User talk:Imbris

archives¹ archives² archives³ discussion^{to incorporate}

Weird Al

Lets look at the facts here. First please be civil, I never expressed or implied that I am "deciding" what ethnicity someone is or going against the wishes of his father (which seems a weird thing to say since you have presented no source saying what his "will" actually is). In fact when I disagreed with the original removal of Weird Al from the article I answered with a source. You have alleged this source is wrong but haven't given a reason except pointing toward an article which says he is American and the Weird Al website which says he is Yugoslavian. We know that being Yugoslavian doesn't mean you are always Serbian, but that doesn't mean being Yugoslavian means you are never Serbian. We know Yankovic is a Serbian name and, thought this is a weak argument, the editors of Serbs and List of Serbs have listed Weird Al as Serbian. As for Weird Al's website, and I admit this is speculation, there is no evidence about when it was last updated and in fact it could date before the dissolution of Yugoslavia and was written in an effort to make it easier for the average American to understand his ethnicity. As for the article, saying someone has an American ethnicity is deceptive because most Americans have different ethnic heritages, though there are some who claim it such as in the south. A Yugoslavian ethnicity is also deceptive considering the nation once contained several different ethnic groups and the name for the country itself just meant "South Slavia" or "Land of South Slavs."

I'm willing to compromise but the only way I could see it happening is if we get a neutral third party to look into our dispute. Until then I will continue to do research as I hope you will also. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yugoslavia at Olympics

Please accept my apologies for my changes to the Yugoslavia at the Olympics article. I did not understand the complexity of the situation. For the past couple of days, I've been attempting to reconcile the differences between the All-time Olympic Games medal table article and the individual <country> at the Olympics articles, mostly fixing missing and incomplete Beijing medal counts. Not counting Germany and a slight inconsistency in the Russia vs Russian Empire distinction, the Yugoslavia medal counts were the sole remaining discrepancy, which I was attempting to correct. As I now see, I should have done more research before acting (such as actually reading and following the Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics link at the top of the article).

However, I did locate the Yugoslavia at the 1996 Summer Olympics article (and the 1998 Winter, and 2000 Summer, and 2002 Winter articles) whose "summary" links refer back to the Yugoslavia at Olympics article. Perhaps the links should be updated refer to the Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics article. And as you already noted, the All-time Olympic Games medal table should probably also be updated to show the distinction.

I'd be happy to make some of these changes to improve cross-article consistency – subject to discussion and review of course.

By the way, I did drop a note on the WikiProject Olympics talk page, so I don't think I was totally out of control, just a bit too WP:BOLD. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Lady windsor

I keep the word "erased", but please you can't erase part of the voice. Also note that their original surname is "DElupis" so, please, stop to erase it. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.81.229.33 (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

help on article macedonism

a bulgarian user implies propaganda into thje article! Korpas (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A Bulgarian user implies objective explainatoins and scientific studies. The Macedonists, blind reverts and nonsences. Regards! Jingby (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes.....

I forget to use the "Show preview" button too. - 4.240.165.138 (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Auja

Hi Imbris! Please don't unilaterally change things on Wikipedia without discussing first. I left a comment on the talk page almost a week ago and you haven't replied, so I am left to assume that you do not object to what I said (see also WP:BRD). Unilateral moves without discussion or proper argument may result in a block from editing Wikipedia. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Maltese

Kindly stop introducing false information into the article; refer to the history section. No classical sources mention any Croatian origin; pushing your national bias is not acceptable. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I will not accept your current agenda of pushing a national perspective, and attempting to deflect that founded accusation on me. Look below: you have another editor's opinion already. Perhaps consensus can be found on the talk page, but certainly not if you keep reverting edits. I am not introducing unestablished information, you are. A spirit of cooperation is of paramount importance. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are you so aggressive at the suggestion that working together is the best way forward? Please reconsider this pov pushing agenda of yours, it will do the project no favours. You have removed important, interesting information from the article: it shall be fixed. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've said, your pro-Eastern pov pushing won't be tolerated. Pax^^ the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

'Issa' is the name of the dog, not the Roman Governor. The Governor's name was Publius, who is shown by historical record (archeological and documented fact) to have resided and governed the Mediterranean island of Malta. He is also mentioned in that context within the New Testament. I just thought you should be told there was no Governor Issa :) the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I quote, from your little encyclical on my talkpage: "Issa -the name of the Roman Governor should not be translated to the modern Maltese language". A few more hours at night school may be in order. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Maltese (dog), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Tool2Die4 (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I second that: you have done this several times now. Stop pushing your nationalistic agenda and kindly stick to the facts. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you are unable to hold back from making nationally motivated edits. Very disappointing; I suggest we take this into arbitration, since you seen unable to understand my position and I find yours, quite frankly, to be untenable. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

I've started an AN/I thread here regarding your edit-warring. Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Maltese (dog)

Oh, I understand that just fine, saw it already. I just wanted to revert back to the time when both of you didn't exist. Elm-39 - T/C 12:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Bosnian American

While "Bosnian and Herzegnovinan American" would be more technically correct than "Bosnian American", the latter is the commonly used term. WP:COMMONNAME PRODUCER ^(TALK) 21:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Republika_Srpska#Using_modern_terms_to_describe_the_nations_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina by your logic Bosnian Muslims, Croats, Serbs should be referred to as Bosnian and Herzegovinian Muslims, Croats, Serbs. It's technically more correct, but wiki insists on WP:COMMONNAME. Google brings up 27,100 for Bosnian American while Bosnian and Herzegovnian brings up only 363 PRODUCER ^(TALK) 21:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

?!

