User talk:Shokatz

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Shokatz! Thank you for your contributions. I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type helpme at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Marek. 69  talk  00:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Re: Is it just me or?
I don't believe Amir071 is the same as 67.248.128.225; the pattern is similar, but not identical. The others are sockpuppets of the IP address; for one, it's clear, and I've blocked it; the other one is highly suspicious, but I'm not blocking it after a single contentious edit. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: IP Vandal
Sokac121 and IvanOS think it's User:Oldhouse2012, actually, not User:Nado158. In any case, you should find diffs that demonstrate an exact pattern and report whoever it is at WP:SPI. They seem to have demonstrated a pattern of victimization at this point so it would be best that a completely uninvolved admin intervenes. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * G'day, reported as sock of Oldhouse2012 here Sockpuppet investigations/Oldhouse2012. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

IvanOS
Too late — someone reverted you. I blocked Ivan and mass-reverted him because he was deleting text from articles without explanation, which is never a good thing. Thanks for asking for my opinion, but since I have no opinion on whether this text belongs in the article, I won't be able to offer useful input, aside from saying that you need not worry about my concerns on this specific article. Nyttend (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Accession of Croatia to the European Union
I'm really not sure what the confusion is here. Have you read the source that you claim to be "syncing" with? It clearly contradicts what you are arguing: "Article 3. of the Accession Treaty states that Member States shall deposit instruments of ratification with the Government of the Italian Republic, therefore, only upon fulfillment of that conditions the Accession Treaty can be considered officially ratified in individual Member State." It lists these states as "parliamentary approval obtained" and NOT "ratification procedure completed." Listing them as "Ratification process completed", as you're attempting to do, is both inaccurate and contradicts the sources. I've reverted your proposed changes several times, and restored the long-term WP:CONSENSUS version per WP:BRD. Please self-revert and discuss on the talk page if you disagree with me and all the the sources. TDL (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
Hello i see you deal with Croats Infobox..I would like you to ask is this new picture that i put of Andrija Mohorovicic good or should i put the older one?And also i would like to ask you for hel for the third link i put about population of Croats abroad..Link is of google books so if u could just put sentence like that one of "4.5 million Croatians" not the google books link?Thanks:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help..But could you do the same for the 32 link?In the first sentence about 4.5 million Croats abroad also..Because link is still google books..You changed the link in infobox but not in the sentence..Cheers :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey did you create new infobox and new article about Croats?If u did i have few suggestions...I think there are too many Croats in infobox..I f you go to Germans you will see that there is almost the same germans as croats in infobox..There are too many of them..I would suggest that Nikola Zrinski,Vlaho Bukovac and one more maybe to be removed from that list..What do you think?Why did even this article changed in the first place?:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all that you said about the article..The article was very old and needed to be refreshed..We can talk on talk page about which one to remove or not..in my opinion svacic,nikola zrinski and maybe vlaho bukovac or ivan vucetic(made his name in Argentina) should be removed..I respect them but we already have nikola š zrinski so nikola zrinski is not very needed...toni kukoc should maybe be on that list...But as i said there is 27 or 28 Croatians in infobox and 30 Germans in infobox...And Germany is nation of 80 mil people and Croatia of 4.3 :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

So whodouthink we should remove from that list?Because onTalk page nobody will answer...Nikola Zrinski,Vlaho Bukovac,Ivan Vucetic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey can you tell me how canisign my post so that everyone cansee that i am posting?Scrosby85 17:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Scrosby85

Thank you..I hope it is right now :)..Can you please help me on the talk page about Croats..DIREKTOR non stop is saying that 16 is right number and that 20 is way too much...Slovenians who are smaller nation than Croats have the same number of people ininfobox and Serbs for example have 30... Scrosby85 17:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Shokatz i would like to ask you something about Croats infobox.It is about that number of 1 200 000 Croats in Usa.Do u think that it would be good that we put for example 400 000 declared Croats and 1 200 000 Croatian ancestry like it is said in the link?Or something like that?So that the infobox would look more realistic.Let me know here on your talk page. Scrosby85 (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Croatia nightingale
Re List of national birds. You added 3 links to cite Nightingale as the national bird of Croatia. Only one even mentions Nightingale. None of them support the assertion that it is the national bird. The page Symbols of Croatia doesn't mention it either. Chuunen Baka (talk  • contribs) 11:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

discussion
dear Shokatz, could you please join the discussion at Talk:Accession of Croatia to the European Union on what constitutes full parliamentary approval, so we can see what consensus is? I advice not to change the page Accession of Croatia to the European Union, as it appears you are edit warring there to get the change in... L.tak (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

CoA articles
Hi! I've recently noticed WT:CRO discussion about quality assessment of the Coat of arms of Dubrovnik / CoA of Dalmatia articles and left a few comments there. I also thought to leave you this note and point out that both of the articles are quite good regardless of their rating. Formally, no article may be higher than C-class if a single claim is left unreferenced, but both of those lack only a few so that should not be hard to remedy.

