There are several problems with what you just did. All the sources given show his name spelt as "Julije" and he was from Croatia and not Italy. However, the main problem is that you can't move a page by copying it across like that as it loses the page history which must be kept together. If you think that the page needs moving then start a discussion at Talk:Julije Bajamonti. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 03:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ho preferito risponderti su it.wiki: it:Discussioni_utente:Theirrulez#Blocco_2. Saluti. --Harlock81 (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mi spiace ma io non ho fatto altro che applicare il blocco minimo secondo consenso. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 11:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ho letto la tua mail, ma come specificato anche nella mia pagina utente su it.wiki, io non rispondo a mail private se non su Wikipedia, trattandosi comunque di mail che riguardano Wikipedia. Ripeto, posso capire la tua amarezza, ma il blocco te lo sei cercato al di là delle altrui "arringhe" cui per altro credo di aver posto fine con il mio commento in fondo alla tua segnalazione. Fatti serenamente il mese di vacanza forzata da Wikipedia, quindi torna ad editare in modo da evitare altri blocchi. Ciao e buon lavoro altrove. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pleasure is bilaterally, but your changes are flippant. Dubrovnik was originally not one place, but two, divided by what's now the main street called Stradun. One on the seaward side was called Ragusa, populated by people of Roman origin. On the landward side it was Dubrovnik, populated by Slavs. So, from the beginig of the city the name of Dubrovnik was used, although officiall name was Ragusa, derived from it's historical Greek name. The treaty with Bosnian Ban Kulin in 12th century is the first official document where the city is referred to as Dubrovnik (on paper).

Here are some references for you to see (note that I didn't put any Croatian sources):

• Francis W. Carter: Dubrovnik (Ragusa): a classic city-state, p.45
• Peter F. Sugar: Southeastern Europe under Ottoman rule: 1354 - 1804, p.171
• Piers Letcher,Robin McKelvie,Jenny McKelvie: Dubrovnik, 2nd: The Bradt City Guide, p.3

But all this is not an isue here. The consensus on wikipedia is that the city itself is called Dubrovnik, and the republic is called Republic of Ragusa. If you don't think this is correct, you can ask on the article talk page for moving the name from Dubrovnik to Ragusa. Until than I must ask you to stick to this consensus, and not to change Dubrovnik to Ragusa.

If this explanation is not sufficient, please chose where you want to continue the discussion. It is silly to write the same message on six different places on wiki. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 09:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: keep on talking

You're welcome! Maritime Republics Template has town in the first place, followed by it's republic on the second place...Amalfi (Republic) • Ancona (Republic) • Dubrovnik (Republic) • Gaeta (Republic)... For example, when you click on Amfali (Republic), you go to Amalfi, and when you click on Amalfi (Republic), you go to Duchy of Amalfi. Same thing goes for Dubrovnik. When you click on Dubrovnik (Republic), you go to Republic of Ragusa. I didn't make this way.

But if you wan't you can make it like...Amalfi (Duchy of Amalfi) • Ancona (Republic of Ancona) • Dubrovnik (Republic of Ragusa)...I don't know for others, but that would be o.k. with me. What do you think? Kebeta (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vedo che hai cercato di contrastare il fanatismo di un gruppo slavo. Stai attento a non fare la fine di una decina di altri italiani bannati ingiustamente da un gruppo di croati che 'controllano' tutte le voci della Dalmazia ed Istria sulla wikipedia inglese. Il peggiore sembra essere un certo user:DIREKTOR, uno studente di medicina di Spalato di nome Ivan Rumora. Se vuoi ulteriori informazioni vai alla wikipedia italiana e nel Portale Venezia Giulia e Dalmazia troverai la pagine discussione piena di commenti su questo gruppo di fanatici slavi.Un esule.