I'm not sure which part of 'I'm washing my hands of this' you fail to understand, nor what precisely it is you're jabbering about. I have distanced myself from your work on the project entirely, I suggest you get on with whatever it is you are here to do. Cheers, את אמא כל כך שמנה, היא יושבת ליד כולם (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC info

So...you didn't do the user conduct RFC right so I reverted some of the related edits.[1][2]

If you're going to pursue a user conduct RFC against Pietru il-Boqli (talk · contribs), you need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct and Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users. I may be willing to certify such an RFC, but only if Pietru il-Boqli is actually still active in the relevant disputes.

If you're just trying to get wider opinions on the content issue, Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on articles, templates, or categories has the relevant information and doesn't require any certification. — Scientizzle 19:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Maltese

I suggest we call admin/s in again, I'm afraid I really have had enough of you and your attitude. The article does not benefit from constant back-and-forth reverting and pernicious tampering.

I apologise for pointing out your various grammatical/syntactical mistakes, I hope you'll find the means to correct them in your own time. Regarding your presumptions of my ancestry, it's English and Maltese. I think I have a fair idea about yours already. Cheers, 汚い危険きつい (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I only return to that article to fix pernicious edits. In the interim (while the article was protected) and since, I have been mostly active on articles dealing with Maltese prehistory. As a matter of fact, I'm not as passionate about the Maltese dog as you are. I'm not sure why you keep saying sources have been removed; they haven't. Are you simply lying, or is there something you see which I don't? I dislike these chats you keep forcing me into Imbris. I have restored the article placement, if you disagree please ask for comment on the talkpage where myself and other editors can dispute your claims. Otherwise, goodbye. 汚い危険きつい (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Maltese (dog). 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. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Maltese (dog). Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Kevin (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Bribery?

Bribery? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Where did you read that?

I am restoring the correct data. Yes, do not move to the 19th century or such misinterpretations, but let's leave it at the 13th or 14th.

Masking? Sorry, that was fixed.

Cheers, --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Tan | 39 05:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked you because you made no attempt at resolving the edit war at Maltese Dog - while the page was protected, you did not post to the talk page at all. Directly after the protection expired, you made the same reversion you had been making before. I saw your post at RFPP, and while odd, does not excuse your edit warring. Please stop. Tan | 39 05:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Imbris (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Most of the discussion at the Talk:Maltese (dog) was my attempts to state reasons, list sources, find compromise and also list other wikipedia's articles which use the exact same Other names pattern as should the article on Maltese Dog. Also I have attempted to discuss the matter on User talk:Tanthalas39#Maltese (dog) while the protection was in place. Pietru was blocked during this time and also blocked was his talk page. I knew that RFPP is the right thing to do but also knew that admins could not see eye to eye with me and not revert to a version before the edit-war. In fact I reverted to Pietru's own edit (before the edit-war). I do not see how this could be misinterpreted as edit-waring because I did talk, I did make my intention clear (reverting to the last version before the edit-war). I made my reasons clear - bringing Pietru to the discussion table. I did not shut down and revert just as it was an ordinary edit. I talked and talked but Pietru "washed his hands of me" and ceased talking; but he did not "wash his hands of the article he is not interested in" and of my edits to the article. Why am I getting blocked? I did nothing wrong but Pietru's sock is doing it just now. Also I would like to mention that Tanthalas39 wants you to look at the my talk page and doesn't mention that Pietru is on wikipedia longer than I, has a few more edits than I but his (Pietru's) talk page is virtualy blank because he deletes his talk page allmost after every new section of that talk page. I mention this because it seems that the Tanthalas39 wants my block to be in force because of my talk page omitting the fact that I have not been blocked previous my incounter with Pietru. -- Imbris (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As you say, you "knew that RFPP is the right thing to do". That's where that should have stopped. There is no qualifier for that, and your attempt to provide one for it by using the ever-popular "wrong version" argument is one of the least convincing I've ever read. You also fail to assume good faith. Daniel Case (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Imbris (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

