User talk:Dvatel

Thank you for uploading

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This image is not copyrighted, plz do not use images that do not comply with the Wiki copyrights policy as Wiki deletes any image that is not copyrighted automatically. If you have this image in high resolution you are welcome to use it on Wiki as long you comply with the Wiki policy, thanx Mic of orion (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of ZACORDA, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.zacorda.hr/en/o_nama. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on

Thank you for uploading

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, ZACORDA, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.zacorda.hr/en/o_nama. As a copyright violation, ZACORDA appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. ZACORDA has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:ZACORDA and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the
  GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:ZACORDA
  with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the
  GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:ZACORDA
  .

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are having small problem with template:"Regions which belonged to Kingdom of Hungary before the Treaty of Trianon (1920)" in articles about Croatia. Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia has declared independence from Kingdom of Hungary in October of 1918 and this was accepted by Hungary in October 1918 or I am making mistake ?--Rjecina (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you add the Christianity infobox to the Anglican communion page? As far as I know these should not work as categories and should only be displayed on pages which are listed on the box, because they are series boxes. That's why the box says "part of a series on" and lists the series? If you agree perhaps you would like to revert this yourself since that's always nicer than having someone else do it for you? --BozMo talk 13:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that the article has a POV concern, you need to start a discussion on the talk page about it. Per the documentation, I have removed the notice. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cited very reliable, neutral sources. I hope you won't attempt something like that again (deletion of relevant referenced material with a misleading edit summary). Squash Racket (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You falsified what the Oxford University Press reference says, so it would be nice if you reverted yourself. Squash Racket (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book clearly says "feudal ruler of Croatia" and "Croatian vassals" and you changed it without citing another reliable source. Squash Racket (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some "relevant web sources" won't compare to Oxford University-level academic research. Squash Racket (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used four different reliable sources including

WP:CIV. Squash Racket (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

Tell me what's the difference between kingdom of Hungary and lands of St Stephen--Bizso (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You delted this sentnce form Kingdom of coratia Croatia was governed by a ban responsible to the Hungarian king. Is this false?--Bizso (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia wasn't a vassal, it was a county or kingdom in the kingdom of Hungary. What you refer to is called Hungary proper. The whole area was called kingdom of hungary.

Yet you deleted it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizso (talk • contribs) 21:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok just check any historical map. Do you see lands of the St Stephen or kingdom of hungary for the state that was in Central Europe?--Bizso (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, there was never such state as Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia , that was called kingdom of Hungary. This was introduced into articles recently. From the 12/11 th century, king of Hungary had the title king of Croatia as well, although it is disputed whether he was crowned separately as king of croatia. This is not my opinion, but of histroians--Bizso (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

guess how many titles did Austrian emperors have? that's right, 150. May I ask you why the other 145 is not there? They should be listed under a separate section called Titles. That is becuase most of them include other titles. Such king of Hungary include king of Croatia. and emperor of austria includes king of Tyrol, or emperor of lower austria, but not king of Bohemia for example. Stop acting on your emotions.--Bizso (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do think i provided references such as britannica and encarta? for fun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizso (talk • contribs) 22:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The articles were correct at the date of their creation until February/October 2008 when they were changed mostly by two IPs. Also, the articles are correct in other languages. Check it yourself —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizso (talk • contribs) 22:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now you say because croatia wasn't a vassal whereas you said just before that you think Croatia was a vassal...--Bizso (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't belive in Britannica or Encarta, then pick a random verifiable and reliable source, and check it yourself again--Bizso (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the influence of User:Rjecina...--Bizso (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you claim that I deleted reference. Where did I delete it?--Bizso (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but if you change everything back, then you should remove the references that I added, because they don't support what you state.--Bizso (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter where I am from? Or is history different in Croatia or Hungary from the rest of the world?--Bizso (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Wikipedia may be a lot more reliable on science topics because they are not subject to nationalistic disputes.--Bizso (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the Balkans. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part, merely to warn you of the Arbitration Committee's decision. Thank you.. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a notification if you are going to be editing in the space. My main concern is your habit of throwing around the word "vandalism" to everything, and a generally aggressive tone. For example, instead of conduct like starting new sections like this, I want you to

assume good faith and ask Bizso about it first. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Are you suggesting here that because

this policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Explicit warning: this is not appropriate conduct. There is no need to make suggestions as to the ethnicity of other editors as it is completely irrelevant and inappropriate. Do it again (and I'm not kidding) and you will be blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All users involved in personal union discussion are invited to RFC on Talk:Pacta conventa (Croatia)--Rjecina (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not understand your message. Sophia was the mother of Coloman of Hungary which is well documented. However, none of the sources I have read mention that she was Croatian. Moreover, if she had been Croatian, this fact would have probably be mentioned in order to strengthen his son's claim to the throne of Croatia. Therefore, the statement that she was Croatian should be properly cited. Otherwise, we could also state that she was Hungarian, Polish, Jew, French, American, Spanish, Ethiopian, Chinese or English. I think before labelling anybody of nationalism we should assume a good faith edit. Borsoka (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not say things like "Slovenian historians aren't reliable!" again.