Gtazie ma non mi interessa la lotta politica, mi interessa la VERITA', su tutto: nomi, fonti, origini, lingue... Mi sembra che la verità non sempre sia rivelata. Mi sembra che questa sia la pià grande lacuna di Wikipedia. Non condivido che un solo punto di vista quello del mezzo, della giustezza della serena verità. Effettivamente c'è chi ce la mette tutta per affermare la propria di verità. E questo è un peccato. --Theirrulez (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don´t warry, I allways check the edit history of my talk page... I did this: [1] regarding that problem. I hope it will help. Thanx for all, and regards :) FkpCascais (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non per fare paternali o il rompiscatole, ma il mio consiglio amichevole è di modificare un po' il tuo commento; così com'è adesso, rischia di violare la regola sugli attacchi personali e passare così dalla parte del torto. Capisco bene lo scazzo, ma non vorrei che ti blocchino per qualche ora per disruption o uncivility. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi um... you must really hate me by now :P but could you help me get to the bottom of this mess on User talk:Salvio giuliano. [2] (I hope the poor fellow doesn't mind :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely do not mind. ^____________^

Seriously, feel free to use my talk page, if you wish. I hope an uninvolved user can help you sort this mess out. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*knock, knock* Theirrulez, you there? Can I come in? :) If this is all a mistake you will have my most abject apologies, I assure you. I just want to make sure you understand the amazing (checkuser confirmed) fact that nobody edits those articles and does the edits you dis without being a sock. There are at least two or three new socks per week and reverting them is a standard chore. It seems you were right, I may have committed a big mistake. Either way my actions were in good faith and were at worst an honest mistake. I dare say if that was the case that they may be an understandable error considering the extraordinary circumstances?

P.S. Studio davvero la medicina, come lei ha saputo ciò? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:It Per evitare sceneggiate ed accuse di WP:SOCK e WP:MEAT, per quello che attiene ai vari articoli legati al Progetto: Croazia, ci staresti a provare con un processo di mediazione^{Tieni presente che non è l'arbitrato}? Credo che migliorerebbe sensibilmente l'atmosfera...
Transclusion error: {{En}} is only for use in File namespace. Use {{lang-en}} or {{in lang|en}} instead. To try and avoid much drama and WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT accusations, regarding the various Croatia-related articles, would you be willing to consider WP:MEDCAB? I think that this would go to great lenghts towards improving the atmosphere... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theirrulez, I AM SORRY I reverted your edits out of hand. It was an honest mistake, I thought you were a sock - I was wrong. I hope you will agree that my mistake might be regarded as an understandable one. Why did I think you were a sock?

• You restored sock edits all over the place. Among other situations also in avoidance of a semi-protection placed to keep them out.
• You pushed the exact same edits the banned sockpuppeteers and their socks do.
• For years now, the articles you edited were under the attack of a group of banned sockpuppeteers who have thus far created dozens and dozens of sockpuppets that pushed the edits you added. Every single account that did what you did on those obscure articles turned out to be a sock of banned users. There are so many socks they are continuously banned out of hand per WP:DUCK (User:Butler.banana was blocked just yesterday :). In fact, those articles are so obscure nobody edits them - nearly all edits are sock edits (and their removal).

I'm posting this in the hope that my mistake has not destroyed the possibility of dialogue between us. Again, my sincerest and most abject apologies. :) Regards, --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sockpuppet?
No i'm not
I'm meatpuppet?
No i'm not
I'm POV?
Not I'm not

I'm tired?
A little bit...

--Theirrulez

The proper spelling would be "Who hates me?". My answer? I have no idea... :) Though your edits are most certainly very much POV. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the lessons... Your are neutral, instead sir.. :O

--Theirrulez (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "House of Cerva"
  • Google hits: none
• "House of Crijević"
  • Google hits: 10 ("infinitely" more, as it were, 10/0 :)

Please research the most common name in the English language before naming new articles on enWiki. Per WP:COMMONAME. Regards, --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google it's not enough in this case. Simply --Theirrulez (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it most certainly is, unfortunately. Either way, its not you who decides what is "enough", its policy (WP:N, WP:COMMONNAME & such). The Google test determines notability and English language usage. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to not agree sir, google is strongly influenced by lot of factor, and often it's reasonable to follow more high considerable sources. Anyway Gogle test it's not a global rule, especially in this minor case.