At RFPP I requested protection before the edit-war and fail to see this move as an attempt to protect the right version. Also you have denied my unblock because of what exactly? Reverting to a version before the edit-war started couldn't be seen as wrong doing because I have talked about it at Tan's talk page and at RFPP. I think that another admin should look to see if there is any chance to review my doing about the article. Did I delete something or insert sourced material. Why Daniel Case sees it his way is beyond me but I have assumed good faith even the other editor used provocations, faul language and accusations instead of arguments. I have tryed to RfC but was stopped because apparently Pietru ceased disrupting, but did he stop his trolling. No he did not, he continued. Nevertheless of my current block I will try RfC once more. -- Imbris (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

revert warring is nto allowed even if you have attempted to start discussions. Discussions are to be carried on instead of reverting the article, and merely because you left notifications of your intents on talk pages does not then excuse edit warring at the article. Since I see no indication that you intend to stop the behavior that led to this block, I see no reason as yet to unblock. Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{unblock|I belive that it was not edit-waring, because I have reverted to a position that was before the last edit-war. When I say the last edit-war I mean the last time before Pietru's trolling. I promise that I will not under no circumstances revert the article again. I will seak administrative help in resolving the crisis of demands made by certain admins that I should: withdrew, take a wikibreak, seek dispute resolutions, protect the article at its version before the last edit-war. The only thing I am asking for, is to be unblocked so that I might seek help on the issues. -- Imbris (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)}}

Unblock discussion

Would you agree to refrain from editing the article in question and immediately start a detailed RfC if you were unblocked? I will unblock with this stipulation. Tan | 39 19:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I will refrain from editing the article in question and immediately start a detailed RfC. -- Imbris (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope that the article would be protected in full, at the version before the edit-war, or at any version you see fit. -- Imbris (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Basically, the way it works is this. You need to develop a consensus for one version or another. It's not about recruiting people to support you, exactly, it's about getting uninvolved people to comment and come to some kind of solution. I'm not familiar enough with the guts of the dispute to say, but it's possible that some kind of compromise might be the best solution. But in the end, if a consensus does develop and a single editor disagrees with it, there are policies under which they can be blocked if they won't accept it. The best thing about a firm consensus, though, is that any edit war will quickly become lopsided, with substantially more people on one side than the other, given time for enough people to notice it. This leads to a circumstance where the "griefer" must realize that they either have to break WP:3RR or accept the other version. So, there are ways.. but the way it always has to work is through building a consensus first: otherwise, it's unrealistic to expect admins to be able to choose the right side in a substantive dispute.. admins have extra functions they can use but they don't have elevated authority over article content. Mangojuice^talk 21:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I demand you apologise for characterising my edits on the Maltese dog article as 'trolling'. The issues are being dealt with in a suitable fashion at last, as you will remember, I called for admins too. However slander will not be tolerated, especially in light of my approach to your work. 汚い危険きつい (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have every right to describe what I felt like when dealt with you. Please stop communicating with me, as you have requested that I do not contact you any more. I will stand no more your abusive language and talks of your linguistic supremacy. Also your presumptions on my character, nationality and my editing are not welcome. You need to curb your emotions and stop griefing other editors. Feel free to discuss wherever you want but not here. EOD. -- Imbris (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This lack of decency is the true grievance. You have not simply presumed upon but denigrated my character, nationality, edits and identity. This is all. 汚い危険きつい (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Have I asked you not to address me any more, your listing of what you have done to me is what is undecent. Nobody touched your character, nationality and identity. Your harsh and abusive language, denialism of sources and nationalistic editing is what scared our contributive relations on this Wikipedia. Please stop vandalising my talk page. -- Imbris (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Disputed history

"Then all of history sections in all of dog breed articles should be renamed Disputed history, except from the part from when standardization started?"

Yes, why not, except that for many breeds, there is an "accepted" version of breed history - it's not "disputed" unless someone starts an argument. Can I try to interpret what you mean by " except from the part from when standardization started"? Do you mean before the breeds had written documentation and record keeping of their ancestry? A breed is defined by its ancestry. Dogs in ancient times in various places may have had a similar appearance, but that does not prove they were related; only knowing their ancestry proves a relationship. Today we can find some of that information about dogs with DNA testing, but formerly the only way was through written or oral records of breeding and ancestry. Before record keeping, all we have are listings of dog types that looked similar or the same but may or may not have bred true, or even been related in any way. Those types were throughout history sometimes documented -- as with the oral records of the Bedouin about their sighthounds' ancestry or records of Pekinese breeding in Imperial China. Many ancient records like that are lost through time. Unless there is proof, through DNA tests or written records, that specific old types of dogs are related to a specific modern breed, all the ancient history before record keeping is guesswork. --Hafwyn (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Stjepan Vukčić Kosača a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C) 18:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

personal attacks

Please refrain from comments like this in which you call an editor a "known pranskter" who "makes fun of Wikipedia." That's a personal attack and behavior like that can get you blocked. Comments like that are going to make the discussion degenerate into a war; they have already led to the article being protected. Mangojuice^talk 15:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A summary look at Imbris' archives shows just how often this user has resorted to this type of personal attack. While this might seem like 'pot calling the kettle black' territory, I'm resolved to steer clear of such attitudes in future and, after distancing myself from Imbris, still received plenty of bile for it. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just taken a good look at your work. Imbris, PLEASE review your edits before making them public or hand them over to somebody for proof reading/correction. Where you've re-worked/excluded information, I've had to get it to work in again. And you should consider taking Mangojuice's advice when it comes to the comments you send me. If the tone does not improve I shan't reply. Pietru (talk) 04:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Church

