Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Good luck dealing with him for a change. At least he won't accuse you of being a sock, and then have a support from an admin who blocks you on his own hand then when I complain he just repeats his allegation, "Yeah that's him", in the very own report I complain about him doing that, and it is somehow established I'm a sock. Well at least you went on looking a bit deeper on this than just listening to his POV. I'm only sorry an admin had allowed himself being manipulated by this user. Go and look for yourself, I'm not the only one that opposed him that he tried to ban, not even in this very own discussion, let alone other discussions. 212.15.177.45 (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily for me, my account has existed for several years and I don't think I've been involved in editing ex-Yugoslavia-related articles before, so he'd have a hard time accusing me of being a sockpuppet or anything like that. I honestly had no prejudice about his views, and in fact I started out vaguely siding with him because of some assertions made by the person who closed the RfC, but he did a really poor job of convincing me. In fact, he managed to convince me of the opposite thanks to his very quotes. LjL (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope you see with what we have been dealing for the last month. If it were his only discussion in this manner. Much like he tried to ban me and another editor from this discussion, by luck I found another of his discussions where he exhibited the same pattern. Go to Yugoslavia article and you will see: [1]. Another editor filed a request, and he opposed. Soon after that admin appeared and he had blocked the user. I had to open a RfC and after a long time he backed down, only after a Serbian editor opposed his view. I found that discussion only by luck, because the editor who posted the last comment in the RfC on Serbs of Croatia started that discussion on Yugoslavia page. I now wonder how much more there are cases like this. 212.15.177.39 (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems you will be reported after all. Not as a sock of course, but you "dared" to oppose him. [2]

I tried to warn of this behavior in the review ANI but I was blocked by that admin and my comment was deleted, and you all believed him without question when I reported him.

As I saw from his contributions this had gone on for ages, and that admin seems to follow him around. Well he calles him when he needs someone blocked, which he gladly does, on his own hand, no questions asked. 212.15.177.39 (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you can see why the other editor who started that discussion didn't want to participate and I hope you can imagine how much I was subjected to personal attacks as an IP when even you as an admin are accused of lying, bad faith, etc...It really isn't a hard job getting an IP banned, even without that admin who does it on his own hand with no reasons in my behavior to do that. 54.158.155.211 (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin. Why not make an account anyway, and stop being an anonymous, "dodgy" IP? That may help. --LjL (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. I can't make an account because it would get blocked like my IP's got blocked, without any investigation and without any evidence of my bad behavior. I've edited Wikipedia as an IP for quite some time, and I really didn't have any problems up to few months ago when I bumped into that discussion on Serbs of Croatia. Look at what happened in the report I made. I said "hey this admin is calling me a sock without no reason. I've done nothing wrong" and he says "yep, he is a sock", and no one even questioned it. You've see how long the RfC is and all other accompanying discussions. It's sad I have to fight to get my perfectly normal comments trough only because some user was disruptive in the past. I really do not know what he had done to deserve to be blocked, but I can't shake a feeling of injustice when someone just has to say "yep, that's him let's get him blocked" and no one bothers to ask "what has this ip done"? 54.158.155.211 (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reflect on your "change in status" claim. I think you are looking at it in a simplified way. Read the source that explains that in great detail. The think is that Yugoslavia went trough a process of dissolution. Every Yugoslav nation (Serbs,Croats,Bosniaks) were a constituent nation of Yugoslavia and as such a constituent nation in every republic. When republics declared independence, the change in status had to occur, since the republics stopped being a part of Yugoslavia. Croats were a constituent nation in Socialist Serbia as much as Serbs were a constituent nation in socialist Croatia, but that was all in the aspect of constituent nation of Yugoslavia. Serbs were not the only constituent nation of Socialist Croatia, every other nation was. For instance Macedonians were also a constituent nation of SRC because they were a constituent nation of Yugoslavia. They also had a change in their status. Also you have to note one thing. The new Croatian constitution did not clarify that Serbs were a national minority. Some of the sources say it correctly. Serbs were put in the same group with other minorities, but not called a minority. The constitution said "and a country of other nations and minorities: Serbs,....". It did not call Serbs a "minority" explicitly. The deal is more complex and all of the sources just make a blunt statements, while only one source elaborates extensively on this question. 54.158.155.211 (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already agreed in the discussion that the status of Serbs had changed form a constituent nation of Yugoslavia to a national minority. That is explained in that source that is being ignored and that is the only source which elaborates on that question , and doesn't just make a statement with no reference to the primary source. There are basically 2 levels here, a constituent nation of Yugoslavia and as such constituent in each republic and a constituent nation in republics specially. The constitution of SRC says in it's first sentence who "constituted it", and it names only Croats. The constitution of Yugoslavia has the same first sentence and it names all Yugoslav nations as the one who constituted Yugoslavia. 54.158.155.211 (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My current view of the matter is that we can claim that the status changed, but we can't claim that their rights changed, because sources contradict each other in that regard. A change in status may well be merely symbolic without an effect on rights. LjL (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there was a change in status. Croatia was leaving Yugoslavia which seized to exist , and Serbs stopped being a constitutive nation of Yugoslavia and as such of SRC. But not only Serbs, other nations of Yugoslavia as well, and Croats in Serbia as well. A change in definitions had to occur since there was a significant change on the field. Yugoslavia was falling apart. Read trough that extensive source in the first post of the RfC. I also hope you see I am being prevented to state this in the discussion. The discussion is one way street where that user is trying to get his way, when I'm blocked from participating with no real reason. What's wrong with my 2 posts to you so they must be prevented from being posted in the discussion? 54.158.155.211 (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but if you are blocked, you should appeal the block, and then you will be entitled to state your opinion again. You may feel like there is no harm in you saying these things, but if you were blocked, the proper thing to do is to have the block removed officially, not to evade it. LjL (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not blocked until this admin had showed and blocked me for no reason. No investigation, and not a single complaint about my behavior. I tried to report him and you've seen what happened. He just repeated that I'm a sock and no one questioned it. I don't think I stand a chance. There is really no way an IP can win against an admin. I just tried to implement the consensus and I was prevented from doing the most legit thing on Wikipedia. You saw what happened when I complained. 54.158.155.211 (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What was the user name under which you were blocked?

