Archive
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alan Nussbaum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 22:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little concerned I would have difficulty defending this article. As a minimum, you should include his actual title, which is Professor, and list his degrees and some indication how we can tell that his published work is important. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure that it would pass notability test either. Feel free to AfD it. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the discussion on the talk page as you suggested. --93.142.214.74 (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales is asking for aditional input from Croatian users regarding the situation on Croatian Wikipedia. Please feel free to voice your opinion. Regards!--В и к и T 20:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Etymological dictionary of Slavic languages 35.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Blurred Lines 03:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Proto-Slavic accent, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Conjunction, Contraction and Slovene (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do u agree that we should put instead erased sentence some other sentence like :"He was one of the greatest sculptors of the 20th century?" Ithink that sentence doesn't need a proof because that is a known fact..Even Rodin said that Mestrovic is better then him and that he is a genius.Let me hear your opinion.ByeScrosby85 21:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs)

No, "one of the greatest" must be cited. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i have a link..A book from Professor Laurence Schmeckebier(1906-1984) from Syracuse University.On 10 pages segment about the life of Ivan Mestrovic he says about him "He stands among the great sculptors and patriots of the twentieth century and endures indeeed as Rodin described him seventy years ago---- a "phenomenon" "...So is this link good enough for you sir?--Scrosby85 23:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1168&context=libassoc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"One of the great" is not the same as "One of the greatest". Feel free to add it to the article though. BTW: My talkpage is not the proper venue for this discussion, and it is not up to me to decide what can and can not go in the article. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Codex Zographensis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Transitional Bulgarian dialects, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tran (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ivan, I was directed to a paper describing an experiment done a few years ago by an American linguist, John Bailyn, concerning Croatian and Serbian. He basically had Croats translate several Serbian texts and found that the results support the single-language hypothesis on analysis of grammar alone because of the lack of modification done to the texts. No doubt this is another blow to the nationalist braintrust on Croatian Wikipedia that continually resorts to ad hominems and non-linguistic argumentation to preserve the image of Croatian and Serbian being different languages like Dutch and German or Danish and Swedish. The study is at https://linguistics.stonybrook.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/u5/publications/JSLBCS2.pdf LAuburger (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks. We might use it in some articles. I very much like the conclusion: functional and grammatical lexical items in the original Serbian texts remain identical after translation into Croatian in 99.79% of cases. By the way, the "nationalist braintrust" is not as strong as it used to be. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ivan. Just a quick request, when you edit a sentence that is referenced to a specific source, please make sure that the source still backs up that statement. In this edit you completely changed the text, yet left it attributed to the BBC source, which says something very different. Cheers, Number 57 21:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Croatian constitutional referendum, 2013, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tolerance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited André Vaillant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grammarian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think your paranoia surrounding B/C/S needs to come to an end. Will you seek out every instance on wikipedia where Serbian, Croatian or Bosnian is mentioned and explicate their classification!? Such measures are beyond the pale. Whats next? "English, a part of the Germanic branch on the Indo-European language tree"!?! Such excursions are not necessary simply because you say so. Ethnic articles are to what extent possible primarily suppose to convey aspects specific to that group. Speaking a language called Serbo-Croatian is not specific to any of the groups, whereas the standards are. Their classification can and is defined under more relevant circumstances. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's an important detail that must be mentioned. There is a lots of difference between classification into ancient families, and modern languages being merely standardized variants of the same pluricentric language. Those bare-bone ethnic names make it sound that there is some kind of "separate" B/C/S/M language, which there is not. People don't speak standard language (it's an idealized form codified in books) - they speak vernaculars, and these forms are Serbo-Croatian as well. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those bare-bone ethnic names make it sound that there is some kind of "separate" B/C/S/M language - excessive paranoia seeing how the main articles (and relevant sections) are perfectly clear. It's an important detail that must be mentioned. -"Such excursions are not necessary simply because you say so". There is a lots of difference between classification into ancient families, and modern languages being merely standardized variants of the same pluricentric language. - let me guess, because it serves your end? they speak vernaculars, and these forms are Serbo-Croatian as well. - irrelevant, BCS are not just standards but also varieties covering vernaculars. Compare writing "Zagreb is the capital of the republic of Croatia, a country on the cross-roads between central and southeastern Europe"...the cursive part is entirely redundant to the article on Zagreb but highly relevant to the article on Croatia. Same goes for Bosniaks/Serbs/Croats and Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the truth must not be hidden. If you don't like it complain to HAZU/Matica srpska. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! I want the truth, hell I even thrive in it! But there are so many levels of truth, even beyond Serbo-Croatian. Zagreb is a town in Croatia, but also in the Balkans, and in Europe..and in the world..and....let me just ask if you also think of Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats as silly for being different ethnic groups at all? Should they just blob into "Serbo-Croats"? Is speaking an absolutely unique and exclusive language a prerequisite for being recognized as a distinct ethnic group by Ivan? Are ethnic groups solely determined by the language they speak? You must be sorely disappointed seeing that Google translate has recently added "Bosnian" to its service? Because people should not be permitted to call their native tongue by the name they prefer themselves, right? But should instead abide by Jacob Grimm of 1824 and Croat and Serb scholars of the era who proclaimed that "Serbo-Croatian" is the proper name for their language because they simply know best. The tag on the Croatian talk page even honestly declares "modeled on Serb and Croat nationalists of the time". Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They can call themselves and their language whatever they want, but they do not "own" it, even though many have been thoroughly brainwashed into thinking that they do. There is no "right" to one's language, no matter how many institutes, Maticas or academicians lied that there is. There is freedom to use one's language, but not right to claim it, or slap some exclusionist ethnic label on it. Just like you Serb nationalists see the so-called "Bosnian language" and "Montenegrin language" (as well as the notion of separate Bosniak/Montenegrin ethnicity) a matter of ridicule, some of us go one step further, and see "Croatian language" and "Serbian language" for what they are - a result of narrow-minded head-in-the-sand "We have our language we don't care what others call it *fingers in ears* la-la-la" point of view. The world does not revolve around petty Balkanites - seven billion human's don't share your collective frustrations ;-) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right in most of what you say and I'd be a lunatic to not agree, but my point is that people are entitled to have a special and exclusive relation to their dog and name it whichever way they like alongside the properly scientific and objective classification Canidae. "John had a dog called Taffy, a canidae member." Lol. If John or anyone else wishes to learn about the biological classification of Taffy they'll make sure to look up the appropriate definition. It's really taking it too far, Ivan. And FYI I do recognize both the Bosnians (Bosnjani) and Montenegrins (Dukljani) as "distinct". Serb or Croat influences have historically only been peripheral, especially in the case of Bosnia. The ethnic history of Serbs and Croats was compiled and constructed under megalomaniac circumstances in the 19th century, a period when Bosniaks and, perhaps specifically, Montengrins were largely dormant. Serbification and Croatisation of the region thus stretches back some 150 years, and I'm sure that presenting any current Croatian or Serbian history book to a 15th century South Slav would result in a farce (it is already a farce to western scholars). At the end of the day, ethnicities are predominantly politic constructs (rather than "God-given" or "blood-based"), so the distinction they offer is mostly self-conceived, as with culture at large. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 20:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Culture is not a political construct. It is something that can be measured, touched, visualized, felt. It's a concrete, physical manifestation of human interaction created as the byproduct of their creativity. Languages as well are concrete products, comprised of lexicons and grammatical structures. Ethnicities, on the other hand, are largely imaginary concepts, particularly in the Balkans regions where most countries sprung to life only recently, and all of them as a result of genocide, ethnic cleansing, forced population exchanges and large-scale brainwashing/assimilation of the population. Ethnic history of Serbs and Croats was not constructed in the 19 the century - it's by and large a result of 20th century propaganda. In the 19th century there was still feudalism going on, and 99% of the population was doing agriculture and was illiterate, and couldn't care less about "Serbs" and "Croats". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say culture was politics but they are equally much a construct of man's mind (or creativity if you like). I wasn't speaking about the general population in the 1800s but Serb and Croat scholars which were apparently enough literate to spread propaganda. The famous "Srbi svi i svuda" is a glorious 19th century punch line! Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Štambuk,I must say that i agree with Praxis Icosahedron on this one.Croats article,or Serbs article or Bonsiaks article are not your property so that you can do whatever you want.You are obsessed with the SerboCroatian thing and all you are saying is "It needs to be mentioned" You can see what i wrote under this topic so i don't repeat myself over and over again.See the logic. Scrosby85 22:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is beyond question redundant and even slightly paranoid to explicate their classification wherever the standards may appear. The lead of an ethnic article should optimally focus on aspects of immediate specificity to that ethnic group. Ivan accuses me of "hiding the truth" while in fact I have never obstructed the standards' classification as Serbo-Croatian where due, such as in the individual articles or appropriate sections inciting excursions of the kind.Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 00:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,I want to ask you what to do now about this SerboCroatian thing?Serbs and Bosniaks just revert and remove that Serbian and Bosnian language are part of standardized variety of SC but page about Croats mentions it.I think it is a bit unfair.Either they all don't have that sentence or they have.I also think it doesn't need to be mentioned two times.People who want to know better about that languages can go to wikipedia and write croatian,bosnian and serbian language and they will see that info about language articles in the first sentence.Also it is mentioned in languages section on "Serbs","Croats" and "Bosniaks" articles.Bye--Scrosby85 23:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs)

Already being discussed in the section directly above. "Unfair"?..what is this, an ethnic penis measuring contest between the Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats? The articles do not need to look identical, so WP:OTHERSTUFF is irrelevant. But as far as I can tell, we seem to agree. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 20:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Praxis Icosahedron,Of course they need to look identical.If all three articles looked identical 2 months ago and nobody complained.If all three languages are part as same subgroup which is called SerboCroatian then all three articles need to mention it.If u ask me that doesn't need to be mentioned in "Serbs" article or "Croats" or "Bosniaks"...There is a language section in each of that three articles and if someone is interested in that they can look.Also they can go to Serbian,Bosnian and Croatian language articles and they will read that sentence in the first row.So if it is not unfair it is pretty stupid looking sentence and it doesn't need to be mentioned on Serbs,Croats and Bosniaks articles.Just in the language sections.Scrosby85 22:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Scrosby85

Well, yes, that is my opinion too evidently. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 00:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether anyone complained or not. It's an important fact that needs to be mentioned because it downplays the significance and/or existence of these ethnic groups. It should be mentioned in the proper context, or not mentioned at all. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Branko Despot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Praxis and Kolo

Blaženka Despot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Self-management

Inscription of Župa Dubrovačka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to St. Sophia

Milan Šenoa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Travelogue

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Serafino Raffaele Minich (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Dean and Rector

Hrvoje Kraljević (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Princeton

Krunoslav Babić (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Decapod

Nikica Gabrić (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Croatian

Priest Martinac (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Grobnik

Slaven Ravlić (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Slivno

Vladimir Mažuranić (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Croatian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 19:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and yeah, be ready to bring your sources. I'm going to enjoy this. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 19:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

..for recognizing my edits on Croatian. Maybe we can reach some middle ground after all. I am not against explicitly presenting Bosancica and all that as the opinion of Bosniak linguists. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened up a case the dispute resolution noticeboard which might interest you Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Comparison of standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Transcription

Svein Mønnesland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Norwegian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Bosnian Language". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your work on the English Wikipedia.

