User talk:Brkic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] This historic fact is not allowed on the main pages of http://en.wikipedia.org/

Ustaše (Uprisers) - nickname for Croatian soldiers that drove out the Turks from Croatia in the years from 1683 to 1689. [1] former Uskoks. Commanders of the southern soldiers based in Dalmatia (1683) where Prince Franjo Posedarski, Prince Jerko Rukavina, Dujan Kovačević, Ilija Smiljanić, Šimun Bartolac and Stojan Janković (former muslim) Commanders of the northern soldiers based in Ogulin (1685) where Baron Franjo Oršić, Baron Stjepan Vojnović, Baron Ivan Gusić and Count Adam Purgstall.[2] The Ustasa army numbered several thousand soldiers that later settled with there families in the Lika and Krbava region of Croatia and are all found by name age and rank in the Census of Lika and Krbava in 1712.[3]

1. Radoslav Lopašić - DVA HRVATSKA JUNAKA: Marko Mesić i Luka Ibrišimović (Zagreb 1888) p 35.

2. Dragutin Hirca - LIKA I PLITVIČKA JEZERA (Zagreb 1900) p 66

3. Karl Kaser - POPIS LIKE I KRBAVE 1712. GODINE (Zagreb 2003) p 51-374


I am constantly deleted and blocked from editing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustase by,

1. User: Spylab

2. User: Rjecina

3. User: Kirker

4. User: Kuru

5. User: laughing man WikiProject Serbia.

6. User: Steel359


This is NO free Encyclopedia !

Maybe you should write it in clear, legible english first, eh? 82.153.230.138 (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your account

The block on your account has expired. You should be able to edit other articles - if you cannot, please post the message you receive when you try to edit. Kuru talk 01:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I want to edit this article ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustase

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png 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 08:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

If I am not unblocked from editing this article within the next 24 hours.

This above entire message about http://en.wikipedia.org and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustase

Will be posted in one hundred forums all over the world

Example > http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=1120986#1120986

This will automatically be picked up by the search engines in the coming ten years

Enuf is Enuf !

--Brkic 08:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You are NOT "constantly deleted and blocked" by me

I have deleted your input ONCE. I did it because your contribution was utterly irrelevant to an article that quite clearly is about the insurgent movement started by dissident Croats during the period of the south-slav kingdom. It would be reasonable to mention somewhere in that article that the term had been used earlier, in the way you describe. But to allow it as the lead paragraph would be idiotic. No encyclopaedia on earth would do that.

There are two other ways in which you could show off your little bit of knowledge (if that is what's driving you). You could say in the article about Uskoks that they acquired the nickname "ustaše" and you could create an entirely separate Wikipedia article with a heading such as "Ustaše (nickname of the Uskoks." In the latter case it need not be a long article. Or indeed it could say simply "see Uskoks."

As far as I am concerned, you could do both of these things AND (as I said in my explanatory note at the time) you could mention at some appropriate point in the main Ustaše article that the term had been used earlier as a nickname.

I can't stop you publishing whatever rubbish you like about me in whatever forums you like. If you go ahead with what you have proposed to say, it is enough for me to know that you know you are telling a lie. Kirker 11:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Then You're not Spylab, Rjecina, laughing man, Steel359, Kuru, You'r just, Kirker right ?

Just how dumb do you think I am? Unblock the article for me to edit !

--Brkic 12:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I am not those other people. Are you an idiot? And sorry, but I haven't a clue how to unblock you, or how to block you in the first place. Kirker 17:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

O You just happened to delete me ? You just happened to be at the right place at the right time ? I will post the complain on forums and blogs all across the internet until the day you allow me to edit this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustase

--Brkic 18:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Bitka.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Bitka.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking of Ustape article

If you look for person who is guilty for blocking of article you will have your answer now. On 30 september I have writen this:

"Semi-protection It is possible to put this article in semi-protected mode for long period of time because it is popular with blocked users which are coming again and again. For this it is enough to see history page of article. Users User:Guivon , User:UstashkiDom , user:Brkic are blocked, user:Skoa is vandal which nobody has asked to be blocked. All in less of 40 days we are having 4 "new" users which play with article."

