User talk:Uvouvo

Lastovo

I thought you are off wikipedia. I consulte some administrators and agreed that introduction was not best solution. Article will be on Today's Featured article on 3 July it will be good think if you could write your Economy section till then, demographics with demography history from first census till 2001 (Jurica's book ends with 1936 census) and expand History section little bit more with data about World War II and JNA occupation. Could you do that? Thanx! Pozdrav! Luka Jačov 08:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whats wrong with leaving the article in the same state, and on the same merits that earnt it a featured article status in the first place? You went against the peer review and the featured article requirements and reverted it back, removing the intro and re-adding the trivia. Also you did this when re-using the map you pinched from the Lastovo diving centre website. Do you really think the article needs updating? I can add extra information if you specify exactly, otherwise if we just add ad-hoc information it will confuse the article and it wont read well. Also introductions are required for featured articles. Uvouvo 10:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I told you what information; economy, demography with historicals cenus data and last tow wars. Luka Jačov 14:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lastovo

Hi! Well, it doesn't really matter to me who's the author of how much of the article, I actually only care about it being as good as possible. This means all the copyvios should be out. Regarding the websites borrowing pictures, many sites do this, but it's not exactly a right thing to do. Generally don't upload images you've found on these websites — better go to Lastovo and take some or find a free image resource. As for the license, if it says it's copyrighted, then don't put a GFDL tag, and request the image's deletion, since it's not suitable for Wikipedia. Todor →Bozhinov 08:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have problem me claiming I created featured article? Luka Jačov 11:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I dont care that you have, thats your own claim and has nothing to do with me. It does give insight into your character. However mostly what you added was copied from another site which was just a copy of the english summary found at the rear of Antun Jurica's book - Lastovo kroz stoljeca. You nominated the article a few times for FA, and it got rejected really until I made wholesale changes and updates to the article based on the peer review process. If you want to improve the article then fine. However I find that you are very unilateral in your editing, and often go against logic simply because you want things your way. Your edit summaries mention "we", although I dont know who "we" is as it is often only "you". Even above, you mention that you consulted some administrators, coming to the conclusion that the introduction was not a good idea, even when the peer review process identified that an introduction is essential to the article becoming a featured article. Basically your actions have prevented the article from being a part of the main page, and its becomming annoying having to revert your edits and edit war with you over things that are obvious. I'm glad others have had the patience. Uvouvo 23:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It says I nominated the article. Man, introduction didnt had anything to do with it. Reason was copyright paranoia and the guilt was as much as yours as it was mine (and i come from country where we dont care about copyrights). Your ignoring my questions shows your lack of arguments as well your mental weakness. We thought that introduction cause its repeating something already mentioned in the article. Luka Jačov 11:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latsovo: you have imposed a non neutral point of view

You have deleted my contributions with the assertion they were "pro italian", reinserting wrong concepts. You have not explained your decision! You just want to impose a non neutral point of wiev.

If you will not anwser, I will report your behaviour to a moderator. --Giovanni Giove 12:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We'll im happy to discuss any edits. As your probably aware Lastovo is on the main page, and is also a Featured article. Your edits are pro italian and also unsourced. How about we discuss the changes on the talk page and you provide references. I'll be more careful for the moment and remove unsourced edits. I'm happy to include all your changes. At the moment since the article is a Featured Article and on the main page, we need to be strict with POV editing occuring. Lastovo like Dalmatia is a source of contention with Italian and Serbian nationalists. I am happy to include your changes when they are a) verified and properly sourced, b) read well within the structure of the article and fit into the scope and lastly and most importantly neutral. Uvouvo 12:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Polo

Please write a comment on Marco Polo site under English in discussion section. I would like to see what you think about Marco Polo being of possible Croatian origin.

PS> i have read Wikipedia for about 3 years...seems to me many Srbs are going around Serbnizing all thing Croatian or linked to Croatia on this site. That is propaganda and as far as I see Administrators are doing little to stop it. Yet when someone like Evergreen says Marco Polo is Croatain he got blocked and got called a vandal. Not sure why Serbs keep doing that, they have some motive or belief that all famous Croats are Serbs in origin. Eg.. they claim Boscovich and Andric are Serbs ...which is crazy...