“ If Kosače were Orthodox in the first place their faith were under the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and most certainly not under the Serbian Orthodox Church of Peć Stop inserting modernity. ”

Well, first I'd advice you not to be so stressed. You still seem at least a bit angry with every comment you write. Second of all, it's quite the opposite of most certainly not - it is most certainly. The Church was abolished in 1532. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yugoslavia

Whats your question exactly? I'm a bit puzzled PRODUCER (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I support Dzole's judgment, the editors who oppose him openly admitted not knowing the history of Yugoslavia and failed to provide good arguments. PRODUCER (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankopans

Out of question that this women is Frankopan.

In article we are having statement: "his family split from the Frankopans in the 14th century". Funny thing about this is that family is taking Frankopan name only in 15 century. First time they are called Frankopan in document from 1422 ! [3]

Vjekoslav Klaić croatian historian has writen that only Swedish line of Frankopan dynasty has survived until 20 century. This line has become separated during Kalmar Union when son of "first" Frankopan has become Eric of Pomerania governor.--Rjecina (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Kosachas (again)

I do not understand why you refuse to discuss this, and just resort to reverting?

Your claim about SOC first introduced in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1905 is simply false. That is why I am reverting - it is simple as that.

Where is the precise dispute? I invite you once more to give up on the edit war and approach a calm discussion on the issue. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Dog

Imbris, do NOT start this again. Read the talkpage, maybe twice, internalize what it's trying to tell you and stop with the agenda. Are you serious about your 'island of Malta' distinction? Raise it on the talkpage. Pietru (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Input requested

Hello, your input is requested at Template talk:PD-Yugoslavia. Thank you, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Cyrillic alphabet?

I never wrote the song titles like that? The countries were not entered under written like that so only the English shall remain. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Final warning

This is your final warning for edit warring on Maltese (dog). Any further reverts/warring - especially with Pietru - and you will be blocked, this time for a longer period. Tan | 39 21:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Finally. Imbris should be thoroughly investigated. Pietru (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

@Tanthalas39: I will not reply in my defence on the talk page of Tanthalas39. I have warned Pietru not to contact me in any way known at wikipedia. He has not complied and continues to sometimes pop in order to provocate, glouting his opinion, showing off with his silky language and otherwise distort my editing. You may not know this, but Pietru turns his offences portraying as if someone (in this case me) offended him. He is very skillful in listing his offences and lay blame upon the object of his methodology. I reported him to ANI (this is my first reporting someone there) because I simply could not stand his defamation of my character. I could write, and write how much he has offended me knowing that nothing will be done, that he cannot be stoped because of his methods of shared blame (lay blame upon the object). -- Imbris (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Imbris, is the above intended antisemitically? Or am I inferring too much? In any case, I have never contacted you without there being reasonable need (related to issues of current importance) and if you remember, asked that you not contact me first. Pietru (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

His methods of trying to upset people, saying they are racist, antisemitic. It is his way of saying that sources are depleeted, and the issues must be clouded by fog. I will not write on Tan's talk page because Mangojuice sadly enough painted a picture as if I am the first and foremost responsible party, highlighting my name and even wikilinking it. On the other hand nothing about Pietru's transgressions.

When Pietru said he wished me not to contact him, I complied. There was even a time period in which he contacted me, but naturally I couldnot contact him. Then, after a series of his offending me and even demanding appologies from me, I said EOD and belived he would comply.

He has often addressed my talk page to threat ANI, falsely invoke AGF, and drop lines such as Finally. Imbris should be thoroughly investigated. (direct quote)

Imbris (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I prefixed my reservation by saying it was to some degree paranoid. I have never said you are antisemitic, in fact, I have never given you the opportunity to before. Your comments were directed at my Maltese ethnicity (and that odd "spick" comment). I have said over and over that I want the article to be accurate and honest. Even if that means backing off. But suggesting correction is nothing to be afraid of! Pietru (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, why act like a martyr? If you feel you've been portrayed unfairly, take issue. Pietru (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop editing my talk page. Ok. I will not defend myself from your attack here, there are places you and I can discuss, this not being one of those places.

And finally stop lay blame upon me, stop commenting on me (paranoid, Ha?!), stop your defamation (racist, Ha?), stop writing on my talk page because if you do write on my talk page I will report you for vandalism.

You have gave me plenty of oportunity to go to ANI. I have had it enough. Stop writing on my talk page. Understand.

I have made no such comments but commented on your blatant wikilinking everything to Malta and overestimating Publius/Martial. The article before I came along was a pure Malta POV, no Italy, no history, no Sicilia and Meleda.

You have spicked the edit with that comment spiced, spiked whatever.

I write this for Tan's benefit, and not for yours. Stop writing on my talk page.