What would be the point of arguing about whether Wikipedia itself is reliable? Either you have something to add to the discussion or you are just wasting time there, in violation of

talkpage guidelines. There's a project specifically focusing on that if you are interested. If you want to change your name, see Wikipedia:Changing username. If you are just trying to get away from your history and start anew, that's fine but if people connect you to your prior account, it'll look extremely bad. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Dvatel, the issue here is not the name of the article, or whether or not "Triune Kingdom" was used as a name for the

TALK) 13:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I've attempted above to explain the issue to you, since you're obviously editing without being at all familiar with what you're doing. Again, your one source that has any baring on the issue actually proves my point, as the author refers to the "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia" as the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia". Demonstrating how the two are actually one and the same.

Kindly familiarize yourself with the issues before making silly edits. Your comments make no sense. --

TALK) 15:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

P.S. Since you've gotten involved in this, I'd appreciate if you didn't do it half-heartedly. Also, kindly cease patronizing me, it is insulting when it comes from a User with far less experience on Wikipedia. Stop accusing me of bias "by default". I am not "biased", how could I possibly be "biased"? If anything I should be "biased" against this edit. I am simply merging two articles on the exact same former country. Explain to me why they should be seperate?? --

TALK) 15:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello? Anyone there? This is obviously a silly misunderstanding and I'd like to get it settled as quickly as possible, do I have to revert you in the article to grab your attention?? --

TALK) 16:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Dvatel, don't try to make me sound like I'm the one patronizing you. Kindly read my responses, I already repeated twice that, I did read your sources, and that I fully responded to them. I'm repeating this for the third time: one of your sources has nothing to do with the matter at hand, the other actually supports the merge. Sorry, but I can only surmise that you have no idea what the merge is about. Discuss properly, respond fully - or just stop. This is all a misunderstanding, because you have not familiarized yourself with the issue. --

TALK) 20:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

All your statements are completely unrelated to any of my posts. The edit is not opposed, since it simply merges two pages on the same subject. I have not yet seen any basis for opposing the move, certainly not from your vague "statements" and unrelated sources. The only opposition came from an IP's claim that has been successfully disproven by sources. Unless you can present some reason for your revert-warring in the article, I shall certainly not complicate matters for no good reason. --

TALK) 20:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

There is a difference between a legal treaty and an ideal, non-existent, state.Anonimu (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing is turning farcical. A user with no understanding of the issue whatsoever, and without presenting a reason of any kind, is reverting a merge of two articles on the same former country because it presents with too many "red numbers" on his watchlist and because he thinks I'm "biased" for some reason. Seriously, Dvatel, I'm going to report you for this. Either start discussing properly or stop

revert-warring

. Your nonsensical comments on my alleged bias are so silly, I honestly don't even know what kind of bias I am being accused of. You either don't care about this issue to discuss properly, or you're having trouble with English. Which is it?

I've responded on the sources presented by this user something like twenty times, yet he still reverts me with the edit summary "Have you even read the post, sources, anything?". The funny thing is, his sources actually support the merge. :P This would really be comical if it wasn't so annoying. --

TALK) 10:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Source: [1]

Oh brother... :)

Step 1: READ my response (follow this link: [2])

Step 2: UNDERSTAND what its says.

Step 3: RESPOND completely and fully to what it says.

Can I put it in a simpler way? :P --

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your work on the English Wikipedia.

I noticed an article you worked on. Just a short note to point out that we don’t normally link:

• dates
• years
• commonly known geographical terms (including well-known country-names), and
• common terms you’d look up in a dictionary (unless significantly technical).

This applies to infoboxes, too.

Thanks, and my best wishes.

Tony (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article National Cake Day has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable unofficial holiday. Sources don't provide actual substantive coverage, just that it's a day to eat cake.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Reywas92^Talk 13:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]