User talk:Crovata/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Crovata. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Welcome!

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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Croats article

First let me say I do agree with you that the article needs to be reduced, especially concerning history sections which are way too broad and overwhelming. However you are reverting the article to an earlier version with outdated sources for the population census' tags which I already corrected and large numbers of references I provided. Now I am going to support this version of the article but I will revert the sources and the census data along with the version of the infobox (regarding census') and I will ask you in return that you do not delete those sources again and that you be more careful to what you are reverting in the future and pay more attention to references you are deleting. Shokatz (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope that we will reach an agreement, and creatively collaborate. I am aware of the census situation, it was not intentional, because the work on the article started a long time ago. The census data should first correct and update (simultaneously correct it in communities section). In the future, everyone should help to work on language, religion, culture (add science and sport) sections. This is all for now, until the next talk (for about week or two).--Crovata (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to reach an agreement. I agree with your edits to the article. I was thinking about trimming it myself as the history section was ridiculously huge. The only issue was the fact you were reverting the infobox refs and data with it, along with a rather large number of other citations and grammar/spelling and link corrections I've spent a lot of time on. So I had to do the same thing twice now...lol. Oh and btw. I would like to welcome you to Wikipedia. Cheers. Shokatz (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Ban article rewrite

Your edit summary did not describe the rationale for the rewrite of this article, but the changes make it apparent that you've based your rewrite on an earlier revision of the article. Thereby, you've effectively reverted to an earlier revision, but failed to account for that in the edit summary. As a consequence, a lot of referenced material from the article was removed without any explanation, unintentionally or not. You also added exceptional claims without any references such as how the term is exclusively connected with the Croats. All this in combination makes it hard to assume good faith.

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/topic ban. Thank you.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Almost a year passed from your comment, somehow there was no time to answer. Unfortunately, my edit was not based on any kind of earlier revisions, any historical or political ideology. It was written in the best intent to explain the origin and history of the title.--Crovata (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yoshiki images

I noticed that you removed some images from Yoshiki (musician). There are now only two images of him, and two images of pianos. I think the article should have some more photos of Yoshiki, at least one showing the drums. (File:Yoshiki with drum kit 2011.jpg, File:Yoshiki playing drums.jpg) One with Toshi would be good, too, because the relationship is important: File:X Japan 20100704 Japan Expo 32.jpg.

What do you think? Binksternet (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The images were removed to make the article more concentrated around his solo career, and there is no enough text to support too many images. The monitor, ie., screen resolution will increase, and while am working on an article, with the opportunity to see it in from smaller (800x600) to bigger (1920x1200) resolution size, am always trying to keep balance between the information, text, images and music samples. For an encyclopedia is important to keep an article in good aesthetic shape. Also, is important to "keep on eye" what kind of impression it leaves, in this case about an artist. Those two images are more than sufficent, one of him, which shows he is a modern composer, and other playing the piano, which shows he is a pianist and is conncected with the release of his latest album. I added three music samples, which is more important for composers than images. Think that there could be added one more photo of Yoshiki, in the Equipment (drums) section, but first it needs text, like in Japanese redaction (Yoshiki). I would recommend this image (File:Yoshiki with drum kit 2011.jpg). Would not prefer the other one, which is more personal, while with the piano (File:Yoshiki playing the piano.jpg) is an excellent image, but there is no space for it. Would note that both images need to have the watermark erased. There is no need for an image with Toshi on article about Yoshiki, there is an excellent live image from the concert on the article about X Japan. Do you have any ideas about the article?--Crovata (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the image of Yoshiki standing on his drum stool. I disagree about the number of images the article can support, but let's not worry about that. I will add the drums image. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Dalmatian Croat (people)

Hello - I've alluded to a Croats edit of yours onTalk:Dalmatian_Croat#Provenance_of_this_redirect and thought you might like to review/refine/comment. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

J-pop

Hi, Crovata. You seem to have a different point of view from me. I'd like to talk with you in Japanese because the key word is 「特典商法」「複数枚買い問題」 and I'm not sure how to explain it with my poor English. If you can't understand Japanese, I will try to ask other editors to come here. --Anosola (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'll try to write it simple. I'm not very interested in the J-pop article itself, or those groups, but for the objective and relevant information. The thing is, the only relevant and objective representation of popularity are record sales, not surveys. Some surveys, in the case of Momoiro Clover Z and which you point out, was done only by one source, the Nikkei Entertainment! magazine, and it actually shows the popularity in the first-half of the 2013 and 2014. Neverthless, they are not the most best-selling music act in Japan in those years, that's AKB48, and there's no reason why the group Momoiro Clover Z should be featured and more highlighted because of some surveys, more than AKB48 or Arashi for example.

Since the section talks about 2010s, and you reverted those edits, in 2010 the yearly record album ranking featured Arashi at number 1, while in the single ranking Top 10 were featured only Arashi and AKB48 singles. In 2011, the yearly album ranking featured AKB48 and Arashi in Top 2, while in the single ranking Top 7 were featured only AKB48 and Arashi singles. In 2012, the yearly album ranking featued Mr. Children in Top 2, while AKB48 and Arashi at 3rd and 4th place, while in the single ranking Top 7 were featured only AKB48 and Arashi, and as well in Top 10 three SKE48 singles. In 2013, the yearly album ranking featured Arashi at number 1, while in the single ranking Top 4 were featured only AKB48, and in Top 10 also Exile, SKE48, NMB48 and Arashi singles. In 2014, the yearly album ranking featured AKB48 at number 1 and Arashi at number 3, while in the single ranking Top 6 were featured only AKB48 singles, and Top 8 also two Arashi singles.

As you can see, in neither album or single yearly ranking from 2010 to 2014 Momoiro Clover Z didn't reach the Top 10, and that points to the fact there are more notable and noteworthy music pop groups, bands and solo artists in Japan. Like in the case of Kyary Pamyu Pamyu, she did not gain any internationl popularity with her single "Pon Pon Pon" (didn't even reach Top 5 on Japan Hot 100 or chart on Oricon), her singles barely sell 20,000 copies, and only because Katy Perry and Ariana Grande tweeted about the "Pon Pon Pon" single, that does not make it noteworthy. There countless artists in Japan with such success, and countless more notable.

According the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the article information needs to be represented fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, because of that, will revert the article to my revision.--Crovata (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

(Sorry for meddling in.) See "Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle". (It's not a rule, but it's not polite and not recommended to revert back when you have been reverted.)
I completely understand your arguments, but:

You can't be neutral cause you don't have the whole statistics,. Your reasoning is just as subjective as everyone else's.
There is more to popularity than record sales. Several groups have the right to have their pictures in the article, and Momoiro Clover Z is definitely one of them. (And AKB48 is too.)
Given the current state of the article (it's bad), it doesn't really matter who is mentioned and who's not. It's just random. Even if it were Kyary's fans who added a section about her, they should be thanked for it. Csuse they contributed something to the article. Cause they actually expanded the article a bit. While fans of some other groups didn't.
Kyary Pamyu Pamyu is definitely one of the most famous Japanese acts in the English-speaking countries and therefore she has every right to be mentioned. Yes, I see that the paragraph about her stands out too much in the otherwise empty section, but the way to fix it is to expand the section. (You are welcome to expand it.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If you are a fan of Arashi, you can just add a paragraph about them. :) Something that explains how popular they and other Johnnys still are in the 2010s. And something about Momoclo and AKB48 and other groups would be welcome too. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't have any intention to edit the article, and I'm not interested in its subject, but yes on objective point of view. AKB48 and Arashi, besides many others above, were just mentioned because Momoiro Cover Z was highlighted yet it doesn't deserve more attention than many other music acts in the 2010s. The article is about J-pop in general, and there's no reason to include some un-objective and un-relevant information for an Encyclopedia, such as the sentence for the single which is known "by some Western celebrities such as Katy Perry and Ariana Grande" because they tweeted(?!) about it. I didn't read the whole article, and would certainly find more such sentences, but to keep them is just ridiculous. This is not the place for them, and the bad current state of the article is not an excuse to keep them as it does matter what, how and who is mentioned and who's not. Every article has a dignity we should respect.--Crovata (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Crovata. I agree with the general fact that record sales are the only relevant and objective representation of popularity. But it is not the case in Japan because there exists 「特典商法」 (cf., http://www.cyzo.com/2014/12/post_19994.html) --Anosola (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Moscow Connection. Thank you for your contribution. I'm planning to add the explanation of 「特典商法」 in the J-pop article. According to Oricon, over the half of Japanese people are against this kind of gimmick. (cf., http://www.oricon.co.jp/special/1467/) It would be better to add the fact that the sales of AKB48 or Arashi are under 「特典商法」. Could you come up with the simple explanation? --Anosola (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Jin talk pages and stuff