Best regards, sincerely --Theirrulez (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When there is not a single solitary hit on any Google search engine whatsoever, then that fails WP:N requirements completely and indisputably. Why do you think that article wasn't created alongside others similar to it in the first place? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont' know who you are, so it's not polite if you write on another user's talk page without introduce youself.

Anyways, I saw the source you link and I consider it very interesting. I just want to let you know, my dear, that I'm not leading any battle against anything: I just belive that some information are historically important, and I try to offer them to the community. I try to transfer my knowledge (even if modest I suppose), moved only by the love for this Project and for the truth. Then the community will accept my offers or not, or in part I don't know.. but there's no war to fight, my friend.

Best regards, sincerely --Theirrulez (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting sock posts, Theirruluez. Restoring them does not help you and will get you reported. Esp. since they are offensive towards editors. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Direktor, I already thanked you for your support aginst sock post, but since I will not have the evidence that someone is a sock no problem for me: I'm adult and sockpuppet don't scare me! ;)

About you sir I want to let you know that I'm glad to meet you so often because, I'm serious now, if you will put apart your actual approach to me (you revert more than 10 times my talk page in few minutes) I believe a really interesting dialogue coul born between us.

I wish you a good night.

sincerely, --Theirrulez (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theirrulez, let me say here and now (in spite of the hint of irony in your words) that I do respect you as an editor. I've been rash and may have created a confrontation where none is warranted. I am truly sorry, believe me, you won't catch me doing anything like that again. Is there a chance for a truly amiable dialogue? It will help us both in the coming days, of that I am certain.

(As for the sock... well to be frank my reverting him has nothing to do with you. I think I may actually enjoy reverting him, he's made it "personal". Plus its a service to the Wikipedia community to revert a menace such as that guy - a "win-win" as it were. :) I'm sorry if it bothers you but I will not stop reverting him wherever he posts on enWiki. Please stop restoring his posts - it is against policy, WP:SOCK) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to assure I was serious when I wrote to belive in a dialogue with you Direktor. I saw, and you did the same, that our position are not always the same, but this must never be -I believe- a problem. This is the taste to partecipate creating a project. I will trust in your good faith, but you now have to demonstrate me step by step if you are ready to dialogue as a gentlemen.

And remember my friend, please no more puppet claims.. Puppet are for children, and we are too old to have time for them.

Very tired now, have a good night. --Theirrulez (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from what I see the user posting the comments, User:Kancetha, has not been yet confirmed as sock, so it is really User:DIREKTOR who is (again) in fault here by removing another users comments. When the user is proclaimed sock, then it would be adequate to remove the posts, but until then, it is just assumption (a bad faith one), and User:Theirrulez has full right of having the comments on his page, and he can perectly mantain a dialogue with that user. From what I see, direktor has just broke the WP:3-RR again. He should had waited to the sock to be confirmed, even if that is probable... FkpCascais (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Oh, and by the way, you (Theirrulez) had already kindly asked direktor not to interfere with your talk page, and he is not respecting that! FkpCascais (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, dialogue is excellent, I have dialogues with many users constantly, but however, giving up on reporting such behavior is against the good health of WP, you will be "helping" the infractors by not reporting it. You should report it despite all oposition you face, reporting wrongdoing can only help WP turning a better place. But don´t warry, I was just telling you theory, I understand you, giving a second chance to that kind of users is allways a noble gesture. Lets see how long it will last... I could start betting... Buona notte amico! FkpCascais (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theirrulez? Does it mean "the irredenta rules"? I am from Dubrovnik from one of the old families. My surname was also written in Latinized form during the Medieval, but it was normal in Dalmatia and Dubrovnik, all Croats latinized their names because of the church documents. New way of writing our names is result of standardization 150 yrs ago. You Italians don't get it. You don't get that both old Dalmatian and old Croatian names and surnames here never had anything to do with Italy or Italian speaking or Italians. This is why we Dalmatians beat you when you come here on the vacancies. Because you have no shame we have no problem when it comes to throwing you into the sea. Do you know hw we Dalmatians call Italians? We say "Gipsies". You are the Gipsies in our eyes. Drop dead.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.39.166 (talk • contribs)