I noticed an article you worked on. Just a short note to point out that we don’t normally link:

• dates
• years
• commonly known geographical terms (including well-known country-names), and
• common terms you’d look up in a dictionary (unless significantly technical).

This even applies for infoboxes.

Thanks and my best wishes.

Tony (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm already familiar with that guideline. You haven't unlinked any of the article's linked terms in your edit.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You omitted the edit summary field on this edit. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your work on the English Wikipedia.

I noticed an article you worked on. Just a short note to point out that we don’t normally link:

• dates
• years
• commonly known geographical terms (including well-known country-names), and
• common terms you’d look up in a dictionary (unless significantly technical).

This even applies for infoboxes.

Thanks and my best wishes.

Tony (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Croatian Writers' Association, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Association, Split and Petar Šegedin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm ColonelHenry. Ivan Štambuk, thanks for creating Ante Kuzmanić!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Encyclopaedia's are tertiary sources and are not considered reliable WP:PSTS...as you develop the article, consider using more secondary sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. ColonelHenry (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ivan Štambuk. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Mato Pižurica, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Mato Pižurica to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ljudevit Vukotinović (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Danica and Požega

Antun Nemčić (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Križevci

Vjekoslav Babukić (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Požega

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The pronunciation given on the link you shared is wrong, regardless of the fact it purports to give a language standard of Croatia. Moreover it is impossible to pronounce a word like that in Serbo-Croat (including Croatian literary language as one of its standards), because two lengthened vowels require an open syllable in that linguistic sustem (and this occurs only in Genitive Plural).

Maybe you should write to them and let them know. Also you could talk to people who are real experts in prosody and applied phonetics, if there are some where you live, and not just rely on typists entering words they do not know how to pronounce for online perusal.

Finally you might Google Search for "Dùbrōvnik" and "Dùbrōvnīk" and see that the first renders 18,500 entries, while the second has merely 255 finds, all related to that wrong novi-liber.hr page. So, you are showing shoddy research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.41.252.227 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as wrong on Wikipedia. There are either referenced facts, or unreferenced facts. If you don't like the referenced accentuation of Dubrovnik, find an alternative source without the posttonic length on /i/. (Actually I do have such source but won't help you now since you're being so obnoxious). All of the nouns on -nīk have the length and it's irrelevant whether it's due to leveling or it's the original accent.

Re: Actually I do have such source but won't help you now since you're being so obnoxious -- So you are admitting you are carrying out POV editing, instead of genuine good intent contribution to Wikipedia? Ah well... We thought as much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.41.252.227 (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not POV pushing, both pronunciations are equally proper. I just stated that it won't be me who will source alternative accentuation. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And why exactly is that? Here is why: because you are pushing a single POV in this specific case, even though in 75-80% od the cases you try to be objective. Why you are doing that, only you know.

Mind you, it is not at all just about Dubrovnik -- or rather and properly: Dùbrōvnik -- it is about hypocrisy and bigotism. In most cases you behave professionally only to be one-sided and petty on minor issues where you feel vulnerable or vain. Admittedly, you are probably not as bad as the guys on hr.wikipedia whom you criticised extensively when the scandal with their fascism arose, but you obviously have a tendency to being authoritarian and abusive.

Not that we have anything to lose from such actions by you or to get from your possible behavioural betterment in the future. But you do.

Accentuation is not a matter of POV. It's a fact of reality. POV = point of view of a human. I wouldn't really call it hypocrisy, more like fun. If you weren't behaving like a jerk maybe I would source Dùbrōvnik as well. Or perhaps give you a long list of words with a similar CV:C.CV:C pattern. BTW, I'm a NPOV fundamentalist in all matters. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

59.41.252.227 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'm a native speaker of the Ijekavian Neoštokavian from the region and it's indeed pronounced like that (also by Dubrovnikan themselves). And your Google search results are useless because you didn't enclose them in quotes - Serbo-Croatian accent marks are not written normally. --Ivan Štambuk (talk)

As one can see, both "Dùbrōvnik" and "Dùbrōvnīk" are clearly enclosed in quotes in the example above, so you are wrong. They were searched as such. Moreover, once again, it is not possible to pronounce two lengthened unaccented syllables in Serbo-Croat if the latter of the two is a closed syllable (has a consonant in the end).

So you most certainly do NOT hear the lengthening of [i], what you might hear is the lengthened [o] carrying on to the [i] (i.e. it's an issue of prosody and not of phonetics, as are unaccented lengths). If that [i] was indeed long, then in the Genitive case it should be "Dubrōvníka", i.e. with a prepositional, instead of a postpositional vowel length and a long rising on the "i", and that does not exist in the modern West Southern Slavonic language at all (only a few dozen Čakavian and a mere handful of Kosovo-Resava dialect words gave such anomalous remnants from the past). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.41.252.227 (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You enclosed them in quotes here but not on Google searches. The real results for both are order of magnitude less than you claim. You don't even know how to google - how do you expect anyone to treat you seriously?

Oh I know very well what I hear and pronounce. Posttonic lengths are distinctive ("phonemic") in Serbo-Croatian so it's indeed a matter of phonetics/phonology. Both Dùbrōvnik and Dùbrōvnīk have columnar accent paradigm. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Shoddy research"?! If you only took a glance at the supposed 18500 hits (I got 1740, showing how reliable that number is), you would find a lot of "reliable" sources like the following:

9570665. 2 bed vila dùbrōvnik, hrvatska. € POA · 8948056. 2 bed stan dùbrōvnik, hrvatska. € 83,000 · 9005143. 3 bed apartman dùbrōvnik, hrvatska. € 180,000.

I actually do have an idea how this wrong pronunciation spilled on the Internet so much: it was taken over by web bots from our own Wikipedia article and then mindlessly multiplied to ad generators and SEO code, and such. It can still be visible e.g. in Statemaster WP fork (blacklisted).

For an amusement: https://xkcd.com/978/ No such user (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. It's not necessary wrong BTW - Anić's dictionary is largely based on actual usage, and not some abstract norm. It has been criticized for containing too many "Serbianisms" because of that. I've also found Dùbrōvnīk in the prescriptive grammar by Barić et al. (pages 87, 314, 365) as well as the Рјечник дубровачког говора ("The Dictionary of Dubrovnikan speech"; Српски дијалектолошки зборник XLIX, SANU, 2002) - page 102. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... why don't you do one on Vanja Stanišić, the sole living Serbian linguist who deals with Serbian/Albanian linguistic co-influences? BTW, he is the son of Ivan Studen, the author of the play "Karađorđe", and currently teaches in Seoul, South Korea.

59.41.252.227 (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of him to tell you the truth. Pižurica seems rather notable - holds a number of positions and has authored important works. I'm not sure that Stanišić would pass the notability criteria for academics. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Federal popular initiative "Against mass immigration" (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to AFP

Scienceindustries (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Business association

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan, if after analysis of secondary sources the correct name in Gundulic is fine. I do not want things my way, but at least we should follow the right methodology (is a wholesale google research a good method??). And please can you contribute to put some water on the fire? User DIREKTOR is starting an edit war on the Talk page... never seen anything like that. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zdravo Ivane. Thanks for your question. Yes, I cannot edit Balkan articles for now, (blocked because of, well,.. ), and I do not know the figure in question too well. However, I agree with you about the lack of nationalism in 16-17th century. Fines book is one amongst many about the topic, Eg Anthony Smiths various works, and Patrick Geary Myths of Nations.. To make an article for all Europe or evbery European nation would be an immense task that noone has time for, and I am sure articles here exist which talk about nationalism, and its rise fom the late 18th century. And anyhow, in other European countries, it wouldnt be needed, because, unliek the Balkans, editors there seem to work very well with each other, are civilized and up-to-date with modern scholarship (just see here [1]). I hope after my downtime to return, and eventually do an article about identity/ ethncity in Balkans during the Middle Ages. Of course, I dont think this will prevent future conflicts. Because a lot of editors are simply blinded by religious-level beliefs on what they were taught in primary school, and are simply blind to any higher -level intellectual discussion which goes beyond nationalist mythology/ Even if they had the IQ to learn it, they often simply dont want to accept it becuase they'd rather push a certain POV. Its syumptomatic of most people from our region of origin,unfortunately. IT all calls for patience, concensus, and if need be, taking to Arbcom as you have done. :( Slovenski Volk (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I better keep out of it even the discussions, apparently. Hope you all can come to some consensus Slovenski Volk (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that Chakavian has low mutual intelligibility with Kajkavian is as untrue as the assertion that Chakavian has the same intelligibility with Shtokavian(which is very low), and with Kajkavian(which is actually very good). It is also incorrect that Kajakvian subdialects are not mutually comprehensible between themselves, in fact it is just the opposite. Although every area within which the Kajkavian dialect is spoken has its own specifities, all Kajkavian subdialects are very similar regerdless in which area they are spoken. Furthermore, Chakavian shares many similarities with Kajkavian regarding vocabulary, declension, conjugation, accentuation, and sound system; manny vowels are common in booth, and they also share the same diphtongs. Almost none of the latter features which are present in booth Chakavian and Kajkavian are present in Shtokavian. Briefly: Chakavian and Kajkavian overlap in manny ways, and judging by the experience of speakers of booth dialects, their mutual intellegibility is at a very high degree, while mutual intelligibility between speakers of the Shtokavian dialect and between speakers of booth of the other dialects is very low. These are also facts that follow from the linguistic analysis of both dialects, Chakavian and Kajkavian.

