Razgovor:Dalmacija

message: Hm. Ne bi li predložak  trebao biti u još nenapisanom članku Dalmacija (rimska provincija) a ne u ovom. MateoB 21:08, 23. svibanj 2007. (CEST)
. Da, dobro si primjetio. --Ante Perkovic 12:39, 1. lipanj 2007. (CEST)
Zemljovid Dalmacije nije ispravan. 
Naime, nisu sva područja obuhvaćena.
Ako se pod Dalmacijom smatra područja RH koja su za Austro-Ugarske bili upravna jedinica Dalmacija, onda ovaj zemljovid obuhvaća manje Dalmacije, nego što je onda bila.
Primjerice, siverni dil otoka Paga nedostaje; ispada da i otoci siverozapadno od Dugog otoka nisu Dalmacija, zatim i otok Rab - i on je Dalmacija; za Austro-Ugarske je bila jedna cijela upravna izborna jedinica, koja je sadržavala ime otoka Raba u svom nazivu. Kubura 13:40, 25. studeni 2007. (CET)

message: O izjavi jedino autohtono stanovništvo su Hrvati.
Budući da "autohtono stanovništvo" znači:
* narod nastao in situ, nije došao odnikud (koliko je poznato), ili
* najstariji poznati stanovnici (koliko je poznato)
Tada Hrvati niti po jednom kriteriju to nisu, jer:
* Hrvati su došli odnekud, u 6-7. stoljeću (vidi se uostalom i nagla promjena dekoracija na spomenicima -- treba otići u bilo koji muzej);
* najstariji poznati su Iliri.
Hrvati ne mogu biti npr. iranskog porijekla (ili bilo kojeg) i autohtoni u Dalmaciji. To je kontradikcija.
Molim sve za mišljenje oko ove izjave koju sam ja izbrisao, misleći da je jednostavno previd, a cijenjeni Suradnik:Kubura se možda malo i naljutio i vratio je moju promjenu (vidi povijest ove stranice).
Hvala, --dnik 12:15, 26. studeni 2007. (CET)
replies: text: Danijele, ne troši snagu na Wikipediji za takve pristupe.

text: Govorimo o narodima u suvremenom smislu.

text: Drugi suradnici troše snagu, energiju i svoje korisno vrime na objašnjavanje na inozemnin Wikipedijama da smo mi Hrvati ovdi od stoljeća sedmog, da nismo novodobna titoistička niti austrijska niti vatikanska novotvorba ili izmišljotina, nego da imamo kontinuitet postojanja ovdi, pod hrv. imenon, i u zaleđu, i u priobalju i na otociman, i da svi narodi koji su posegli za ovin hrvatskin krajima (a imadu svoje pripadnike ovdi) da su svi ti narodi došli posli nas ili odnarođivanjen Hrvata, a ti se ovdi pojavljivaš sa filozofskin tiranjen maka na konac.

text: Dobro, koliko stranica na Internetu govori o autohtonosti Hrvata u poj. krajima RH i BiH?

text: Nego, postavimo ovako stvari: hodi lipo na druge Wikipedije pa temeljem tih svojih teza, piši da poj. narodi nisu autohtoni: što na primjer, ne otiđeš provocirati Srbe i njima pisati (bilo na sr.wiki, ili na en.wiki) da nisu autohtoni na Kosovu?

