User talk:Serbia123: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:56, 15 January 2010

Welcome!

Hello, Serbia123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mizu onna sango15 Public (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bulgarian-Serbian Wars (medieval). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Laveol ^T 19:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anatolian Serbs

Hello! I checked the page and what it says is that Serbs were apparently settled in Bithynia. So there you are right. However a) there is no reference to them being the 30,000 of Neboulos at Sebastopolis, since Theophanes never recorded any specific ethnonyms, and b) the revolt of Thomas the Slav carried along almost the entire provincial army and navy of the Empire, not only some thousands of Slavs settled in Bithynia. Thus, to include them in the sentence would give undue weight to their role in the revolt. Regards, Constantine ✍ 07:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blanking pages

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do i delete a page? I dont fucking know how okay, so back off.

How to write a reference

These are typical styles of writing a reference.

Babinger, Franz, William C. Hickman and Ralph Manheim, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, (Princeton University Press, 1978), 110.
Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, 110.

[1]
Also, would you care to keep an eye on the Battle of Ankara article? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Skanderbeg. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Please join in the discussion on the talk page as to Skanderbeg's origins. I will revert you for now since you haven't so far done this, but if you add it in once more without discussioon, you are out of here, and for good. Rodhull andemu 21:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalize? Up yours, buddy, I have provided historical sources and my intention is not to vandalize, but to provide relevant information. Anyways, I AM discussing the issue if you would be so kind as to open your Goddamn eyes and look on the discussion page. My God man, cut me some slack.

Thanks for the insult, it's noted, but I don't see a consensus on the talk page yet. It may be that you BOTH need to seek some sort of dispute resolution, but thus far, I don't see it happening. You're the one adding this information, and per WP:BURDEN, it's up to you to justify your sources. I strongly recommend you don't add that information again until there exists a consensus as to wording amongst editors, or WP:DR has been followed. Thanks. Rodhull andemu 21:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, anytime chum. Anyways, I won't make any edits until we reach a consensus.

Two items: (1) Wikipedia has a firm policy against personal attacks, which you are violating. If you continue to engage in personal attacks against other editors, you will wind up being blocked. (2) If someone removes a prod notice from an article, it means they are objecting to the proposed deletion (see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Objecting. When you re-add a deleted prod notice to an article, you are engaging in disruptive behavior, which can also lead to you being blocked. If you still feel that the article should be deleted, your only remaining option is to nominate the article for AfD.

Given your recent behavior, my personal opinion is that the next instance of disruptive behavior by you, be it deleting material without a valid reason, re-entering contested material without consensus on the talk page, attacking other editors, or re-inserting a deleted prod notice, will justify a block on you. -- Donald Albury 13:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't engage in personal attacks anymore (although I'm amazed that Rodhullandemu took so personally as to inform you about it). I find it humorous but for the sake of not getting banned, I won't say anything.

Your second point is BS and you know it. Why is the person who removed the prod in the right? Why is their opinion more valid than mine? Personally, I think that removing a deletion tag (which is clearly valid, if you cared to look you'd see I was in the right) with absolutely no explanation, no nothing is far more disruptive than me putting it back. If I'm getting reprimanded for this than it would be hypocritical to not reprimand whoever deleted the tag without an explanation.

Now, Donald, I have a question for you. How was my reason for deleting the article invalid? Its about an event that never took place, check into it yourself.

For the record, I'm happy to fight my own battles, and did not notify Donald Albury of anything, as the history of his talk page will show. We are both administrators and either of us can impose appropriate sanctions here. As for removal of WP:PROD notices, anyone can do this- it just means that the PROD is contested, and the article should be listed at WP:AFD if the proposer wishes to follow it up. Replacing a PROD tag is therefore deprecated. Thanks. Rodhull andemu 22:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbia123 (talk • contribs)

Just to be clear, nobody contacted me about you. I was working through the list of expired prods when I found Operation Albania, and saw that you had twice re-added a prod notice after it had been deleted. I then saw how you were interacting with other editors, and posted the above notice. -- Donald Albury 00:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, buddy, I kinda got that from Rodhullandemu's post. I get it. My question stil stands and I'll repost it just to be clear. How was my reason for deleting the article invalid? Its about an event that never took place, check into it yourself.

Anyways, Rodhullandemu, we clearly won't reach a consensus on the whole Skenderbeg situation, I suggested including both views (with appropriate references), but he won't have anything of it and insists I am wrong and he right. So where do we go from here?