I had no account so far. Maybe an investigation would show I'm not a sock, but it never got to that. This admin just blocs on his own hand. I'm not too familiar is he is allowed to do that, but I feel it is not fair. That's why when I was prevented from doing the most legit thing on Wikipedia I though someone would actually listed to an ordinary IP, but boy was I wrong. 54.158.155.211 (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for listening. I got this RfC noticed and I hope that's enough, although it would be nice if I could post some arguments like the one above, but let's face it , that's not going to happen, so thanks for listening. Bye. 54.158.155.211 (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's any comfort, "your" side will probably prevail anyway, since Fkp is along against several people, and apparently he "gave up" now (with their attitude, I honestly can't see how they could have won many sympathies in the long term). It's a shame, because I actually believe it's worth acknowledging the change in status, just not the hypothetical change in rights. I've stated this several times, but Fkp is blinded by the idea that everybody (now including, or even especially, me) is against them and "lying through their teeth"... oh well. LjL (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly, God knows what will happen to that article and other articles that editor is editing when I'm now being restricted from editing it. In my opinion I got in this 3 months of discussing him , I think he should be restricted to football related articles. I feel sad this discussion will finish, one way or another, and there are other discussions like this without me present to open a RfC and deal with it for a few months. 54.158.155.211 (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah he has that attitude. He actually followed me around trough some discussions and he was really disruptive so I stopped using the same ip in other discussions so he would stop following me around. Look at this case for example.On Novak Djokovic page he objected to a RS of Djokovic stating himself a certain thing. Then he went and entered that to the article. Then another Serbian editor accused him of being to mellow in his POV pushing that he is now playing dumb when he got reverted for no reason. They had a shameful discussion on his talk page [3] and he actually said "We all know Novak is Serbian bla bla". Big argument. We don't "know" here, but go there and move your ass and I shouldn't do all over there. They have a source where Novak himself said those things and you go and find sources to deny that one. ". It's sad he separates people to "them" and "us". "I shouldn't do all over there" is also really troubling. It sounds to me like they are trying to push their view and he is criticizing this other editor because he is doing all the work. 54.158.155.211 (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just mentioning that I have blocked this IP you are talking too. They are a sockpuppet of a user who was indef blocked for POV pushing. HighInBC 23:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. LjL (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck on your continuing discussions on this topic. But it appears to me that a lot of the participants of the RFC are now staying away. This leaves 2 editors and I fear little will be accomplished other than endless debate, which appears to be a pattern. AlbinoFerret 13:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: I'm sorry you and others have been worn out by this (I've been suspecting other editors may also be staying away because of the possibility of "discretionary sanctions"). I am trying to reach a compromise and I think making a statement about "status" but no direct claim about "rights" would be the best achievement. I hope Fkp eventually realizes compromise is part of this. LjL (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that. AlbinoFerret 13:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for posting here again, but someone needs to say it. That user is claiming no sources oppose him, which is false. There is a source that opposes and it gives a more elaborate explanation than any of his sources.

To sum it up: There's 2 meanings to the term "constitutive nation." here. One is a constitutive nation of a republic specifically, and the other meaning is a constitutive nation of Yugoslavia and as such constitutive in every republic. That is what the source says and we can't neglect it. On the other hand FkP's sources say just "they lost their constitutive status". Serbs were not a constitutive nation of SRC but they were a constitutive nation of Yugoslavia and as such a constitutive nation of each republic. Yes they had lost their constitutive status as a Yugoslav nation because of the succession process. Croatia also lost their status of a constitutive nation on Serbia, as a Yugoslav nation.

I find it's extremely misleading to say that only Serbs lost their constitutive status. All other Yugoslav nations lost it as well, because of the dissolution process. However the constitutive nation of SRC specifically are only the Croats.

So how to interpret Fkp's sources in the light of this findings? We can't guess what each of the sources is speaking of, of the constitutive status specifically for the republic or a general Yugoslav constitutive status, and none of them defines the term nor references the primary source.

Here's something from the reliable sources: "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim.". I think 3 months of discussing makes this issue extraordinary. How are we going to deal with it with lightweight sources that do not even define the term they are speaking of, let alone reference the primary source. They just make a statement. Yes, there's a bunch of it, but a bunch of lightweight sources don't really sum up to be a reliable source on an extraordinary matter. FkP is constantly neglecting the source which goes against him and which gives an elaborate explanation of this whole deal. It both defines the term and references the constitution.

I also already spoke of the Badinter's commission. Serb loosing their "constitutive status" was never a legal question. It was never brought before the Badinter's commission. It only appeared in propaganda. I would like to state in the article this. Here's the suggestion. "Although Serbs strongly emphasized the lost of constitutional status, this question was never put before the Badinter's commission". I think that's a pretty big info, since it shows it was never a real question or a legal problem. And as the source explains, this claim was used only to further ignite the war in Croatia.

I also don't know what kind of consensus can be established. The user who started the discussion left because of the disruptive behavior of Fkp. I was banned on his request and others had also left...

I don't think FkP will agree to say that no change in rights had occurred. The whole deal with this "constitutive nation" issue was exactly to point to the loss of rights.