Thanks matey

Jagoda 1 03:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Where're ya? --PaxEquilibrium 23:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Red Croatia pamphlet

Ehm... that has nothing to do with an independent Montenegro :D. And I've seen this map myself. If you ever feel it like having a laugh or two (or feeling pity), go to the Doclean Academy of Sciences and Arts and pay it a visit.

Oh, thank you for asking. No, there's nothing new (except that Montenegro and Serbia are finally independent and that Milo Djukanovic, the very last of the big 1990s Yugoslav faces, is no longer interested in politics). Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 19:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct - but then again, they should've not made it :). Were the Allies propagating against Hitler when they when they mass-published newspapers containing the drawing of how the German tortures the Jew? --PaxEquilibrium 22:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

Undid its obvious. Pax, your the one reverting and removing content. I helped create the entire article. Your edit warring on a narrow point.

Please do not falsely characterize as if I am removing content. You're the one who is excluding, and without even a reason stated. --PaxEquilibrium 22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the sockpuppetry is more than obvious. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually PAX, you have made 3 reverts in the last 24 hours. Another one would constitue a violation of the 3RR rule. Please stop edit warring.

There are a few things here i take exception too

1) You have assumed bad faith on my revert on something we have already gone over a long time ago - one needs to only examine this talk page. You, now thinking that I am not active on wikipedia try to re-introduce incorrect claims already debunked in the past. This article has been made a featured article, and has been stable for one year.

2) I am not a sock puppet and never have been - that accustaion is insulting and baseless, and i expect an apology. I am assuming your thinking hambar is a sock puppet of mine. I welcome you to ask the moderators to invesitigate and confirm that, and on clarification of the truth I would expect your apology. Based on this bad faith judgement you now perceive me to be a ill intentioned user giving you the right to do what you are doing, which is infact wrong.

I have edited all facets of this article, from geography, history, economy to notable people, plus created sister articles on the statute of lastovo and also on the traditions of the poklad. Your pushing your agenda only on a narrow point that has been debunked in the past is the problem. You also introduced many unsourced and unprovable claims debunked in the past. You also mention that i have not been active since dec 2006. That is correct, i have never been an active wikipedian (except on the lastovo article). I read wikipedia actively, and always check the edits on this article while online - I have been at busy stage in my life until recently and didnt want to get involved in other articles. I dont see why i need to prove anything to you however. I respectfully ask that you leave the article in its previously discussed and stable state and also ask for your apology after you confirm that i am not the sock puppet you have accused me of being. Uvouvo 22:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course, if this is really not a sock-puppet(eer), I am very sorry. But as I see, you've also accused me of pursuing an agenda of sock-puppetry - and shouldn't you too apologize to me? :) You say I accuse everyone of sock-puppetry - who is that everyone, aside from one single case next to this one? Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 23:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) I actually assumed this was bad faith on your account. I posted restlessly replies on the talk page. Invited you on this very talk page numerous times, but you were constantly absent. Therefore, I waited for almost a year (lol ;) and the only logical assumption that came from that was to restore the old version. What incorrect info am I precisely introducing? 1. Lastovo was integrated into the Croatian Dalmatia after Tomislav's reign over the Byzantine province of Dalmatia in the 920s, AFAIK that's from Croatian sources. After 948 Croatia fell into civil disarray with almost a of succession and Serbia used the moment by taking ("correcting" as Serb nationalists-historians say) some Croatian land, one of them the Narentine takeover of Croatian Lastovo. Could you tell me why is this incorrect?

2) You have to admit, that one hour return to rv after a year-long pause is very shockingly suspicious, wouldn't it be to you yourself? :P Cheers. What agenda am I promoting? --PaxEquilibrium 23:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I actually assumed this was bad faith on your account. I posted restlessly replies on the talk page. Invited you on this very talk page numerous times, but you were constantly absent. Therefore, I waited for almost a year (lol ;) and the only logical assumption that came from that was to restore the old version."