You want honesty, I cannot belive this, not in a million years.

Back off from my talk page.

You have not corrected anything but you have editwared, and expected me to do the same.

I do not act like a martyr no more than you are penitent.

Back off from my talk page. Indefinitely.

Imbris (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Mangojuice comments

I'm warning you, Imbris, that you need to drop this Botolo nonsense. Editors are two (myself and the IP) to one against you on it; I already gave my last word about it and you've brought it up twice again since that. My good faith is wearing thin -- you tried to use the inclusion of "botolo" to bootstrap in your Croatian name, an argument I wouldn't go for in the first place, and now you are vigorously arguing to keep this irrelevant piece of trivia; I can clearly see your motivation. Your latest comments are trying to push nationalistic original research into the article. Your latest accusations against the English is particularly vexing, but not nearly so much as your opposition to every and all mention of Malta. There are some ways in which I feel like you are being helpful, but your editing overall seems very agenda driven, and it's getting to the point where I can't work with you. I can't fight you tooth and nail over every mention of a country or a nationality or a language, it is just too exhausting. Mangojuice^talk 06:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"I'm warning you" WHAT A COMPLETE ARSEHOLE !!!!! Ignore Mangojuice. He, she or it can assert itself in the real world and so tries to do it here. Can't even give it's real name. Too frightened. What a wimp. Out in the real world, Mangojuice would get the shit kicked out of him if he acted like this.

Please ignore the above comment, by an IP editor evading a block I upheld. Anyway. Here's the thing: Pietru, Crotchety Old Man, the IP editor on the dog article, and Tanthalas all see you as a problem editor. It may be time for you to realize that maybe there is something to all this. There are two main issues I have with you.

1. The first one is that you persist in arguments regardless of the traction you're getting. Examples of this include the Croatian name issue, the [[Malta (island)]] vs. Malta issue, the Botolo issue. Those are topics you have already beaten to death at least with me, and you know quite well I disagree with you on all of them and yet you seem to bring one or more of them up almost every time you comment. I'm trying to just ignore you and work on the issues I want to work on but you keep coming back to these things as if your persistence will eventually wear me down or drive everyone away from the article until you get your way. The Croatian name issue particularly (and now the Botolo issue too, since they're so similar and they're linked in my mind) -- your extreme persistence on this point may be that you simply have this opinion and don't realize the effect your persistence is having on other people.. but everyone's stronger impression is that you are pushing a nationalist POV. Maybe you aren't pushing something against neutrality but it's certainly the kind of thing nationalist POV-pushers do, and your persistence is without question a kind of pushing. You are actually pushing very, very hard for these things. See WP:TE and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
2. The second one is that you don't seem to understand the borderline between sourced edits and WP:SYN (Original Research by synthesis). You have frequently argued that one source or another should not be used because it is wrong, and then used a great many, overly redundant sources in support of your own points. The history section, for instance, before my latest revamp was full of this. I'll discuss specific article issues on the article talk page, though. The difference between proper encyclopedic writing and WP:OR by synthesis is that in the latter, the overall effect is to pass judgment on the truth of certain claims, relying on sourced statements. This is what one should do when one is a real researcher, but on Wikipedia we don't publish original thought, and that includes original analysis of existing sources. You are frequently arguing that we should highlight sources you like and remove sources you think are wrong (or that you argue are unreliable, mainly on the basis that they are wrong or that your sources disagree). This is the kind of thing that makes an article into a WP:SYN violation. This is kind of a tricky point... and your confusion wouldn't be so bad if you weren't constantly pushing all your arguments so much.
3. Nationalistic issues. As I said, this may simply be a false impression of you from your tendency to push on your arguments...but you need to understand that Nationalistic POV pushing and edit warring is a common and extremely disruptive issue on Wikipedia. Here are a list of WP:ARBCOM cases in which a broad nationalist issue has led to general sanctions: Armenia/Azerbaijan, Eastern Europe, Balkans, Palestine/Israel, and there are others (see WP:SANCTION for a full list) that are more specific. Now, general sanctions (basically, a markedly decreased tolerance for disruption) is a very significant step: it indicates that the entire community has lost patience with a certain kind of behavior and will deal with it harshly rather than with normal levels of Not biting the newbies and WP:AGF. Given this low level of tolerance in general for this kind of thing, you ought to be especially careful to handle nationalist conflicts gently, but if anything those areas have been the worst for you.

If you can take a step back, read these concerns, and go back and look at your own behavior, maybe you will understand where everyone is coming from when they call you a problem editor, and that may let you understand how you need to adjust your behavior. But if that adjustment is coming it really needs to happen soon, I am seriously on my last thread of patience. Mangojuice^talk 05:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You are going around the issues to discuss me as an editor? Suggesting what you think are my motivation for editing is also not appropriate.

Wikipedia should be about edits and not editors, we all know that and I thank you for your contributions, all of your contributions to the article were reasonable, but you also resorted to deleting content simply because you think that they further my alleged bias.