(conflit.) Hallo Sir, I already asked my guest to introduce themselves when they add a comment on my talk page, just according to basic politeness rules. But anyways I'd like to inform you that my Nickname, TheirruleZ, also spelled Theirrules, and on it.wiki, fr.wiki and es.wiki signed "Theirrules yourrules" means exactly «THEIR RULES» (Italian: Le loro regole, French: Les règles de leur, Spanish: Sus reglas, Croatian: Svoja pravila Serbian: Њихова правила).

I hope to have been useful.

oh..I was forgetting.. I like Gipsies. They are culturally important for the entire Europe you know.

Sorry for your Anti-Italians feelings, sir. Best regards, sincerely --Theirrulez (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So this is the new sock hangout? :) The IP 151.21.249.64 is the IP of banned User:Luigi 28, User:Kancetha is a sock of banned User:Ragusino (note the attempted WP:OUTING in his edit summary [3]. You will be immediately reported should you go forward and restore the edits of banned users. Please consider yourself warned and fully informed with enWiki policy WP:SOCK. I will continue to revert any and all edits of users that are not allowed to edit Wikipedia, regardless of whether its your talkpage or not. Regards, --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had already shown my position about this matter, sir. Every one who want to write on my talk page is welcomed. You first my friend. But your problem with socks it's not intersting for me.

I HAD NEVER LET ANYBODY INFLUENCE ME SINCE I REGISTER ON WIKIPEDIA IN 2006 a.d., so please, do not worry about me, my talk page, my life. I hope to be clear enough, sir. I appreciate, your work on my talk page, but trust me sir: all socks, meats, ghosts and other creatures infesting wikipedia would be less dangerous if people just ignore them.

Thanks for all, and good work.

Sincerely, --Theirrulez (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not care whether you get "influenced" or not. I'll just be reverting socks. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very honorable job, my friend. You have been so well scrupolous in warning me, and I just point out what's local policy here on this page, so that everybody could remember it.--Theirrulez (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Honorable" or not, these people were banned for good reason. Its ok to have your own set of talkpage rules, but that does not mean you are allowed turn your talk into a "pub" for socks. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Theirrulez, this is a note to formally draw to your attention the ARBMAC ruling. It is especially clear that you ought to read points (1) and (4). Painful experience over several years has led enwiki to be particularly severe in its management of those who edit Balkans-related articles with nationalistic POV rather than the neutrality of the encyclopedia in mind. If you have any questions, you may of course ask. Best wishes, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks sir for showing me what happened in the past. I read carefully all the page, how the case was opened and which were the opponent position.

I want to reassure you, sir, regarding my different positon and my different way to act. I'm not interested in silly nationalistic disputes, cause I'm not moved by any kind of nationalistic feeling. I'm just an editor, sir, grow up reading and learning lots of nformation about history and geography of Adriatic Sea and all States, regions or population (since prehistorical periods until modern days) conceirning this wonderful multiethnical corner of Europe: that's why you can meet me often on these articles.

I want also to underline sir, that, due to my neutral education, IMHO my edits shouldn't appear POV to anyone. If they did appear POV to you, please let me know how and why, let's talk about it and let's try to find a point of convergence.. or something like that. You also know better than me, that history of Dallmatia, for example is hardly disputed by slavic point of view and romance one. I saw very few people editing on this matters and I'm sorry about that.

At the end, sir, please note how my edits are almost always supported by reliable sources and accompanied by long and exhaustive edit in talk pages.

Thanks anyways for informations you gave me.