With kind regards --Čitateljwikipedije (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are immense internal differences among Chakavian and Kajkavian speeches. Northern Chakavian and Southern Chakvian border on complete unintelligibility. No one argues that there are some ancient (centuries-old) isoglosses that Ča-Kaj share (and there are just as many that Što-Kaj and Što-Ča share as well), but overall degree of mutual intelligibility is very low, apart from some transitional areas in the north. I'll look to find some sources to back up the disputed statements. Personal opinions and experience don't matter on Wikipedia unless they are written in reliable sources. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing the fact that there are differeneces between Chakavian and Kajkavian, because there are. After all we are talking about two dialects, and therefore there must be differences. The northern areas; Istria, Kvarner and some northern islands of Dalmatia(Pag for example) are those in which the Chakavian dialect is preserved in its most authentic forms. When we talk about the Chakavian dialect on the southern islands or even on the Dalmatian coast which goes further to the south, we can actually see that this Chakavian is transitional to Shtokavian, and it has taken over many of its features, while Chakavian which is spoken in the norhtern parts has not, therefore they vary. Also if we look at old Chakavian texts (from the time of at least 500 years ago) we can conclude that they are all very similar regardless in which area they have been written, since they had not been affected by Shtokavian at that time, while those which have been affected by it, today significantly differ from original Chakavian. The same applies to Kajkavian.

Kind regards --Čitateljwikipedije (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ivan Gundulić, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Croatian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"You can't just remove statements backed up by multiple reliable sources. Overall the transitional Ča-Kaj speeches constitute a minority of Kajkavian, and Kajkavian as a whole is much more related to Slovene than to Čakavian. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)"

When talking about the similarity and congruence between Chakavian and Kajkavian it is superficial to consider only the transitional speeches, but it is indeed necessary to fully consider the characteristics of booth dialects. Chakavian spoken in central Istria or an island of northern Dalmatia, which can definitely not be considered a transitional area, overlaps with Kajkavian spoken in any area, except the border zone with Slovenia, to a degree which is significantly higher than the degree in which Kajkavian overlaps with Slovenian. Kajkavian does not share as much similarities with Slovenian as some claim only because it has the same interrogative pronoun for "what"(which actually varies and exists in many more forms which do not exist in Slovenian) or a similar formation of the future tense. The only area (except the border zone with Slovenia) in which Kajkavian shares more similarities with the Slovenian language is part of Gorski Kotar (which is moreover quite small) in which the native population (which was initially chakavian) centuries ago fled to Carantania because of the Turkish conquest, and hence has taken over language features inherent in the Slovenian language. Kajkavian is closer to Slovenian than to Shtokavian, but it is not closer to Slovenian than to Chakavian.

But since you are saying that "reliable sources" claim the opposite, I would appreciate it if you could send me a link for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Čitateljwikipedije (talk • contribs) 17:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Čitateljwikipedije (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sources in the diff above. Kajkavian has been classified as a Slovene dialect in the history due to extensive similarities of the two. On general relationship among Ča-Kaj-Slo, from Lončarić's book on Kajkavian (p. 18): S obzirom na kajkavštinu utvrđena su poklapanja, koja su se mogla i unaprijed očekivati, između jugozapadnih kajkavskih, sjeverozapadnih čakavskih i jugoistočnih slovenskih govora, ali bez izra­zitijih izoglosa, razlika koje bi ukazivale na veću srodnost između nekih od njih (NewekIowsky 1987). Međutim, utvrđeno je također ranije (R. Kolarič 1958) da se s obzirom na te tri jedinice mogu povući i izoglose, tj. slovenski susjedi na čakavskoj strani imaju više zajedničkog sa slovenskim jezikom nego slovenski susjedi kajkavci In other words, there is really no special kinship among Kajkavian and Čakavian. --Ivan Štambuk (talk)"

The source does not deal with the whole area of the Kajkavian dialect nor the entire area of Chakavian dialect and the Slovenian language, but only refers to Kajkavian southwest(jugozapadnih kajkavskih), northwest Chakavian (sjeverozapadnih čakavskih) and southeast Slovene((jugoistočnih slovenskih govora) speeches , therefore, of those speeches Ča-Kaj-Slo that are geographically close.

Also, Kajkavian has never been considered to be part of the Slovene language. This idea dates back to the 19th century when it was launched by some Slovenian linguists. However, Croatian linguists have clearly refuted this assumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Čitateljwikipedije (talk • contribs) 18:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Čitateljwikipedije (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of sources which you can look at in order to see the kinship between Chakavian and Kajkavian: Vinodolski zbornik, Petrisov zbornik, Kolunićev zbornik, Kvarezimal Šimuna Grebla, Korizmenjak IIIa 19 , Homilijar na Matejevo evanđelje, Antoninov konfesional , Kvadriga duhovnim zakonom, Tkonski zbornik, Žgombićev zbornik, Grškovićev zbornik, Judita, Šibenska molitva, Istarski razvod, Povaljska listina, Poljički statut, Pismo kneza Nikole Modruškog, zapis popa martinca, Misal kneza Novaka, Misal Hrvoja Vukčića Hrvatinića, Misal po zakonu rimskog dvora, Prvi vrbnički brevijar, Drugi brevijar, Prvi novljanksi brevijar, Drugi novljanski brevijar, Korčulanski lekcionar, Lekcionar Bernardina Splićanina, Aleksandrida, Narodil se Kralj Nebeski, Bok se rodi v Vitliomi, Va se vrime godišća, Pervi oca našega Adama greh, Zercalo Marijansko, Matijaš grabancijaš dijak,

There were also many linguists who claimed Kajkavian was the only croatian language. I do not agree with this, but it shows the relativity of their interpretations. Also, The term "Slovene"(Slovenski, Sloven-) was not always used in the same way it is used today, it was used to denote all Slavic nations, and it was also used to denote the whole croatian language, for example in the book "Razgovor ugodni naroda slovinskoga".

--Čitateljwikipedije (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been shown to what the sources you cited actually relate, would we then be able to agree on that to remove the contentious claim? Of course after you take a look at the sources I cited.

--Čitateljwikipedije (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Greenberg explicitly says Slovene and the Croatian Kajkavian dialect stand in a close genetic relationship and goes on to elaborate it." And he is right, Slovene dialects and croatian Kajkavian dialects are in a close genetic relationship. Kajkavian is without a doubt closer to Slovene than to Shtokavian. I have never claimed the opposite. The article also says: "the Štokavian dialect began to innovate first, leaving archaisms in the periphery represented today by Slovene, Čakavian and Kajkavian." and "the Kajkavian and Čakavian dialects form a bridge to Slovene". Chakavian is as close to Slovene as Kajkavian, and as far from Shtokavian as Kajkavian.

"Another source that I quoted above says that in the transitional areas Čakavian is more closer to Slovene than to Kajkavian." You have confirmed my assumption that subdialects spoken in the border zone with Slovenia share more similarities with Slovenian dialects than other dialects which are spoken on the Croatian side, and this applies booth to Chakavian and to Kajkavian. I do not see how these two combined can mean that Kajkavian is closer to Slovenian than to Chakavian, it simply means that speeches which are geographicaly close are similar. It is not a strange phenomenon that speeches near borders are close to each other.

"The diasystem as applied to Croatian (or Serbo-Croatian) seems to be a way of artificially asserting linguistic unity in the face of underlying structural heterogeneity." This claim builds on this: "precisely in these last fifty years there have been several important realizations about the development of the Croatian language: that the Croatian and Serbian language is genetically one definite diasystem, at the rank of a language among the Slavic languages, and that in the framework of this diasystem there arose several literary languages, that their basis is Neo-Štokavian (except for the Gradišće Croatian literary language), and that these literary languages, except those based strictly on dialect bases, grew out of a particular centuries-long social and cultural development of individual nations (Barić et al. 1995: 38). " It refers to the similarity of Neo-Štokavian dialects.

"It captures the fact that heterogeneous, though similar, systems can be perceived by speakers as belonging to the same language. This is a linguists’ reflection of what Kajkavian speakers believe about their language: that they are speaking a variety of Croatian."

It suggests that they believe that they are speaking a dialect that belongs to the same language as the Neo-Štokavian dialect does, although they differ significantly.

--Čitateljwikipedije (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. Kajkavian is genetically related to Slovene.
• 2. Chakavian is not genetically related to Slovene.
• 3. Shtokavian is not genetically related to Slovene.
• 4. In the borderline area Chakavian is more closer to Slovene than to Kajkavian.
• 5. Ergo, in non-borderline area (where there are less shared isoglosses) Chakavian is at least as distinct from Kajkavian as it is from Slovene.

How did you get the idea that Chakavian is genetically not related to Slovene?

• "the notion of "Central South Slavic Diasystem" refer to Ča+Kaj+Što dialects together. That there is some kind of "special" connection holding them together since ancient times. It's a political construct with little real-world justification." It is true regarding Štokavian as opposed to Kajkavian and Čakavian. The article says:" There does not exist a close fit between these dialects and the modern ethnic groups and nations: Serbs are speakers of Štokavian Ekavian and Ijekavian; Montenegrins of Štokavian Ijekavian; Croats of Kajkavian, Čakavian, and Štokavian Ikavaian and Ijekavian; Muslims speak Štokavian Ijekavian. In turn, the Kajkavian and Čakavian dialects form a bridge to Slovene"

--Čitateljwikipedije (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, according to the map Kajkavian, Čakavian and Slovene share quite many isoglosses, all of which end about the line which seperates Štokavian from booth Čakavian and Kajkavian. Do you not agree, regardless which is more similar to which of those three (Ča-Kaj-Slo), that Čakavian and Kajkavian in general share more isoglosses than Štokavian shares with booth of them? Add the fact that the map selected only a few Isoglosses. Based on these maps we can anticipate that behind the line which seperates the two dialects from Štokavian there are plenty of other Isoglosses common in booth Ča-Kaj dialects, which eventually indicates that there is greater similarity between Kajkavian and Chakavian, than between Chakavian and Štokavian, or between Kajkavian and Štokavian. The Wikipedia article about Štokavian also says that Kajkavian and Čakavian have retained many features that are not present in Štokavian. This is what I am targeting at. What I am trying to say all the time is that Kajkavian and Čakavian do not differ in the extent to which both differ from Štokavian. Now we even have a reference- Greenbergs map. I do not want the claim that Kajkavian is closer to Slovene than to Štokavian to be removed, because it is true. I am only saying that it should not say that mutual intelligibility between Kajkavian and booth of the other dialects is the same. Even the reference you cited confirms this assumption. Therefore, it should only say that mutual intelligibility between Kajkavian and Štokavian is low. Can we at least agree on that? --Čitateljwikipedije (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "it's absurd to claim that Southern Čakavian is more closer to Kajkavian in the north than neighboring Štokavian" The majority of the Chakavian speaking area is situated on the north, and further to the south there only are Štokavianized varieties of Chakavian, which can only be considered transitional Ča-Što subdialects. Southern Chakavian is closer to Štokavian than to Kajkavian but it accounts for only a small area on the islands.