Good work on all the Jin pages! It's nice to see more people creating large articles on Japanese music topics.

Here are a couple of pointers to help the pages along:

Each article's talk page should have these templates on them:

For album articles:

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= {{album|class= | b1  = | b2  = | b3  = | b4  = | b5  = | b6  = }} {{WikiProject Japan|class= |importance= |music=yes | b1  = | b2  = | b3  = | b4  = | b5  = | b6  = }} }}

For song articles:

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= {{WikiProject Song|class= | b1  = | b2  = | b3  = | b4  = | b5  = | b6  = }} {{WikiProject Japan|class= |importance=low |music=yes | b1  = | b2  = | b3  = | b4  = | b5  = | b6  = }} }}

According to the WP:CHART guidelines, Billboard charts that make up the main chart shouldn't feature. So with the Japan Hot 100, articles shouldn't list the airplay or physical sales chart (unless the song didn't make it onto the Hot 100), but the adult airplay, anime and independent charts are all good.
For pages like Good Time (Jin Akanishi song) with parenthesis, the main article/discog should point there and not to the disambig page. Also on the disambig pages, it's good to list the new article, so they're easy to find!
If an article already had a counterpart on the Japanese Wikipedia, you can link them on the bottom left at the languages' "add links" section (typing in JA, then for Good Time, Good Time (赤西仁の曲))

Happy editing! --Prosperosity (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

How I understand it is that if there's something super interesting about how the release charted on the subcharts, then it's all good to put in, but if it's not terribly notable it generally doesn't need to be in there. Like say, if a song got to #1 on the physical chart but #87 on the airplay chart, that's quite notable. Or maybe it got #1 on adult contemporary but #60 on regular airplay, or something.

Oh, it's not that Hot Single Sales = Oricon singles for the reason behind why it can't be used, it's because HSS is a part of the data that makes up the Japan Hot 100 (aka JH100=hot single sales+hot airplay+digital sales), so adding all the charts that makes up the JH100 is what they want to discourage. Think about a popular single by a US artist, where the US Billboard charts make up half of the positions! That's where this all came from. --Prosperosity (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

3RR

Could you please stop? ~~You~~ I thought you said that you would write something, expand the J-pop article or this article somehow. Do it, start some discussion on the article's talk page, but don't just delete the parts you don't like. It's not constuctive.

Consider this another warning about not going over 3 reverts in 24 hours. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You are misusing the warning for following the NPOV principles. Already explained why the edit is late, but you're forcing me to finish it right away, alright then. No, that part has no reason and supporting argument to be there and as such by NPOV it is constructive to remove it.--Crovata (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Morlachs

- See User talk:Zoupan#Morlachs and User talk:Zoupan#Serbs of Croatia

My intention is not to edit-war, but yours. I certainly do not take your evaluation of me as having lack of knowledge seriously. You do not understand Wikipedia basics. I have expanded it, added sourced material, and done plenty of copyediting, and will continue to do so. You also neglect that the term Morlachs was principally used in Europe as the community in the Dalmatian hinterlands of the 17th century (thus the intro). You have been deliberately removing references suggesting greater connection to Serbs. I have tagged the refs that need better sources, including Dakić. The Croatian Encyclopedia is not a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources). Do not revert my additions, that is uncalled for, instead, from now on, we go through article problems on the talk page, and if not, we have to take it elsewhere.--Zoupan 01:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for false accusations, there is no wrong intentions from my side, and it's up to you to see why are you not accepting my warnings for using unreliable sources for controversal or unexplained claims, and writing prone to nationalism. The actual majority of your contribution was copyediting from beforehand edited articles, and the use of sources was sparse, what doesn't matter because you had such sources. The "yours" last revision was on May 7, 607545683, with 9,741 bytes, while rewritten by me, 611797848, with new material on June 6 around 21,202 bytes, yet several times like on June 8, 612031978, you reverted it to your previous revision, removing 11,460 bytes of information, and not with sources which only partially mention Morlachs and the text highlight the connection with Serbs, but from scientific sources specifically studying Morlachs and Vlachs, with citatations found in those books and papers, explaining the etymology, its chronology, and more. To further avoid edit claims which identify the term Morlach, or elsewhere, with specific national identity, religion and vice versa, without understanding, or explaining in the article, the historical circumstances until late 19th century, I highly recommend you to read the work of Zef Mirdita and Ivan Mužić on Vlachs. Further reply reading here.

Stop butchering my comments!

[1] I cannot discuss like that! Could you reformat your answer to a single paragraph please? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No, then I can not, because that it makes unreadable and a total mess. Respect other editors and the discussion, stop intentionally making it unreadable mess, intenionally ignoring what is already cited, stop personally attacking me and accusing modern academic scholars, and finally read what is cited and those reliable sources (just how many time you spent on your personal POV interference you could already read it several times).--Crovata (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Crovata reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Black Kite (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Request reason:

If following the NPOV principels while editing an article is wrong, and after several times discussing the issue and the violation of NPOV principels at the users talk pages, and after that confirmed that the whole discussion is unneeded to be discussed at the article talk page because the reasons behind the breaking of NPOV principels and how the articles are written, is simply a promotion of the specific music acts in question against the reality, breaking the article balance making a false balance, the lack of knowledge how Wikipedia works and intentional ignorance of my warnings, or in short, as checked by which sources substantiate their claims there was no need for dispute resolution. Actually, the editors constantly ignored and avoided to discuss the main issue - the breaking of many NPOV principels, and have wrongly interepreted my edits as disruptive simply because they are personally attached (a listener, a fan etc.) of those specific groups. They even first break the three-revert-rule at my talk page. Since February they had time to understand how Wikipedia works, yet they were unwilling to do it. Just please read the discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#The inclusion of group Momoiro Clover Z in the Music of Japan and J-pop article. Crovata (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I agree with User:Black Kite's assessment on the 3RR report; you were warned about WP:OWNTALK, and your combativeness regarding the J Pop stuff is tiresome. Using talk pages in itself does not give you a free pass to always get your own way; you need to try harder to work on compromises rather than just state your opinion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Request reason:

