles if they are elder people who take photos on the beach. while nationality is not apparent, they might have assumed he was from the west - thats all i can guess about your question. but i think that nationality in this case does not play importance.

Srbi na Wiki
Neznam di su Hrvati na Wikipedia. Sigurno nije ih briga..a bolje jer mene pece kad neko mota laz na Wiki.

Kako ja vidim Wiki je pustio mnogo Srba da minjaju stranice kako oni oce. Nazalost mnogo sto oni minjaju nije istina nego samo njihovo misljenje. Sto je jos gore neki Englez ili bilo koji stranac ce procitat i milsit da je Wikipedia istina.

Gluposti da je Boscovich Srb itd..........

Kako mogu spavat kad tako lazu???????????

JOJ

Jagoda 1 04:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Da ti kazem pravo ja nemam nist protiv Srba..za mene su vecina dorbi ljudi...samo mrzim kad neko gura svoju politiki kao neki purger na Wikipedia. Vidio sam svasta naprimjer, Dalmatinci su Srbi, Dubrovcani su Srbi, Andric je Srb, Boka njie imala Hrvate nego to su Srpski katolici, Bosanci su Srpski Mulsimani a ne Hrvatski muslimani itd....sve je njihova verzija ..sve sto onaj Vuk je mislio i govorio Srbima neki vjeruju ...da smo svi Srbi, pa nemoj...

Ja znam da so misnai i da smo Slaveni...ali glupo je samo gurat da samo mozemo biti Srbi..moguce je da sy Srbi svi Hrvati isto tako. Mrzim ovaj topic ali kad vidis laz tesko se ne uzbunit malo. Boje meni ne citat ovaj Wiki.

-- Sto spavas Javi se ... Jagoda 1 04:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Legenda
Hvala bogu da ima Hrvata kao ti na Wikipedia. Treba ih vise. Ja nazalost nemam puno vremena za ovde pist ali vidim da se ti bavis sa Wikipedia i boris se da se sve od Hrvatima na Wiki pise correct i fair.

Pozdrav Legendo Jagoda 1 23:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply
Sorry - that was unintentionally. I just reverted because my version is NPOV (I saw all the nationalist-b(i)ased POV and rv), but please keep my in-between version.

By the way, Jagoda 1 is a well-known sockpuppeteer and internet troll - I advice you to stay a way from him/her. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)