User talk:Marcos G. Tusar

Your comments on Talk:Slavic settlement of Eastern Alps

It seems to me that you are being uncivil in pages like Talk:Slavic settlement of Eastern Apls, so I'd like to remind you to be civil and not to create personal attacks. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Regards. --Jalen (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil?? Uncivil would be deleting it, as I don´t believe in what you have written I say that in "discussion" which I think is the proper site for that.--Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using an excessive amount of capital letters and exclamation marks in your comments as these give an impression as if you are shouting at people. --Jalen (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no capital letters. But to the point...There is no any proof of the suppposed invasion of Slavs in the 6th century in the Eastern Alps. It is just a supposition. Your article is all about a supposition. I suggest that it may say, at least, that it is a Theory and not a proven fact.--Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I'm afraid your statements, both here and on the article's talkpage, really make no sense. There is ample proof of Slavic settlement in the 6th century, all of which is described in the article. --Jalen (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the comment in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_settlement_of_Eastern_Alps I must insist that the article is based only in writers with a political intention and there isn´t any proof of such supposed invasion, it is just a Theory, not a proven fact.--Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by writers with political intentions. This is a serious accusation. All of the authors listed under the reference section are reputable Slovenian (and other) historians. --Jalen (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the historians refered in the article, I couldn´t find anything in english or spanish about his position against the "Veneti Theory", at least in internet. Šavli, Tomazic and Bor provide better proofs. From the "Carpatian Theory" I didn`t find a single proof, even one, just historians wrtiting the ideas of his financial pagermanist or panslavist circles, just opinions, no evidence, no writters contemporary to the "invasion", nor a single mention in historical records. Interesting to read Dr. Šavli himself in the article "Who is afraid of the Black Panther?" or Tomazic explaining the "Veneti Theory" [1]. --Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 11:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would kindly request you not to add such unencyclopedic external links into articles as this one [2] which represents extreme pseudoscience and romanticism, or the Carantha.net website which promotes Slovenian nationalism. Regards, Jalen (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Marcos, please stop this nonsense. Wikipedia is not a battleground to prove one's point. I kindly asked you not to add inappropriate external links into article as they disrupt the whole content. --Jalen (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Jalen. It´s you who must stop erasing my editions. I asked you proofs and you have none, you cite authors, but that are opinions not proofs. The link is to read about the theory, which I believe in, so please, who are you to insult everibody?, especially academics like Dr. Šavli, a doctor. You insist to edit that he is an "amateur", it is offensive, and he replied you in the article "Who is afraid of the Black Panther?". So please stop, and please do not erase my opinion in your talk page, it is vandalic And I am tires with this, if you insist erasing me, insulting academic authors and exposing theories as a proven and pacific fact I´ll contact an administrator for a solution. And my name is Marcos Gabrile Tušar, and I am a lawyer, who are you (full name) to judge everybody? Which is your profesion? --Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your mail only now, next time just post it on my talkpage so I can see it straight away, ok? I don't agree that calling someone an amateur historian is offensive. Simply, Dr. Šavli has a PhD in socio-economics, as you say. Therefore, he is not an academic historian, is he? (An amateur economist would be offensive, sure.) And Matej Bor indeed won a Prešeren prize. These are awarded for significant achievements in cultural field. Again, nothing to do with history and certainly not something that would make his ethnological theory more reliable or trustworthy. Those you get only with approval of academic society. So this really leaves only Charles Bryant-Abraham as the only counter argument to put against established academic authors Štih, Bratož, Skrbiš and others. If you want to make a discussion on academic level, this is what you have to take into account. Of course, history always provides new evidences and new theories are developed so it is completely possible that my viewpoint proves totally false one day. And please, don't use terms like nostalgic yugoslavism to me, I was a little kid when Yugoslavia broke apart so I can't feel nostalgic yugoslavism really. Have you ever thought that such a support for Venetian theory could actually be powered by strong anti-yugoslav feelings? And this is not only in Slovenia, recently I read a theory that Croatians in fact came from Iran. But that's not what we discuss here. I am open for new ideas. I hope this helps. Greetings to Argentina. --Tone 20:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Charles Bryant-Abraham a redlink? A more important academic in this subject certainly deserevs an article, could you work on it? (Don't take this as a provocation, it isn't one.) --Tone 20:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Tone on the first point. You have dismissed a historic view that is widely agreed upon by the academic circles by branding its authors as Yugoslav nostalgists, without actually knowing them or having read their publications (authors like Peter Štih are among the most reputable historians and mediaevists in Slovenia), but on the other hand you consider it to be offensive to call Šavli an amateur historian despite the fact that he has no formal qualifications as a historian. This seems contradictory to me. Saludos, Jalen (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About what Tone said, I mentioned PhD in linguistics Charles Bryant-Abraham just to show that not only "economists, priests or poets are in the side of the Veneti Theory". I consider that stressing the adjective "amateur historian" instead of doctorate in socio economic Sciences, or priest instaed University Professor (Prof Tomazic) is of a bad intention. Because those people investigate as doctorate socio economic Sciences and as University Professors, not as Amateurs or as priests. I just want the Veneti Theory not to be censured. I just want to show the truth as it is, and I believed you and Jalen were obstacles to that and were presenting diputed facts as proven ones, and presenting Veneti Theory in a way very unrespectable and that is not a NPOV. --Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answering Jalen, I called "yugoslav nostalgics" because of the ideology of those respectable author. The difference, Jalen, is that I called them so in the Discussion Page and you insist in pejorative adjectives to the writers who are in the side of the Veneti Theory in the article itself. That is why is not contradictory this poin, instead you present Veneti Theory in an unrespectable way, if not in some articles censuring even it existence while not mentioning it, and presenting some theories as proven and undisputed historical facts.--Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Slovene history