text: Što ne ideš ispravljati antihrvatsku (velikosrpsku i talijansku iredentističku) mitomaniju na en.wiki? Što ne ideš se objašnjavati sa osobama koje poriču postojanje Hrvatske i Hrvata (ima ti ih koji doslovno pišu "...vi ste izmišljotina iz 1840-ih...", a admini na takve šovinističke izjave ništa ne činidu)? Što ne ideš uklanjati odnosno argumentiranjima ispraviti članke u kojima se izvrće povijest područja R. Hrvatske i prikaziva ih se kao "srpske zemlje"? Što se ne uhvatiš Like na en.wiki? Ondi velikosrbi orgijaju sa propagandom. Što se ne uhvatiš dokazivanja vandalskog ponašanja kod suradnika na inoz. wikipedijama koji vandalski brišu svaki članak koji govori o četničkim zločinima nad Hrvatima u Domovinskom ratu, odnosno, trolovski zavlače i ometaju suradnike koji pišu o toj tematici? Znaš li ti da na de.wiki blokiraju na trajno ljude koji ispravljaju "jugoslavenski" u "hrvatski" za hrv. športaše, kulturne djelatnike i ine, koji su dilon ili cilu svoju karijeru imali za doba Jugoslavijâ (kao, "svoju karijeru je napravia za vrime Jugoslavije", ali im u isto vrime ne smeta da za Križaja stoji "slovenski")?  I da ako na istoj de.wiki ispraviš podvale tipa "u RH se govori hrvatski, što je u stvari srpskohrvatski", riskiraš trajnu blokadu na toj wikipediji? Znaš li koliko se na toj Wikipediji ustrajno uklanja pridjev "hrvatski" i imenica "Hrvati", čim im se ukaže neka imbecilna izlika ili otkrijedu postojanje nekog znan. rada nekog jugoslaviste, serbokroatiste odnosno znanstvenika iz 19. st. koji je pisao pod utjecajem jugounitarističkih i velikosrpskih ideologija (tim gnjilarijama su pogođeni Moliški Hrvati, pa ih zovu Moliseslawen, primjerice - njima nije bitno što se Moliški Hrvati izjašnjavaju Hrvatima i što su kao takvi priznati u tal. zakonu!). Znaš li ti kako suradnici na inoz.wikipedijama lišo prolazidu sa otvorenim ekspanzionističkim slikama (slika hrv. grada sa srp. zastavom preko slike)? Znaš li ti koje probleme imamo sa ita. iredentistima i njihovim poricanjem i izbjegavanjima/uklanjanjima hrv. imena osoba (Hrvata, iz Hrvatske!)? Pa se izbjegava pisanje članka "Talijani u Hrvatskoj", nego se piše članke kao "Dalmatinski Talijani" (po čemu su ti tako osebujni???, po čemu se razlikujedu od Turaka u Njemačkoj, Talijana u SAD-u, Hrvata u Australiji) i sl., pod svakim mogućim zemljopisnim pojmom, sve samo da se ne spomene ime Hrvatske i pridiv "hrvatski". Sadržaj je pun propagande, domalo će ispast da ih je bilo pola milijuna. Ah, da, znaš li i koliko njih ustraje na tome da se (na en.wiki) Dubrovačku Republiku kategorizira pod "Povijest Italije", "talijanske pomorske države". O ustrajnom talijaniziranju hrv. toponima u priobalju u povijesnim člancima na en.wiki ti ne moran ni govorit. Ako ne znaš talijanski, moraš se mislit di je to. Ili ćedu Englezi počet davat važnosti tal. posezanjima, sve zbog naše aljkavosti i inertnosti (to će netko drugi napravit, netko drugi će se bavit time).

text: I onda posli svih tih sr*nja izranjaš sa uklanjanjem redka u kojem se govori da smo mi Hrvati jedini autohtoni narod u Dalmaciji. A nego tko je, ako ne mi. U Molizu i Gradišću nismo, kao ni u Mainzu ni u Bernu ni u Milanu, ali u RH jesmo.

text: I stari Rimljani, i stari Grci, pa i Iliri, su došljaci. Ni oni nisu bili izvorni ovdi, nego su došli (iz SI današnje Njemačke). Ostaju one "kulture" (prapovjesničari to znaju) kjunastih zdila, šupjih vrča, petanih noseva i klempavih ušiju, pa onda još i krapinski pračovjek i čovjek iz Grapčeve špilje i Mujine pećine, a i taj pračovik je doša seobama iz Afrike. Tako, ispada da prave autohtonosti u Europi - nima, nego su svi odnikud došli. Ipak, govorimo o autohtonosti naroda.

text: Moj ton mog nastupa prima tebi ovdi možda zvuči napadački.

text: Ti možda nisi mislia loše, ali zbog tvojih filozofskih zaključaka donesenih, ne uzevši sve u obrzi, stvar ispada puno gora.