141.136.202.144 (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I normally dont reply to known socks when it has been pointed out that they are in fact socks. But Mr puppet, dont you realise that at this point the only thing you can possibly do is hurt accomplishing what you profess to want? Because thats the reality of it. You need to go away, show you are sorry for your actions by staying away, then after an acceptable time appeal the block and swear your never going to do it again. This is the blunt reality of the situation you find yourself in. More posting by you anyplace, even if it has the best evidence and the key to the problem just submerines exactly what you say you want, and lessens the chance that you will ever be able to be an editor ever again. AlbinoFerret 17:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Appeal the block, don't try to edit "through me". LjL (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have "appealed". I reported an admin for telling everyone I'm a sock, and it didn't really help. They just asked "who's sock", not even dealing with my report. I'm sorry I had posted here but I just want it's seen that someone put those arguments to the table. I'm interested on editing Wikipedia, and not on dealing with this things you suggest. Maybe it's my fault for not making a report the first time they said I'm a sock, but I don't think that would have helped. My position is that I've done nothing wrong and I why would I need to prove I'm not a sock, it should be the other way around. I simply won't be pushed into dealing with this than editing Wikipedia. There are plenty more articles where this admin is not present, and I really have no problems there, as no one is accusing me of anything. I'm sorry I posted here, but If I wasn't concentrated on the discussion but on battling with empty accusations there would never be a RfC, and this editor would once again have his way, since the editor who started this had left because of the disruptive behavior by fkp. I will continue to "participate" in good faith, since I really don't deal in personal attack and someone saying "you are a sock" is nothing more than a personal attack. The fact that an admin is doing that, makes no difference. He is free to make a report. The fact that he is an admin gives him the power to ban me without any report and since he is abusing his privilegies as an admin and making a personal attack into bans I feel that gives me the right to use proxies. I simply don't accept personal attacks and I don't answer them. I haven't answered them in the discussion and I won't bother on accepting them as something more than personal attacks by appealing as a sock. 212.15.176.13 (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the last source about the Badinter's commission. I was pointing to that a long time ago. This wasn't really a legal question. It wasn't in the dispute by the parties. Badinter's commission was established to deal with exactly this kind of questions and this question was not put before it. Have you read the source from the top of the RfC? It explains all how this "constitutive nation" question was used only as a part of propaganda. I would like to include that last source in the article because that's a pretty important info. It clearly makes a differance to know that this wasn't a legal question nor any kind of dispute between the parties. 212.15.178.142 (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have changed the support comment on the review. I am staying away from that section right now. But I will point out something you may have missed by not reading the RFC. The wording that was part of the consensus, which I probably should have copied into this close is this. "On 22 December 1990, the Parliament of Croatia ratified the new constitution, which was seen by Serbs as taking away rights that had been granted by the Socialist constitution.[1]" So there was a statement that contained the things you are saying were left out. Live and learn is one thing I try to do, and in the future if wording is part of the consensus, I will be adding it to the close. AlbinoFerret 02:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason why I changed the comment is that, while looking for more sources on Google Books, I've realized that the wording involving a "change in (constitutional) status" is virtually unescapable. It's mentioned everywhere. So I think the article really should state that there was a change in status - whether it's significant or not, whether it had any impact on rights, whether other ex-Yugoslavian countries also implemented similar changes, and whether or not the old and/or new statuses ("constituent nation" vs "national minority") had been rigorously defined.

We can't ignore what every source on earth affirms and none deny. "Rights", on the other hand, is different. LjL (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which constitutive status defined by the only source that defines and explains the term in the context of Yugoslav constitution? Can I ask you, have you read the relevant quotes from the primary source? At the time of constitutionsl changes, Croatia was still a part of Yugoslavia, so a special care was taken not to call anyone a minority. Some sources say Serbs were called a minority, but read the primary source for yourself. It's quoted in the RfC. 212.15.177.134 (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslavia was a federal republic. This means its constituents, had each its own Constitution, including SR Croatia. So, the Constitution of Croatia changed, it didn't just replace the Constitution of Yugoslavia. That's my understanding, at least. LjL (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The new constitution was brought while Croatia was still a part of yugoslavia and as such couldn't and didn't call any Yugoslav nation a national minority. Read the quote provided in the RfC212.15.177.134 (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the new Constitution of SR Croatia could do, but I know what it did do: "the Republic of Croatia is hereby established as the nation state of the Croatian nation and the state of the members of its national minorities: Serbs [...]". Which quote exactly are you referring to? LjL (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't know what it did do ;) because you are looking at the wrong constitution. ;) If you have read the discussion this kind of mistakes wouldn't happen, so please read it when you have time before you make your stand. Luckily I'm here to help. At least read that only secondary source which defines the term and references the primary source. It's on the beggining of the RfC. I pointed several times to it, but I can see you still haven't read it since it contains this quote from the right constitution and not the later versions.

Here is the same sentence from the 1990's constitution:

"The Republic of Croatia is hereby established as the national state of the Croatian nation and the state of the members of other nations and minorities which are its citizens: Serbs [...]"