I have bad experience with this user (more exactly, his attitude) too but as I am neither a linguist nor a historian I will not contribute to the article in question. Perhaps you will find helpful to use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dejan (Eleassar), so I was right, these people have interests in what is showing in Wikipedia, they don`t have proofs. I`ll contact a neutral administrator. I`d like a NPOV to the topics and they are censoring me.--Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comment

Hi Marcos, you have asked me for a comment on the article Slavic settlement of Eastern Alps. I must say I am not the right person to get into debate on this because my knowlege of history is not sufficient. The Venetian theory is something what appeared quite surprising to me when people started to talk about it, since it seemed in discrepancy with what was my general feeling of large migrations occurring in the second half of the first millenium. My awareness of west and south Slavic languages is also difficult to put in line with such a theory. As I said, I'm not an expert in the subject so this is purely my personal opinion. I never felt that "Carpatian Theory" would have something to do with nostalgic comunists or something. I can agree that in Yugoslavia some historic facts (especially form the previous century and in particular close to the ww2 period) were prone to systematic distortion for political reasons, but I find it unlikely that general perception of Slavic settlements would also be heavily affected by such intentional distortion. Ajgorhoe (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I;m afraid I am not knowledgeable about the subject enough to warrant my input. I gather there is some reason why it is being reverted. The best thing would be to discuss what the problem is and try to avoid edit warring. Regards The Bald One ^{White cat} 09:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Carantania. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But YOU are the one who is reverting me, and you don´t participate in the talk page as I do, I explain my editions and you simply erase, even information which I cite with a proper reference, and you erase pictures I put fron WikiCommons. I sent a mail to you, too. You didn´t answer--Marcos G. Tusar talk 21:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to reply to your comments on Eleassar's page:

Your edits are being reverted by a number of editors, not only me and Eleassar, because they contain factual inaccuracies and are based on unreliable, non-academic sources, as I have explained in detail on the Fringe Theorise Noticeboard.

You complain that other editors refuse to discuss with you on the talkpages. Perhaps you could pause to think that we are repelled by the tone and manner of your writing. Please read again your comments and ask yourself whether you consider this to be a constructive tone: [3], [4], [5]. I'm afraid we simply cannot discuss on such a level.

As for wikipedia's policy on the reliability of sources and references, I suggest you read the following links: Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources.

Regards, Jalen (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t agree with you, Jalen. I think that in the talk pages my position is clear, and that I have no answers because other positions have no single evidence, just writters. However I think that your comment in my page is constructive, at least is a talk and an answer. I don´t want o offend you, I just try to expose my ideas clearly, so if I have offend you I beg your pardon. Greetings from Argentina.--Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum

Hi Marcos G. Tusar,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

Each casebook will have a subpage.

Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 20:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Congratulations ! Your efforts and contributions to Wikipedia deserves this Barnstar as recognition Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Stories Project

Aloha!

My name is Victor and I work with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. We're chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade new people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who use Wikipedia have so much to share.

I find stories that drive our annual fundraising efforts. It's important to convey the incredible diversity of people who've come to rely upon Wikipedia every day.

I'd really like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia.

I will be in Buenos Aires from the 10th - 11th of March 2012.

I'm hoping you will elaborate on your story with me. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project!

Thank you,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ski jumping world cup 2015/16

Hi! Yes, in fact Prevc is at least for the next four events in overall lead in advance, but here we go step by step. You never know if next event will be cancelled or rescheduled. And doesn't look good visualy. Thanks. I see you are from Argentinta. Are they broadcasting ski jumping world cup there (on which tv) or are you watching it on Eurosport or any other live streams? Sportomanokin (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 10:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Marcos G. Tusar. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]