User talk:Maayaa

Please, avoid changing the "Kaputt" chapter title - the correct one is Basket of oysters--Purger 21:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC) It is more useful to have a content description, than a chapter title. It is also more likely that people would click and then they would have the chapter title. So, this way is MUCH MORE INFORMATIVE! it seems to me that you want to obscure the content Maayaa 09:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR on Dalmatia

Hi. Please observe the three-revert rule on Dalmatia. Thanks. --Elephantus 22:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dalmatia

Dalmatia article is an geographical article, not historical. Today, Dalmatia include only land in Croatia. Parts of Bosnia and Montenegro are not part of Dalmatia. They were part of Dalmatia in the past, but since this article is about present-day Dalmatia (not about historical one), we cannot consider that Boka and parts of Bosnia are part of Dalmatia. PANONIAN (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can go to Montenegro and Bosnia and ask people who live there does they live in Dalmatia or not. They will say not. It is generally considered that Dalmatia today is only in Croatia. You cannot claim that current borders of some regions are same as they were in the 19th century, because they are not. There is very big difference between that what WAS and what IS. Regarding name issue, I agree with you that Serbian and Italian name should not be removed. PANONIAN (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, see Talk:Minefields in Croatia

Hi,

Before You REV Minefields in Croatia one more time without explanation, please discuss it on Talk:Minefields in Croatia.

Regards, Ante Perkovic 07:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments on Borovo Selo raid

Please add your statement on views at the top of the talk page in the designated area. Asterion ^{talk to me} 05:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV writting

Listen, I understand Your wish to write about support for ustasa in modern Croatia, but I really really don't understand why You must use redundant POV descriptions like (see bolded text):

The illustration of indroctination of Croatian children with hate and black-uniforms of Jure Francetic that are still very popular. Some people want to hide the truth and it is very important to show the truth to the world. The picture has been proposed for deletion for bias, but the consensus vote was keep. Also, note that in Croatia, which is not US and not a EU member, amateur pictures are not covered with copyright law, and in fact few pictures are copyrighted.

You are just not able to suppress your hatred while writing, isn't it?

I wonder how much do You acctualy know about Croatia. I live there, and according to Your contributions to croatia-related articles, You must be living no closer that Mars.

--Ante Perkovic 13:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivility

You accused me of uncivility. I replied on my talk page, but I'll repeat it here, just for the record:

I wasn't being uncivil. If you're referring to my text on Image_talk:Lipadom.jpg, then you should know that exposing other people's malicious lies about one's homeland is everything but uncivility. Yes, you wrote a lie, and I suggest you think twice before slandering entire nations. --Zmaj 14:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt write a lie. It was, however, you who lied about another picture, claiming wrong copyright. Your insults are noted, and will not be tolerated! Maayaa 04:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing PUI tags

You're removing the PUI tags while the discussion is ongoing. This prevents other interested parties from knowing that there is a discussion happening. Please don't do that. I won't strike out the PD-because, given that you seem to be genuine in your contention. Jkelly 21:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to the actual issue at hand at WP:PUI. Are we looking at the same Copyright Act? Jkelly 22:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably by the time we get all of this sorted out, we will have the basis for a {{PD-Croatia}}. Jkelly 22:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's wishful thinking. There is text in the 2003 Act about the status of those images whose copyright had expired under the old law. I'll try to find it again. Jkelly 23:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

regarding reverts on Aloysius Stepinac

Please, read the fine discussion on the talk page. It's been elaborated several times now how tangential and tendentious rants aren't suitable for the article. --Joy [shallot] 00:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not reasonable to cry "censorship!" when we are talking about whether some piece of information is relevant - it's as if I put the person's shoe size in their biography, and then someone removes it, and then I call them censors. Come on. Information can be true, false, right, wrong, but neither of these qualities makes it relevant. I have asked in very plain words on Talk - what is the relevance of elaborating somebody's feelings on the biography of this person? There was no answer. --Joy [shallot] 17:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Neonazism in Croatia

Yes, I said that I am tempted to block that person, because they have repeatedly demonstrated that they are an idiot. If you think that one cannot be tempted, then I suggest you stop interacting with the entire human kind because we are by and large humans and endure temptation from time to time. --Joy [shallot] 20:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]