This has nothing to do with your reason for wanting the article deleted. It has to do with the way we handle things on Wikipedia. Wikipedia works by consensus, and certain policies and guidelines have been established by consensus, including that any objection to a prod, which can be signaled by removing the prod notice, cancels the prod. If you still want to see the article deleted, then you need to nominate it for AfD. Just follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you need help completing the nomination, ask here or on my talk page. There you will be able to state your reasons why you think the article should be deleted, and other editors will have a chance to comment on the proposed deletion. After 7 days someone, usually an administrator, will judge the arguments presented for deletion or retention, and make a determination. Note that AfD is not a vote, and decisions should be made on the merit of the arguments presented. -- Donald Albury 21:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your "edits"

P.S. I looked at your "source" http://books.google.com/books?id=3uJzjatjTL4C&pg=PA190&dq=uskoks+serbia+bosnia&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=uskoks%20serbia%20bosnia&f=false The Ottoman Empire and early modern Europe. Simply going on Google books, typing in "uskoks serbs bosnia" is NOT research. While google books is useful, in this case, it is a terrible way to gather data. I can easily dispel your claim by going on google books and typing "croat uskoks." --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover let me point out the intentional lie you are trying to propogate. "soldiers whose origins stemmed primarily from the Croats, Serbs". Yet your source does NOT even claim this. Let me quote, since you obviously did not even bother READING your own source: "...Uskoks, a community of destructive yet determined privateers --many of whom were fugitives from Ottoman Bosnia and Serbia.." Tell me, where on earth there does it say "Serbs"? From what I could see, there were many refugees from Bosnia and Serbia. There is already a mention of this in the article, where it rightly belongs. I believe focusing too much on this has become a personal battle more than an encyclopedic one. --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. THAT is your argument? So its all word games then? Alright, I'm gonna rephrase it to fit your little word games.

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Uskoci. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jarkeld (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Uskoci. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jarkeld (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source? I have given you one. It is a published, modern, Western source and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Give me a reason why you think my source is invalid.

And I have read the talk page plenty of times. If you care to notice, you will see that in all three sections the last comment is always mine because everyone refuses to respond to my rebuttals. And if you cared to notice, they haven't provided a single, coherent reason as to why the origins of the uskoci should not be stated in the intro. They were all flimsy reasons that I easily disproved. The fact is that there is no reason not to state their origins in the intro (especially when they are sourced and that this is the most logical place to put them, in fact I gave links to other similar articles which stated the ethnic background of the formations as well).

So STOP telling me to look at the discussion page because I haven't found a single good reason and just provide one for me and we will discuss it. Alright?

The problem is that the source states fugitives FROM Bosnia & Serbia. It does NOT state that they are in fact Bosnians and Serbians. Simple. So this source is NOT a reliable source for the text you keep on inserting.

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Uskoci, you may be blocked from editing.

Jarkeld (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah and if you actually took the time to read my statements it celarly says that origins of the Uskoci were from SERBIA CROATIA and BOSNIA. My statement does in no way mentions Serbians or Bosnians but Serbia and Bosnia. Savvy?

You state that they ORIGINATE from there, as in born there, which is for the most part not the case. Read the article's talk page about this. It has been stated before but you don't seem to grasp what is being said there! Jarkeld (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have a source for that "most being the case most of the time". Most Uskoci were from Croatia, Serbia, or Bosnia. The fugitives originated from Serbia and Bosnia, they fled Ottoman rule, it really isn't a hard concept to grasp. Many notable uskoci (such as the two already featured in the article)were from Serbia

from the article:

During the early years of the 16th century, the Ottoman conquest of Bosnia and Herzegovina drove large numbers of Croats from their homes. A body of these "uskoks" established itself in the Klis Fortress near Split, waged war against the Ottomans, led by Croatian capitan Petar Kružić. Klis, however, became untenable, and the uskoks withdrew to Senj, on the Croatian coast. At Senj, Uskoks were filled with some fugitives from Bosnia and Serbia,[4] most who were Catholic or Orthodox Christians fleeing the Muslim Turks.

Reference provided in the article is: Goffman (2002), p. 190. Jarkeld (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they used MY source that I provided and you called it unreliable in your previous post. I'm saying that the most logical place to put who the Uskoks consisted of is in the introduction and I have supplied articles about similar topics that do the same.

Anyways, I've been browsing google books and have come accross certain sources that solidify what I'm trying to say. Have a look.

1.Europe: a history: By Norman Davies (Note that the source is relatively modern and is a Western, non-Serbian source) http://books.google.com/books?id=jrVW9W9eiYMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Europe:+a+history++By+Norman+Davies&ei=GhFKS5yQMZX6NZHNjO4N&cd=1#v=onepage&q=uskoks&f=false

It clearly says "many of them refugee Serbs". Read it yourself.

2. Asian review by Demetrius Charles Boulger

"A hardy body of Serbs known as Uskoks (from ..."

Unfortunately this one is a snippet view.

3. Austrian history yearbook, Volumes 9-10‎ - Page 93 "The existing Turkish border institutions were also left more or less intact in the Uskok district, which was settled predominantly by Serbs and Bosnians who" Again a snippet view.

4.Balkan cultural studies‎ - Page 123 Stavro Skendi The uskoks were the Serbs and Croats who jumped (the verb ... Snippet view

Your statement isn't supported. The statement I quoted is.

1) Many of them: but not most. It just does not say that. So it doesn't belong in the lead.

2-4) snippets are prone to be read out of context. Can't comment on them as-is.

Jarkeld (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you for real man, now you're just playing a ridiculous word game. Well two can play at that. I'll just restructure the sentence to read "Croatian Hapsburg Soldiers, many of whose origins stemmed from Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia".