To repeat my earlier statement, Croatia was still a part of Yugoslavia and as such it couldn't and didn't call any Yugoslav nation to be a minority. That simply could not have been done according to the Yugoslav constitution. Again, read that secondary source which gives a much wider explanation. 141.136.234.160 (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That wording is only found on that very Wikipedia page and one book I can see on Google Books and which I cannot ascertain whether it's talking about the actual 1990 Constitution, or a draft (there were more than one drafts with changes in that wording), or an older Constitution. Same with your source, which I cannot verify anyway. LjL (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm again repeating. That's because none of those sources reference the primary source. That the problem I was pointing the whole time. Again the secondary source presented by another user contains that quote. I also can find the constitution if you don't believe that secondary source. I already had found it and I already have confirmed that is the sentence from 1990' constitution few month ago. Here is the constitution: [4]. It's unfortunately on Croatian, but you look for the sentence "Republika Hrvatska ustanovljuje se kao nacionalna država hrvatskoga naroda i država pripadnika inih naroda i manjina, koji su njezini državljani: Srba, Muslimana, Slovenaca, Čeha, Slovaka, Talijana, Madžara, Židova i drugih, kojima se jamči ravnopravnost s građanima hrvatske narodnosti i ostvarivanje nacionalnih prava u skladu s demokratskim normama OUN i zemalja slobodnoga svijeta.". Maybe you can ask FkP to assist you translate it. 141.136.234.160 (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is more convincing. Do we have definite evidence that was the final constitution from 1990 and it wasn't revised in 1990 into a different text? LjL (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not more convincing. This is a primary source and we already have the secondary source in the RfC which directly uses this quote during it's elaboration of the whole deal. I don't know what do we need more than a secondary source which references this sentence and says that is from the 1990'c constitution, but if you are doubtful, that link if from the official Croatian newspaper. I went to the archive to the date the constitution was brought: 22.12.1990. and clicked on "Croatian constitution", so no this is not a draft. 141.136.234.160 (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I strongly insisted that a source reference the primary source. I still stand by my stand that no quantity of lightweight sources can't have more value than a source that does reference the primary source and the source that explains the term "consitutive nation" in the context of the Yugoslav constitution which itself does not contain that term. Your claim that we can state something sources say, but do not define is wrong. We could do that if there were no sources that define the term and that oppose the first group of sources that do not define it. Furthermore the source explains that there are 2 possible meanings to "constitutive nation" and other sources which do not define the term are speaking of it as it has one meaning. That is a second big problem. If a term has 2 possible meanings sources that do not define it are even more useless. 141.136.234.160 (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am very convinced that we can state "something sources say, but do not define". Wikipedia is full of that, and properly so. LjL (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against that, since we can see for ourselves what the primary source says, and none of those sources reference the primary source. In the situation when the source that does reference the primary source says otherwise we can't use the sources that do not reference the primary source as equal. Especially not when we can read for ourselves that Serbs are not called a national minority in the primary source. I already said. Those sources have 0 scientific value. It is obvious they are claiming incorrect things and it is very convenient that they do not reference the primary source, isn't it? Of course they can't reference a sentence from the constitution which would deny their whole claim. You are free to compare this sentece with the earlier sentence from the SRC'c constitution, or just read what the secondary source from the RfC says by comparing these sentences, if you would not like to do original research.141.136.234.160 (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is unrelated to stating something sources say but do not define. "Defining" is about describing the meaning of "constituent nation" and/or "national minorities". This is different from referencing sources. Anyway, how come even European sources that claim the Serbs' right did not change acknowledge that there was a change in "status"? LjL (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's one problem that something isn't defined, but when the other source says that there are 2 forms of that something than we have a much bigger problem because it is not specified nor defined. We can't know of which of those 2 forms the source is speaking, not only that we can't say about what it is speaking. I really wouldn't go into why some sources say incorrect things. I can just speculate. One reason would probably be that they haven't actually studied the constitution. Some may have, like you, looked at the wrong constitution, and so on. We can't say why they claim something that seems to be incorrect when we do not know what that they are speaking of actually is nor we have a single reference to the primary source. 141.136.234.160 (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "it was brought to your attention". Look, it was said a long time ago, and this discussion you had with that user is pretty much one way street. He is perfectly aware of that info. User who started this had left because, as he said, of the disruptive behavior by Fkp. Others also left, I can only speculate to why....I would be surprised if he would actually go into that discussion since he refused to do it earlier, but let's see. This isn't a new thing, but one of the things taken into consideration when the discussion was closed by AlbinoFerret. Please read the discussion yourself because this is going nowhere when that kind of things were just "brought to you attention". I know it's hard, but we all have lost a considerable amount of time with this user who won't back down. 141.136.234.160 (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of sources I have seen on Google Books (not just Fkp's ones) that claim a change in status, so it's not so easy to brush it all of as it all being just Fkp's whims. LjL (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But he didn't want to discuss in good faith at all, and he completely neglects that source that opposes him. He's still repeating that no sources oppose him while the most valuable source opposes him. Not only the most valuable but the only one which defines the term and which references the constitution. 141.136.234.160 (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just another note you may not be aware of. I saw some sources stating an incorrect sentence from SRC's constitution. It says that: "Socialist Republic of Croatia is a national state of Croatian people, state of Serbian people in Croatia and state of all other nationalities who live within it". Some sources leave out all other and that is kinda important because all subjects are in equal position in this sentence. No one is having any more special status if it is mentioned explicitly or grouped with "all others". That is never done in the constitutions. I hope you realize that this sentence is not speaking of any constitutive status it simply states who's state it is. However even in this sentence SRC is stated to be a "national state" of Croats. You are free to compare it to that other sentence from 1990 constitution. The first part of the sentence is the same it states that Croatia is a "national state of the Croatian nation". The second part then expands all others and mentions Serbs with others. That in no was is any degrading of status as all subjects in that sentence have the same status. Croatia is still a national state of Croatian nation and it is still a state of Serbian nation, and Slovene nation, and Macedonian nation and Hungarian national minority and...By expanding all others Serbs were not the only nation that was specially mentioned, yes, but that is not changing their status. Croatia is still a state of Serbian nation as it was before. If anyone's position was changed that would be all others that now got explicitly mentioned, but as I said just from the linguistic point of view, all subjects are equal in that sentence. The definition "national state" defines the special status, but not constitutive status as such. If we are going to talk about a sentence that defines someone as a constitutive nation, that would be the first sentence in the constitution which defines solely Croats as the ones who established SRC. So there are more incorrect claims in that sentence: 1. Serbs were not called a national minority. 2. Serbs had no constitutive status in SRC specifically but they had as one of Yugoslav nations. I'm not making this up, but I'm telling you what the secondary source from the RfC says. I want to thank you again for listening to valid arguments. FkP could have told you that info since he was aware of it, but he is concentrated onto presenting his point of view, while no editors who previously discussed are there and I can't be because of the known reasons. 