text: Naposljetku, sve one gore gnjilarije s kojima se srićen na inozemnim Wikipedijama (ali i sa podvalama, propustima i stereotipima na hr.wiki), su mi toliko napunile čašu da svaka kap ju prilije, pa odatle i moj oštriji ton. Kubura 09:46, 27. studeni 2007. (CET)
replies: text: : Ako ja dobro vidim, Danijelu je zasmetalo slijedeće: Jedino autohtono i većinsko stanovništvo su Hrvati. Ostali čine manje od 10% stanovništva.

text: : Iskreno ne znam zašto, jer podatak iz prve rečenice o većinskom stanovništvu i cijela druga rečenica ima potvrdu u popisu stanovništva iz 2001. godine, a da su Hrvati jedino živo autohtono stanovništvo zna svako dijete, bilo iz Trogira, Splita ili Makarske (da sad ne nabrajam sve gradove i naselja). Molim Danijela da ne cjepidlači, jer iz konteksta se vidi što je pisac htio reći, i dodatno pojašnjivanje u stilu Jedino autohtono (pošto su Iliri izumrli ili asimilirani) i većinsko stanovništvo su Hrvati. Ostali čine manje od 10% stanovništva. je potrebno samo osobama insuficijentne inteligencije. Time ne želim reći da je suradnik Danijel takav, nego kao što primijetih na početku, da malo cjepidlači. SpeedyGonsales 13:49, 27. studeni 2007. (CET)
replies: text: ::Ako se većina slaže da je ovako bolje, ja to neću dirati. Ali, onda su svi autohtoni. Možemo reći i da su Europljani u SAD autohtoni, kad su se Indijanci, eto, "stopili", "nestali" i sl.

text: ::Poštovani Kubura: naravno da mnogima u svijetu ne odgovara hrvatska država i nezavisnost. Međutim, najbolje što možemo sami napraviti je izlagati istinu, i kad je povoljna za nas i kad je nepovoljna. Moj je stav da "autohtonost" nije ni dobra ni loša -- to je jednostavno činjenica. Mađari su isto došli odnekud i nitko ne tvrdi da su autohtoni. Kod Hrvata postoji svijest o dolasku od negdje. S druge strane i romansko stanovništvo očito nije autohtono, budući da su Italija i Rim s druge strane Jadrana. Kod Srba je tolerancija prema nebuloznim tvrdnjama (od nebeskog naroda nadalje) malo manja, ali tu im malo tko može pomoći. Nemojmo se spuštati na nivo političke propagande.

text: ::Moj je stav bio da je bolje autohtonost ne spominjati, kada se očito oko toga lome koplja.

text: ::Poštovani Speedy: nisam siguran da previše djece uopće zna što je "autohtonost". Što sam ispravio, prikazano je ovdje -- dakle, nisam uklonio redak.

text: ::Molim sve, bez živciranja. Možemo raspravljati hladne glave. Ne namjeravam "cjepidlačiti". Na Wikipediji postoje tisuće članaka s dvojbenim tvrdnjama, i bit će ih i dalje.
replies: text: ::: Pozdrav svima, --dnik 12:00, 28. studeni 2007. (CET)

text: Ako je točno da su Hrvati odnekud krenuli, onda su negdje, u smislu koji podrazumijeva Danijelovo stajalište, zasigurno autohtoni - u Perziji, na Kavkazu... Dakle, raspra može ići i u tom smjeru. Međutim, ako su Dalmati, po svemu sudeći jedini autohtoni stanovnici jadranskog priobalja, u jednom momentu prihvatili hrvatsko ime, onda je logična tvrdnja da su Hrvati autohtoni u Dalmaciji.
--Dario Zornija 15:28, 28. studeni 2007. (CET)
Ne mislin produljivat raspravu, Danijele, ali moram ti dati opasku: ne hvataj se slamke sa strane. 
Nisi, doduše, u onoj promini, obrisa' cili redak, nego nekoliko riči u ričenici, a među njima i "jedino autohtono" (u dilu "jedino autohtno i većinsko stanovništvo su Hrvati"), svevši tako Hrvate na razinu većine u radničkoj baraci (di se smistilo 10 Hrvata mahom zemljaka) u Zuklebescheisdorfu na Majni. A to baš ne ide. Ovdi smo 14 stolića, a vanka smo puno manje. I nismo isto vanka i ovdi. Kubura 10:00, 3. prosinac 2007. (CET)
A što se tiče seoba, imaš i ilirsku i gotsku teoriju o podrijetlu Hrvata, odnosno teoriju po kojoj uopće nije bilo seobe Hrvata. Kubura 10:00, 3. prosinac 2007. (CET)