• "especially in the light of Č and K each being closer to S than to each other (why shouldn't they as well each be closer to Š than to each other? Both are heavily Štokavianized now.)" The source you cited, Greenbergs map, shows that the majority of the Chakavian speaking area (Istria, Kvarner, and some norhtern islands of Dalmatia) shares more isoglosses with Kajkavian than with Štokavian. It is also the only area where you can find Chakavian subdialects which are neither transitional to Kajkavian nor to Štokavian, while the southern Chakavian dialects can only be considered transitional because they cover a very narrow coastal zone according to this map https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datoteka:Croatian_dialects.PNG

--Čitateljwikipedije (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "There is also Middle Chakavian, Southern Chakavian, and Southeastern Chakavian. None of these are closer to Kajkavian than to Štokavian." The croatian Wikipedija says: "Na srednječakavskom dijalektu temelji se standardizirani jezik gradišćanskih Hrvata." Also, László Hadrovics, a researcher of language and culture of the Burgenland Croats says: "[...] cijeli fonetski razvoj gradišćanskohrvatskog književnog jezika, tvorbu riječi i morfologiju. Podaci nam dokazuju opet da je ovaj književni jezik jednoznačno čakavski. Znanstvena gramatika potvrñuje Hadrovicsev opis. Razlika je u tome što u književnom jeziku

18. i 19. stoljeća nema utjecaja hrvatskog standardnog jezika, što je slučaj danas. Morfologija imenica odgovara stanju u čakavskim i kajkavskim govorima. It also says: "imaju vrlo mnogo zajedničkog, naročito u leksiku, gdje nalazimo mnogo podudaranja s kajkavskim narječjem" The language of the Burgenland Croats, which is based on the Middle Chakavian dialect, shares many similarities with Kajkavian, therefore also with North Chakavian.

As regards the South Chakavian subdialect, the croatian Wikipedija says: "U mnogim govorima se miješaju čakavske i štokavske osobine. Pretpostavka je da se u prošlosti ovaj dijalekt prostirao dublje u unutrašnjost, a prostor mu se smanjio seobama stanovništva." Hence, most of the other Chakavian subdialects that stretch along a narrow coastal zone are actually transition speeches between Chakavian and Štokavian.

As regards the Southeastern Chakavian, Wikipedija also says: "jugoistočni čakavski (odgovara južnočakavskom, jugozapadnom istarskom i lastovskom) Neki znanstvenici smatraju da je jugozapadni istarski miješani čakavsko-štokavski dijalekt ili da pripada štokavskom."

Therefore, South Chakavian and Southeastern Chakavian are transitional Ča-Što subdialects.

One more thing. "that map is wrong. It was created by a Croatian user out of his head to artificially inflate the number of speakers and the geographical distribution of those two extincting dialects. There is no alternative map so it's being kept in the article" Why are you saying this? Who is this user? Does it mean that there is no other map which shows the distribution of croatian dialects? And most important of all, why should someone have the desire to artificially inflate the number of speakers of the those two dialects? --Čitateljwikipedije (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Vrlo mnogo zajedničkog, naročito u leksiku, gdje nalazimo mnogo podudaranja s kajkavskim narječjem What is "vrlo mnogo" ? Are those shared retentions or common innovations? If it's not explicitly stated it doesn't matter, we can't just guess." You can look at it http://mta.hu/fileadmin/I_osztaly/eloadastar/Hadrovics_emlekul_Neweklowsky.pdf

• "That's your imaginative conclusion. Sources classify them as legitimate Č subgroups." What I said relies on what the croatian Wikipedija says, and this is furthermore based on what reliable sources say. You can look at the articles.

• The speech of Buzet is also classified as a legitimate Č subgroup, and yet Wikipedija says(which is also based on reliable sources): "Buzetski, buzetsko-gornjomiranski ili gornjomiranski dijalekt se prostire u sjevernom dijelu Istre, oko Buzeta[1].Dijalekt predstavlja prijelaz čakavskoga narječja prema slovenskim dijalektima". This is pretty much the same situation as with South Chakavian speeches. I have justified my assertions by things which are written in Wikipedija, which are based on reliable sources.

Also, Filip Galović says(regarding the South Chakavian dialects): "teren koji je, navlastito u kopnenome dijelu južnočakavskoga ikavskoga dijalekta, u neku ruku ruševan. Ponajprije, “kopneni su govori južnočakavskoga dijalekta u dugu izravnu dodiru s ikavskoštokavskima te se posljedice toga dodira uvelike iščitavaju iz fonološkoga sustava", also:"Osim blizine dvaju dijalekata i njihova miješanja tijekom prošlosti, kopneni govori južnočakavskoga dijalekta i u današnjem vremenu trpe različite promjene. Mnoga i raznolika doseljavanja (ponajviše iz Dalmatinske zagore i drugih okolnih kopnenih područja, iz zapadne Hercegovine, pa i s otoka)".

• "Personally I can't even fathom the cognitive dissonance in the mids of those who simultaneously believe that standard Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian(/Montenegrin) are three (four) legitimately "different" languages" Neither do I.

--Čitateljwikipedije (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no point to this. It seems that you have the authority for deciding what is true and what is not. Whatever I say, whatever the sources say, you are going to twist them in the way you prefer. And no, I did not say that only the Northern Čakavian was proper, but that it occupies the space where there were no Neo-Štokavian innovations, and where non-transitional Chakavian dialects are spoken, but this is no longer important. You claim that Wikipedia articles from Balkanian countries provide misleading interpretations. You declared invalid all the logical conclusions that I have made also from your sources. On one hand it is not a good map that is used in the "(non-Balkan) article which provides valid information", on the other hand you do not let newer sources show the real situation on the field.

I have neither the time nor the will to continue this discussion.

With kind regards --Čitateljwikipedije (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Antun Bauer (Archbishop) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Caritas

Dubravka Ugrešić (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Milorad Pavić

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Is this a reliable source? Please verify this edit. Odd claim and I don't think that's an expert source. Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karatay's theory is not generally accepted. However it is notable due to the fact that Croatian media provided moderately comprehensive coverage thereof. It's fringe, but notable. On the other hand all of the "Croatian origin" theories of ethnogenesis are unsubstantiated speculations without a shred of evidence, so I'm unsure how it features as regards the relationship with competing theories. "Nationalist see nationalist imagine." --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Veljko Kovačević, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grahovo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Igman Initiative, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Association (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. How can you remove six hours of my hard work and just call that butchering? All that I've done is massively improved (I mean: added another language) the guide, without really removing any information! Five hours later... you still didn't write to me about that, nor tried to remove things you didn't like (maybe those flags are an overkill, but they explicitly tell users if the word is Serbo-Croatian, Slovene, or both. And, of course, by things I mean details of what I added, not just throwing away all of my work). Besides, take a look at these pages:

• Help:IPA for Bulgarian and Macedonian
• Help:IPA for Czech and Slovak
• Help:IPA for Portuguese and Galician

IPA for Serbo-Croatian and Slovene looks more or less the same as IPA for Portuguese and Galician in terms of differences between Serbo-Croatian and Slovene vs. Portuguese and Galician.

Go ahead and take part in this discussion if you want: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#Help:IPA for Serbo-Croatian and Slovene --Peter238 (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If yo want to improve them separately you are free to do so. There is no reason to combine different languages like that. Those IPA guidelines that you list above should be split. Whether there is redundancy or not is irrelevant - we are not short on space and the confusion introduced is quite heavy. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably the first person to say that those pages should be split. What's the confusion? On each of these three pages there's a clear distinction between languages - and if there isn't, you can always work on it or ask someone else to improve it. --Peter238 (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Various other language combos have common IPA pages. See Dutch and Afrikaans IPA page, Norwegian and Swedish IPA page, Czech and Slovak IPA page, and so on and so on. 78.0.239.200 (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a stupid idea to combine them like that and they should be split. The distinction is far from clear - you need to repeatedly look which column is valid for which language. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glagolitic Alley, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Antiquity and Clepsydra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:Ivan Štambuk. :)

While investigating the copyright concerns flagged in Igman Initiative, I see that you had copied the content to that page from Igman. It's perfectly okay to copy content from one article to another on Wikipedia, of course, but when you do so you must at least put a link in the edit summary to the source article to provide the legally required attribution. Content on Wikipedia is not public domain, and our contributors agree that this link is sufficient acknowledgement. Without at least that level of attribution, I'm afraid that such copying violates their copyright. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia explains more the how and why.

I'll make sure that the necessary attribution is provided in this instance, but I wanted to let you know for future use and in case you have copied content previously without the required attribution so that you can fix it. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ban (title), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Banovina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stjepan Krizin Sakač, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Rite (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Na šta ciljaš? Koji dio nije uredu? Kategorija? --Munja (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piše ti na strnici za razgovor sve. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rijeka Philological School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dual (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Human Rights Film Festival requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Epeefleche (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Rijeka Philological School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Zagreb Philological School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Zadar Philological School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pozdrav. Prvo se ispricavam sto pisem na hrvatskome, ali puno ce mi biti lakse objasniti situaciju u kojoj sam se snasao. Pa da objasnim. Postoje dvojica korisnika koji pokušavaju napraviti promjene na članku o europskim izborima, točnije žele promijeniti tko su bili vođe na europskim izborima. Ignoriraju činjenicu da su postojali kandidati za predsjednika europske komisije, pa žele staviti vođe grupacija ueuropskom parlamentu kao vođe na izborima, što je po meni ludost. Ne vidim razloga zašto bi to itko činio jer je jasno kao dan da su vođe na zadnjim izborima bili kandidati za predsjednika komisije. Jedino mogu doci do zakljucka da im se ne svida to sto neke grupacije nisu predstavile kandidate, tocnije konzervativne stranke, koje vjerojatno oni podrzavaju, a mozda su i njihovi članovi. Pa zato žele to promijeniti, što bi po meni bila ludost jer ti kandidati koji su sada, Junker, Schultz, Verhofstadt,... su bili cijelo vrijeme u članku predstavljeni kao vođe i onda odjednom mjesec dana nakon izbora dolaze ova dvojica i to žele promijeniti. Stavit ću ti linkove na članke i od njih isto: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014

Korisnici su Jaakko_Sivonenv i Gabrielthursday.