Sincerely --Theirrulez (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Your edits appear to be POV because you are making large numbers of edits based on your personal belief as to the ethnicity or identity of the subject. You are editing that one view is correct, and the other incorrect. This is a good example of what to avoid. In some of your edits you are using sources; in the majority, however, you are not. You are editing articles in the knowledge that your edits are controversial without going to talk first. So, in summary, remember to always use sources, remember to go to talk first if you think there may be other ideas, and above all remember that none of us here are "right" or "wrong"; we are just amateurs who have to reflect what the reliable sources say. Best wishes, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am making large numbers of edits based on tons of reliable sources, and above all on my deep and endless knowledge. I'm not just an amateur. Sorry for your misunderstanding, regards -- Theirrulez (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:It Per piacere, non fare di questi commenti, perché possono essere visti come WP:NPA e non aiutano affatto la causa... ;)
Transclusion error: {{En}} is only for use in File namespace. Use {{lang-en}} or {{in lang|en}} instead. Please refrain from these comments, in that they violate WP:NPA. I understand that you felt mocked, but they do not help; actually, they make things worse... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will not do any more (but I was astonished, really!!)... =) --Theirrulez (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. It's not the astonished part, it's the "of those who don't have arguments" or something to that effect. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, ok, received.. but you know how is important for users to accept to dialogue openly with other users, I only wanted to underline this needing. --Theirrulez (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's perfect!

I graduated at University of Rome Tor Vergata. See you soon! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An IP above has asked you before does your nickname meand 'irredenta rules' and you answered negatively. But what you are doing here in english wikipedia is exactly irredenta. Precisely you are doing nothing else at all. You are probably very sick and frustrated person bearing in mind how systematically you are trying to italianize the names of the non-Italians. Maybe you should go to some kind of sanatorium and find some cure for your flat brain. My advice: ask for a few series of electro-schocks. And don't make children. Our human civilization doesn't need more idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.21.89 (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, thanks for having showed your toughts, everybody is alway welcomed.
Let me underline, sir, the evident differences between Italian language or Italian names, and Venetian or Dalmatian languages or Romance names. It's important too to remind the huge difference between Dalmatian language and Croatian language: Neo-Latin or Neo-Romance the first, clearly Slavic the second.
I saw from your IP you're a Croat sir, but I saw you didn't understand yet how lucky your nation is with a so mixed and multicultural history it can claim. The same luck of many European nations, Italy included.
Sir, just one thing: next time you will like to waste your time writing non-sense comment like the one above, or just next time you want to insult me with racist slurs, please why don't you do that using you User account? Don't be coward.. I don't bite. --Theirrulez (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Theirrulez. You have new messages at Talk:Jakov Mikalja#Cancelling_reliable_sources_without_any_discussion.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Welcome, Theirrulez, to the Former countries WikiProject! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on a former territory, please tag their talk page with our project template {{WPFC}}. A few features that you might find helpful:

• The project's Navigation box points to most of the pages in the project that might be of use to you.
• Most of the important discussions related to the project take place on the project's main talk page; you may find it useful to watchlist it.
• If you wish to use the template {{Infobox Former Country}}, please read the instructions before you get started
• Within the project there are also several subprojects. Here are some that you may be interested in:
  • Holy Roman Empire
  • Austria-Hungary
  • Historical subdivisions

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any of the more experienced members of the project, and we'll be very happy to help you. Again, welcome, and thank you for joining this project! Laurinavicius (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theirrulez. I apologize for any confusion you have about Template:Fishing techniques and Template:Fishing tackle. Originally these were two separate templates. I combined them into one template, the current Template:Fishing tackle. This was because there is a lot of overlap between fishing techniques and fishing tackle. Tackle is the equipment you use, and technique is the way you use the tackle. An article like drift net covers both tackle and technique, because the tackle, in this case the drift net, largely defines the technique, the way it is used. The same applies really to trabucco, since the techniques used in trabucco are largely defined by the way equipment used in trabucco is constructed (the tackle). Having separate templates for tackle and techniques was ambiguous, since many articles covered aspects of both. This is why I combined them.