I do not get it, I did not give any personal opinion about the topic. That's just how things are. And do you know what is tiresome? To face the ignorance in the discussion all the time from User:Anosola and User:Moscow Connection and their combativeness regarding those unimportant music acts. Even if I done a compromising edit, which according rules cannot be done in this case, or any kind of edit, those two would still revert and made unsourced and exceptional claims. Please read the noticeboard discussion Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#The inclusion of group Momoiro Clover Z in the Music of Japan and J-pop article (and other in user talk pages). It is not only J-pop article, but also Music of Japan article, and I did get to the point. I was engaged to the edit-war and done more than 3RR but according the NPOV principels, while other users reverted without any principels or argument to substantiate their claims ie. edits. If I was blocked following the NPOV principels, and that's just how both articles are written (?!), while other users breaking them did get nothing, I am disillusioned. To compromise with something it simply cannot compromise, I am really disillusioned. I fully accept 31 hours, because all this waste of time and such a response to the one who was only following the rules. --Crovata (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You're right, you do not get it. Edit warring is never acceptable, and "they made me do it" is not an excuse. There are various methods of dispute resolution; merely reverting over and over again is not one of them. Huon (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Block increase

I've increased your block to one week from now based on your creating another account while blocked (User:Shurin2). I've also blocked Shurin2 for one week, which, in fact, I should not have done - it should have been indefinite. The only reason for this leniency is because your creation of the account and the one edit you made to an administrator's Talk page made zero sense. If you wanted to say something to Ohnoitsjamie, you could have simply said it on this Talk page. This business of having separate accounts might be legitimate, but it's certainly not something you should be doing while blocked. You also admit to having an older account, User:Shurin, which hasn't edited since 2012. I think you need to sort this all out before plunging ahead as you did.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Yes, it was my older account with which, seeing that many Japanese artists had badly written articles decided to work upon, and on which learned about editing and how Wikipedia works, as well became well informed about Japanese music scene. It became retired, what later saw as not such a useful move, because only temporary lost the interest about Wikipedia and on March 2013 decided to work upon Croatian history. However, if either admins do not care, then I won't bring here the one edit from admin's talk page. But, that it made zero sense...? You have my word, from this day, I won't edit anymore any article which is related to Japan because this, when no one listens and cares what you are writing about or now even do not believe you while you're having the right stand (no, I do not exaggerate, that's the reality of the whole case about those two unimportant music acts for the specific articles, and are not even mentioned in the specific articles of Japanese Wikipedia) and telling the truth, was the worst personal experience I had on Wikipedia and one of the worst in my life. I am sorry to come to this conclusion, but it looks so unfair from my viewpoint it is just incredible. I am sorry, but that's just how I percieve it at the moment. This one week suspension will be more than right to forget all this, which I don't know how to describe, and again start working on articles related to Istria and Croatian history, and others yet to come.--Crovata (talk) 06:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. What articles you work on is immaterial to me as long as you abide by Wikipedia policies. I'd like to sort out the multiple account issue. Do you have any other accounts besides the three I know about? Assuming the answer is no, which account do you want to use going forward? I don't see any legitimate need for you to have multiple accounts, so my goal would be to indefinitely block the two accounts you're not intending to use again. I'll wait to hear from you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: No, account "Shurin" was not used since 2012 and there is no intention to use it again, so it can be done with it anything in need besides that act could anyhow affect the uploaded files from it. As far the "Shurin2", I am firm about not editing articles and my word, but the idea itself as such indeed, I agree there's no need to have and use it any longer. --Crovata (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've indefinitely blocked Shurin and Shurin2, noting that you will be keeping only this account from now on. If there is evidence in the future that you've created additional illegitimate accounts, you risk being blocked indefinitely. I've unblocked you here for "time served". Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: There won't be any, thanks, and good luck as well.--Crovata (talk) 06:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Tomobe03 (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Counties of Croatia. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Request reason:

@Bbb23: Sincerely, why again? The statement is wrong and outdated and is not generally accepted, as such was contracted while source removed as is biased and only partially useful in related article (Župa); the user lacks knowledge about the contemporary scholars POV (as well in the discussion mostly wrote off topic about the ethnic origin of Croats which has nothing to do with) and as the article is Featured Class per user Tomobe03 merit, obviously the user felt defensive and saw the edit disruptive; the edit was explained in talk, yet my reply and note about the related Župa article and latest dictionary (to inform self) was totally ignored. It cannot be explicitly traced to some other language as the user wishes, scholars are not completely sure about the origin, and what are only sure about is that it's not from Avar language, and yet again that is the topic of origin and etymology of Župa article, not Counties of Croatia. The user at least could explain in the article talk page what he does not understand to discuss it, yet he ignored and did not bother to explain and went to report what he felt as an incident. Not to mention how as recently was for the first time blocked, and the IP user therefore commented "This user seems to be a trouble maker. See his/her talk page.", also contributed to being reported, and from now on this user name will bear stigma because of two misunderstandings. Crovata (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Once again, being right does not exempt one from the prohibition of edit warring. If you think someone is behaving unconstructively, ask a relevant WikiProject for assistance or take it to ANI, but simply reverting over and over again is not helpful in any case. And remember that with your record of blocks for edit warring, the next block might be much longer. Max Semenik (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

@MaxSem: Alright then, I will discuss it more (or asking for assistance) before reverting, but I say it again, this last two cases were so simple edits it's ridiculous in what they turned out and the one who was right and constructive to be blocked. There was no need for assistance in this second, and the editors could do it on their own. I replied before being blocked to the user Tomobe03 talk page [2], and hope to see his explanation what he did not understand (and his open accusations, ignorance of my reply and being reported). It was unnecessary, and is a strange criteria when constructive editors suffer in the end.--Crovata (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Baghatur

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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Think that the article needs a good quality edit due to some dispute, and as already read about it some time ago while rewrote Bulgars article will do it myself. The removal of only a scholar consideration by BoriShad is not justified. It is reliable, but new section "etymology" is needed. Seems he has recently been involved in some disputes and discussions with not so friendly manner and understanding. Thanks for warning.--Crovata (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit-warring at Dulo clan after warning. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I don't know if this is synchronicity, but right now logged in to post a template for being temporarily inactive until c. 8 July, 2015. This will definitely help the entire case, and will not need to worry about it until then.--Crovata (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Kačić family

Zdravo, Crovata! A few minutes ago I nominated an article for GA and noticed one nominated by you - the Kačić noble family. I took a quick look at the article, as I was considering reviewing it, and the first thing that caught my attention was the poor grammar, with two instances already in the three-sentence-long lead paragraph. Each paragraph of the body of the article appears to be in need of copy-editing. I suggest that you request help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Without a thorough copy-editing, the article is unlikely to pass (to say the least). Surtsicna (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Hi, Surtsicna! Thanks for the consideration and advice.--Crovata (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Kačić noble family

Please take a close look at my edits of Kačić noble family. Bear in mind that I know almost nothing about Croatia, the region's history and its language, and could easily have misunderstood something. Folklore1 (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Another article with several serious issues

Hi. If you're interested, take a look at Turkic peoples. The article is damaged due to persistent sock puppetry and edit wars. Just like Iranian peoples, it needs a clean-up. Regards. --Zyma (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Zyma:@Krakkos: the major review or edit for "Pannonian Avars" and "Turkic peoples" unfortunately will be late due to technical problems.--Crovata (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kačić noble family

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kačić noble family you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kačić noble family

The article Kačić noble family you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Kačić noble family for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Dulo clan

@Crovata, I have blocked the other user for renewed edit-warring at the article. However, your handling of this situation is not optimal. Just because someone else edit-wars doesn't justify your edit-warring. Nor does your labeling the other user's edits as vandalism make it the kind of vandalism that is exempt from edit-warring. If this happens again, you should either contact me directly or file a report at WP:AN3. If instead you edit-war, you risk being blocked as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I discussed with the user since March about the whole topic, was it Wikipedia, its principles, editing (like citing, style etc.), reliability, neutrality and OR, especially the Dulo clan or Bulgars. Also his personal standpoint, lack of knowledge and understanding. With time not trying to understand own OR and emphasize of fringe theories which are wrong, and with the continuation of unconstructive edits, does not that become one of the types of vandalism? Doing wrong edits, without accepting reliable scholars and general considerations, highlighting something simply unsubstantiated? I called you at his talk page because I thought it was easier than reporting again at noticeboard.--Crovata (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, and I don't mind the ping at the user's Talk page. What you can't do is edit-war. So, please just follow my instructions above, and there should be no problem, even if it irks you during the time it takes you to complain and get the issue resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

OK.--Crovata (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Bulgars

I need some help with copy editing the Bulgars. See my notes at the bottom of the talk page. Folklore1 (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Bulgars/Dulo articles

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Even dont think to touch the article Utigurs

You have already fucked up the articles Bulgars and Dulo. That's enough. If you try to do this with article Utigurs, I will post Hunnic theories on the article Bulgars. Think about this- the result will be edit war and blocking. Don't touch Utigurs.