89.164.161.235 (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I reviewed that last source in the post at 14:33, 23 October 2015. Let me quote the source:"Serbs living in Croatia had been members of constituent nation while Croatia was a part of Yugoslavia". This source actually goes against Fkp. It very well says that 1990' constitution did not change the status of the Serbs. In 1990 Croatia was still a part of Yugoslavia, and this source perfectly clearly says that Serbs were a constitutive nation of Croatia while Croatia was a part of Yugoslavia. The constitution of 1990 had not changed anyone's status. As I explained earlier (repeated what the secondary source from the RfC says) Serbs were a constituent nation of SRC as a constitutive Yugoslav nation, much like Croats were a constitutive nation of Serbia as a constitutive nation of Yugoslavia. But Serbs were not a constitutive nation of Croatia specifically. I posted the first sentence from the constitution which clearly names who constituted SRC. 141.136.246.240 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting tired of all this. Yes, we all know that Croatia was part of Yugoslavia before Yugoslavia dissolved (duh). It still was its own entity with its own Constitution; that it, in turn, was part of Yugolavia is inconsequential. It was also a part of Yugoslavia in 1990, so no difference there either. --LjL (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got tired a long time ago, but what can I do, quit? Do you see what kind of ways I have to find so Wikipedia is edited in the proper and objective way? You know, I edit other articles as well, an no one is accusing me of anything, only when I come to deal with this Croatia-Serbian high tension articles I get accused by Serbian editors of various things. But what can I do. I'm interested in former Yugoslavia and I can't run away from my interests. To answer this. There are 2 constitutions that affect SRC. It's own and Yugoslavia's and that is why we have a constitutive nation of Yugoslav lever and a constitutive nation of each republic's level. Serbs were a constitutional nation of Yugoslav level, however none of the sources define what they mean by saying "constitutional nation" republic's or Yugoslav's level, and they do not reference the constitution so we really don't know from which one the source draws its term "constitutional". We can use other sources to interpret this one correctly and the other sources say Serbs were constitutional on Yugoslav level but not on SRC's level. I'm really just repeating myself for months because that other editor is not willing to discuss in good faith. He dodges questions and valid points and he is just concentrated in pushing his own view. I told you he won't participate in the last section you started. I don't blame you are getting tired, we all are. The editor who started this left a long time ago, because, as he said, of disruptive behavior of FkP. Other editors also left and I'm the only one who is trying to bring some objectivity to the discussion. It's not surprising POV pushers get their way since no one wants to get involved in several months of discussing. You are lucky, you can leave now and you haven't wasted much time. I wouldn't blame you if you did. Especially if it's not a topic that interests you. I'm very interested in it, but unfortunately I don't have anyone to discuss it with, since that other editor is not willing to discuss. If you leave I might as well since I'm prevented from everything. I really wouldn't want to mess up your talk board when you leave this discussion, so I really won't have anywhere else to post. Luckily they don't seem to protect other people's talk boards so I'm happy I can leave a trace of arguments. That's all I'm interested in really. The article can state various things but if someone is interested in this topic and want to know something about it, he is really interested in arguments and not statements. That's why I find those sources that just make a statement to be of no value.141.136.246.240 (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to correct yet another incorrect claim. One of the sources says "More to the point, constituent peoples enjoyed the right of secession", which is totally incorrect, because Badinter's commission was asked this question and it was determined that only republics have the right of the succession. [5]. Note also one more important thing. It was asked: "Does the Serbian population in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, as one of the constituent peoples of Yugoslavia, have the right to self-determination?". It was not asked if they as a constituent people of Croatia/Bosnia have that right. This is very significant, because the question was asked by the Serb side and even they had said "constituent peoples of Yugoslavia". If Serbs were constituent people of Croatia that would be even more favorable to ask for the right of succession, but even the Serb side knew that is not true. I again repeat that this was never a legal question. As the source says, it was used only in propaganda. Fkp is making a claim with some source and Director had explained it is wrong but I feel Badinter's commission is a better argument that his source is simply wrong. I also want to note that we also went trough this in the RfC, so FkP is aware of the Badinter commissions's conclusion on this matter. He neglects everything he doesn't agree with and just continues to push his point of view.141.136.216.242 (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you've been fair so I won't go to edit warring with you. However, that is still the established consensus. It's not "my" consensus. I don't understand, what will become of it. It would really be a rare case that a consensus is prevented from entering the article. 141.136.216.242 (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is ongoing, even though I've relented from it a bit, between Fkp and User:Director. You can see also that I tagged (and re-tagged after a gratuitous revert) the "status" part as disputed. But at the same time, there is no need to pour further fuel on the fire by means of having a blocked editor unilaterally rewrite the whole section. LjL (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but the part I entered I did not unilaterally write. It's written in the RfC's closure as the established consensus [6]. Ok, would you enter it to the article if the review of the formal closure confirms the consensus? 141.136.216.242 (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you wrote it now makes it much more problematic for me to enter it, because by policy, I cannot make edits at the direction of a blocked editor. I think it's an interesting case of WP:BOOMERANG... LjL (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll still support that the consensus enters the article. I will probably go to ANI. It's not "my" consensus and it's not invalid if I point to it. I'm not really interested in this accusations that I'm a sock. I'm interested in editing Wikipedia and that's what I have been doing, without any complaints against my behavior. At least you didn't have to revert me. I'm afraid that you going by the rules will leave other's who are trying to prevent the consensus have their way. 141.136.216.242 (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Puppet, it has been pointed out to you that you can only hinder anything you want to accomplish. LjL has just told you exactly that. Even if you bring forth the right thing to do, by presenting it, you make it impossible to recommend. Please stop involving yourself in the topic. AlbinoFerret 18:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again POV pushing. The claim "that means Croatia was no longer a land of Croats and Serbs, but just Croats" is incorrect. The constitution says "the Republic of Croatia is hereby established as the nation state of the Croatian nation and the state of the members of other nations and minorities: Serbs [...]". Also, he's constantly repeating fallacies. He's constantly drawing attention that this sentence in the constitution is the one speaking of "constitutive status" while none of his sources have a single reference to the constitution nor any definition of the "constitutive nation" he is speaking of. 141.136.216.242 (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said :"The only difference is that, for Croats, it is the "national" state", which is not exactly correct. It's not the difference since the SRC's constitution says: "Socialist Republic of Croatia is a national state of Croatian people, state of Serbian people in Croatia and state of all other nationalities". However I repeat again, this is not speaking of constitutive statuses. The first sentence of the constitution which speaks of who constituted SRC's does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.136.216.242 (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sincerely sorry I'm to blame for the personal attacks you are getting. [7]. I could only imagine what would happen if you entered that consensus which I have pointing to. Nice move for not doing that. 91.236.250.250 (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[8], Director is right. I was putting it in more nicely when I was speaking of this issue not being a real legal issue in the 90'. I would only like to add that the Badinter's commission had reviewed the question and established that only republics have the right of succession.91.236.250.250 (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's this problem with finding the 1990 constitution you are having. Maybe I could help. I posted a link to the final version of the constitution. I searched the archive for the date it was brought so there's no doubt I posted a link to the final version. I'm not aware of any reference to the drafts, no I have seen them in the discussions. SRC's constitution is also pretty much well referenced. 