User talk:Pixius

February 2021
Hello, I'm Joe Roe. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Vinča culture seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Vinča culture has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

rules of decorum
I've observed a number of rather contentious talk page comments, so the standard alert seems overdue. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

What? Which comments? Pixius talk 20:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

My coment on a talk page Serbia-Croatia border dispute is based in facts and it is law based. The commission cannot decide about a legal matter involving 2 parties before both parties have agreed on and signed the agreement. Talk page is used for argumentative talk. This message does not offend, nor mentioned anybody, nor the language was inadequate. You do not like the content of the argument.

BTW, since I see that you are coming from Croatia - or you are related somehow to Croatian projects, I will take this as a threat and intimidation. WP:HAR WP:BULLY Your next action will be reported to the board

this is not your project, nor you are the bearer of the righteousness Pixius talk 21:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:Talk page guidelines with regard to what the talk pages are meant for. Fundamentally, they're meant for improving the articles, not engaging in fruitless flamewars. An example that I found was this comment that I removed together with a followup comment, because it was misplaced (talk pages follow chronological order, not reverse chronological), it advocates glaringly fringe theories about WP:ARBMAC topics that are already debunked by sources in our articles, does not provide any sources to back its claims up, and uses foul language. This is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia talk pages.
 * Further, your comments about my origin prejudicing me are unfounded in fact, and are indeed a violation of WP:Casting aspersions. Needless to say, you should absolutely refrain from that in the future, as it seems to reinforce the appearance of not actually being here to contribute to the encyclopedia.
 * --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You being a Croat/Croatian related - see your talk page for God sake it is not "unfounded in fact". Btw you as an admin decide which sources are relevant, which are not. Whole 2010 fiasco with Croatian wiki is happening here, but more in gloves - you are discussing wiht another Croat (Ivan Stambuk ) which sources to take - This is exactly why it is important that you are a Croat. Your purpose here is to bleach the history toward the Croatian bias and important to get the whole picture. To refrain - i don't think so. I don't want to be WP:HOUND like you do, but you will force me to do it, to collect evidences and to submit them to the board I will break this in bullet points to answer to you more effectively:
 * Please review WP:Talk page guidelines with regard to what the talk pages are meant for:
 * All sections in: How to use article talk pages are fulfilled correctly. It was continuity to the communication between 2 editors. This edit is not my personal opinion but a fact in the eyes of the law -> Should I give you non-existing contractual agreement of BDC? or should i cite there sources that agreement between 2 parties cannot be extended to third party not involved in agreement or contract?


 * An example that I found was
 * My only mistake is putting it up front, and for that i am giving you the credit - but the sources are BS.
 * The rest is also a fact - ethnic Croats are in Line Zagreb, Vienna, Bratislava - do you want reference for that which is outside "Croatian sources"? See census from 19th century done by Hungarians, and later AH.
 * Hungarian source sets complete Dalmatia is populated by Serbs - http://real-eod.mtak.hu/5845/. This is a digital copy of the Hungarian census from 1857. page 34 - 35



When we have cleared who was majority of population settled there (again see census - Serbs) - 1850 Vienna agreement is based on Serbian language - not Croatian. Vienna literary agreement is based on "Glavna pravila za južno narječje" by Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic. It is needless to say what southern dialect is and who has spoken it? INSTITUT ZA HRVATSKI JEZIK I JEZIKOSLOVLJE - this is not original ("u izvoru objavljen na osnovi Gajeva pretiska Pejakovićeva prijepisa") - see point 2,c,d - do I have to cite as who wrote these folk's poems and ethnicity of writers ( Ciklusi pesama )? So all in all this is a fact from 1850, further history bleaching by Croatian linguists I do not need to comment WP:BLUE As you can see it does not advocate agenda you have placed here ( WP:ARBMAC ) - simply, you do not like it

Btw, your unsigned user (213.149.51.202) is from Croatia on VIP network - when history is there to be bleached unsigned comment is left

And one more thing:" Ljudevit Gaj himself openly, like many others, considered this "Illyrian" language to be Serbian and did not hide what he had achieved, so in the newspaper Danica Horvatska, slavonska i dalmatinska, number 31. pp. 124, writes: "How can we argue about what is popular with Serbs, what is not, with Serbs, in whom nothing can be from altars to shepherds that would not be popular: among Serbs, of whom my language is in its wisdom and in its wealth, and we must learn customs in our excellence and purity if we want to renew Illyrian life: among the Serbs who in the sanctuary of their Serbianness retained that national spirit and that patriotism, which we in recent times, for the sake of harmony, under the broad name of Illyrianism resurrected with new life : with the Serbs, who have preserved everything for us since antiquity, and to whom we can give little but absolutely nothing about the people themselves? ” "

Pixius talk 22:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * There's so much patently wrong here, I really don't have time for a point by point rebuttal. Please feel free to bring it up with any other admins. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

From Croatian perspective everything is wrong, but those sources are from AH - you cannot deny this. Pixius talk 21:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mesoregion. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Shopska salad, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Banitsa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Slavic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