@Bbb23: Today edited (and by it mean only posted the template due to horrible editing and inaccurate text) the article about Utigurs, the template was removed without clear reason (the new discussion in talk where argued about tags has nothing to do with me). Don't understand how many time have to say that have nothing against scholars Yury Zuev and Edwin G. Pulleyblank per se, yet their views are not mainstream ie. generally accepted ie. given appropriate weight (and that was the template about). They're not an issue at all as outdated scholars or misleading claims. This week-or two will post the rewritten revision of the article according renown scholars and general considerations, but don't think such a tone is needed. I only post academic scholars cites, and if he calls my edits as "fucked up", then actually calls general scholarship as "fucked up". If he has something against what scholars consider that's not my or anyone's problem, especially not of Wikipedia. The IP '93.152.143.113' who wrote the comment is the same who participated in the noticeboard discussion, and as such consider it sock puppet by editor PavelStaykov.--Crovata (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully, things will quiet down a bit, but let me know if there's further disruption. Don't assume, though, that just because someone disagrees with you, it has to be PavelStaykov. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thanks for reacting and advice. I don't see it that way though, yet, as said above, find the knowledge, editing and behavior of the IP '93.152.143.113' and editor PavelStaykov strikingly identical.--Crovata (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Nedao

Hello. I really don't understand your position. Are you saying that a primary source is a serious fact, as strong as the opinion of respected scholars? Are you saying that the modern scholars are divided? Am missing or misunderstood something? In any case, could you please respond on the Discussion page? Thank you.--Dipa1965 (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dipa1965: Will respond you there in roughly 1 hour, thanks.--Crovata (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Your recent editing history at Ivan Gundulić shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Eteethan(talk)🎄 21:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Eteethan: I know how Wikipedia is edited, and could you explain "3RR and BRD" again (see article's history) to IP "77.105.63.244" who reverts content which has (loose) consensus per 2014 discussion in the talk page? If he has something against that discussion result, then he has to open new discussion, stop edit-warring, but not me.--Crovata (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

He's been reported to WP:ANEW. I fear that during an investigation you may be blocked for blatant violations of 3RR. Eteethan(talk)🎄 21:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Eteethan: We went to far with reverts, but both with own specific (could say justified) reasons, which were already shared in the mentioned discussion. We should take it to discussion page and engage other editors who already discussed it and see a reasonable solution. The case is a bit complex, it seeks discussion, not plain edits and talking via edit summary, there's simply not enough space, neither it is used for such a thing. A clear consensus would help the case. I would not block the IP, his stand would be useful for the discussion development and consensus.--Crovata (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the sheer number of reverts may cause a block either way. You can make a comment here. Eteethan(talk)🎄 21:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring, as you did at Ivan Gundulić. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Request reason:

I see, but don't understand the reasoning behind this block. Although I explained the situation at the noticeboard, received 2 weeks while some anonymous IP only 48 hours? I noted several time the IP on WP:3RR and WP:BRD. They from 13th December restarted these edits despite the relevant discussion on the talk page (and refused to begin a new discussion). I only reverted them back according conclusion by editor Shokatz who was involved in the talk page discussion on the specific issue 15 December 2014 (Unexplained changes. Refer to talk page.). For almost a year the article had no problem, until these IP's showed up, and my concern on their activity resulted with being blocked. What's the reason? Wouldn't be more advisable if the IP's and other confirmed editors are given a chance to talk without worrying about edit-war? Would not administrators surveillance and discretionary sanctions during the discussion be enough to prevent such event? Also, I was going to edit White Croats and White Croatia these days. Do I really need to wait for 2 weeks? Crovata (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I saw your comment on my "long history" of edit-warring, and am not happy for such labeling. Block log makes other editors look stigmatized. Presume you don't know the circumstances I was blocked. In the case of article Counties of Croatia it was misunderstanding, and I was right. In the case of Dulo clan I was involved in something which resulted with constant disruptive edits and sock-puppetry (he ignored the discussion), and I was right. Previously was the same thing. When someone is doing his work fairly and correctly, on certain articles few editors care about, resulting in being blocked is more than disappointing.--Crovata (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is your fourth block for edit warring; the length of such blocks increases as it seems necessary to protect Wikipedia by keeping edit warriors such as yourself away for longer and longer periods. Your blocks have been for 31 hours the first time, then 72 hours, then a week, and now two weeks; you must stop edit warring or the next block is likely to be much longer. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Zabergan

@Slakr: Thanks for protecting article Zabergan, but revert the edit by IP '188.254.217.110'. That's IP sock of blocked User:NewZealot, User:Bolghar, and other accounts by User:PavelStaykov, and blocked IP '93.152.143.113'.--Crovata (talk) 11:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Yamaguchi先生: Could you revert edits by the same IP (188.254.217.110) on Onogurs, Zabergan and Kutrigurs, and protect them? Watch out that his behaviour changes according what he founds out is "effective" in his favor. Thus he substantiated the reverts in edit summary like "sock of banned User:Jingiby" because similarly were used against him, ie. NewZealot, or PavelStaykov. However, Jingiby is inactive for over a year, and never edited those articles. He used Jingiby's account because he encountered it during the GA review of Bulgars in August 2015 (only in the case of copyrighted image), when as PavelStaykov done disruptive editing on the article. Hopefully the admins on the noticeboard managed to notice the issue in the summary. Sadly there was even opened, but now closed, recent sockpuppet investigation on Jingiby, but don't understand why there's was none for this editor. Since March 2015 I followed his editing and sadly must conclude that after countless discussions on his behaviour, editing, NPOV principles, historical topics, there was none input to understand, only ignorance. Why wait so long? If have any questions, please ask.--Crovata (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Same as above, someone needs to do the reverts on the articles. Personally cannot for week and half.--Crovata (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Please unblock me, because what is (continuously) happening unnoticed at Onogurs, and Talk:Utigurs, Talk:Kutrigurs, Talk:Huns by the same editor under IP '188.254.217.110', after months of discussing the same topic and issue (with me and other editors), it is just ridiclious nobody does anything to prevent this intentionally disruptive activity. After all this months, with several indefinitely blocked user accounts, he continues to spread same misleading fringe theories which are against common sense, just because he is enabled to do it, but until when?--Crovata (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Crovata, this isn't my block. You'll have to make an unblock request if you wish to be unblocked early (there isn't too much left). At the same time, you're going to have to convince an administrator that you understand that edit-warring is not acceptable just because you think you're right, even if you are in right. I've explained this to you before.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I know, and you're right, there's no need to rush for request. In the mean time, could you do the reverts and protection requested above (not replies on talk pages)?--Crovata (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Now I'm confused - or maybe I'm not

Hi!

I just took a look at Wiktionary, more specifically

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ata.