About the editor with problems bit: Pietru is a long time edit-warior, violates AGF as much as he can, the fact that you use my problems with Pietru as a pretence for labeling me as problematic is proposterous, Crotchety Old Man (possible Pietru's sock), created recently, had not created any articles, IP-editor from Australia should be trusted and the IP-editor who attacked you should not be trusted. Tanthalas39 has expressed his concerns but under false impression that I reverted as soon as I had been deblocked (from a 24h block). Which is not true and I very well know who misinformed him, its all on his talk page (in the recent archives). Also the remark that IP-editor was full of accusations toward all other editors and has not discussed on his talk page, has discussed only with you (regarding the dog article), etc., spoke about his academic credentials, etc.

If you do not wish to read on my view of your view on Mljetski pas, Malta Island v.s. Malta and Botolo, please skip those sections. I am not trying to get you talking if you do not wish but I must explain what happened. Nevertheless it might be of your interest to read why I belive those topics matter.

About persisting in discussions:

(1) If Mljetski pas is contrary to Wikipedia:ENGLISH this would be reasonable, but dismisal of sources is what is not appropriate. I have reffered to the name issue only, and I have reffered to it because I wouldn't cite Croatian sources (from three different periods of Croatian history) in their focus - that being claims of Croatian origins. I thought that citing only the name should be enough. I haven't wanted to insert those claims because I personaly do not belive that a dog this old can have origins in a particular one place. Sadly enough I saw that you are completely against non-English sources so I decided to insist only of the viable. Even if this Croatian origins is a minority view, it has its proponents in Croatia and also in some cynologists in former Yugoslavia, we have also a book translated into Slovenian in 1975: Gondrexon, Anna ; Browne, I. Psi vsega sveta : mala enciklopedija psov (translated by Janes Gradišnik and Tone Glavan), Cankarjeva založba, Ljubljana, 1975, p 294

Conclusion regarding (1): Mljetski pas can be translated to Dog of Mljet with {{lang-hr|Mljetski pas}} besides the name. Or we should insert what the sources really focus on?

(2) [[Malta Island|Malta]] issue is relevant in those cases when we speak of the island and not of the country. It is absolutely clear. I agree that [[Malta]] can be used but not when speaking about the island of Melita (Melite) being followed by mentioning of Malta. It is completely false because in the ancient times Melita was Malta Island and not Malta. Your argument that Malta is a better article plays no part because it speaks of the history of the Maltese nation, economy, the territories now comprising the Republic of Malta and not specifically of the island. I have on one occasion agreed to a compromise to drop the Malta Island/Malta issue but then you started including Malta in the historical section, with wikilink, and it should not be wikilinked Malta in the historical section but with the Malta Island.

Conclusion regarding (2): I have been more than willing to appreciate your feelings on the matter but you pushed the limit when writing [[Malta]] after the mention of Melita in the Sicilian Sea. You have not compromised but just asserted that your word must be the last on the issue.

(3) Botolo/Botoli issue is very easy. Briggs mentions it, there are other sources to verify, like the works of Dante Alighieri, or more recent Gina Spadafori and the source for the Fisting Hound also speaks of Botoli (Thynne, Francis. Emblemes and Epigrames, BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2008 [1876], p 99). In the history section there are historical names that nobody or few use, Fisting Hound was in its place before you deleted it as being archaic. Thynne also included German language names Bracken Schosshundle and Gutschenhundle but I did not include them because their words have nothing to do with the origins of the dog, practically the entire Central Mediterranean has something to do.

Deletion of Botolo/Botoli under false impressions gave by the IP-user 122.200.166.113 that it is an Italian word for artichoke and some other commentary should have played no part in your impartiality (to which I am begining to suspect). Also your explanation on the why Botolo/Botoli shouldn't be included is proposterous. Botolo is mentioned in Briggs, a source for this article, and in the historical section and in the context of sometimes been called

Conclusion to (3): Definately part of the article.

About the second point:

I did not commit WP:SYN because I did not pull the info out of a magicians hat.

Everything you deleted has been mentioned in writters specifically talking about the dog, Briggs mentioned lots of names in his article about the dog.

Bryant did not pull the info out of a magicians hat, everything can be sourced to numerous sources, suprisingly enough you deleted all the references of Callimachus made after his death. Those are not references by some "modern" authors, to say the least, it is references by authorities on the issue, by classical Roman, Byzantine and other authors who are quoted even today by cynologists of the World.

Callimachus was undoubtedly an authority on dogs in his time, and he is mentioned as only some first author while Strabo is overplayed with mentioning of the first century, and also Martials poem about his friends pet. They obviously deserve a time frame, atributes, titles.