Also, there is a structure-related problem in both of the articles - you'd be better off with a "Description" section at the very beginning of the prose and that would cover the issue. Regarding comprehensiveness, both of the articles need some info on modern use (or lack thereof, whichever applies) in official, semi-official or unofficial contexts. I noted some examples as a guide in the WT:CRO discussions on that. Also some dates when Dubrovnik arms became official in their current form and in their original form corresponding to the modern design, as well as when the Dalmatia arms were officially disused (presumably disestablishment of the Kingdom of Dalmatia). Regarding gallery, the Dalmatia arms also appear on several forms of Austria-Hungary and Kingdom of Hungary arms as an element thereof.

Finally, please note that the lead is meant as a summary of the article, not an introduction (see WP:LEAD) and all info contained in the lead and the infobox must be present in the prose (and referenced in the prose rather than in the lead/infobox). Small size of the Dalmatia arms article is no problem for a higher assessment, it is just important to list (or provide an illustration of) its present use(s) to make it complete.

Hope this is helpful, I don't mean to put down articles/editors, rather I'd like to offer advice on what would be needed for the articles to warrant B-class (or GA-class). Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear so. I trust both articles have few gaps to fill before a B-class is warranted.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of refimprove tag
Hi! I noticed you removed refimprove tag from Dalmatia article. Even though you have provided additional references missing from the article. Please refrain from such actions in the future because this may be viewed as disruptive editing - the tag indicates to editors that additional citations are needed. Indeed, the article has numerous claims with no citations and the tag is justified. There are no inline tags precisely because there is the template (or general, as you put it in the edit summary) tag. Please restore the tag, or provide citations to all claims missing references. Regards.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no need to place additional fact templates requesting inline references per refimprove documentation. Furthermore, every claim in the article needs one reference - i.e. at least one reference per paragraph, possibly one per sentence to meet WP:V. The refimprove tag is placed in articles where there's simply too many inline references missing - such as in this case where the article is quite poorly referenced. The "citation needed" or "fact" templates - according to the template documentation - is used when the article is generally well referenced but only few specific claims are left unreferenced. Since this particular article lacks at least a half dozen references in the sections preceding "History" and the extensive "History" section is largely unreferenced, the refimprove tag is justified. Please read relevant tag template documentation before reverting.


 * Finally, and aside from this topic, there's no need for condescending summary edits like you made in this edit.


 * I will revert the removal once again per WP:DDE and report further baseless removal of the tag to WP:ANI per same guideline. Regards.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Restoring cited text removed because the source was misrepresented
I cannot understand why anyone would insist on keeping text in an article when the source in no way backs up the text. There is nothing in about these obsolete racial classifications, that is purely original research by the editor who added it. I made that clear in my edit summaries but you still chose to restore it against our policies and guidelines. I've taken the issue to WP:RSN and will be interested to see your response. Hopefully it will be to remove the text. Did you even read the source? Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

King of Croatia infobox
You have no valid arguments, only reverted me without any explanation. However, we should discuss this problem involving more editors, where everybody could tell his/her opinion. Maybe here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia. --Norden1990 (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Article merger
It seems I never answered your question - I'm sorry, I must have missed it somehow. There's a Talk discussion there where two other people also said the article is off base. A merge is the entirely uncontroversial course of action. At the same time, this article title can hardly be considered a valid search term, so a redirect is largely useless - you might as well nominate the article for deletion, while suggesting a prior merge of whatever little content there is. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Ugggh
Ok Shokatz. Revert me once more if you want and lets stop. It was fun, but we are both sure to get blocked if we don't try and solve this like civilized men... In fact, we'll probably get blocked anyway :), but lets try and work something out in what time we have.

For starters, can you please explain to me, slowly and carefully, just how in the world you think I've violated WP:V?? I mean, I've been around on this project for 7 years and 50,000 edits, and I know I did not, but still? -- Director  ( talk )  09:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You violated WP:V by claiming Kingdom of Croatia ceased to exist completely (including as a sovereign entity) when ALL sources clearly agree and state that some sort of sovereignty is continued. Even the most nationalist POV acknowledge that. In fact some of those sources which talk about the dispute even give credence to the argument of those who claim it was a clear personal union by explaining how certain aspect of sovereignty were continued such as: separate coronations (until mid-13th century), independent laws, issuing separate currency, special royally appointed rulers, etc. What I tried to point out but obviously failed is - the subject of dispute is not the existence of the union (it is inexplicable what kind of union it was in modern-day terms) but the form and creation of that union. Those are two different things. By enforcing one view you are subjugating the other, which is (whether you accept it or not) more mainstream in Croatian, Hungarian and third party historiography respectively.