There it says, under the label Turkish:

„Cognates include„ and then we have words from Hittite, Gothic, Old Church Slavonic, Latin and Ancient Greek. Looking up the Latin we get something quite different. Anyway, Turkish atta can not possibly be cognate with the rest unless Turkish borrowed the word. I'm not trying to annoy you, I just wanted to check out for sure. You will see some strange „cognates“ too, if you click the Gothic link. What this is supposed to accomplish is just showing that the Turkic is not reliable as the source of the word - the preponderance of evidence is that Turkic (not Turkish) borrowed it. Turkic languages showed up early in Europe - the Bulgarians were a Turkic tribe, but they were assimilated. And yes, I have studied comparative linguistics. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

That's personal assumption which already saw as one among many, there's no reason to not believe that Gothic tribes borrowed it from Turkic, or if being orignal Proto-Indo-European, were influenced by Turkic. Against your thesis is that the name mostly survived among Altaic languages, but not among Germanic, perhaps they had used it for longer period of time, and was longer part of their tradition. If Proto-Altaic tribes being in contact with Proto-Indo-European, this could explain the change of *ĕ́t`è to ata, but then again we are talking for a period of time much older than when Huns "showed" in European historical records. This change occured somewhere in Central Asia, more like with Indo-Iranian ӕда. There "x" possibilities, linguists will say one, historians another. It's useless to discuss it on editors lvl, we can only cite reliable scholar's sources. If you know some then cite them accordingly on related article's "Attila (name)" and wiktionary. Greetings.--Crovata (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, Hittite atta- with correspondences in Latin, Greek, Gothic and Old Church Slavonic. All of those are clearly onomatopoetic. (This is from Alwin Kloekhorst, Hittite inherited Lexicon - you can find it on-line.) And the explanation that the name Attila is Gothic is much simpler than cooking up reconstructed Turkish etymologies. Add to that that atta is actually Gothic and perhaps more convincingly that the suffix -ila is Gothic and hence we have a derivation according to known rules of a language and then the Ur-Hunnic explanation is not plausible. Hunnic can not be said to be attested at all. But I rarely engage in writing about topics like this one since it is a matter of nationalism for many people - not you, of course. You seem to be Croatian according to your edits. :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice - Balkans

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--slakr^\ talk / 00:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Marco Polo

Hello, it is disgraceful that we could not agree. I am still convinced we should remove any reference to the 15/09/1254 from the lead and the Infobox. And I understand that you think the same. Can we agree to remove this awful stuff and find a solution for the rest? Cheers, --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Silvio1973: Sorry, these days have much PL work to do, and won't be available for discussion. For now remove it from the lead and infobox for reader's sake (and if can do it also, with appropriate edit summary, for other language Wikipedia). Within the article use the "Note" as I done in the User:Crovata/sandbox. Until I come to editing, review the current sandbox revision in the Marco Polo's talk page (as I already stated to do it weeks ago).--Crovata (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Crovata:, for now I am removing any reference to the 15/09/1254 from the lead and the infobox. We both agree on this. Concerning the body of the article we have to find a middle way satisfying both of us. I have no doubt we will. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Crovata:, what do you think of the current version? --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Attila

I am quite distressed at your moving all the references to within the text instead of leaving them in an editable list. May I ask why you did so? The references are much easier to update and edit when they are all located in one place rather than searching throughout the text for them; it also makes the article more readable when the references are not included in the text. It took me dozens of hours to gather all the references into a list and I fail to see the advantage of reverting all my hard work.

For more information, please see Help:List-defined references. Thank you.—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 13:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@D'Ranged 1: If understood what you remark, done so because those sources which are used only once and have one reference moved within the text, while those who are used (were planned to) several times or are important moved to an editable list. However, I did not finish my edits and some although in the editable list are only once or not cited. Sorry, improved the article information, but didn't finish it due to other more important work.--Crovata (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Crovata If all the references are in one place, it makes them much easier to edit, regardless of how many times they are used. It's also quite frequent that a citation that is only used once is subsequently used multiple times. I will endeavor to restore order to the references again—you have no idea what a mess this article was when I first encountered it; it had a huge portion copied and pasted from the French Wikipedia version with citations that required hours of research to correct. Your writing style leads me to believe that English is not your first language; are you proficient enough to be editing the English Wikipedia? (Not a personal attack—an honest question.) Please do not undo all my hard work again.—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 05:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@D'Ranged 1: It's not, but neither edit other language Wikipedia. Sorry, but if you want a honest opinion, I edited the article and references as I did because did not see your personal/my "hard work" and it looked like a real mess (then what it was even before...). What you intend to edit don't know, but if is not how usually Wikipedia is edited (with those "page numbers" near reference number) then will probably rise a discussion at the talk page.--Crovata (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Crovata I've made the changes and explained them in detail on the Talk page. This is a standard way to use citations on Wikipedia, or it wouldn't exist. Please continue the discussion on the article's Talk page. Thanks!—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 11:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

As an unrelated note, {{ping|D'Ranged 1}} and {{U|D'Ranged 1}} are equivalents; the U| is shorter than ping|, obviously.—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 11:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Giulio Clovio

Hello Crovata, can we really state that he was Italian Croatian, Croatian or Italian. Do we have reliable source without getting in the OR?

Silvio1973 There three sources which state he was born in Croatia, and then migrated to Venice where lived and worked for most of his life. That's why he's mostly known as Italian painter. Those things everyone knows. However, he lived at the time when Italy as such didn't exist, neither is known if was an ethnic Italian, perhaps even Croatian, but Slavic ethnic origin is more plausible. For the specific ethnic issue there's need for multiple reliable sources POV. It's just that those geo-political and cultural, as well social, events and traits today belong to what we know as Italian and Croatian, and as such is considered a Croat who lived in Italy and contributed to the Italian Renaissance. The subject, like in the case of Fausto Veranzio, you're pointing to is beyond our control and realm of influence. It's considered on broad multinational levels, and simple editing between two editors (perhaps a group of editors could reach a better solution) shouldn't decide if was or not an Italian Croatian.--Crovata (talk) 09:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, he born in Croatia... he born in what today is Croatia. However, the issue is of sourcing. Any other approach is OR by nature. And I cannot believe any reputable scholar would give him any nationality. Ethnicity is a different matter, and the majority of sources consider his family was of Slavic ethnicity. No contest about that (at least from my humble perspective). --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Continued uncivility

You were indeed warned for uncivility. Now you continue. You do not have to get uncivil when you can't bring constructiveness to a discussion. Stop it already?--Zoupan 21:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Please stop acting and making a fool of yourself since your actions of twisting and lying are obvious.--Crovata (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

To enforce an arbitration decision and for WP:1RR restriction violation on the page Tribes of Old Montenegro, Brda, Old Herzegovina and Primorje, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. slakr^\ talk / 01:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

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

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

Request reason:

According to the WP:GAB, I am placed in a contradicting situation, again, where defending the WP:NPOV principles from their abuse, retriving related and reliable information (constructive), with the held discussions and dispute resolution being ignored and closed, myself being labeled for doing "damage" and "disruption", have none other solution than to abandon any editing activity on the article, including support of the article title change. If existence of policy and criteria is of Wikipedia and Wikipedian community benefit, as well public, both sanction and block did not bring anything constructive to the Wikipedia and editors beside temporary stopping daily edit warring between two editors, i.e. further stigmatization and narrowness of freedom of speech and activity of an editor. If that is the only thing possible in current situation of 21st century then may it be. Crovata (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Mike V • Talk 03:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Mike V why I am blocked can be easly read at history summary "personal WP:1RR restriction violation", for "violating an arbitration decision with your edits on Tribes of Old Montenegro, Brda, Old Herzegovina and Primorje". I already explained - I am well aware because of what have been blocked, and I am in contradicting situation where my activity is not doing damage or disruption to Wikipedia (thus paradoxically seeking to be unblocked for constructive editing), and useful contributions and intentions (discussions, dispute resolution) until now, or are disputed and reverted by another editor (who due to block log receieved only 1 week restriction), or failed due to another editor ignorance to participate in them and acknowledge other editor remark. Yet my unblock review should not have any remark on other editors. I cannot do nothing, and such a situation is making an impression that other editor is right and his POV is more favorable. I am put in a situation where with 3 months restriction can do limited activity which product and sole intention is not causing any damage or disruption. With current 1 week block cannot do even less constructive activity, while prepared several major edits to do in these 1 week period due to inability to do it previous weeks. I am put in a such situation that I am basically seeking to convince administrators that will not continue to cause damage or disruption and will make useful contributions instead, while I was not causing damage and disruption yet made useful contributions all the way.--Crovata (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Plastikspork please revert the reliable information which got removed by editor Zoupan without any substantiated reason.--Crovata (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

slakr I want to hear your opinion on the situation.--Crovata (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

slakr editor Zoupan again reverted the article revision (removing reliable and related information due to personal POV interference) with still unsubstantiated reason(s).--Crovata (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Tribes of Montenegro

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Tribes of Old Montenegro, Brda, Old Herzegovina and Primorje.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. --Zoupan 15:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, don't call people idiots.--Zoupan 15:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I am allergic to stupidity and ideologies.--Crovata (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

That's all you do, call people stupid, idiots and nationalistic. ANI here.--Zoupan 15:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I did not expect anything better from you.--Crovata (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You may make no more than one revert every 24 hours to a page within the Balkans topic area for a period of 3 months, subject to the standard exceptions

You have been sanctioned due to repeated edit warring

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. slakr^\ talk / 04:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Slakr: So, since this sanction was applied, the user has continued his uncivility, and now broke the sanction.--Zoupan 03:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Zoupan what are these reverts and summaries "revert unconstructive and disruptive editing" - do you even understand what WP:DE imply?; "tag for information of unclear or questionable importance or relevance" - in what exceptional way that information is unclear, not important and relevant to the tribes?; "stop twisting the subject" - whose twisting the subject by "making own concept" and twisting that the "Origins" section is about the Vlachs and not those tribes? Whose ignoring the discussion and remarks? Whose ignoring me and user Sideshow Bob, false claiming the user has "no comprehension of the actual subject", and that both didn't bring anything constructive. Since when telling the truth is being uncivil - White Serbia, Sebbirozi, Zeriuani, Sporoi among others. Basically, I am uncivil for editing and wishing that logic someday will prevail, and not reporting you for WP:OWN at ANI as advised below by user Robert McClenon. I understand, but cannot accept that by giving 1 week, i.e. 3 months sanction resolved anything as it is nothing but abuse of mine inability to act, as well further ignorance of principles, dispute resolution, and editors editing and remark at the talk page. --Crovata (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are disruptively editing. The talk page makes clear that the concept of tribes in this subject refers to geo-political and social units, and that the word "origin" cannot be used to synthesize a common "ethnic origin" for these (plural). Please do not take a quote out of context, what I said was: "You seem to have no comprehension of the actual subject by not recognizing these obvious historical/cultural/anthropological/regional divisions." I want to add that Sideshow Bob has a history of unconstructive and disruptive editing, and has even made nationalistic and racist remarks. Once again it is clear that you don't understand what WP:SCOPE means. Again, how could and would you compare an article like Sebbirozi to this article? No, basically, you are uncivil because you make uncivil remarks. The logic which you claim to pursue is clearly not found from your editing at this article. I've already commented and explained at the talk page. Your answers are in line with "you OWN, I am speaking the truth", and you even made up a guideline for your revision to be "appropriately restored" – by yourself.--Zoupan 04:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

That is not disruptive editing. Again you're not using proper wording - talk page is place for discussion, it is not talk page's yet yours POV that the concept of tribes is only geo-political and social, and their ethnic/historic origin should be ignored and approached differently. The quote was not taken out of context as what your are pointing out about the "division" is something so simple there's no need for exceptional effort to understand it. You are making of something simple something exceptional and controversial. No, you didn't understand what SCOPE means. It is determined by consensus - you did not even started it, while also ignored my remark on related information and proceeded on your own. The same happened about the article title. The origin (or ethnic origin) of those tribes is primary topic, yet you make out of it something different, that it is about the Vlachs and not the tribes. Those tribes are obviously related to the Vlachs, and thus secondary geo-political and social context. By twisting the fact that the origin of the tribes (people), which is related to the Vlachs, is primarily focused on the Vlachs and not on the tribes, substantiate that should not be covered or be primary context to be covered - intentionally "artificially or unnecessarily restricting the scope of an article to select a particular point of view on a subject area is frowned upon". Great, basically you're implying that both I and Sideshow Bob are unconstructive, disruptive, nacionalistic racists, while your higher dignity is pure like an angel, or king, whose existence and reality shouldn't be even questioned. Why are you lying, I didn't compare the article of the Sebbirozi to the article of the Montenegrin tribes - I listed that article among others as you cited even more "outdated" sources then the one you want to remove by the same criteria, by A. Evans (1885–86). It is not about being "mine" revision - the edited information which is clearly related and reliable is not mine, yet truth of reality which must not be denied and censored ("deliberate choice of a limited scope for an article can make notable information disappear from the encyclopedia entirely, or make it highly inaccessible... narrow article scopes are to be avoided") due to personal belief - which is not even personal, yet natio ideological obtained during social education, while political in the very core since at least 19th century.--Crovata (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Zoupan You again reverted the article revision, removing reliable and related information and changing the layout, with fraudulent reason. You cannot take into account for revert article and user talk page (basically taking own POV as evidence) as every point you made is not substantiated by NPOV principle. Again, most importantly, you did not answer the 3-4 questions above which would continue the discussion about the article. You ignore the discussion, ignore the issue and proceeded on your WP:OWN!--Crovata (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You have ignored every single explanation at the article talk page. None of your comments are adequate. Read it again and enter the discussion.--Zoupan 12:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

slakr, as an administrator who made arbitration enforcement due to the activity on the article in question I am openly calling you to say your opinion or take some action as this enforcement did not change anything, actually made things even worse. It crossed every measure and is doing damage to Wikipedia. Zoupan those explanations are your personal constructions, nothing to consider as neutral and objective to be accepted. Whole the time you're pushing your personal POV against Wikipedia principles, misinterpreting and abusing them. You ignored to answer the questions you raised, and called me to enter the discussion?! You're doing everything to make the wheel turn in your favour, and I am the ignorant one with unadequate comments? Sorry slakr, but editor Zoupan can report me how much he wants for "uncivility", but George Carlin would nicely describe it as bullshit.--Crovata (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment on Content, Not Contributors

The the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is for the discussion of article content issues only. Conduct issues may not be mentioned, even in passing, because they distract from resolution of content issues. If you believe that an editor is engaged in article ownership, either attempt to discuss it civilly without mentioning article ownership, and sometimes that results in civil discussion, or report it as a conduct issue, such as at WP:ANI or via Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Statuta Valachorum

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Statuta Valachorum, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.--Zoupan 22:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Slakr: Above the law, like? He removes information about the subject, edit-warring, and on another article, regarding toponymy, forces his view by inserting another source, inferior in quality (non-linguistic), as preceding the linguistic sources (literally pasting it in the middle of the sourced content).--Zoupan 22:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Slakr, I simply don't want to play this game anymore. I am personally attacked and bullied by Zoupan. His constant ignorance of other editors remark, the factual reality, as well censorship and twisting of neutrality and facts by pushing pro-Serbian sources and POV is harming Wikipedia. He is again acting WP:OWN, intentionally reverting unconstructive text (which was already discussed months ago), or removing reliable source not because of its so-called "inferiority", yet because it opposes the Serbian linguistic sources. That's personal ideological agenda, such things are not supported on Wikipedia.--Crovata (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps with inline citation of a Serbian scholar editor Zoupan begins to understand that censorship is not neutrality.--Crovata (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