and administrators have accepted my demand. After you will work on wikipedia you will have possibility to edit this article because semi-protection is working only against new users. If you think that protection is not honest you can ask that article be unprotected on this link: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

About your changes my only comment is that they are false because of 1 simple fact. I will not say why but let you read on croatian wikipedia. Look this link :[1]

If you want that something similar to that be writen in article Ustaše please write statement and I will put this statement in begining of article (something similar to : Prije 20 stoljeća riječju ustaša su se nazivali ustanici protiv Turske, Venecijanske ili Austrijske vlasti) You need to start cultural discussion with other users and not attack everybody who do not agree with you. --- Rjecina 14:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC


Is this also false then ? http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usta%C5%A1i

Or are you going to delete that to ?

Quotation:

Ustaši so bili južni Slovani, ki so se bojevali proti vdoru turkov od 14. do 16. stoletja.

Translation:

Ustaša where southern Slavs, that fought against the turks from 14th to 16th century.

You try to falsify history true Wikipedia ! Because you are a enemy of Croatia !

You have already lost.

--Brkic 16:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Ustaši

Ustaši, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Ustaši satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ustaši and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Ustaši during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Duja► 08:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ustaši

[edit] Ustaši

No, this is the story about the original Ustaša army of the 17th century

We cannot delete this article because another army under the same name did this or that, and lost a war in the 20th century

As in the Military history of the United States many articles are needed to enlighten things.

The two Croatian names Ustaši and Domobrani are not a 20th century invention.

Both are found in the famous Military history of Croatia.

Domobrani or Imperial Croatian Home Guard are Croatian soldiars 1868 - 1918

Ustaši or Ustaše are Croatian soldiars 1683 - 1689

These are historic Croatian military names. That both where reused in the 20th century !

Now the sources mentioned so far.

The first two are ordinary old history books referenced to, in all works on the topic.

The third source, mention "the events in question"

On page 10 look for, "dragovoljacki odredi 1684" "volunteer squads 1684"

The book also list the Croatian soldiers of the time such as,

  • Prince Marko Kovacevic page 189
  • Prince Ivan Drakulic page 75
  • Prince Orlovic page 265
  • Castellan Milan Marinkovic page 155
  • Castellan Petar Vrkljan page 255
  • Kapitain Stojan Kovacevic son of Commander Dujan Kovacevic page 255
  • Kapitain Ivan Mesic brother of Commander Marko Mesic page 163
  • Corporal Miko Sertic page 164
  • Corporal Jure Gaier page 164

The Croatian Ustaša soldiers were organised into the Croatian Military Frontier - Croatian Krajina in 1712

You fail to comment on their prior name Uskoks (Jumpers)

This name however was not reused by the Croatian soldiers in the 20th century

Is that way ?

If you dont like President Bush you cannot dislike everyone named Bush or say it's a "archaic word" for a plant.

That's disrespectful !

There is nothing to be done about this historical facts we must accept them.

In sum, this completly unbiased and comprehensive artical about the original Croatian Ustasa soliders 1683 - 1689 needs to be further upgraded and not mixed with or to be deleted and redirected to the serbian Ustaše article.

As you have vel understood, this "new" info vil reaper in many articles in many forms all around the net.

By the way here are som pictures of British and Croatian Commanders in the Crimean War (1853–1856)[2]

That's a long time ago, before NATO. Hope that doesnt bother you to ?

--Brkic 18:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ustaše. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. --nattang 20:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE NOT EDITED THIS ARTICLE SINS 19:17, 29 September 2007 Brkic

HOW CAN I THEN BE IN A EDITING WAR ???