Problem je sto sam ja dosta nov u svemu ovome i nemam iskustva su uredivanjem, a ni svim pravilima, pa su me oni izgleda prijavili, sto sam ja isto uzvratio, evo ti linkovi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tuvixer#Edit_warring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jaakko_Sivonen#Stop_vandalizing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gabrielthursday#Stop_vandalizing

Oni ocigledno znaju da nisu u pravu pa su počeli menenapadati i terorizirati kao što možeš vidjeti na mojoj talk stranici, a i ovdje: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tuvixer_is_continuously_posting_personal_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Tuvixer_reported_by_User:Jaakko_Sivonen_.28Result:_.29

Tebe sve ovo pitam jer pretpostavvljam da immas vise iskustva nego ja na ovoj stranici i da bis mi mogao pomoci. Ao treba prevesti cu sve ovo na engleski. Ako ti nesto nije jasno radu cu objasniti.

Puno hvala unaprijed, LP Tuvixer

Tuvixer (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taj Gabrielthursday je brijem neki kršćanski desničar svađao sam se s njim na nekom članku o pederskim pravima (ne pitaj...). Meni se osobno lagano bljuje od političke travestije Eurosovjeta i tih izbora za koje nikog nije briga iako sve odlučuju. 98% Europljana nema pojma ni kako se zove EU predsjednik. Budem pogledao diskusiju kasnije večeras pa komentiram sad samo odgovaram da sam zaprimio obavijest :) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evo me natrag, nisam mogao biti ovdje u zadnje vrijeme jer sam imao obveze. Sada sam napisao na talku od europskih izbora 2014 što se stvarno tamo događa, ali ti ljudi su stvarno fanatisti i spremni su na sve. Čim ih prokužiš odmah zovu svoje admine i onda zabrane promjene na članku, mene su čak bili i blokirali. Užas, stvarno ne razumijem koji je smisao da šire laži, stvarno bez veze. Najvjerojatnije ću sada napraviti bolji članak o europskim izobrima na hrvatskome jeziku, pa cu tamo staviti tu tablicu, ali kako bi stvarno trebala. Ja sam na wikipediji jer mi je zanimljivo biti dio svega ovoga, a i bez ljudi wikipedija ne bi mogla funkcionirati, pa valjda ima i tu nečega. :) Ali onda doći u susret sa ovakvim ljudima koji su spremni na sve samo kako bi promovirali neku svoju agendu je stvarno deprimirajuće. Inače sam iz Rijeke, pa nisam baš naviknut na ta desničarska sranja, i stvarno se loše osjećam kada to vidim. To je uvijek problem jer su ti fanatični desničari u ogromnoj manjini, ali su glasni, a normalni, većina, uvijek šute i trpe. Njih dvojica zajedno surađuju, tko zna možda je iza ta dva profila jedna osoba, i stalno su aktivni, tako da nema šanse da nešto promijeniš, a čim ih prokužiš odmah te napadnu i onda je kraj. Promijene članak i onda im ja undo tu promjenu i kažem da rasprave o tome na talku prije nego što naprave promjenu. Ništa im to ne znači, opet vrate i kažu da bih ja trebao staviti na talk, mislim užas, i tako bi oni trebali biti u pravu. Ali barem i oni znaju da nisu u pravu i da to što rade nije u redu, jer da je drugačije otvoreno bi govorili zašto to rade. Hvala ti na pomoći. :)

Tuvixer (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hasanaginica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Slavic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ivan, thank you for your thanks about editing Elena Efimovna Kuzmina. I didn't know Professor Kuzmina, but a friend asked me to update the WP article. Since I can't speak Russian, I'd like to ask for your help improving the article. Using Google translate, it appears that the ru interwiki has considerably more biographical information. Would you have time to translate and add material? I'd be glad to help check the English. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Željko Bujas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Concordance. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The genetics section was removed with an explanation in an edit summary saying it was OR and a post to the talk page. You removed it giving no reason and without explaining on the talk page. Several editors including myself agree that this should not be in the article without peer reviewed papers on genetics specifically discussing indigenous Aryans. Please don't restore this again without getting consensus on the talk page. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Szemerényi's law, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coda. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did on Talk:Out of India theory [2] you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Any sort of incivil comments like " plainly retarded", "claims out of your ass" are clear personal attacks. Comment on issue, not on other people. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that someone was retarded, just the explanation. (and it is retarded). And telling someone that they pull a claim out of their ass isn't a personal attack. You're just bullying me and wasting time. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The header says it all :-) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

h₁eh₂ h₁eh₂ Nice to see you still around, too! :-D Seeing others work in the similar areas motivates me. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Is *h₁eh₂ an inside joke or actually reconstructed in the LIPP?? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*h₁eh₂ h₁eh₂ = ha ha, it was supposed to be a pun at LIPP (looks like a particle...) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*eh₃! [which is actually reconstructed by Fortson. I ♥ laryngeals] --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Would you mind adding some sources to the parts of PIE nominals you added (accent/ablaut classes in late PIE, Leiden model)? I intend to take this article to WP:GA – actually, I've been intending this for some years – and missing refs are a problem for good articles. Cheers --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically every other sentence of the content I added has a reference :-P But OK, I'll add more. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. How do you pronounce his last name? I know that the first two words are [milǎdin dǎːdo]. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 02:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

/pr̂ʃo/ --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 02:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since it concerns issues close to the heart of Indo-European linguistics: Do you have any idea how to deal with this problem? This has been going on for years now and all attempts to receive more than lukewarm support from admins have failed so far. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A good start would be collect in a single place in Wikipedia namespace a list of articles grouped by topics that form the core of certain (fringe) POVs, and how to recognize them. For unsolved/unsolvable issues pros and cons should be listed, and how they should be balanced. I think that outside editors would be more likely to engage if they had some elementary background knowledge. At the moment the only way to figure out if the article is controversial, and whether some anon/new user edit is potentially POV pushing, is to read talk page discussions, often buried in the layers of archived history. Then, a task force or a WikiProject could be formed, or even patrolling tools could be enhanced to pay a closer attention to edits to such articles. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Florian Blaschke: I have created an LTA page regarding Tirgil34 (talk · contribs), who is the most problematic of the turanist editors on WP. I intend to improve the LTA in the future with more info so that non-involved editors can get a better overview of what is going on. There is currently a list of articles troubled by Tirgil34 at the LTA, which i recommend you add to your watchlist if you want to aid the effort. Krakkos (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read in our discussion, have to say that you're well informed in linguistics (are you really by profession linguistic, if yes, then would like to contact you when I need help), but obviously (from my personal point of view) you lack depth or use personal POV in the discussion when considering the etymology origin of ethnonym Croat and Origin hypotheses of the Croats. I am not by vocation a historian, but studying historiography is my hobby, for quiet some time (several years) read about the ethnogenesis and etymology theories on Croats, and personally have most of the books (some sources in digital form) in Croatian (and English). I can say that as an editor am well informed about the topic, to have and write bias is never my wish, actually that is why wanted to read all points of view; Slavic, Iranian, Indo-European, Bulgarian-Turkic-Avar, Gothic, Autochthonous, etc., was it old or modern, just to be one day enough well informed and objective and neutral when will write the article about those theories. Along the way didn't had time, some other articles withdrew attention and had to learn editorial skills. Unfortunately, all this time the article on theories no one edited, and each section about specific theory is really, but really, very badly written (outdated, uninformative, misinterpreted, biased and false information). In the discussion you constantly mentioned and were against Iranian thesis (interference of our POV is not our job as editors). Problem with all this theories, to cite from already mentioned Emil Heršak in Croatian ethnogenesis (2007), it is that they were used and elaborated in non-scientific terms (was it uncompetent author, date, method or intention), supported by specific ideological and political intentions and circumstances. Also was not sufficiently take into account the interrelationship between tribes and cultures, that they didn't represent "pure" and homogeneous entity (was it people, culture, language etc.) which historiography in the 19th, and even after (mostly because of nation identity - political reasons), wanted to see.

All this factors made much harm to every of the specific theory. Problem with the Iranian theory is that, besides that was most widely promoted in Yugoslavian area during Yugoslavian time when was purely Slavic theory, with elements of Slavic inferiority complex, the "ultimate truth", that, although Sakač was the first to cover what until then was found and was written about it in a single unit, his intention to go beyond territory of White Croats and Tanais Tablets in the 3rd century CE, to the time of king Darius I in the 6th century BCE and Arachosia made more harm than good. This second far-fetched idea became the most known idea about Iranian theory, since then were written many sources (from more or less reliable authors). In the historiography, and among Iranists, can be seen two currents, first that supports the "core" of the thesis, and second (mostly among non reliable authors) which (also) promotes the second idea.

The actual "core" of the Iranian theory, which some also call Indo-European, Sarmatian, Alanian, Antian etc. theory, as has almost nothing to do with Iran itself (but thesis of Iranian language origin of Croatian name), is what also Matasović wrote in chapter Najstariji jezični tragovi Slavena i problem slavenske pradomovine from pg. 39, and chapter Slavenski i Iranski from pg. 47, in Poredbenopovijesna gramatika hrvatskoga jezika (2008), that there were intensive Slavic-Iranian contacts in the region of Carpathians, between river Dniester and Dnieper (Eurasian Steppe), especially when it comes to Antes tribal polity. The Eurasian and nomadic features, compared to some others Slavs, among the early medieval Croats were vividly present and participated in their formation. It is highly possible that some Alans, Scythians or Sarmatians segment played an important role in the ethnogenesis, culture, language or name of the Croats, as the "so called" White Croats indeed were mentioned to live in the western part of the Slavic-Iranian interrelation. However, as Matasović wrote "Koliko su se dugo među Slavenima očuvali jezici stepskih naroda - iranski, protobugarski, avarski itd. - nije moguće utvrditi: sve je te jezike prekrio većinski slavenski jezik."