...This is getting very annoying. User continues to deflect his own issues by making up such in others. Please have a look at the diffs and Talk:Statuta_Valachorum#June_2016. 3RR broken.--Zoupan 23:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It is really annoying when am constantly accused for doing something I did not. It is really annoying correcting your one-sided edits. It is really annoying reading over and over again your deflections and agenda. This pointless report and your intention to block another editor (while ignoring yourself) for constructive editing and discussion (due to your lack of knowledge about the topic, and lack of will to discuss) is nothing else but something to think about - do you feel ashamed? I did not report or flag you when had a plenty of opportunities, because at least I have a dignity and don't care about you, I have much better things to do.--Crovata (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Your constant edit-warring is getting annoying. There is no "correction" in your removal of sources directly handling the subject. I discuss everything - you have problems with discussing actual matters, and in most cases accuse or belittle other editors. If you had taken time to actually discuss in a constructive manner, there wouldn't have been an edit-war? Nice to see SPA popping up, btw.--Zoupan 00:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you even understand what you're writing? I am stunned that you still don't see your own double standards. Typical OWN behavior. If there is a discussion, and a third opinion, to currently remove the sources information, and after an edit has been done to the article which in-depth discuss the issue noted in the annotations, to re-edit the annotations with better neutrality, don't edit-war reverting highly biased POV. You don't know how and what you're discussing. Sorry, it is not my problem that after two years you still not don't understand, but don't want to understand the complexity of the topic. Total ignorance of the discussion and other editors, sources and NPOV principles is not what we consider as constructive manner.--Crovata (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for Arbitration enforcement: personal WP:1RR restriction violation @ Statuta Valachorum (WP:ARBMAC). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. slakr^\ talk / 02:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

slakr, I cannot believe it. No word from you. I cannot believe that you're an admin with such a poor understanding of the situation, and especially Zoupan behavior. Do you understand by 1RR restriction for 6 months on every Balkan topic, which I do on disruptive edits which are against the discussion and common sense, the NPOV principles, my actions, which are only in the Wikipedia benefit, is totally limited. I am sad that you fall for mental games and pointless reports by editor Zoupan. I cannot believe that when decided to punish I am the culpirt, and Zoupan goes unpunished. Do you know what means giving 1 month or any block to an constructive editor? Do you know how it feels? No, you obviously don't. You don't know how to handle a situation without giving simple restrictions and blocks. Why did not simply warn us, engage in a discussion, or let the on-going discussion go along. You simply do anything which favors only one editor, and even more, who is abusing both admin and NPOV principles apparatus for his own personal agenda against editors, actually Wikipedia. And for once, as an administrator of editors, answer me!

Bbb23, I am calling you because I don't know how to handle the situation anymore. You are already familiar with my case. I am out of my mind that this is happening, again. I am stuck in such a situation where no one wants to understand and listen what I am saying. The block and restriction are just pointless, yet admin slakr ignores the whole situation. I am preparing several major edits, and any blockage is in neither benefit. I don't want to get down to such a low level in writing a review begging an unblock, because it is utterly paradoxal - to be unblocked with my personal promise that understand the principles and will do only constructive edits, while block was given for the same thing?! Did Wikipedia became such a hostile place that defending principles, doing constructive edits, is not supported anymore? Please, help me.--Crovata (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23, the revision by Zoupan was reverted, why? Why is my remark ignored? Why is the article discussion ignored? Why is favored revision which does harm to Wikipedia? Why is favored revision by editor Zoupan whose personal POV (actually Serbian scholarship POV, you won't understand since don't know the complexity of the Balkans historiographies) on the topic is against the ethnicity of the specific population? Why admins are ignoring the complexity of the both topic and my current situation? Why the pointless reports, ignorance and disruptive behavior are supported on Wikipedia? Why is supported breaking of NPOV principles? Why?! You are my administrator, answer me when I am asking you.--Crovata (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

You were sanctioned with very clear conditions. You've now broken that sanction not just once but twice. These blocks are solely because of your conduct and the fact that the changes you were making do not qualify as exceptions to our edit warring policy (and thus violated your one-revert sanction within the topic area). If you feel other editors have also broken their sanctions within the topic area or they should also be sanctioned, feel free to raise the issue on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard once your block expires, where other admins will review the case and take any action they feel is necessary. Regardless, you need to seek dispute resolution (for example, a third opinion from an uninvolved party or a request for comment) rather than edit warring. I unfortunately can't weigh in on the topic areas in question, as I'm not familiar with them. --slakr^\ talk / 06:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Slakr Do you understand that the sanction and now block are totally pointless for Wikipedia? I understand my situation, but edit-warring in defense of Wikipedia principles and against the discussion abuse is not something that should be punished. What kind of policy is that? There exist warnings and discussion, yet only thing you do is to block someone. You simply don't talk with editors. Your remark and authority presence as an admin in a discussion is more than enough for editors to calm down. I am emphasizing, this sanction and block did not bring anything to the whole situation. Nothing, it only made it worse. Dispute resolution was opened for another article - and what Zoupan did? He ignored it, and thus was closed. He ignores everything and everyone. Do you understand that everything you done is making one editor smile in his intention to make un-neutral and nationalistic Wikipedia articles? You and I fell into his trap, and it is stunningly for someone who has administrative power, to act as it does not see it. I feel that other editor have broken, actually it is so obvious, but you ignore it. I am not the one who have to report him if I am saying to you what he is doing for months. It is your time to act, but you do not. That is unjustice. I had several occasions when could report him - yet I did not, because I am not such a person to abuse policy against other editors, I don't have time nor interest for that. You don't know my behavior and how much discussion went into PavelStaykov (and his sock-puppets) before I decided to report him. If editors can not solve a problem between them, then admins should be involved, was it through discussion or some sanction. I you can't weigh the topic due to lack of knowledge, and yet that is the most important part of the whole case, then for sake listen what constructive editor has to say. Now editor Zoupan is further editing the articles by his desire, ignoring the discussions (and Talk:Statuta Valachorum#Third opinion by User:Robert McClenon and User:MarshalN20, basically 3 vs 1), neutrality and complexity of the topic, and I can do nothing. I am writing to you, you don't listen. The sole editor who notes the issue is blocked. Yet, I can not edit even one article. You could just banned me from the article for 1 month, and let me edit other articles. I am trying my best to discuss, but again - what I can do with a restriction against other stubborn editors who don't have it? I had several discussion when noted the issue, and he ignored it, and continued to edit according his wish. What I can do then? I don't think that the noticeboard or report is the proper way of dealing with editors, who like Zoupan, are constructive, yet their editing is influenced by personal favoritism and ignorance of the neutrality/complexity of the topic. I am asking you, what good came from the restriction and block? The restriction of activity for a constructive and neutral editor should not had been in the first place. If anything you brought further stigma upon me. You don't understand the topic, don't know how to weigh a situation, don't see what you've done against one editor. You made a mess, found your black sheep of the case. I am well aware that I am saying too much, but I am not the one will shut up after seeing something wrong. Take it as a constructive criticism. --Crovata (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I am neutral, or was until now, and I do not see a constructive criticism here, but only a long diatribe by a blocked user. Please do not get your talk page access blocked. You are not using your talk page to request unblock, but apparently only to complain about injustices that I don't understand. Please stop hurting yourself. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Talking about unjustice and things which are not right is not a diatribe. Not talking about it is diatribe. That is the problem, you don't understand the situation and unjustices becuase you don't understand the complex circumstances of the whole issue. I don't want to write a request for unblock because I am not going to put myself to such a low level, to a total paradox I already wrote about. If the admins don't understand what a mess they made, and are not willing to accept the reality and fix it, then I will rather wait for 1 month. I can not stand injustice. I stand on the right side, if it will hurt me, then let it be. Many people were hurt throughout history for the right cause, because they could not be quiet. Thank you for your concern.--Crovata (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Zoupan, if you do not return "English archaeologist Arthur Evans (1885–1886, [lived until 1941]) noted that the tribes (with examples of Banjani, Nikšići, Mirilovići, Pilatovci, and Riđani among others) in Herzegovina and Montenegro of the Middle Ages in Ragusan reports and Serbian chrysobulls were not described as Serbs, but exclusively as "Vlach" shepherds living in katuns - Romanized descendants of pre-Slavic population who eventually got Slavicized. He described them by physical type distinctively non-Slavic, with Albanian affinities.(sfn|Evans|2006|p=35)" to the article Tribes of Montenegro, I will certainly consider to report at the noticeboard when the block expires. You have not stated 1 valid reason the scholars source should not be cited. If for you the source is outdated, for another editor it is not because simply isn't, none Wikipedia principle supports your reasoning, while you have nothing against citing older and less authorative sources and consideration on many other articles, including one example Narentines; Johannes Lucius (1604–1679), Johann Christian von Engel (1798), Pavel Jozef Šafárik (1795–1861), Konstantin Josef Jireček (1854–1918), Franjo Rački (1828–1894), Šime Ljubić (1822–1896), because they support Serbian point of view, while Evans opposes it, I will report for you intentional ideologization and disruptive behavior against neutrality of Wikipedia. Considering your personal point of view which negates the ethnicity and history of Vlachs, of the Balkan nations, I will report you as well for intentional pro-nationalistic (pro-Serbian) and chauvinist intentions. Considering your constant ignorance of other editors in the discussions, ignorance of dispute resolution, consensus, intentional edit-warring, reporting of other editors, doing anything because they are stopping you from disruptive activity on Wikipedia, I will not endure your personal and Wikipedia abuse.