 * Now I was ready to compromise, f.e. I would have not objected if you put both Kingdom of Hungary and Croatia in union with Hungary as successor states...that seems reasonable enough for me. And yes, we will probably both get blocked if someone sees what we did there...lol. Shokatz (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * @"You violated WP:V by claiming Kingdom of Croatia ceased to exist completely (including as a sovereign entity) when ALL sources clearly agree and state that some sort of sovereignty is continued."
 * Where did I claim that "Kingdom of Croatia ceased to exist completely"?
 * Which source agrees that some sort of " sovereignty " continued? Does any source actually use the word you're using? Sovereign.
 * Someone will see, if AS commenting on the other article is any indication... Lets at least see if we can agree before we're probably blocked. I don't like the current compromise version because it indicates the country split into two... -- Director  ( talk )  10:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * By putting the Kingdom of Hungary as a direct successor it is obviously suggested Croatia was completely annihilated and incorporated into Hungary proper, which cannot be further from the truth. The term sovereignty was first used by you so I continued to use it and tried to explain my view point within it's scope, as for the sources...every source I saw (and I listed carefully through them all) state directly that some sort of rights were retained by Croatia i.e. they talk about the dispute in how such union came to be and of what nature was the union was. So in other words (as I have repeatedly reiterated) it is not the existence of the union that is disputed, but it's nature, whereas theories go from classical personal union (accepted by majority of Croatian, Hungarian and third party historians) to mere dependency with special rights but still separate from Hungary proper.


 * And regarding Croatia being split into two or whatever, it isn't so wrong actually as during the personal union (or whatever you want to call it) borders were shifting back and fort. And especially if we take into consideration that at some point in 13th century Croatia was in fact split into Croatia proper and Slavonia officially and nominally under separate Ban's (Viceroys), with Slavonia being under more direct Hungarian influence and rule, while Dalmatian-Croatian part retained more autonomous status similar to one enjoyed by entire Croatia until 13th century. Shokatz (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Always the same sort of nationalist nonsense on this project...
 * @"By putting the Kingdom of Hungary as a direct successor it is obviously suggested Croatia was completely annihilated and incorporated into Hungary proper". Only in your mind, eager to discover offenses against Croatia. It indicates nothing but the successor sovereign state, just like every other s parameter in every other fc infobox. Its the Kingdom of Hungary in this case.


 * Sovereignty isn't just a word. Sovereign authorities are listed as successors to sovereign authorities. @"..every source I saw (and I listed carefully through them all) state directly that some sort of rights were retained by Croatia". As has been explained about 15 times, this is not disputed. It does not change the fact, however, that the Kingdom of Hungary is the sovereign successor state as required by the infobox parameter.


 * Croatia in union with Hungary isn't really a country article, its a period article. It can't be listed as a successor state. Acknowledge this if you're able, please.


 * The bottom line is (and I will condescend once more, on the basis of my experience on this project) that you do not understand the purpose of the relevant parameter. Its about sovereign states. Its supposed to point the reader to the country that succeeded as the authority here. For a Croatian example, see Banovina of Croatia: its successor isn't the Federal State of Croatia, but Yugoslavia in general. Subdivisions do list subdivisions as successors/predecessors, but not sovereign states.


 * Consequently, we can not have two entries in the long run - since they indicate that there were two sovereign entities that controlled the relevant territory, when in historical fact it was one. And no. Borders were not "shifting back and forth" after Gvozd and 1102.