Actually, the Slavs as an ethnical unity with identity arise in the 6th century during the great migration and war with Byzantines and Eurasian Avars. The White Croats and Croats in the records are always mentioned to live in region north and west of Carpathians (Galicia), Lesser Poland, Bohemia, Carantania, always on the western border of the Avars khaganate, and always mentioned in the context they are fighting against the Turks (Magyars and Avars), never as their allies or vassals or subordinates. Some theories, like (Iranian) Avaro-Turkic theory, use the titles Ban, Župan, Kosez and Khagan as secure evidence for their hypothesis (although there's no consensus as there several individual hypothesis on the derivation of each title, in the source they especially note, and for this discussion relevant, Župan and Kosez). In the case of title Ban, in the historiography, especially during Yugoslavia and foundation of modern South Slavic historiography, prevailed the mainstream thesis (assumption) from 1837 by historian authority Šafárik that it derives from the name Bayan (because at the time in historiography Croats were seen as pure Slavs who were inferior in organization, subordinates of the Avars, and as such were organized by the Avars, ignoring several already mentioned facts, and flaws) Yet, there's no reason for the "core" Iranian theory be rejected or seen inferior in favour for pure Slavic or Avaro-Turkic (which use the similar correlation of the Slavic-Iranian interrelaion, in this case Slavic-Turkic), yet it gives the possibilty that the fighting between Croats and Avar can be seen as the continuation of the war between the Antes and Eurasian Avars, who eventually attacked and destroyed the Antes polity at the beginning of the 7th century.

However, Matasović wrote "Osim posuđenica iz indoeuropskih jezika, u praslavenskome nesumljivo ima i riječi koje su posuđene iz neindoeuropskih jezika; većina je takvih riječi u praslavenski dospjela iz turksijskih jezika, ponajviše iz bulgarskoga (jezika Bulgara, nomadskih osnivača bugarske države), ali i iz avarskoga." he continues "U većini je slučajeva vrlo teško utvrditi točan izvor i rekonstruirati praobilk takvih turkijskih riječi iz kojih su nastali npr. stsl. kniga, byserь, hrv. bán, hmềlj, hrền itd." (In the most cases it is very hard to determine exact source and reconstruct primal form of such Turkic words from which result eg. stsl. "kniga", "byserь", hrv. "bán", "hmềlj", "hrền" etc.) and in the same page notes that "Za avarski nije posve sigurno u koju ga porodicu valja svrstati. Premda većina lingvista smatra da su Avari govorili nekim turkijskim ili mongolskim jezikom, u novije vrijeme izraženo je mišljenje da su oni u doba dodira sa Slavenima govorili alanskim, iranskim jezikom - pretkom suvremenoga osetskoga."

For further see article which you edited Proto-Slavic borrowings, and pg. 91-92 in Uvod u indoeuropsku lingvistiku (2008) by Mate Kapović, and would point you the recent study The Indo-European Homeland from Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives.

In modern historiography, both Iranian and Avaro-Turkic theory use title "Ban" as segmental evidence for their theory, one from Slavic-Iranic ("ban"; Antes-Alans-Sarmatians) interrelation other from Slavic-Turkic ("Bayan"; Avars) interrelation, while as seen from the historiography POV mentioned above, both title origin are plausible (if we take the thesis by Omeljan Pritsak that the Croats were a clan of Alan-Iranian origin who in the "Avars pax" had frontiersman-trading social role). They also have mention continuity and are established in respective field, historiography or etymology, only that Bayan is "more" mainstream as is mentioned in the encyclopedias (who mostly use older dictionary statements and derivation by Skok, or joint with younger dictionary by Gluhak). As those derivations by etymology were higly influenced by the historiography at the time, as in the linked revision in the discussion, I think that historiography POV must be mentioned in the article as well, but as you said, put into the right context.

I am sorry to write another text wall (if this is not the right place, and you know where I/You can put it, then reply me or do it, or archive it), but all this text is cited modern historians and historians linguistics POV (there is none my statement), which goes along what I cited in the review by modern historians. And if I mention certain source (was it dictionary, web link etc., like a year ago in the discussion), be correct, read it and reply best as you can with your knowledge. I only want a correct discussion and editing, and neutral point of view, nothing else. If anything, as a solution could I rewrite my old revision in my sandbox and you will review it?--Crovata (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You just don't get it. The accepted etymology of ban listed in half a dozen etymological dictionaries published in the last 50 years has nothing to do with "which theory of Croatian ethnogenesis you endorse". Historiography has nothing to do with word origins. We have an actual Avar word, which can be reconstructed at the Proto-Turkic level, which fits both in shape and in meaning with the attested predecessor of the word ban. "Croats" are imaginary concoction, just like nations with imaginary lines on the maps that we call borders, which were invented to legitimize centuries of European imperialism. They were invented in the 19th century after heavy nationalist propaganda sponsored by Austria-Hungary and later by nascent nation-states and commies. Slavs themselves are a linguistic construct which in a few generations spread over half of Europe absorbing dozens of old Europe cultures. We don't care what the historical myth of the origin of Croats the accepted etymology of the word ban fits or not. Bulgarians are also pissed off that the Bulgarian ethnicon is of Turkic origin, so what? The word Macedonia is not of native Greek stock either - it's an ancient pre-Greek loanword, much to the dismay of Greeks (which are like Slavs also an amalgamation of a bunch of peoples). You're trying to fit the evidence to your theory not the other way around. That's not how science works. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect this. No, you didn't and still don't get it, do you understand that you're ignoring what modern academics are saying and what you're saying is your personal POV? It has nothing to do what I wrote, just what's wrong with you? I just don't get how other editors didn't reported you for obvious personal POV interference with neutral article editing. Obviously you personally have something against modern historiography, actually what also historian linguists (who you constantly mention) Ranko Matasović (2008, page 44) and Alemko Gluhak claim (link). You are because of your personal Bias by any mean not competent as an edtior to edit any article related to the South Slavic history. Thank you to finally make me understand with whom I'm dealing with and your more than suspicious behaving and impossibility to normally discuss without ridicule and personal attacks on me and academic scholars. Just what you think you are? As such will not consider you for your review when will edit the article, and if you revert any my edit (based on your personal POV) will be inducted to report your case to the admin.--Crovata (talk) 12:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your firm POV which negates everything what opposes it and what competent academic scholars write, obviously originates in the lack of information and ignorance. I am reall sorry I had to come to this conclusion. Really.--Crovata (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I don't have anything personal against anyone, only against the brainwashing government propaganda and their mindless double-digit-IQ advocates. Nobody is immune from being called on their BS, including academicians. Croatian academicians in particular fare rather poor when compared to their Western counterparts, with Croatia not even having a single uni in the top 500 list, so their opinions and pet theories are largely irrelevant. What you persistently call "historiography" is a mixture of nationalist fairy tales without a shred of evidence backing it up. I've read that Gluhak's paper and I'm familiar with its sources - it's all brain-dead speculation dating from the 19th century. As opposed to ban, Croatian ethnicon is etymologically opaque (just like Serbian) and the Iranian theory is just as plausible as any other. Even if it is correct, it has nothing to do with Croatian ethnogeneses - modern-day Croatia is a weirdly-shaped country that encompasses people that genetically have nothing to do with one another. People from Dalmatia and Slavonia are more related to the neighboring Bosniaks and Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina than the Croatians from the Kajkavian and Adriatic North. It's so mind-numbingly retarded to project any kind of cultural and genetic continuity more than two thousand years in the past on the basis of sheer speculation when the entire idea of nationhood (Croatian and other) was fabricated in the last century and a half, and we have written evidence for that! Report me whoever you want, you're the one inserting garbage in the article not me, and I can't let you do that. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you're talking about is just showing you have personal disputes about what academic scholars write (mocking and ignoring them), contradicting yourself (now even ignoring what Gluhak and other historian linguists say), ignoring the fact that both modern historiography and etymology developed and rejected old ideological frame view (contradicting yourself again what you said in Ban title talk page, loosely using that argument against modern historiography), yet no no one cares what's your POV, but what's academic scholars POV and that's what we cite on Wikipedia. And what you just said about ethnogenesis is true, because I wrote that review on Croatian Genetics. You're mistaking what's modern historiography POV, ignoring that it critically analyzes those 19th and further historiographical speculation, that it differs real evidence from historiographical assumtion, that recognizes the issue about Croatian ethnogenesis and clearly differs ethnogenesis of the medieval Croats from the modern Croatian nation. And if we follow your rule that what modern historiography and historian linguists have to say is pure garbage, then as I showed you from where the idea of the etymology about the title Ban originates, it also makes it the same garbage and it shouldn't be taken serious. Actually if everything what modern academics scholars say is just irrelevant garbage and shouldn't be cited, then there's no point for education, and Wikipedia itself. You're just ridiculous.--Crovata (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My position reflects clarity of mind and an absence of subjection to the brainwashing nationalist propaganda. That you perceive it as having a personal dispute against borderline notable scholars like Gluhak (a single paper in CC journal) is just your problem. My position is what people who are not brainwashed think. Your position is the tainted one - you're the one questioning the supposed justifiable academic credentials of Skok (whose dictionary has thousands of references on Google Schcolar), seeing some "Anti-Croatian Yugoslav conspiracy" everywhere, and invoking some irrelevant historical fairy tales on the ethnogenesis of Croats which have nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of the word ban (beside being an evidence against it, if the widely established theory of Turkic origin of the word is true, which is what bothers you). It's amusing to see to what lengths the brainwashed nationalists are willing to go to bend reality to fit it to their worldview. Conspiracies in every corner, the most speculative imaginable unnotable junk gets presented and a final evidence... Why isn't nationalism studied for psychiatric purposes? The condition is a menace to mankind. You should contribute to Croatian Wikipedia, they have a knack for historical revisionism (and the Foundation approves it too!) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's your POV position no one cares, I justifiably and normally dispute and point the issue about the contradiction between old Skok and younger Gluhak dictionary (why only thing you do is accusing and personally attacking me and mocking academic scholars). Now you are even contradicting yourself for the third time, before you bashed and called Skok and Gluhak brainwashed, now you don't, just what's wrong about you? You are just a total ignorant who changes the story of the discussion at his will and sees the world from the "divine mission" to exposit pro-fascist bias, seeing everything from the paradigm which is opposite of your POV as nationalistc propaganda. Great, now you're even calling academic scholars brainwashed and ultra-nationalist. And how many time I have to say is not the Turkic origin of the word and whatever etymology idea problem, problem is you can't see the difference between the origin of the title (historiography) and origin of the word (etymology).--Crovata (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just let me in peace to finish that damn revision, and advise you to take some days off the discussion about this topic because you obviously don't and aren't willing to understand anything about it, as such advise you to read about it, and mostly because you can't control yourself without personally attacking someone.--Crovata (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia cares, since my POV is NPOV, and yours is "let's give extra credit to a bunch of fairy tales, and discredit widely cited sources because they were printed in Yugoslavia". Yes I'm on a divine mission, you can say it that way. The fascist bias on Croatian Wikipedia is real - it's abundantly documented an exposed on Meta and the Croatian media, and admins there a bunch of brainwashed nationalists. It's a side effect of giving power "to the people", driven by the misconception that democracy and self-management of communities scales beyond the few wealthy Northern European/American countries. The rest of the world is unfortunately populated not by independently-minded individuals who value truth and personal sovereignty, but by societies which value familial/ethnic/religious connections above anything else, and as a result produce social lies of equal scope and magnitude. Unfortunately, the so-called West has succumbed to many such lies already, but not all hope is lost as lost as long as we have the Internet. I'm not calling them brainwashed, just their theories - they are just scores of brainwashing propaganda serving the self-preservation interest of another great lie - that of the state. As I said, there is not a shred of evidence for the so-called Iranian theory other than the speculation on otherwise unetymologizable ethnicons originated from who knows where. Mockery and humor is a very effective way of countering propaganda, esp. when its proponents refuse common sense. It works best on religions, and even though the contemporary norms of PC get everyone bristled up when you apply the same to peoples, it's pretty amusing to do so. Just look how angry you are now. After 30K+ text that you wrote on various talk pages, you still don't seem to get that the section called etymology doesn't care whether the established etymologies of the term ban fit into some grand national myth of 9th century "Croats" being an Iranian tribe. And now tell me that nationalism is not a psychiatric condition? --Ivan Štambuk (talk)