--Brkic 20:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ustaši

Ustaši (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a WP:POVFORK, created by Brkic (talk · contribs), currently blocked for 58RR at Ustaše (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and incivility. The story goes like this:

  • Brkic apparently tries to convey the message that Ustaše have noble origins of anti-Turkish insurgents from 17th century
  • After revert-warring fails at that article, he creates this one.
  • As the Ustaše article acknowledges in the lede, the origin of the name actually does come from "ustaš", an archaic word for "insurgent" or "upraiser"
  • To prove that, he uses two sources from 1888 and 1900, which could plausibly use the word indeed, as at that time it did mean "insurgent". I'd call that quote mining. I can't find any other mention at GBooks and GScholar of the word other than the WWII context.
  • The third source, "Karl Kaser - POPIS LIKE I KRBAVE 1712. GODINE (Zagreb 2003) p 51-374" is available online [3] and does not mention "ustaši" nor the events in question.
  • Now, the rest of the information from the article probably has some basis: the persons mentioned do exist and they lived at that time. The events in question, however, are likely just part of the greater Habsburg-Ottoman war 1683-1699, supposedly the Great Turkish War. And they were just side events of the great battle.

In sum, I propose that the article is deleted and redirected to Ustaše; the few valuable pieces of information therein might find some place in History of Croatia, but those are just another skirmishes within a big war AFAICT, and it's really difficult to find a context to merge into. The rest is POV-pushing. Duja► 08:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete and redirect, per nom. Valuable information if any should be integrated into Uskoks--Victor falk 17:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article is completely misleading. First of all the word "Ustasha" was common for "uprisers", and common not only in Croatia but elsewhere in the Yugoslav lands. The reason why this fairly common word has been completely pushed out from the Serb-Croat vocabulary, is the actions of the Croatian Patriotic Ustashas during World War II and the bad connotations it automatically attracts. The point of this article seems to be in bad faith. Also, there is absolutely no necessity to create an independent article on such matter - there are corresponding ones that should contain the info: Uskoks, Ustashas, Serbian Uprising,... --PaxEquilibrium 20:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment No, this is the story about the original Ustaša army of the 17th century We cannot delete this article because another army under the same name did this or that, and lost a war in the 20th century. As in the Military history of the United States many articles are needed to enlighten things. The two Croatian names Ustaši and Domobrani are not a 20th century invention. Both are found in the famous Military history of Croatia.

Domobrani or Imperial Croatian Home Guard are Croatian soldiars 1868 - 1918

Ustaši or Ustaše are Croatian soldiars 1683 - 1689

These are historic Croatian military names. That both where reused in the 20th century !

Now the sources mentioned so far.

The first two are ordinary old history books referenced to, in all works on the topic.

The third source, mention "the events in question"

On page 10 look for, "dragovoljacki odredi 1684" "volunteer squads 1684"

The book also list the Croatian soldiers of the time such as,

  • Prince Marko Kovacevic page 189
  • Prince Ivan Drakulic page 75
  • Prince Orlovic page 265
  • Castellan Milan Marinkovic page 155
  • Castellan Petar Vrkljan page 255
  • Kapitain Stojan Kovacevic son of Commander Dujan Kovacevic page 255
  • Kapitain Ivan Mesic brother of Commander Marko Mesic page 163
  • Corporal Miko Sertic page 164
  • Corporal Jure Gaier page 164

The Croatian Ustaša soldiers were organised into the Croatian Military Frontier - Croatian Krajina in 1712

You fail to comment on their prior name Uskoks (Jumpers)

This name however was not reused by the Croatian soldiers in the 20th century Is that way ?

If you dont like President Bush you cannot dislike everyone named Bush or say it's a "archaic word" for a plant. That's disrespectful !

There is nothing to be done about this historical facts we must accept them.

In sum, this completly unbiased and comprehensive artical about the original Croatian Ustasa soliders 1683 - 1689 needs to be further upgraded and not mixed with or to be deleted and redirected to the serbian Ustaše article.

As you have vel understood, this "new" info vil reaper in many articles in many forms all around the net.