Also you have done your best to accomodated Pietru's wishes, and you condemn me as someone who writes OR. Did you really read each and every article on the dog to determine that those authors, whose mentioning you deleted are not mentioned in relevant sources. The fact is that you made the article into a strong Malta fortress, Malta is singled out in the lede, instead of being in the third place since FCI doesn't want to hear about Malta being connected with the dog. Then in the names subsection the "Maltese" is overplayed and in the old days it was considered a subspecies of the Spaniel species, deleting Fisting Hound, Fisting Dog, Fisting Cur (are among options) shows that you belive in some sort of balance which is contrary to the great number of sources. For God's sake, the Bichon was the name not only for the Maltese of today, and there were lap-dogs of all sorts called by some of the names you deem only for the Maltese.

In conclusion to your second point: If you belived that was SYN, you should have taged it and not deleted it, then allowed a period of time for me to collect sources which would satisfy your need to punish me for allowing those authors into the article.

About the third point:

You became the editor and I thank you for your contributions, I have nothing against adding content into the article. But, you started deleting with false pretences, calling me a nationalist and during the RfC practicaly denied everything I asked but in the same time acted like Pietru is a viable editor and like the emerging force of Crotchety Old Man who called for a complete revert before I came along which was latter executed by IP-user 122.200.166.113 even if Binary TSO saw nothing wrong with the article and you have also reverted the IP-user.

So to sum up. You have been more than happy to accomodate Pietru, but not me. You have sided with Pietru's accusations of nationalism, and insist that Caius should be in the article but those who support Callimachus should not be in the article.

On the IP-user who vandalised your talk page, your user page and now tryed to drag me into his flaming reaction to your editing on Publius. I know that his intentions are not good, you should not worry that I will let myself to be draged into this.

Oh, now you are talking, sanctions, nice. I have every right to answer on my talk page whatever I want, naturally without offending and such.

How should I react when you said that you will merge history section of the IP and history section made by yours, mine and Pietru's contribution to see all the deletions you made and a few days ago defended my editing from being deleted by IP-user 122.200.166.113

I hope that no SANCTION is necessary since I do not edit disruptively and also I would like to mention that I have no part in recent reverting, you can ask checking admin to check from where I edit.

Thanks for reading, I hope that we might reach some agreement, some sort of a compromise that would satisfy all parties.

The only thing I am not sure is why Pietru is so interested in Saint Publius being in the article.

With kind regards and greatest respect but the article is not Articles on probation, nor is related to nationalism.

Imbris (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You missed my first point entirely. It's not those particular issues. I am well aware of what you think about them. It's that you cannot ever let them go, any of them, they keep coming up again and again. Even now, you use the opportunity to make your case again. I do acknowledge you tried to let me know to skip them if I don't want to hear it. But I'll believe progress on this when you stop referring back to those points over and over on the article discussion page. (Don't worry, I know it's not you reverting, it's this guy. If it continues I may have to ask that the page be semi-protected for a while... sigh.) Mangojuice^talk 03:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Croatian Krajina

I've created a move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves per your suggestion at the article's talk page. GregorB (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Austria and Hungary Mediterranean?

Austria has a more central-western European culture related to the culture in (southern) Germany, Hungary has a very unique central European culture. That these countries once ruled over parts of the Mediterranean does not make them Mediterranean cultures. They neither have a Mediterranean flora, fauna or climate. Their languages, except for the few ethnically Austrian and Hungarian people who stayed on after the Habsburg empire disintegrated, do not feature in the Mediterranean area. Traditional Austrian and Hungarian cuisine have very little to do with the Mediterranean either as they do not use olive oil (fairly typical for all Mediterranean cultures) nor salt-water fish. It is for these reasons that I have deleted the countries from the list of countries which border the Mediterranean.Takeaway (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Polish Byelo-Harvats

In the 1930's and '40s, an estimated 100,000 "White Croatians" or known as Byelo-Harvats and somewhat 50,000 "White Sorbians" or Lusitic Serbians lived in present-day Poland, the majority around the Krakow region. The peoples were descendants of a small influx of transplanted Serbo-Croatians whom arrived in the 16th to late 18th centuries, when eastern Silesia and southern Slovincia was under Austrian rule (the Austro-Hungarian Empire). But then came the Nazis German invasion of Poland in 1939, followed by the Soviet invasion of Nazi-occupied Poland in May 1945 and finally, the Communist takeover of the Polish government in 1947 has forcibly pressured the entire White Croat/Serbian population out of the Krakow region of Poland. Almost all the Byelo-Harvats and Lusitic Serbians emigrated to the United States, though Polish-Canadian and Croatian-Canadian organizations mentioned Canada was another major destination for them, and the rest in other neutral host nations like Sweden, Spain and Argentina. To make matters complicated is the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under communism as well wasn't the land of choice for ethnic Croats or Serbs from Poland. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_Croats" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.2.206 (talk)

Neven Jurica

Hello, I reverted the edit you made to Neven Jurica as his having been the Ambassador to the U.S. was already mentioned in the first sentence of the career section. Just wanted to let you knowwhy I reverted it. JavierMC 08:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I provided a WP:3O at Talk:Bosnian_American#Third_Opinion. I hope—but cannot guarantee!—that it will be useful to you and the project. I will keep the talk page on my watchlist for a short time in case my response to any follow-up comments/concerns would be helpful to achieving consensus. Best wishes! GreenGourd (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: C.O.M.'s reverts and WP:TW

I've responded on the article talk page and reverted to his version. Long story short, I think WP policy specifically prohibits controversial categorization such as this; we can discuss that on the article talk page. As for COM's use of Twinkle, please don't take it as if he thinks you are vandalizing. There is some bad blood between you two, but Twinkle is just a tool and its use does not imply one position or another. The only time I would call use of Twinkle abusive is if used in a content dispute in order to aggressively revert without discussion. In other words, I think it's okay for anyone to revert anything with Twinkle so long as they provide an edit summary explaining themselves and don't revert-war with it.