159.224.0.18 (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[9], it's amazing how he is still repeating that no sources oppose him when I listed all sources on the top of the RfC and the source that opposes him had so extensive elaboration that other editors had put it in that collapse tag. Even his own sources oppose him and he is still pushing a claim that no source oppose him. 89.164.236.170 (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this [10]. Serbs were explicitly mentioned before and so are in the new constitution. The fact that "others" got explicitly mentioned does not impact Serbs in any way. Both Serbs and others were mentioned in equal position in SRC's constitution. That other user asked why the change. If we would to speculate, maybe it was decided that others deserve to be mentioned as well so they don't feel left out;). I'm also repeating this is not the sentence that speaks of constitutive statuses. However in this sentence and in the sentence which is speaking of constitutive status, Croats are separated from the others by additional terms like "national state" and "along with". This user is separating them and the Serbs on the explicit mentioning and that is really wrong. No rights are ever derived from explicit mentioning. Serbs and the others are in equal position in both constitutions, the change is that the others now got explicitly mentioned. It's all in that source from the first post in the RfC, to quote: "and the only difference is that other nations and minorities were mentioned as well. 'Mean' interpretations of their dissatisfaction could lead us to the conclusion that the leaders of Serbs in Croatia and their numerous followers were bothered that besides them other nations and nationalities were mentioned.". 89.164.236.170 (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might be starting to understand why you're all always at war in the Balkans. LjL (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who? 89.164.236.170 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not always warring. Several wars had happened, Slovenia-Serbia, Croatia-Serbia, Bosnia-Serbia, Kosovo-Serbia, NATO-Serbia, but that's hardly warring ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.236.170 (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The review of the first RFC on AN has been closed. It wasnt endorsed or overturned but left as is. I am really done with this article after the AN/I section closes. But it may be time for someone to start a well laid out reasoned RFC, I think you may be a good candidate if you wish to do so. AlbinoFerret 19:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think that is a good idea. You Albino failed to clarfy the questions when I made them to you, and LjL had it "reviewing" for long, and closing it now that another editor arrived questoning the decitions it will really not look good for your side. At least you should wait and clarify the questions that editor has made. FkpCascais (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FkpCascais: What isn't a good idea, closing it? It has already been closed. Not by us two, by someone else. And I'm not going to entertain your forum shopping anymore. LjL (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: I've already asked two very precise questions in a way that could almost directly be translated into an RfC. If I start the RfC, though, FkpCascais will automatically object (see above, he doesn't even understand that who asks questions doesn't change what the questions are). At this point, I honestly only wish that he be left out of the equation and other people can resume debating in a sane manner, if there is a need. LjL (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LjL I very much agree to stay out if you adress the concerns the other editor has expressed. I said it all, provided sources, my part is done. I will not interfere. FkpCascais (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I don't believe you. Anyway, as can be seen, I have been communicating with this Other Editor, and I'm not exactly sure what other concerns I should address. LjL (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. He pretty much has an upcoming topic ban, and that should solve that. Even if it's not indef, I don't think he will be able to something similar like this. 141.138.44.84 (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be so sure about the topic ban if I were you... LjL (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, what to do...until the next one. I already have another one started where he actually entered the source to the article and then back down when another editor accused him of introducing "Croatian propaganda". He answered: "Why did you come to fuck me around, go there and move your ass. I shouldn't do it all on all sides. They have a source...". The bold they is especially troubling. It seems he will win that one since he backed down from his edit and I'm in minority to others who claim "croatian propaganda". At least I made the RS source be stated in the talk page. I'm happy with that. However, a funny thing had happened. I made a formal closure request and another editor who strongly disagrees with the request and who had not closed a single formal request had closed it in his favor and that stayed. Funny things you can encounter on Wikipedia. A nice trick to win every discussion. If you don't want to discuss, just close it. ;) Well until the next time, bye and thanks for your objectivity. It's obvious I as an IP couldn't to that alone without bringing it to the eyes of the honest and objective editors. 141.138.44.84 (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I'm also gone when the ANI is over and the consensus implemented. There are plenty of more articles to edit, instead to waste 3 months like this.141.138.44.84 (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that he's been made aware that the review has been closed, he writes on ANI pretending not to realize that, and offering to "stay out" as long as, well, the matter stays in practice not closed. I find that convenient. LjL (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Director made a very on point comment on the AN/I section, my reply to it may help a little. The point is, someone should start a RFC soon and the sock should stay out of it. If the sock cant, I recommend contacting an admin like HiInBC to close the talk page to IP's for the remainder of the new RFC. This will give one less complaint for anyone wanting to question the closing of the new RFC. AlbinoFerret 18:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: I don't even look forward to seeing another RfC where FkpCascais will participate with endless walls of text and answers to the wrong question. They should both stay out. LjL (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree there is a possibility that the RFC can become a repeat. I think how it is laid out can help minimise that, and a lot of the walls of text were in response to the sock who helped build them. I dont know how much experience you have had with designing RFC's, but if you would like to look I have had a recent discussion on that here [11] it may be of help. AlbinoFerret 18:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: I think the [Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia#Two_points_about_the_RfC|"Two issues"]] section I created was pretty much a "non-RfC", as in, it could in other circumstances very well have been an RfC. It's how I would have laid it out anyway: two simple questions. LjL (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a thats very good idea. Simpler gets more responses and outside involvement, and having a response suggested like support/oppose yes/no with comment. I'm sure you will have a separate discussion area where those who like to add verbiage can, try and make the question area more for responses. AlbinoFerret 21:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is established and without new sources or new findings there is no point to have another RfC. All the source and all the arguments were presented in this RfC so no need to repeat all that once again. The result will be the same. If, however someone finds a new source or something we missed, then he can present that. I always thought this is how it works. We can't revise something without new findings. 