Happy?

Answer me this, why on earth are you so determined to not have Serbs or Serbia mentioned in the lead? It doesn't detract from the article at all and you know that I'm making a valid point, you have no real argument so all your playing is a petty word game when you know I'm right.

And no, you really can take it out of context, if you red the quotes than you would easily come to the same conclusion, they are rock solid. I can provide many more. Surely the sheer number of sources will show you that you are wrong because they couldn't ALL be taken out of context.

Your revised sentence still says the same thing & is still not supported by your reference.

It still doesn't belong in the lead (check WP:LEAD).

Based on the snippets you can't make any assumption about them. Simple. Just not enough text as-is to say anything about it.

Explain to me how my sentence is not supported by my reference. It says that many of the Uskoks were Serbs. My source says that many of the Uskoks were Serbs. They say exactly the same thing. Explain to me how the fuck it is not supported by the reference.

Furthermore, you can make an assumption based on the snippets because I can find you at least 8 or 9 of them and its impossible that every single one of those 8 or 9 was taken out of context, simply impossible.

It does belong in the lead because all the other articles about irregular military formations (some of which I have already posted on the talk page) have the ethnic origins of the formation in the lead, it just makes logical sense.

Please keep your tone civil.
Snippets are just that: tiny scraps WITHOUT context.
As i explained before:
The problem is that the source states fugitives FROM Bosnia & Serbia. It does NOT state that they are in fact Bosnians and Serbians. Simple. So this source is NOT a reliable source for the text you keep on inserting.
If for the sake of argument Jack Brown lived in Bosnia (BUT was born in England, still retaining the English nationality) and has to flee with the Uskoks: that doesn't make him a defacto Bosnian.

Furthermore:

Serbs can be mentioned (as other people have pointed out on the talkpage of the article), but it has to be supported by the reference and it just doesn't belong in the lead.

Jarkeld (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quit playing dumb, I specifically provided a new (complete preview) source that stated that they were Serb fugutives. So, if I replace the old source with this new one, there won't be a problem?

If it is one of those 4 you mention above: I already answered that question. Please read it again:

Your statement isn't supported. The statement I quoted is.
1) Many of them: but not most. It just does not say that. So it doesn't belong in the lead. 2-4) snippets are prone to be read out of context. Can't comment on them as-is.

Still you keep having the same problems: 1) trying insert text into the lead which is not supported by any ref you've mentioned. 2) The better version which is supported is ALREADY mentioned on the page!

Jarkeld (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say most of them were from Serbia exclusively, I said most of them were from Serbia and Croatia and Bosnia (ie. the Western South Slavic group) which is an undeniable fact and that does belong in the lead.

(edit conflict) "Most of them" is NOT supported by your refs. That Serbian & Bosnian fugitives were present is mentioned in the appropriate section in the article ie: not in the lead of the article. Jarkeld (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, MOST Uskoci were either Croats, Serbs, or Bosnians, its a fucking fact. About the snippets, yeah, its absolutely absurd to think that 8 snippets can be taken out of context but whatever, its clear you you're just fucking around on wikipedia and have no appreciation for historical accuracy or common sense for fuck's sake. Whatever, I won't put it in the lead, you got your fucking wish.

But I will restructure the sentence to specifically say Serbs.

It appears you have never read WP:CIVIL. Please keep your tone civil!

To address your points:

1) Snippets are small pieces of text that ARE NOT in context. Period. No matter how hard you WANT them to be.

2) I do have appreciation for historical accuracy but it must be backed up by references. Your text just isn't. Apparently you do not have common sense or a keen grasp of Wikipedia editing as you constantly try to POV push your non-reverenced viewpoints. You keep on reinserting the same text contrary to consensus.

Your new additions will be checked agains your refs and if they support the new version the addition will stay. Simple. Jarkeld (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listen buddy, its my fucken page I'll talk however the fuck I want to talk

The fact that this is your talkpage is not an excuse for incivil language. AND you frequently use the same language in edit summaries. Please read WP:CIVIL. Jarkeld (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh but it is an excuse, my friend. When you enter someone else's home you abide by their rules, not your own. Same principle here.

Revision as of 05:51, 14 January 2010 edit Jarkeld (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 16,318 edits Reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:56, 15 January 2010 edit undo Serbia123 (talk \| contribs) 395 edits →‎January 2010 Next edit →
Line 184:		Line 184:

	:The fact that this is your talkpage is not an excuse for incivil language. AND you frequently use the same language in edit summaries. Please read [[WP:CIVIL]]. [[User:Jarkeld\|Jarkeld]] ([[User talk:Jarkeld\|talk]]) 05:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)		:The fact that this is your talkpage is not an excuse for incivil language. AND you frequently use the same language in edit summaries. Please read [[WP:CIVIL]]. [[User:Jarkeld\|Jarkeld]] ([[User talk:Jarkeld\|talk]]) 05:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

			Oh but it is an excuse, my friend. When you enter someone else's home you abide by their rules, not your own. Same principle here.