text: Ok, slažem se da sam obrisao ono a nisam ponudio ništa u zamjenu. Vjerojatno bi bilo bolje da sam napisao Od svih naroda koji žive u Dalmaciji, Hrvati su najstariji narod i predstavljaju ogromnu većinu od 80% i više. --dnik 10:17, 3. prosinac 2007. (CET)
thread_title:  Autohtonost - rasprava 

message: Moram samo zamijetiti da se na Hrvati#Etnički_prostor_Hrvata tvrdi da su Hrvati u Moliseu autohtoni. Također, na Internetu se mogu naći silna prepucavanja na temu tko je autohton, a tko nije. Ta prepucavanja se uglavnom svode na to tko je prije došao. Pretražite Google™om "autohtoni narod" i dobit ćete skoro isključivo priče o Hrvatima, Srbima, Bošnjacima i inim narodima u blizini. Iz toga se pokušavaju izvesti nekakva povijesna prava, što su zapravo argumenti u političkoj borbi.
Ako i riječ "autohtoni" shvatimo kao "prisutni već jako dugo vremena, ukorjenjeni, stari narod", tada je takvo nešto relativna tvrdnja - prije koliko godina ste trebali doći da budete autohtoni? Prije 1000 (Mađari)? Prije 1300 (Hrvati, ako su došli u "stoljeću sedmom") Da li su Turci autohtoni u današnjoj Turskoj? Zato se taj termin izbjegava.  
Neću se petljati u ovo više.
replies: text: --dnik 15:30, 30. studeni 2007. (CET)
replies: text: :A što s Arbanasima u okolici Zadra, Srbima u zaleđu i sl. Oni kao nisu autohtoni?--78.3.38.223 19:12, 27. veljača 2008. (CET)
Znan, dniče, zato ti to i govorin. Pridošlice su uvik pridošlice. I one nisu isto ka' i oni koji su ondi puno pri došli. 
Naposljetku, u literaturi se navodi Hrvate kao jedini autohtoni narod ovdi. Jedini koji to osporavaju su oni koji su imali teritorijalne pretenzije na hrvatski teritorij, shvati to. Kubura (razgovor) 18:34, 16. studeni 2008. (CET)
thread_title:  Autohtonost (2) 