141.136.225.143 (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[12] Well that admin was really supporting his behavior from the beggining. Now he has removed diffs where FkP was swearing. First he prevented consensus to be implemented and now he actually erases inappropriate behavior of FkP just because I posted it. I can't fight an admin, but at least I managed to get consensus implemented. It's only sad to all the trouble to do the most legit thing on Wikipedia because this admin was supporting the disruptive behavior of Fkp. 212.15.178.221 (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you implemented the consensus. I would just want to say that you removed the things Fkp was adding to the article in later phases. The original sentence from the RfC "the 1990 general election, the Croatian Parliament ratified a new constitution in December 1990 which changed the status of Serbs from a constitutional nation to a national minority, listed with other minorities", is still in the article. I don't know if he did any more of that since I wasn't paying attention. He also did it on Croatian war of Independence article [13], which is just plain disruptive since he posted the link to the discussion dealing with that himself, then went to unilaterally edit the article while the RfC was ongoing. I don't know if he did it anywhere else, but I know one thing. If he had sincerely dropped the stick he would revert himself across every article he had edited so we don't have to look around. I'll give him some more time before I notify others that he has been holding back that he edited other articles against the consensus as well.141.136.225.143 (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Puppet, You dont really see or care about the damage you have done this whole time. While you may make points that make sense you make it impossible to use them. Stay away from the new RFC. Others will come to the same points and they will be usable. Your continued involvement only makes a mess of this whole situation. You are as much a problem as anyone in this whole situation. Clear up the problems with being a sock, until then you are more of a liability than a help. AlbinoFerret 18:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a sock, and soon this will be over and I'll go somewhere else where I'm not being accused to be a sock. If I had accepted that accusations we wouldn't have a RfC and the article would be full of POV, so I disagree I caused damage. I caused other editors notice this whole thing. I tried to stay away from the report so I don't appear to be too pushy, but then I saw you hatted other editors opinion and I wanted to correct that. After that I notices you said that it is resolved without a ban, so I thought that I should mention that there are 5 other opinions in the article. Then I notices that others had said this is second of third time this is happening with Fkp so I wanted to mention that we can't always take his word that he won't do it again. Then I wanted to mention that swears and personal accusations are still a standing violation even if we take his "dropping the stick" to be sincere. Then I went to the article and saw that mistake I noted above. Then I remembered that Croatian war of independence article is still standing with his edit, although he had accepted the consensus. That is just a pointer that he is not sincere. Then all of the sudden I noticed I'm fully engaged. I'm not sorry, things had to be said and I don't have much of a reputation to hold on. I'm subjective, I admit that but I'm the one who had to spend 3 months to make Wikipedia a better place. If I wasn't "pushy" all other editors wouldn't bother with him. They all left because of his behavior. I'll be here for this little time that had remained and then I'm gone to other articles where I'm not being accused of anything. 141.136.225.143 (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not a sock, then clearing it up shouldnt be a problem. The thing is, do it before going any further. AlbinoFerret 18:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. First of all, I'm sure you know that the burden of proof is not on me to prove that I'm "innocent". I really didn't want to go into explaining it, since I'm very interested in this way Wikipedia works. It seems that "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't work on Wikipedia, and I really had proven it trough this whole example. Not only that it doesn't work, but even you, who I regard to be rather objective, are now suggesting that I should behave according to "guilty until proven innocent".If I'm a sock, then they who think that way should make a report. I'm glad they didn't and I hope they don't do it, because it would finish like the last one (where I reported the admin), and then they would actually have a report to show around. If you aren't aware I already tried to "fight" that admin and it wasn't really a "battle". I thought I could have at least some chance into reporting him for preventing consensus established in the formally closed RfC to enter the article, since that is the most legit thing on Wikipedia. I didn't even mention his accusations that I'm a sock so I don't cloud the main point of the report. He just came and said that I'm a sock and that somehow made it all right for him to prevent a consensus enters the article. He didn't even provide a single diff, nor a report(which of course doesn't exist) or anything. He just said "he's a sock" and the others hastily accepted it. Imagine that someone who's not a sock (and how could the others in that report know I am) reports an admin as an IP. I perfectly showed that that person doesn't have a chance even if he is trying to to the most legit thing on Wikipedia. You have to take into view the things other editors in that report had to work with. They had my whole report with diffs and links to the consensus, and on the other hand they had only a statement "he's a sock". I'm glad I exposed that but it seems that others are bling to what I'm showing by example. Here's another example. I know that that admin has been following me around trough my contributions. That's why I was doing perfectly normal edits that he has been reverting for no reason. While I was involved in the ANI I saw a perfect opportunity. Some dispute on Franjo Tudman's page. I posted a perfectly normal post [14]. That admin of course reverted me [15]. He made a mistake, he didn't explain that I'm a "sock" which exposed the following thing. The other editor there had reverted him because he didn't saw anything wrong with my post [16]. The admin then reverted and explained I'm a sock [17], and it remains to be seen if that will be accepted. I'm really interested in that case since the initial mistake when he forgot to say I'm a sock had exposed this interesting case. The editors there are not familiar with any of this you are familiar with. If they now accept the simple accusation to what it really is to them it would prove that any IP can be accused of being a sock. Go and look, he just said I'm a sock no link to the report no mentioning of who's sock I am. I'm maybe naive to think other's notice this examples, but look what a wall of text it took to write it down. The other interesting thing is that other other admins appear calling me a sock, which is interesting. Did you wonder how they all know that? Here: this, an answer. To repeat the other admins comment :"Per your request..." 141.136.225.143 (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You entered this edit. I wanted to change just one technicality but that disruptive user is again going to edit warring and asking for page protection. The technicality that I wanted to correct is described in the secondary source from the RfC: "They [Serbs] were treated in the same way as in the constitution from 1974, and the only difference that besides them other nations and minorities were mentioned as well.". I really don't have any more willpower to battle with that editor. He was reported and he claimed he had accepted the consensus but he is still edit warring against the consensus over such minor edits. Did we establish that Serbs were explicitly mentioned in old and new constitution and that the only change is that some of the others got explicitly mentioned in the new constitution. That's a slight different than your edit that "Serbs were listed with other nations and minorities", since other nations and minorities were not listed in the old constitution. They got explicitly mentioned in the new constitution, as the above quote says. As I said, it's a technicality and I won't really waste my time as I had to do it with that RfC, but since FkP is still not accepting the consensus I wanted to make you aware of that. 89.164.171.62 (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have the page on watch, I saw it. But I think it's too minor to make a ruckus about it, especially given that if I reinstate it, I'm reinstating a supposed sock's edit against page protection. LjL (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it really is a minor correction and it's incredible that that editor is willing to go into edit warring over it. I think he's point of view (POV) is that this version the the very same sentence has a bit closer interpretation to his stand that Serbs had their status changed, since the sentence says that Serbs were now listed with others (but weren't before) which would reflect a change. Don't worry about me, since I was the one who opened the RfC and I was supported by virtually all in the RfC. It really isn't about me but about that quote I posted in the previous comment. And it really wasn't about me when I posted the correct quote from the constitution here on your talk page. Let's not neglect the sources because some disruptive editor says I'm a sock. 89.164.171.62 (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your contributions to some Hong Kong-related articles. You might be interested to take a look at HK wikipedians' notice board, HK Collaboration of the Week and Current events in Hong Kong and Macao. Happy editing! — Instantnood 09:11, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