Only one who became angry and confused is you (you just disturb my work and waste my time), again you're acting as an ignorant seeing the world from your personal fictional paradigm, yet this is the only reply with which can vastly agree with you, but again you miss one thing; NPOV is not being a hypocrite and ignoring non fringe and well established information which is not a viewpoint held by an extremely small minority from reputable authoritative sources. I guarantee you I won't break any NPOV rule. Just stop acting like a cynic.--Crovata (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm not angry - I barely even take pleasure in this activity. OK I admit it - I do a bit! I don't really see what kind of "work" I'm disturbing since the thing you appear to be doing is pasting walls of incoherent and topically irrelevant text that distract from the topic at hand, making plethora of logical fallacies along the way. Indeed, illuminating a nationalist from the layers of systematic propaganda that anyone who has had the pleasure of undergoing the Croatian school system could be a full time job. Yes the Iranian origin theory is held by a relative minority. The crux of the matter is that the number of certain Iranian loanwords is Proto-Slavic measures in single digits, and those that are exclusive to Croatian are exactly zero. So this unfortunate factoid gets reconciled with the make-believe Aryan-origin theory by postulating most extraordinary BS imaginable, by obscure authors who engage in far-fetched speculation published in unnotable journals in order to cater to the national mythology endorsed by their employer - the Croatian govt. Dammit, I welcome the day when stamping out nationalism will be seen by civilized men as an evolutionary imperative, and not merely as a temporary remedy to the collective psyche badly traumatized by historical eventualities. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia we don't care what's editors personal POV, we don't allow ignorance and prohibition of established information, and we highly prohibit personal attacking and mockery of modern science, do you understand that? No one cares what's your personal POV. You are contradicting yourself for the fourth time citing NPOV yet you're abusing the NPOV and other Wikipedia principels. And stop acting as an ignorant, when I say "write under each number or issue" that do it for the sake of discussion to keep it focused and not making it a mess of your personal attacks, ignorance and POV. And what you're talking about has nothing to do what I cite and work.--Crovata (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You see the world from a egoistic and personal paradigm that everything what's against your personal POV is wrong, we don't care what's our personal POV, and already for several times wrote and cited how modern science accused political and other ideologies which supported individual theories, doing more harm than good for actual relevant and notable points and evidence they noted. Modern science has nothing to do with nationalism, it has neutral point of view. You don't even read, you just ignore. You can't even normally discuss without even trying to listen what's others have to say. You don't care for anything but your personal POV.--Crovata (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop acting like a divine hypocrite and cynic, and let me finish first my revision with which will prove you that what you're talking about and accusing me and modern science it has nothing to do with (because of your outdated paradigm that contemporary modern academic science is influenced by government politics, that it sees the world from nationalistic POV, ignoring what I alreday cited, and equaling modern academic science with some religion wich deserves mockery?!).

The Iranian theory is highly critically analyzed (like every other theory), and with it modern science doesn't support the ethnogenesis of modern Croatian nation, but consider, and that is the mainstream modern science POV (not your opposite personal POV), of those medieval Croats who yet didn't even come to modern day Croatian territory. With it (even historian linguists) consider and support the Slavic-Iranian language interrelation. Gluhak literally wrote "Bili ti davni Hrvati prvotno u jezičnom smislu Iranci koji su postali Slaveni, ili bili oni već odranije Slaveni (pa su kasnije preuzeli iransko ime), svejedno je: slavenski narod Hrvati ima ime poteklo iz nekog iranskog jezika" (yet at the article of etymology of the Croatian ethnonym I wrote most accepted and not it is as some kind of a fact). You're impossible to normally discuss without accusing everybody and everything.--Crovata (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By I don't have a POV but the truth. You're the one advocating nonsensical fringe theories that are not even backed up by sources. Beside being ignorant enough to even interpret the existing sources (observe your condescending tone at the beginning of this discussion - "you seem like a linguist, I could use you" Haha FU).

Well one of the truth is that most people are pretty dumb and brainwashed, along with the academic elites in a shithole country like Croatia, so it's perfectly reasonable to extend the line of doubt to them as well and not to take what an incompetent and not particularly bright government sponsored science claims as the One True Theory of Croatian nation. Everyone with the minimal interest in the truth would do the same.

Yes it has everything to do with nationalism. How else explain your POV? You dismiss the top ex-yu linguist who has thousands of citations on Google Scholar and whose entry on ban you probably can't even comprehend in his magnum opus in favor of a borderline notable scholar with a single paper in a CC journal, who wasn't neve trained as a linguist (he finished math or sth). Such illogical behavior is one of the symptoms of influence of nationalism, surely you agree.

Iranian theory has been analyzed by whom? People like Gluhak who make jumps from "It could be an Iranian word" to "in Iranian this meant". It's laughable if not pathetic. It has zero hard evidence, it's all unfalsafiable fairy tales, neither provable or disprovable. The reason why stupid Croatian historians accept is because there is literally zero ways for someone else to say "this is wrong because...". Croatians are genetically, culturally, linguistically, and historically just like Bosniaks and Serbs, it's an inextricable link which they can't escape, and no amount of lying will change that. :-) I can understand the reasons why you'd want to escape such classification (Balkans being such a shithole and that) but we cannot bend the truth!

You don't have any sources but some crap published in 1850s when Indo-European linguistics was in its infancy, and which doesn't stand the scrutiny of moderns scholarship. Modern etymological dictionaries don't ignore it because it's nonsense, and you resurrect it from the dead by google obsolete archive.org works in order to insert something remotely irrelevant to Croatian-Aryan hypothesis. It's just laughable. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that only thing about this topic you have is your personal POV and that what you're talking about is pure outdated nonesense and your personal fabrication? Do you understand that with your constant replies you are proving that you didn't even read the reliable sourced material from modern academi scholars? Do you understand that you are intentionally ignoring and mocking modern academic scholars which have NPOV in comparison to your personal POV which is totally irrelevant? Do you understand that everything what I write is citation from established statements from reliable modern academic sources? Do you understand that you are for the hundredth time showing no respect to the modern academic scholars, Wikipedia principles of NPOV, and fellow editor accusing it for which it has nothing to do with? Do you understand that with your ignorance are doing against the truth, inclusion of established and reliable information, against the Wikipedia principels, and against yourself?

Yes, Yugoslavs nations are considerably alike and share a common language, culture and history, but the discussion is about medieval Croats which we genetically and anyhow can't certainly prove and connect with modern day Croatian nation.

Just let me finish the revision in the sandbox, in which will not be used outdated 19th century sources to prove any fact or opinion or stating a fact/opinion as an opinion/fact, calm down and trust me, and give me the time to finish it already, then we will talk in the sandbox talk page about that revision.--Crovata (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you're the only one citing 19th century sources. We have etymological dictionaries from the 1970s, and 2000s that disagree. The newest etymological dictionary of Croatian from 2015 also cites only Turkic (Avar) origin, mentioning the possibility of Iranian origin of the Avar term. You dismiss the best etymologist of the 20th century Petar Skok citing alleged ideological Yugoslavism in favor of the plainly retarded "Iranian theory" that is today endorsed only by equally retarded pseudo-historians from Croatia (and nobody else, since nobody else published in the trash Croatian journals).

Of course I have POV - it's called the truth. Your POV is some fantasy make-believe world where one fabricated identity is being "attacked" by its perceived "enemies". Such bias is common for people living in isolated fictional worlds where their only critics are like-minded individuals, and they are all paid by the same organization - in this case Croatian ministry of education/culture. But the house of cards collapses once you move away from such a parochial narrow-minded environment, and take a bigger picture into account. It would be tragic were it not so funny.

"Yugoslav nationalist" is a contradiction in terms. You start to sound like some dim-witted knuckle-dragging gap-toothed HDZ voter, or the Croatian Catholic church official who in 2015 sees commies in every corner.