By the way here are som pictures of British and Croatian Commanders in the Crimean War (1853–1856)[4]

That's a long time ago, before NATO. Hope that doesnt bother you to ? --Brkic 18:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The point of contention here is the article title, and your behaviour to push it through by all means possible. Now, which 20th century source uses the term "ustaši" for the 17th century insurgents? There's no evidence whatsoever that they called themselves like that, or that they were collectively called like that at the time, or by 20th century historians. Like I said, the term is used for any insurgents (against Turks, in the context) in both Serbian and Croatian languages, as can be seen in this 1946 reprint: "Nevesinje (Herzegovinian rebellion) 1875... the Turkish squad went from Pišče to replace Bezuje squad. They were intercepted by ustaši: ... Mira Gagović". Or this 1929 paper: "Miloš Milutina Lakićevića, carpenter from Trpeza, ustaš of Toplica [uprising] from 1917".
The events described in the article are also described here, under B.3. No mentioning of "ustaši" either. A suitable place for the material might be e.g. under Military Krajina#After the Great Turkish War and Treaty of Karlowitz section. I still assert that the "ustaši" naming is only your construction and original research. No one here has a problem with describing valid historic events. We do have a problem with your insistence to name it as you wish and include it into inappriate places. Duja► 07:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • New Comment

I am not familiar with the serbian cyrillic letters in your links. The 20th century Yugoslav (serbian) historians had the same problem as you have, to distinguish between the events. They simply wrote another name Uskoks instead of Ustaši describing the 17th century events, referred to.

To understand why the names Ustaši and Domobrani were reused by some Croatians in the 20th century we need to know their historical use.

All Uskoks actives ended long before the Ustaša actives of the 17th century begun.

You your self now admit that terme is not a 20th century invention And yes it was used by the Montenegrians fighting the turks in 1711 [5] Your 20th century historians are quoted there.

You don't believe my 19th century historians because your 20th century historians are not clear on this. We cannot subscribe the 17th century events to the Uskoks, falsifying history out of Ustaša phobia

Why do you think the author of this[6] article uses a capital letter for the term Ustaši ? "Hercegovački ustanak 1875-1878"

It's because Ustaši is the name of the 1875 to 1878 squad he is describing.

Just like Ustaši is the name of the 1683 - 1689 squad historian Lopasić[7] is describing in 1888. This is NO exclusive 20th century name. The name was generally used by the anti turk movement and later reused in the 19th and 20th century.

You want it to be a exclusive 20th century movement.

In order to prevent me from writing an article about the Croatian anti Turkish movment of the 17th century

My unbiased article if you dont punk it up with your 20th century horror show will be a about the Croatian anti Turkish movement of the 17th century.

You already have your unhistorical article Ustaše. No offense, I would have done a better work.

Nicknames of British Army Units here[8]. I'll spare you for the American nicknames.

1054 ?

--Brkic 14:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you seem to agree that "ustaši" is (one of) generic term(s) for 16-19th century insurgents (against Turks), regardless of the area. Now, according to our naming conventions, article titles should reflect the reader's expectations and be brought in proper context, specifically "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?". For example, the vast majority of Google scholar search results uses "ustasi" in WWII context, suggesting it's a plausible search term for ustaše rather than for 1683 Lika rebellion. Now, can we amicably come to resolution that you put the said interesting material into one of Military Frontier, Croatian Krajina, Croatia in the Habsburg Empire, Great Turkish War, wherever is best, and where it could work better in a context? Our historic coverage of those events is fairly weak. The entire confrontation you encountered here was because your insistence on the term (rather than on contents) was perceived as trolling by other editors. We do have policies such as assuming good faith and not biting the newcomers which perhaps weren't followed by the fellow editors, but I must admit you weren't overly tactful either. Duja► 15:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not agree with you at all.

It should be in the lede, a first sentences.

Like it is in this Slovenian version of Wikipedia [9].

Quotation:

Ustaši so bili južni Slovani, ki so se bojevali proti vdoru turkov od 14. do 16. stoletja.

Translation:

Ustaši where southern Slavs, that fought against the turks from 14th to 16th century.

Or as it also is in the Italian version of Wikipedia [10].

Quotation:

Il termine ùstascia già usato dagli slavi balcanici per indicare coloro che lottavano contro i turchi

Translation:

The term Ustaši already used from the Balkan Slavs in order to indicate those who fought against the Turks

Those are unbiased and comprehensive ledes on the Ustasi subject.

It should be like that in the english lede to.

Am I getting truog to you ?

--Brkic 19:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)