When I combined them, I used Template:Fishing tackle and deprecated Template:Fishing techniques, that is, blanked it so it would be deleted. Ideally I should have changed the name of "Template:Fishing tackle" to "Template:Fishing techniques and tackle", but I didn't beacause changing the name of a template is such a big deal and rigmarole on Wikipedia.

When I saw you had installed Template:Fishing techniques on your articles, I thought I had failed to blank, or deprecate it. That was why I blanked it again, and installed the currently used template. I did not notice that you had recreated Template:Fishing techniques. I hope this clarifies the confusion. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

center

Hello Theirrulez, and welcome to WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing! Please see the navigation sidebar on our main project page for information about our project guidelines, resources, and pending tasks. You can post any questions at the project talk page. Thank you for joining - we look forward to working with you! – Epipelagic (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have three questions, if I may. On the Kingdom of Dalmatia article, why did you:

• 1. deliberately place Italy as the primary successor to the Kingdom, above the entry for the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (when you are fully aware that 98.9% of the Kingdom was allocated to Yugoslavia)? (I don't want to know why you entered the Littoral Banovina there, which was a subdivision of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia formed in 1929, and is NOT the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs.)
• 2. deliberately place "Italian" ahead of "Croatian or Serbian" in the listing of official languages (when you are fully aware this was not the main official language or the majority spoken language)?

You see, Theirrulez, its these little things which reveal an agenda. I am a busy person. But now that I am very much certain that your goal is not historical accuracy, but rather the Italianization of Croatian history articles, I will make certain that your actions that appear on my watchlist will certainly be checked for POV. Regards. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not bad, but you need to improve your trust of others. I used Governorhip of Dalmatia and Littoral Banovina, in order to guarantee a easy reading of timeline of Dalmatia history using links in the infobox: linking to Kingdom of Italy and to the State of SCS, as you did, would send the reader to two pages not exactly related with Dalmatia history. I used Governorship of Dalmatia because even if the Governorhip became official in 1941, Italian Provinces of Zara, Pola and Fiume were official since respectively since 1919, 1923 and 1924, and were widely described in the Governorship article. State of S,C,S wasn't recognized at all by international comunity and last just few days, so could be appropriate to add a link inside the text or in the see also section and choose to use the link to Kingdom of Yugoslavia in the infobox. I choose to use the link to Littoral Banovina for the same reason I chose Governorship of Dalmatia instead of Kingdom of Italy article: Kingdom of Yugoslavia is too generic and can't help reader's navigation trough Dalmatia history timeline. Littoral Banovina was the subdivision of Kingdom of Yugoslavia for the Dalmatian region and even if was officially created ten years later than the birth of the Kingdom it could fit for a link in the infobox, more than the article about Kingdom of Yugoslavia, too generic for a specific historical timeline of Dalmatia, I'm sorry you are obsessed by my edits, I always try to do my best seeking for historical accuracy. I hope next time you will not accuse me so openly, it's not nice. You are my first interlocutor on Wikipedia you know, but your approach still need to preserve a bit more your consciousness of other's good faith. Please, let me know what you think about the modifications I did, rimembering the only goal was to guarantee a continuous timeline for Dalmatia history trough infobox links. --Theirrulez (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Theirrulez, please check this book about the Dalmatian question La questione dalmatica riguardata ne'suoi nuovi aspetti: osservazioni 1861 Niccolò Tommaseo very interesting. regards.--172.129.224.126 (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Theirrulez. You have new messages at Talk:Gazi Husrevbegova džamija, Sarajevo.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You recently participated in a move request of Mafia. Since the final location of the page was not settled, please discuss it at Talk:Mafia (disambiguation) if you care. — AjaxSmack 02:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theirrulez for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Toddst1 (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done: declined, closed and archived by clerks - Theirrulez (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally some justice! An outreged wikipedian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.21.16.9 (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You appear to be involved in edit wars on Bleiburg massacre and Croatisation. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Toddst1 for focusing your attention on these articles. I'd like togive you some further details about to clearify I'm not involved in any edit-war there.