In the middle ages there were no such things as Croats, and nobody gave a shit about ethnicity and nations which weren't yet invented. I've told to you to read the fucking book about it. The only thing that existed were a bunch of genocidal tribes whose entire "culture" revolved around pillaging, raping and murdering neighboring tribes, with religion as the only thing that separated them. Few times a century they'd waged a total war, and once their ranks reduced to a figure that is sustainable the winner would declare its tinpot empire and call it a day. Only to be steamrolled by some real power that happened to pass by, you now - one that is able to create a society that can actually last longer than one or two generations. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, finally remembered where heared before this same biased and personal POV, and serious lack of information and view about the issue on the ethnogenesis and etymology of Croats (you don't understand that modern academic scholars differ ethnogenesis of medieval Croats from that of modern Croatian nation, that they critically consider only individual points of each theory, and you don't differ the origin of the title from the origin of the titles word); that was You at Talk:Croats#Origins and Etyomology where called Iranian theory a bullshit and historiography a nationalistic propaganda. That's why asked user @Florian Blaschke: for his NPOV on the title "Ban" because at least he shown objectivity and NPOV in the same discussion. You can't control your personal POV to not interfere in the discussion, yet intentionally ignore and mock modern science mainstream view, consider yourself an authority, and personally attack other editors. Why you just can't stay concise and focused on the discussion yet only show emotional outburst? No one, at least most of the editors, do not will to harm any of the articles, do you understand that I need help, and as you show your cynicism, which is not bad per se, still am not willing to give up from you and still think that you can help me.--Crovata (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I finished the revision about the title Ban, specifically "Origin of the title" and sub-sections "Etymology" and "Research history". Please give me your opinion in the discussion. Also, if you have any issue because of which the established information can not be mentioned, substantiate them with Wikipedia principle's cite, otherwise I will not consider them. Also would note that in the meantime re-wrote articles on the Origin hypotheses of the Croats and title Župan, which more profundly give "the answers" (as there is none official) on the origin, and as such title origin, as well the whole discussion. If it is against your personal POV, sorry, I just cite what relevant modern scholars write. In the upcoming days will also do a major edit of articles White Croats and White Croatia. Hope for your soon opinion.--Crovata (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ethnogenesis of medieval Croats and White Croats is in the same category as "The Fairies as Fallen Angels" and "Kendra Sunderland's Guide to Pregnancy and Parenthood". Not sure whether we're dealing with a carefully crafted propaganda for the intellectually under-capacitated unwashed masses, or the fifth degree of self-delusion. Goddamit Soviets should've just nuked the entire Eastern Europe and salted the earth. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply as the last one above, and sudden removal of sourced info from the Ban (title) article, without any discussion, just proves what was already established above, interference of your personal belief, in chronic manner, which is quite similar not to modern academic considerations, yet from the outdated Pan-Slavistic Yugoslavia.--Crovata (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Five the most recent etymological dictionaries of Serbo-Croatian exclusively endorse the Turkic theory. Your sources is all obsolete and irrelevant garbage. Find a recent source published by a historical linguist, preferably the one not on the payroll of the Croatian government, or get lost. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No comment. You're the worst editor I stumbled upon on Wikipedia. Your delusional and unfriendly behaviour exceed any measure. If you do any removal to the article, than I am pleased to invite you at the admin noticeboard.--Crovata (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources or get lost. All you have is petty ad-hominems. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're irritating and totally unconstructive with these corrupt lies.--Crovata (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only lies I see is your content in the article. Fabricating sources and inserting garbage theories is not a pretty sight to see. (Well, technically it's not a lie if you believe it.) It must be overwhelming to see your worldview completely shattered by modern scholarship, forcing you to resort to fringe not even worth being a toilet paper, googling random articles and obsolete books on the Internet Archive for superfically related keywords, hoping that nobody will address your petty scheming. Does the hamster in your mind ever get tired? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just... what's wrong with you? Why all this lie? Why make up such lies and condemn. This unfriendly behavior... Just... I'm without words.--Crovata (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are speechless, perhaps you can finally stop polluting my talkpage? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As someone involved in an earlier discussion with Scosby85 on Ican Mestrovic talk page, you may wish to know that he is now involved in a fresh dispute there. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chuck Sudetic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Sudetic until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Pozdrav, vidim prije nekih 8 godina razgovore na temu Balto-Slavenskog prajezika. Da li sada ima više detalja o tome? Da li je Balto-Slavenski zaista postojao, ili se Slavenski razvio iz Baltijskog jezika? Mnogo sam tražio na ovu temu ali vrlo je teško naći neku garanciju za bilo kakvu pretpostavku.

Koliko vidim [[Proto-Balto-Slavic language]] članak je uglavnom ažuran što se tiče baltoslavenskog scholarshipa. Nije "postojao", prajezici su zapravo fikcija dobivena u teoriji jednostavnom algoritamskom usporedbom komparanada, u praksi manje ili više proizvoljno subjektivnim kriterijima. To je zapravo spektar dijalekata koji su se govorili na velikom prostoru i koji su dijelili neke izoglose, a neke druge nisu, u različitim vremenskim periodima. Ima jako puno sličnosti, ali i razlika, s tim da dijeljene retencije dosta zamaskiravaju zajednički razvoj. Prajezik dobivem rekonstrukcijom sve to uniformizira i apstrahira, a kao takav nikad nije "postojao" u točno tom obliku. Možeš svaku izoglosu rastaviti na neki (morfo)fonološki proces plus geografsko područuje kao dimenziju, i još dodati vrijeme, i dobiješ vektorski prostor a zadatak komparativistike bi onda bio minimizirati euklidsku udaljenost od pravca zvanog prajezik. Što se tiče pitanja što se razvilo iz čega imaš u članku sve lijepo objašnjeno uz pripadnu sliku. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have some questions about interesting but obscure subject and corresponding article, in which you seem to possess a considerable knowledge. Editing on the subject was followed, at the time, with prolonged dispute, so maybe renewed interest could potentially improve particular (derelict) article without similar contention. Please contact me when and if you are around and get interested.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to ask --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this was surprisingly fast, and quite unexpected, really. Well, I wanted to hear your opinion on current state of Ban (title), and in particular its "Research" subsection pushed by now (dare I say, finally) blocked Crovata. I tried to read through his long exposes but than I realized its more of a layman perception of Google-searched terms and hunting for confirmation, than rational analyses and comparation. On the other hand I understand your points, but since history of language and words isn't my thing (nor linguistic in general), I am unable to say if you omitted some of Crovata's points and referenced authors (researchers?) emerging in that prolonged dispute and his later editing, or is there anyone of value for scholarship on the subject among these numerous refed authors, and so on. I am unable to discern between genuine scholars and their work, and scholars tainted with ideology and "regular" claptrap out of pseudo-intellectual, mythomaniacal gangs within contemporary research on the subject. (Say, for example Mladen Ančić of Zadar Uni was really a "future" of Croatian and Balkan historiography at the time 20-25 years ago, until in a last decade or so he started hanging out with HSP lunatics, affiliated cliques and its ilk, who in his presentation of various episodes of Balkans history started resorting to the worst kind of racist ultra-right-wing claptrap - his outbursts in tribal media around the Interenet in Bosnia and Croatia make him appear worse than his peer, ex JNA-spy and HB-conclager-attendent turned historian, Ivo Lučić).

I intended to deal with this article, at first with some clear-ups that would do good to its readability and intelligibility, or general clarity (I even came up with an idea to merge this one with Ban (medieval), but I do understand that words similar or even identical in writing and sounding, even with similar meaning, aren't always related, as you yourself tried to explain that to Crovata - I dropped the idea for now (I have no strong opinion on it). Also, timing isn't exactly perfect for me to take this task on myself at the moment, as I am a bit preoccupied with couple of "Crovatas" of my own, under monikers "Ceha" and "Shokatz". Only difference is that mine are without etiquette and completely unable to engage in rational discussion with or without of quality arguments - it's a sort of sustained attack with reports and all, only no admin seem to take them too seriously for now. However, this makes my editing time and scope pretty constrained. In any case my immediate next task will likely be to return to "Ban (title)", and I would like to have some input from you regarding aforementioned subsection and Crovata's sources. I even contemplated simply reverting to your version, but that could damage rest of the good edits contributed in between your version form 2014 (1st string of reverts with Crovata) and 2015 (2nd string, when you had a help from User:Florian Blaschke) and current. I am wondering, if you are willing to spare some time during this month or the next, and set up a short analyses of Crovata's pushed narrative and references, with a list of authors names with a short remark quality-wise in terms of authors reputation vis-a-vis linguistic (I am more than familiar with good mainstream historians, but the linguists are unknown: good Serbian historian Tibor Živković is foremost medievalist, he's not a linguist), and especially Crovata's syntheses or (mis)interpretation of those source. He finally succeeded in imposing his version with those reverts, disregarding your and User:Florian Blaschke note about consensus, while you and Florian Blaschke practically had upper hand at that moment in terms of both stronger arguments and number.

Now I would like to apologize for a longer post, but it's nice to have some of the "good guys" around Balkan scope, in a last few years most of them decided to abandon a project, Potočnik, Director, Timbuctu, Dragodol, you, as of recently all inactive, only Surtsicna still edit.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but just to know Ivane, you don't need to do that right away, or tomorrow, not even this or next week. I will watch on this thread and whenever you find a time or when you are in the mood just post something, whatever you think is adequate (or ping me).--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Leopold von Schroeder, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 12:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What difference does it make how many sources and citations are in an article? The only thing that matters is whether the topic is notable enough to deem it worthy of inclusion or not. Whether there is a single or 1000 citations is irrelevant. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adriatic Institute for Public Policy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adriatic Institute for Public Policy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GregorB (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Štambuk,

I've found now your interesting remark: "Why don't you ask Bešker if standard Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian are linguistically one language, and if Serbo-Croatian is taught as one or three different languages in Italy? -Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)"

For years, I taught Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian within the same course at the University of Bologna, as three different standard languages within the same language system. Similar cases are Hindi and Urdu, Danish and Norwegian Bokmal, etc.

If you distinguish language as a system from language as a standard, that will be clear to you. If not, find out first, please. In that sense, I agree with Professor Silic.

Sincerely, --Inoslav Bešker (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Alwin Kloekhorst has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A before check shows nothing rising to the level of NPROF - essentially an ROTM academic afaict.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AviationFreak💬 01:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]