User talk pages
With very few exceptions, none of which apply in this case, editors are free to remove content from their talk pages as they see fit (see WP:OWNTALK). KidAd has asked you to take your argument to the relevant article talk page. Please do so. In addition, they have made it clear they don't want you to post on their talk page; you are expected to respect that request.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Complaint about you on my talk page
Hello User:Pixius. Please see User talk:EdJohnston. You can respond if you wish. Articles relating to Kosovo are covered by discretionary sanctions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Michael Z. 00:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Mzajac Beside your cherry picking there, can I reply on that message board? Pixius talk 01:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes you can post there. You may want to wait until an admin chooses to respond to the complaint, or not. You’re probably better off writing a neutral response to the allegations addressed to admins, than using it as an opportunity to confront me directly. —Michael Z. 02:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * On the ANI board directly Pixius talk 02:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If you mean file a separate notice, yes, but first follow other steps suggested in WP:DR, WP:CIVIL, or whatever guidelines recommend regarding the specific issue. —Michael Z. 02:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the ANI is already getting very long and I've sort of repeated this several times, I'll post this here. You seem to be concentrating on the apology aspect and while I was the first one to bring that up, it's not really the main issue. What we need is a demonstration from you that you understand the standards of behaviour we expect from editors here. As I've said a key one is that we do not make assumptions about an editors ability to edit objectively based on even self acknowledged broad characteristics where it's something too diverse and disconnected for a CoI to apply. This means you cannot assume an editor is not objectivity because of their nationality or national origin or ethnicity or sexuality or gender identity.  You've said you apply this standard to your friends nationality or ethnicity which is a good thing. However here on Wikipedia you earlier said [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUkrainian_dancers&diff=prev&oldid=1140162416&diffmode=source] "" I have no comment on whether Michael Z. is objective. But if you're going to argue they are not, it should be based solely on what they've said and done. It should not be based on their ethnicity or nationality.  There are plenty of Ukrainian who are sufficiently objective in such matters just as there are plenty of Russians. While I'm not denying that such matters can affect objectivity, to us it does not really matter what set of circumstances resulted in an editor not being sufficiently objective to edit certain topics. Only the end result matters.  This means you need to treat editors equally regardless of their nationality or ethnicity. Since you have experience doing so with your friends, you should hopefully easily be able to apply the same standards to all editors here even if they are not your friends. But if you do have trouble doing so, perhaps it's best if you avoid as far as possible looking into details that may lead to conclusions on an editors nationality or ethnicity.  BTW, I'm not sure if you understand how poorly your friends comment may come across. To me, it's very similar to the classic I'm not racist, I have black friends (or Asian friends or whatever) defence. As our article says it an extremely flawed defence. To be clear, I'm not saying you are racist or that your behaviour is anywhere near as bad as people who often use such lines.  However to me at least, when you kept repeating that (yes I did read your comment where you said something similar a few days ago), it reminded me a lot of such defences so it came across as particularly poor. As I said details of your friends and how you treat them is not something we care much about. An important point here is that while your behaviour may not be as bad and may be different, the same issues apply to you as to people who use such defences.  While I have no problem accepting you have Russian and Ukrainian friends and you treat them equally, it does not defend what you did here i.e. saying an editor's national origin disqualifies them from being objective. That was still quite wrong.  And getting back to my first point it's important that you understand why it was wrong and from now on do your best to avoid repeating it. That's far more important than an apology. If you understand this, you should explain so on ANI in your own words. (Perhaps you already did, I have not checked there since around the time of my last reply.)  Nil Einne (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * HI Nil.
 * Thank you for your comment.
 * I have striked the offensive comment trough and documented the change
 * []
 * Can you tell me if there is a more formal way or at least a guideline for apologies? Pixius talk 23:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nil Einne I have done the change before reading your message hence the question:
 * Can you tell me if there is a more formal way or at least a guideline for apologies? Pixius talk 23:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't check this earlier in part because I didn't see any point continuing it further and unfortunately I still don't since it does not seem that my method of explanation is working for you. Perhaps someone else will be able to explain it in a way you can understand. But to answer your specific question, there is no guideline nor anything formal on apologies since there is no need for one. However I guess you could try reading Guide to appealing blocks. Although you might not yet be blocked, the issues are basically the same, you need to convince admins that you understand where you've gone wrong and hopefully won't be repeating your mistakes.  Beyond that I'll repeat what I said in my first comment here in a briefer way. An apology does not really matter. What matters is that you demonstrate you understand where you went wrong and so may be able to avoid making such mistakes in the future. The issue I concentrated on which may not be the only area you went wrong, is your suggestion that an editor could not be objective because of their national origin or ethnicity. It does not matter whether you were right or wrong about their national origin or ethnicity. Nor does it matter whether you were right or wrong about them not being objective.  If you feel you've already demonstrated you understand the problem with your comments about an editor not being objective because of their national origin or ethnicity at ANI, then concentrate on other concerns editors have raised about your behaviour especially the more recent stuff e.g. in Valeree's reply to you.  Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Nil Einne I totally understood you and my wrong doing(s).
 * 1. By saying that someone "being ABC he/you has/have no credibility to edit wikipedia" is against wikipedia policies and rules, and it is a personal attack, and what @Valereee has said (and I believe you as well) borderline racizm
 * 2. Also, later when i have tried to respond to him, no matter what he has wrote, with the sentence "... i have to stop him... " is wrong, and isa part of WP:NOTHERE and WP:RGW
 * Unfortunately by trying to respond to everyone separately, the clutter of messages has been created, so now I am accused of making the wall (which was not even remotely in my mind, and honestly it is the first time I have heard such construct ), and now it looks even worse...
 * Thank you very much for the time and energy you have invested. Pixius talk 16:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you edit disruptively Wikipedia, discussed at Special:Permalink/1141164151. I'm not going to block you, but you are on very, very thin ice. I strongly suggest you open your mind to listening to other more experienced editors, even when you disagree with them. Valereee (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Assuming good faith
Hey, Pixius, I know you were responding to a snarky remark here, but try to assume good faith. Don't make accusations of bad faith unless you have a lot better evidence than someone saying your sources aren't persuasive to them, even if they're saying it in a kind of snarky way. Valereee (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Valereee Thank you for the remark. The link to the diff is dead Pixius talk 19:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hm, weird...it works for me. Does this work? Valereee (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Valereee that one does.
 * I see now that the page is set as CT Pixius talk 19:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)