 * Look, I'll be perfectly honest. I'm a Croat too, and I don't exactly like this. It is precisely because I'm a Croat that I've not fixed this ages ago, knowing full well it needs fixing. Its part of the reason why I'm trying to extend the article's scope up to 1527, so we can avoid the 1102 problem. That however, seems not to be widely supported, so I've decided to finally do the difficult thing and place the KoH as the proper s1=. As I said previously - its time to come to terms with this. If the Kingdom of Croatia article is ever to become a respected historical article and not a poster for semi-mythical nonsense, these sort of difficult things need to be done. I mean, a chequy coat of arms looked nice there, but it isn't real. 925? Not real. Coronation? As far as we know - not real, etc... -- Director  ( talk )  19:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok. To be clear, Shokatz, I'm only letting up because the current RM might make this discussion void. -- Director  ( talk )  12:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Gundulic Articles
When the gallery was removed, I initially reverted it, then thought better. While inserting the two images from the 'late' gallery that pertained to the contents of the article, I discovered that the image for Ivan Gundulic had no such identification, so I removed it, as its only label was "Gondola." If someone can show that it IS Ivan Gundulic, please do so. And I included the images of the coats of arms, titled as they appear in the sandbox. You may not like it, but it seems to me at least as Wikipedian as any other edits on the House of Gundulic/Gondola page. Tapered (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine, as to your message. I've put the coats of arms back, as they're relevant and NOT in a gallery. I'd like it if you'd join your comrade Herr Direktor in determining if I'm a sock puppet (see History, House of Gundulic). It's the highest and best use of your time. Tapered (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe you're acting in good faith. Check out the latest POV edit of Direktor's that I just reverted. Just for the heck of it, I clicked on 2 of the article's external links and discovered that "Gondola" had been changed to "Gundulic." It's a small thing, but I think it indicates a pattern. Based on my limited reading, it seems that most of the noble class of the Ragusan Republic spoke and wrote an Italic dialect and identified as such until the end of the 19th century. They were an Italianate island in a Slavic sea. The first language of Ragusa/Dubrovnik was Serbo-Croatian or something very similar. Some of the images in the gallery showed an Italic gravestone and Italic written communications fr/ the late 19th century. This is all anecdotal, but indicates a pattern. Direktor, for whatever reason, wants to 'Slavicize' a predominantly Italic family. For the last 95 years Dubrovnik has been Croatian/Yugoslavian. No Italians are attempting to reclaim it. So why try to reshape the past? If it turns out that all this is wrong, so be it. But I don't think Direktor acts with anything near to a spirit of disinterested inquiry on this subject. Regards, Tapered (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You know what? This article isn't worth much trouble. I'm going to leave it alone, and reread it occasionally to reinforce priorities, and to observe the limitations of Wikipedia's model (all human endeavor has limitations), and to see how aggression, organization, and intellectual dishonesty can often carry the day in human affairs. Regards Tapered (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive attitude?
Dear Shokatz, if after analysis of secondary sources the correct name is Gundulic this is fine for me. I do not want things my way, but at least we should follow the right methodology (is a wholesale google research a good method??). I have found enough English sources unsing Gondola so I have the reasonable doubt (to say the less) that a discussion should be made. What I see is that my contribution in the talk page has been removed by DIREKTOR because considered not useful. I hope this is not a standard approach and would like to know if analysing secondary sources instead that relying on a Google research is really disruptive attitude as DIREKTOR claims. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Reverted edit
Dear Shokatz, I have no problem to report in the article Croatia that the Government has started a bill four days ago concerning same sex-unions. But, if it is the case, please edit the article in such a way and source accordingly. The current edit does not mean anything. It just reports the intention of the Croatian Covernment to do something. --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

RM
Hi, It has to be closed by an admin. Give it time. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPI
You have been reported to WP:SPI, please see Sockpuppet investigations/Shokatz. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Europa Universalis vandalism
Well caught. I've a filter that stops a lot of it. Must see if it needs enhancement. Dougweller (talk) 08:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I think this is another suspicious account.--ChumleeS (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Puppet
Hello. I would like to inform you that the user Special:Contributions/72.66.12.17 is a puppet who came from Serbian Wikipedia since he got blocked indefinitely over there. See here. He is a puppet of another user that got banned for disruptive behavior. See here. He now turned to English Wikipedia and shows the same attitude that already got him blocked 2 times. Detoner (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Moving
Please read the relevant literature published in English before moving plages. Please compare this list about the Újlaki family with the list about the House of Ilok (actually about houses in Ilok):. You should also verify that the form "Lawrence of Ilok" is more commone in English literature than the form "Lawrance Újlaki". Borsoka (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Ethnic naming disputes are covered by discretionary sanctions
EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It may happen that an ethnic naming issue starts to resemble a 'turf-marking' issue between two editors. In that case, a comment like 'stop acting like a child' may expose you to sanctions under the policy. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC closure
Can you please close this RfC? The thing is starting to become tiresome. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Email
Can you please send me an email? -- Silve  rije 15:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Alert renewal and block
While you are six days past the formal 12 month period since being "alerted" to the discretionary sanctions in effect, I cannot block you as an arbitration enforcement discretionary sanction. As such, I am reissuing your "alert" notification so that you will again be subject to discretionary sanctions for the next 12 months. That is the purpose of this template. However, given your recent conduct in the topic area, you will nevertheless not escape what would be a clearly-warranted block. Accordingly, you have been blocked for one week for repeated personal attacks. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards, ~Swarm~  {sting} 01:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * After this (which I have reverted), the block is now indefinite with talk page access revoked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)