Answer

• Regarding the Bleiburg massacre article, I would note my modifications are very small and not substantial. These modifications (see the diff) were just an attempt to fix some statements in a better balanced and a less pov synthax.^[1] You know, per policies nobody can't own an article. And I didn't see anybody reverting my small modifications but just one user (AlasdairGreen27). I also remind that user that I asked for a comment in the Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic (see the diff) in which he is actually involved and from which I got a clear answer by some aother involved users [4], and by the moderator Admin who stated, after his usual request for sources, that it seems problematic to simply label someone as collaborator given that the collaboration was complex, sporadic and changeable [5]. Reminded it, I would note I post an explicit but reasonable request to him to let me improve the article, looking for a more neutral re-writing of no more than two lines) despite his opposite view of the subject.

[1]Regarding the sources I added they fit perfectly what I modified. I demonstrated that even the most partizan and biased sources like Rusinow's don't give them the false label of collaboarationist without explain a deeper definition of what they was for real. Calling the Chetniks a collaborationist movement it's a bit tendentious statement. The Chetniks were firstly a royalist anti-communist force, fighting either against communist partizan and against Axis occupiers. Then in some fuzzy occasions it seems they prefer to wait or not to oppose Axis initiatives in order to gain advantage on the communists partizan.

• Regarding the Croatisation article, please note there's another user (you know, I saw) DIREKTOR, who is fighting for cancelling a paragraph from the above mentioned article since several weeks ago (see the diff of his first cancellation) when I had never set foot on that article yet. The same paragraph still existed in the article two years ago [6], and without a proper section title even more time before (more than 3 years ago) [7]. Despite it was reasonable to suppose a discrete consensus about the paragraph, Direktor on may 18 cancelled the pagraph for the first time, asking for sources supporting it (please note the entire article is barely unsourced) when he could more simply add the tag "{{citation needed}}". I punctually improved the section he challenged, adding sources and re-writing some lines, but he continued for days to deny my modifications despite others users espressed in the talk page their consensus to leave the section in the article.

Thanks anyway for your mediation and monitoring efforts, I hope they will be useful for these articles.

--Theirrulez (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the looks of things, the edit war has stopped. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stopped? I stop my contributions, yes, since I've been reverted again... :o Theirrulez (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i didn't answer to you: i completely forget :). Nice to meet you too! I understand your feelings :) AndreaFox2 (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support at ANI, Theirrulez! Sir Floyd (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see what's been up at the /List of sources page.

I'd say... that if that sort of thing happens, let it go. It's not worth edit warring over, because you can just append a note that says "See Talk: Faust Vrančić#Disputed sources", and start a talk page discussion about it.

There's no rule that says people can't change the rules whenever they feel like it*. We can assume they're working for the article, not against it. If they want to add live comments to the sources page, then that's the new rule. Roll with it; add your own. Then you're working together, instead of against each other.

Just be neutral about it, and maybe try to roll discussion towards the regular talk page, unless they're stubborn about it. I have an idea it's nice to keep a source list without personalities on it, but it's more important to keep the peace.

Once they realize you're willing to deal respectfully and collegially, (professionally?) with them, they'll be happy enough to use the talk page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*There is one that says the opposite.

Hello,

yes, this is definitely what I plan to do in the next weeks or months, since most of these articles are woefully POV and insufficient. Would you be willing to give me a hand in finding sources, correcting informations, etc ? thanks, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I may also have a look at Josip Broz Tito and SFR Yugoslavia if time permits. Please feel free to say what you think about my draft on Mihailovic (on the mediation page and elsewhere if you want), since I am looking for advice and help to improve it, so it can replace the current piece of shit (IMHO it could already do that, but I'd like to be a little perfectionist on this subject). Problem is, the Yugoslav articles will represent a heavy workload. A great deal of them look like they were tampered with by a bunch of insane trolls and clumsy POV-pushers (mostly Titoist nostalgics, I'd say, but sometimes on the opposite side). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]