User talk:Kubura

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

  • How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
  • Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including, there is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome!


Bok Kuburo :) Pretpostavljam da si ovdje došao blagoglagoljati amerima o "razlikama" između hrvatskog i srpskog :) Samo imaj na umu da je ovdje 6-7 izvornih govornika srpskohrvatskog koji su glasali za, srbi, bošnjaci, hrvati, jugoslaveni..i da sve što kažeš a što je lažno će biti po svoj prilici vrlo brzo ispravljeno. Nadam se samo da se nećeš pozivati na "eminentne hrvatske jezikoslovce" za koje ostatak svijet nije nikad čuo :-) --Ivan Štambuk 00:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've replied you on my talkpage. Also rest assured that you will be blocked if you continue trolling. --Ivan Štambuk 01:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Trolling for trouble[edit]

Kubura, if you want to contribute here in a positive and friendly manner, you are welcome. But if you are here to stir up trouble and fan the flames of ethnic hatred, we don’t want you here. Make up your mind, we don’t tolerate that stuff. —Stephen 02:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Emphasis using italics[edit]

Hello here in English Wiktionary. Can you please use italics for emphasis instead of underlining and boldface? Underlining and boldface are very conspicuous and strong; boldface gives the impression of shouting, although that was probably not your intent. English typography typically uses italics for emphasis. Thank you for considering this proposal. --Dan Polansky 09:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(Dan: Let me quote the answer you have posted on my talk page here, to keep the thread:)
Thanks, Dan, on your remark.
I know for the rule about writing with capital letters - they mean shouting.
I use italics for citing.
I also use bold, but not a lot. Further, I don't find him as shouting - finally, the Wikipedian articles begin with bold text (on the other hand, I see no capital letters text). But I agree that overuse of bolded text annihilates the emphasis.
So, I use underlining of text as a mean of emphasising. This is my preferred method. Of course, I always try to avoid the overuse of underlined text - it takes a lot of effort to read such text. And, like any overuse, it decreases/eliminates the original emphasis-effect.
Do you agree with me?
Bye, Kubura 10:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that using underlines for emphasis is a poor method, and that using italics is a good method. Language is a set of conventions for marking up semantics AKA meaning AKA sense. The English typography has the convention of marking emphasis using italics, and of avoiding boldface for emphasis. You may choose to mark emphasis using underlining, but this is non-standard and unconventional. Your marking up using underlining will be understood, but it will be also clear to the reader that you are either intentionally deviating from the conventions or that you do not know the conventions. To verify that using underline is non-standard, you may read the voting page on Serbo-Croatian and various discussion pages in Wiktionary or in English Wikipedia. The choice is ultimately with you: it is not my intention to enforce typographic conventions, only to inform you of their existence. --Dan Polansky 10:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


Woooow Kuburo, woow, wait just a little bit!

We are not allowed to add words that are not used! Word does not "exist" if some purist invents it, bot only when it gains actual usage. We have specific criteria for inclusion - unused neolgoism/protologisms are not allowed. --Ivan Štambuk 00:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm speaking of certain words that were used for a period of time. Kubura 00:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I guess you won't have problems finding citations supporting its usage. Citations are the most important thing here. What are references to Wikipedia, those are citations for Wiktionary :) Please see WT:CFI. --Ivan Štambuk 00:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)



could you please trim the trailing whitespace in your {hr-decl-noun} declensions? It kind of interferes with some of my programs :D Thanks --Ivan Štambuk 00:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Trolling and spreading ethnic hatred[edit]

Dear, Kubura, pertaining to this quote of yours[1]

Serbo-Croatian" is not my language. And don't impose that name to my language. That's an insult against me and all speakers of Croatian, on national basis. If you don't know what submitting of your mother tongue (to another language) is, please, don't mess into this matter. That's humiliating feeling.

According to your extremist logic, person cannot simultaneously

  1. be Croat
  2. speak Serbo-Croatian

Interestingly, there are some 4-5 Croats (and non-Croats, but native speakers) that voted for the proposal. How would you explain that? You can't.

What your are trying to do is to deliberately make it very uncomfortable for external English-speaking Wiktionary contributors to involve in this issue, namely to side themselves with Logic and Reason. By taking "politically correct" stance with nationalists such as yourself, who don't want to "be offended" by the fact that they speak the same language as Serbs, Bosniaks and Montenegrins, you are trying to make them very uncomfortable to even write the word Serbo-Croatian, let alone support the unified treatment effort for all the SC national varieties.

Your employer Robert Ullmann already tried that and pretty much failed. I cannot block him but I can block you. Consider yourself warned. --Ivan Štambuk 01:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

3-day block[edit]

Based on your continuing disruptive behavior, I have blocked you for 3 days. Please avoid confrontational activities on this project. Please engage in constructive discussions on this project. - Amgine/talk 00:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

May I encourage you, at this moment, to review the Wiktionary:Civility? - Amgine/talk 01:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


You are free to add new B/C/S/M sections to the already present SC sections, but not to obliterate the latter at the expense of former. In the converse scenario, you're effectually destroying information, in that particular edit of yours of Ijekavian Serbian. --Ivan Štambuk 07:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits of yours[edit]

  • [2] - perhaps you haven't noticed, but the "translations" of foreign-language entries are already given at the definition lines. There is really no need for additional ====Translations==== section duplicating that information
  • ambijentalni, ambulantni, amfiteatralni, amoralni - these are not lemmata, but inflected forms, which means that they shouldn't be categorized in the main PoS category (Categoy:XXX adjectives), and that they should soft-redirect to the lemma form displaying appropriate grammatical information instead of translation (which more often than not, cannot be given easily in languages with relatively non-simple inflection such as Serbo-Croatian). These are vocative singular masculine indefinite, nominative plural masculine indefinite, vocative plural masculine indefinite, nominative singular masculine definite, vocative singular masculine definite, vocative plural masculine definite. These is generally done by bots so you shouldn't waste your time bothering with such trifles.
  • brzoglasan - did you just made this up? --Ivan Štambuk 05:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
What about cat and cats and dog and dogs? Kubura 02:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm just stopping by to say - If you don't take the time to see how we actually format entries, I'm going to be blocking you. It's one thing to pursue the irritating quest to separate "Croatian" from the Serbo-Croatian, but I'm not going to tolerate you creating poorly formatted entries. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 13:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I answered your messages on my talk page. You should really reconsider posting your replies on the same talkpage that the issue was brought up in the first place (i.e. this talkpage), because bifurcating discussion in several venues makes it harder to track down who-said-what-when-and-where. It is a very common practice around here which basically everyone follows. --Ivan Štambuk 05:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see, no problem. All wikiprojects don't apply the same policy. Kubura 02:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


You've been blocked indefinitely. --Ivan Štambuk 08:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ambox blue question.svg
This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:

Kubura (block logactive blockscontribsdeleted contribsedit filter loguser creation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

It's almost eight years since I am blocked indefinitely because of personal grudge of Ivan Štambuk against me. Every time I was unblocked, Ivan Štambuk reblocked me. Admin Neskaya unblocked me two times [3] (first time after we talked about the case on the IRC channel) , admin Ruakh unblocked me, admin Robert Ullmann e-mailed Ruakh (Ullmann) for that. That means, three admins against one. Why I was blocked? I did the practically same thing my edit (as well as admin Robert Ullmann Ullmann's edit) Ivan Štambuk advocated (!) few months Štambuk's edit before that block - Ivan Štambuk strangely shifted his attitude to the pole of completely opposite (pro-serbocroatist) to his previous stand (anti-serbocroatist [4][5]). Anyway, I simply want to be unblocked.