message: All my apologies to get into this discussion even if I don't speak Croatian.
But... do you find serious to give a golden star to this article? The length is not more than ONE page! In English this would be classified as "stub". And in all the other languages (English, French, Italian, German, Spanish) the article is much much longer and it is even not ranked "quality article".
Don't you think it is exagerated to give a golden star?
Please considerate that this does not help in making Wikipedia perceived as a serious encyclopedia! 
Dontbother (razgovor) 18:48, 31. listopada 2011. (CET)
This article got a golden star almost 5 years ago, December 2006. At that time (end of 2006), the size of this article on en.wiki was this one , on Spanish wiki this , fr.wiki , it.wiki  (a lot of lists). The size on de.wiki was this . 
Za hrvatske Wikipediste: pogledajte kakve sam netočnosti uklonio iz članka ondje na de.wiki - a onda nam netko dođe govoriti o pristranostima i netočnim podatcima na našem projektu. A mi još zaradimo trajni blok kad unosimo točno. Kubura (razgovor) 02:25, 3. studenog 2011. (CET)
Fair explanation. But still the issue persists. Wikipedia is by its nature evolutive and the standards as well.
When compared to what we expect currently for a star rated article, today's quotation for this article seems exceedingly generous.
A side comment for Kubura. Kubura, I don't understand why you speak of "prejudices" and "user blocked". There is no reason to get so excited. If in the past you user ID was blocked may be there was a reason. My comment come from a potential issue of uniformity comparing the article Dalmatia in hr.wiki to the other languages. And it's a comment based on a quantitative approach.
And say that I am not Croatian and I don't speak Croatian so I knock to your door and make politely a comment. And if you feel fine in keeping the article star rated I will not insist stressing my opinion.  
--Dontbother (razgovor) 20:10, 3. studenog 2011. (CET)
Regarding the block: there was no reason. If someone is the admin there, that does not make him/her a God and supreme unquestionable authority about every matter/topic. They are humans as me. But I know much more about my country, my people and the culture of my people and other peoples in Croatia than those who blocked me and than those that usurpated every Croat-related topics on their projects and that excluded every Croat(ian) user from the participation, this or other way. I cover my edits with checkable/available sources, that are neutral. Problem is among certain persons that systematically remove any mentioning of the noun and adjective Croat, Croatian. Kubura (razgovor) 06:03, 4. studenog 2011. (CET)
Well, I said "may be there was a reason". However, it looks that your sources are neutral and that you are more knowledgeable than the others. On top of that you were persecuted without any reason because you are Croatian.
All these explanations justify very well why you consider that this article should remains star rated (the discussion was about this). Very coherent indeed. 
--Dontbother (razgovor) 10:35, 4. studenog 2011. (CET)
Well, this article got the star in the early times of this project, and we don't remove rewards for the old merits. Obviously, our contributors have changed their field of interest since then. :) Maybe your message changes something. Kubura (razgovor) 02:35, 7. studenog 2011. (CET)
What's that? Are you serious? I am genuinely confused...
The fact the article got a star is representative that the quality of the article is high. And today the size of the article suggests this star is not deserved.
The star is not an award given to users, it's merely a mark of distinction of the article's quality. 
Wikipedia is not an army that give medals to people (at least the fr.wiki, en.wiki and it.wiki do not work this way).
--Dontbother (razgovor) 15:34, 7. studenog 2011. (CET)
=== Ukratko  ===
If you have found out (somehow) that "pristranostima" means prejudice (plural actually), you could also easily find by hovering with your mouse over star that prosinac 2006. means December 2006., and that your first comment is a bit short-sighted, at least.
And your last comment - "What's that? Are you serious? I am genuinely confused...The fact the article got a star is representative that the quality of the article is high. And today the size of the article suggests this star is not deserved." is weird.
Do you mean that on fr.wiki, en.wiki and it.wiki there are users which are checking all starred articles, and either remove stars or enrich such articles if needed?
Part of the work users do is actually getting existing articles larger, better sourced and in any way better, and I'm sure some of them are taking care about starred articles. But idea that somebody would ask for removing stars if he/she can not enrich article seem a bit clueless to me. I would always help user in his work making article better, but debating with somebody should some article have star or what - it is big waste of time IMHO, and Wikipedia's "BE BOLD" is actually speaking something about it - do, don't spend (ten times) more time describing what should be done instead of actually doing it. Not literally, but that is the meaning of "BE BOLD" IMHO. To be true to my word, I shouldn't write anything more about this, as this subject is already well covered by Wikipedia rules, policies and guidelines. Place to speak about en wiki is on en wiki, and if you do not know Croatian and come here just to lament that some article is too short - is actually not helpful at all, and somebody more rigid would call that trolling. Enough said. SpeedyGonsales 18:33, 7. studenog 2011. (CET)
SpeedyGonsales, thank you for your comments. Perhaps some clarification is needed here. 
1. I said that "A a star is not an award given to an user, it's merely a mark of distinction of the article's quality". This comment is to answer to Kubura that writes "Well, this article got the star in the early times of this project, and we don't remove rewards for the old merits". And I genuinely think this is not a POV but a Wikipedia common priciple.
2.Concerning that rest of your comment I do not discuss that at some point of the history of Wikipedia the article "Dalmacije" deserved the star, I question if it does today. Perhaps in fr.wiki and it.wiki we are too fussy but please give a look to the following article: "Prima guerra mondiale (1st world war)" on it.wiki or "François Mitterand" on fr.wiki. Those articles did not pass the criteria to get the star and are quite huge and well made.
3. to answer to your question. Yes it happens (a lot) that users put in question the merit of starring an article.
4. The size of the article count. I mean we do not report in our article sensational discoveries that would win the Nobel prize even if they are only 100 words long. For getting a star the size of the article counts. 
Now please make abstraction of everything and answer to the mere question "Does this article deserve the star as it is today compared to what has become the standard and the quality of Wikipedia (in all the languages) since 2006?". Do you think the answer to that question is "yes" ? Indeed, if the user of the contributors to this page is "yes", my remarks have no interest.
--Dontbother (razgovor) 21:32, 7. studenog 2011. (CET)
replies: text: Does this article deserve the star today? Probably not.