Hahahaha, are you serious? Please stop with the games. The rest of your post is just a diversion and i dont need to answer your thoughts on what is suspicious or what is not. Uvouvo 02:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the incorrect information, the DAI (The only source which incorrectly identifies pagania as Serbian) specifically leaves Lastovo out of Pagania. Since it describes Serbia according to Caslav's Serbia and was written circa 948-952, and Lastovo / Vis was out of Pagania then your claim is incorrect. Croatian historians also do not agree with what you put forward, (The Croatian historians which focus / specialise on Lastovo (Antun Jurica / Neven Vekaric) - We should place more weight on what the locals call themselves and how they describe the situation - These historians offer updated scholarship compared with the likes of Ferdo Sisic and Vladimir Corovic. Like i said we have been through all this before, and re-reading this talk page and the lastovo talk page makes it clear if you have forgotten. Below is the quote from chapter 36 in the DAI "Chapter 36 - Of the Pagani, also called Arentani, and of the country they now dwell in In Pagania are the inhabited cities of Mokron, Beroullia, Ostrok and Slavinetza. Also, they posses these islands: the large island of Kourkra (Korcula) or Kiker, on which there is a city; another large island Meleta (Mljet) ... another large island, Bratzis (Brac). There are other islands not in the possession of these same Pagani: the island of Choara (Susac), the island of Ies (Vis), the island of Lastobon" Uvouvo 02:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? Yes, of course I am serious.

And? I have myself pointed that out. The (Serb?) Narentines populated in the first half of the 7th century the islands of Mljet, Hvar, Brac & Korcula. The islands of Vis & Lastovo were, as I quoted, conquered only for a short time.

And as for the other matter, I don't understand why are you removing the details that Croatia acquired Lastovo? I thought you agree yourself to that as well? Cheers, mate. --PaxEquilibrium 12:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now i feel we are getting somewhere. There are no primary (not secondary) sources that confirm the above. Its the same with the pro Croatia sources - none are certain, and that is the reason why we reached agreement of the wording of the history section pertaining to medieval Lastovo, and that is the reason why that section of the page remained unchanged for close to a year and a half. It is clear that Lastovo was largely autonomous, as confirmed by their seperate statute codified in 1310 confirming their own laws and policies within the Dubrovnik republic as a commune. Lastovci never described themselves as Serbs, and external rule spread over lastovo was largely unclear and written about many centuries after the event with conflicting dates and overlapping rulers - clearly untenable. Historians (experts on the island) have agreed that the island remained autonomous and "may" have been claimed by other rulers as a sort of nominal rule which actually never was real or pervasive. I really think the article should remain in its current state. Also in a side note, there has been updated scholarship from the likes of John Fine (regarded as one of the most respected english based and least biased historians on the subject) which actually debunks the Serbian ethnicity of Paganians, which would present a problem for you in all the other articles you have recently changed. If you wanted I could present all these sources and make the appropriate edits in those articles? Lastly, now i hope that your hambla case has been worked out that you will again respect my edits based on good faith. Uvouvo (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, you have yourself used secondary (pro Croatia?) sources (the non-certain ones) in this very article.

Of course Lastovans never described themselves as Serbs. Why would they?

If you have any info on Fine's interpretations, please supplement it to me ASAP. I am very interested to find out that which I do not know yet. Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as my edits, they all relate to primary sources written from that period, or at least based on a consensus of experts on the topic with the most up to date scholarship. I can explain if you like, all though it should be self explanatary since it is well sourced.

Also, I am happy to supplement the sources from John Fine and other scholars to you. Although you will need to give me time, is that OK with you? Uvouvo (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pax, before you accuse me of "tenacity of not discussing things" could you please elaborate, and point out above where i have not discussed things (to circular death). The only thing i havent had the time to do is forward you the latest consensus of historians re the ethnicity of paganians etc. But that is not central to the article. Why do you dissapear for a year and then revert, and then months and then revert after we have seemingly hashed this out in the past? Uvouvo (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Pagania

Hi Uvouvo! There are some changes happening on the Pagania article. You might like to contribute as you were involved in the original consensus-concerning Slavs vs. Serbs/Link. Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:UbliLambs.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:UbliLambs.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Deadstar (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:LastovoMap.gif

The file File:LastovoMap.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned map.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]