Finally as to Caius, I wouldn't disapprove of calling him "personal physician to the English royal family in the 16th century" or "in the Elizabethan era" but it certainly seems much clunkier and it certainly wouldn't be my first choice. I don't like just calling him an English physician, it makes it sound as if we are denigrating his expertise; I would prefer no label or just calling him English to that solution, but on balance I don't like either of those ideas either: it's a history section and mentioning Queen Elizabeth I both identifies the time and place of Caius -- it's elegant writing and I see no reason to change it.

Just FYI, I haven't abandoned this article, but I have real-life concerns that are pressing right now. Next month I plan to start looking at this article some more, with an eye to expanding the history section to discuss more than just the origins issue (including adding the Clement of Alexandria bit back... I just couldn't see how to integrate that text without a general expansion of the section). Mangojuice^talk 20:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Croato-Serbian

It is one thing to implement the proper term (synonym) for Serbo-Croatian used in SR Croatia, it is an entirely different thing to start pushing it in as some sort of supposedly "separate" language. I suggest you bring this theory of yours to Talk:Serbo-Croatian language before making any more absurd undiscussed edits. "Serbo-Croatian language" is the most common term in English, far more common than "Croato-Serbian language", "Croatian or Serbian language", "Serbian, Croatian, or Slovene language" or any other alternative name used throughout the past century. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Imbris, you're inventing a new language. "Serbo-Croatian" and "Croato-Serbian" are not two "separate" languages in the diasystem, these are two names for the same diasystem. Like I said, stop until you've reached some kind of agreement on Talk:Serbo-Croatian language. This is not a matter of "compromise" between the two of us. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The changes may be small, but the issue is certainly not petty. Imbris, you are wrong here. Please discuss the matter properly on Talk:Serbo-Croatian language before proceeding. Croato-Serbian = Serbo-Croatian. Its just another name that may or may not be used when the Croatian idiom is in use. You are listing synonyms for the same language diasystem in article leads. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahh.. the paranoia kicks in. I'm a unitarianist, a communist, I have evil plots and everything... hey, maybe I'm an ex-UDBA agent working on Wikipedia? All I'm saying is that Croato-Serbian is another term for Serbo-Croatian, which is kindergarten stuff. You're inventing a new "language". My opinion is "null and void"? Fine, take this to talk and prove me wrong (I already started a discussion). I remind you that so far I've only heard your opinion as well. Your gazette just means they printed the Serbo-Croatian language in both idioms, and entitled them by their usual names. Its still the same language (as far as they were concerned, at least). The Croato-Serbian language is absolutely not a different language than Serbo-Croatian. It is an alternative name, for the same language, usually used to name its Croatian idiom. I repeat: this is not just between you and me. Take this to talk and have a proper discussion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I presume your trademark lack of response is to be interpreted as agreement? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I love asking questions? Like an UDBA interrogator, Imbris... Especially if these questions are specifically related to the subject of discussion, I simply adore those questions. In fact, I adore them so much I'll ask you again: do we have an agreement? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh LoL... what are you talking about? The issue was that you insisted on the existence of seperate "Serbo-Croatian" and "Croato-Serbian" languages, which is the "theory" you were implementing on more than one article. Turns out you were quite wrong. You see when I'm obviously wrong, I admit it (and apologize sometimes) [4], you just phase out of the conversation (presumably embittered).

"Croatian or Serbian language" = "Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian" = "Croato-Serbian language" = "Serbo-Croatian language".

They're all valid synonymous (or nearly-synonymous) names for the same language. However, this is the English Wikipedia. The name of that particular language in English is BY FAR "Serbo-Croatian". The other synonyms are virtually unknown outside Croatia, and maybe Serbia. Its ok by me to use the most appropriate term in the context of the SR Croatia article, but to start adding "Croato-Serbian" to article leads, or to start replacing "Serbo-Croatian" with various synonyms you personally find more "Croatian" is absurd. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Trianon

Dobar dan, Imbris!

Thanks for bringing the deletion of my citation tag to my attention. That quote glaringly needs a source and I will re-add the tag. As for the various names of the various kingdoms, I really don't want to get involved there... I don't know much about the history of Croatia-Slavonia but I will look at the article and see if there is a clearer way to specify that it was autonomous within the KoH....

Best, K. Lásztocska^talk 18:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)