While you two admins, slakr and Bbb23, I will surely report you because of deliberate acceptance of abuse and breaking of NPOV principles, constructivity and credibilty of Wikipedia, ignorance of disruptive activity, unfriendly behavior, nationalization and ideologization of Wikipedia, and harassment of a constructive editor. You, with power in your hand, have none right to stay silent and blind, do nothing. If the reply of slakr is the best thing you can do, to openly advice to report other editor, without understanding that kind of action will not benefit community health, and openly stated several times that I am not such a person and neither it is the best solution, to advice to seek dispute resolution, when the other editors ignores both a discussion and resolution, continue to restrict and block editors (and only one) while it makes things only worse, then I am asking you - are you tragicomedians or admins? If the credibilty of Wikipedia, pillars and principles, community health mean nothing to you, then you do not deserve to be admins. If Wikipedia became such a total fraud, then you can stick the pillars and principles to that place, and suspend me with how many blocks, restrictions, sanctions to keep me quiet. You made and allow a total mess of both Wikipedia and community. My reaction is the result of your action. Do something against me, do nothing for Wikipedia, and I will know how simple-minded personalities you are, and that in this reality, both Wikipedian and own, no one gives a single f*** for any dignity and principle.--Crovata (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to reply to Crovata's misunderstanding of the 3O conclusion. It is nowhere stated that an addition of a handful of direct references (non-Serbian btw!) to the subject should be refused. Now, as for your paralel of Tribes of Montenegro, the authors you refer to at Narentines (an (1) early medieval tribe) are listed in the Historiography-section at the bottom — You persistently try to synthesize an uniform ethnic origin/identity/whatever for a geo-socio-political concept (multiple Early modern tribes) through a "[Ethnic] Origin"-section at the top of the page in which, among others, you have added a 1885-86 entry (which was removed as outdated). Read the talk page – I have welcomed other editors to join in. I am always willing to discuss! You get uncivil right away, and you should realize that uncivility doesn't help you, neither does the "warrior-of-truth"-mentality.--Zoupan 23:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You liar, in your first sentence showed your deliberate ignorance of other editors. MarshalN20 stated that all viewpoints should be presented, be clear, show author expertise of the subject and nationality, it is not the right article for an elaborate expansion, that is WP:POINTY to constantly mention the Vlachs were Serbs or mostly Serbs, the short-term solution by Zoupan is too one-sided, and that long-term solution is to improve the article Vlachs of Croatia where the subject is in-depth discussed, while the footnote should present both perspectives with equal weight. The foosnote and article currently do not.

You intentionally negate the ethnicity and complexity of the identity and history of Balkan nations. The secondary geo-socio-political elements are primarily rooted in the ethnicity. You intentionally approach the subject through socio-political point of view so that the ethnicity of the tribes would become secondary and something to be ignored - exactly what Serbian historiography does on the subject of the Vlachs. They mostly consider them only a social category of the Serbs. They totally negate their ethnic identity and history. Bulgarian historiography considers them Bulgarians, Greek historiography considers them Greeks. Because they are influenced by culturo-political ideologies from the 19th century. It is their intention to manipulate and negate other ethnic identity, especially of the Vlachs who were numerous while did not had institutions and political country (of course admins and other editors won't understand it when I am blocked and can not edit the Vlachs article). You find few non-Serbian sources who are not even cited in the other article, you don't quote them properly (they talk about Orthodox Slavs, Orthodox Balkan people which include the Serbs, while you solely focus the cite in the foosnote and article lead and text on the Serbs), and now everything is fine? The 1885-86 entry was removed by you because you labeled it as "outdated", while many other and older scholars considerations (like those listed above) what you cited didn't and don't want to remove - because you don't find them outdated? That is typical example of hypocrisy. Tell me, what you have against the consideration of the authority like Evans, and why no word from you on the obsolescence of listed sources and scholars? Your behavior toward me and User:Sideshow Bob was not welcoming. You still did not answer questions sections above which were raised by yourself. You don't know what being civil mean. Saying the truth, labeling people right, doing right edits and discussions is being civil. Fooling around with neutrality and policy of Wikipedia, common sense like the one with "outdated sources", playing around with other editors time and nerves, reporting me to be blocked so you can freely edit, and in the end coming to my talk page defending yourself again with lies is much, much worse uncivility. It is passive-aggressive uncivility. Your kind of mentality and activity just shows what kind of personality you are.--Crovata (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Zoupan, you again continue citing biased sources from 1911-1914 which don't show reality of the subject, only pro-Serbian ideology about the Orthodox migrants and Vlachs. The same what you were doing about the Morlachs article in the 2014, now you are doing on the article about a decree. You are breaking NPOV principles. You are ignoring my own and third opinion.--Crovata (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Zoupan, you continue building up material for a future report. You intentionally ignore neutral considerations and complexity of the issue. You intentionally ignore other authorative scholars, especially many non-Serbian and those Serbian scholars who don't have such uncritical and ideological consideration. You mention extreme Croatian, while ignore the extreme Serbian historiographical point of view! Several considerations, and their intentional synthesis, are ideological constructions which don't show the historical reality of the period. Your edits about the subject show your open support of the Serbian political and historiographical ideology point of view which is chauvinistic towards the terminology and ethnicity of the specific population. With such a fraud synthesis you justify and validate the extreme Serbian ideology. slakr Bbb23 It is incredible you allow open politization and ideologization of Wikipedia.--Crovata (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)