No, not by any definition of regularity.

"Regular" when applied to verb forms doesn't mean what you think, apparently.

A "regular" verb is one that follows a fixed inflection pattern, that can be learned once and then applied to all other verbs in its group. An irregular verb's inflection pattern can't be applied to other verbs, or only to a handful of other verbs.

When the article says "most Italian verbs are regular", it's actually saying something. Most German verbs are NOT regular. It's not a given. I'm putting back that phrase in a day if you don't, because it's important for the record, ok?

There's a really interesting science of the mind that's growing up around irregular words (in one's first language) lately -- read "How The Mind Works" by Steven Pinker.

http://www.google.com/search?q=how+the+mind+works&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

According to Pinker and other research he cites, irregular nouns and verbs are dealt with by a different part of the brain than regular ones.

Please note, however, that the Irregular verb article, which I have now linked into Italian grammar, apparently disagrees with you, basically saying, AFAICS, that classes of similar verbs are irregular when there are few enough of them. It looks a bit like the discussion about Italian neuter that I've had on the Romance languages talk page.

Now, I'm not qualified to decide whether yours is the correct definition, or Irregular verb's one is, or both are alternative, current definitions. Please have a look at the article.

LjL 12:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the conflict -- as far as I can tell the three definitions are identical. Look again at mine, yours, and the "irregular verb" definition:

An irregular verb's inflection pattern can't be applied to other verbs, or only to a handful of other verbs.

VS

classes of similar verbs are irregular when there are few enough of them.

VS

In contrast to regular verbs, irregular verbs are those verbs that fall outside the standard patterns of conjugation in the languages in which they occur.

	Air Freshener
	Perhaps this will help remove the smell of Socks. :) AlbinoFerret 19:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Good job catching those barnstars. NeilN talk to me 20:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Are you on? Allygggggg (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, such as November 2015 Paris attacks, which you have recently edited. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. RGloucester — ☎ 01:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your tireless work on updating and maintaining the November 2015 Paris attacks page. Keep up the good work! -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]