text: Will I bother to do anything about it, like talk about it anymore? No.

text: I contribute to articles which coincide with my interests, knowledge and available sources. That is the way this article can be helped, above talk can help, but only indirectly, and that is not good enough to not be qualified as trolling, having in mind that you already spent in vain time of 2 admins :). I would like to hear anybodies ideas how to solve problem of surplus of stupid categories, like described here: Categorization_system_strengths_and_pitfalls, fussing about stars of 5 year old articles, no. Or, ask me in 2013 (if we survive cataclysm in 2012 :). Further trolling may not be tolerated, this is second warning. SpeedyGonsales 22:22, 7. studenog 2011. (CET)
replies: text: : Well, it is a fact that this page is only 17 Kbytes, really to small to be starred. Also in the hr:wiki project the ratio starred articles / total articles is amongst the lowest of WP. For example:

text: : 1872 it:wiki - 1400 ro:wiki - 1171 fr:wiki - 1080 en:wiki - 976 es:wiki - 718 de:wiki - 333 hr:wiki

text: : The suspicion that the project is managed with excessive self-consideration is somehow fair. --141.227.1.38 08:06, 14. lipnja 2013. (CEST)
Qualifying my remarks of trolling is somehow excessive. Giving me two warnings for this is perhaps inappropriate.
I have not insulted anyone. My remark was about the size of the article but Kubura had the ability to make of it a case of national pride.
The way the people discuss and write here is too aggressive for my standards and believe it or not, on fr.wiki and it.wiki we would have not replied like you to a mere remark on the size of a starred article.
However the discussion is closed. Feel free to put a star on all the articles, if you like doing so. 
From my side I intend to use my right to vanish, you will not hear from me anymore.
I would cancel my user ID but as you know this is not possible. Do of it whatever you like, you can even block my account forever. 
Adieu et bon courage.
--Dontbother (razgovor) 06:28, 8. studenog 2011. (CET)
*Please write in Croatian --Zeljko (razgovor) 12:01, 14. lipnja 2013. (CEST)
Such provocations in foreign languages ​​should be deleted. --Zeljko (razgovor) 12:19, 14. lipnja 2013. (CEST)
thread_title:  Is this serious ? 

message: If you have found out (somehow) that "pristranostima" means prejudice (plural actually), you could also easily find by hovering with your mouse over star that prosinac 2006. means December 2006., and that your first comment is a bit short-sighted, at least.
And your last comment - "What's that? Are you serious? I am genuinely confused...The fact the article got a star is representative that the quality of the article is high. And today the size of the article suggests this star is not deserved." is weird.
Do you mean that on fr.wiki, en.wiki and it.wiki there are users which are checking all starred articles, and either remove stars or enrich such articles if needed?
Part of the work users do is actually getting existing articles larger, better sourced and in any way better, and I'm sure some of them are taking care about starred articles. But idea that somebody would ask for removing stars if he/she can not enrich article seem a bit clueless to me. I would always help user in his work making article better, but debating with somebody should some article have star or what - it is big waste of time IMHO, and Wikipedia's "BE BOLD" is actually speaking something about it - do, don't spend (ten times) more time describing what should be done instead of actually doing it. Not literally, but that is the meaning of "BE BOLD" IMHO. To be true to my word, I shouldn't write anything more about this, as this subject is already well covered by Wikipedia rules, policies and guidelines. Place to speak about en wiki is on en wiki, and if you do not know Croatian and come here just to lament that some article is too short - is actually not helpful at all, and somebody more rigid would call that trolling. Enough said. SpeedyGonsales 18:33, 7. studenog 2011. (CET)
SpeedyGonsales, thank you for your comments. Perhaps some clarification is needed here. 
1. I said that "A a star is not an award given to an user, it's merely a mark of distinction of the article's quality". This comment is to answer to Kubura that writes "Well, this article got the star in the early times of this project, and we don't remove rewards for the old merits". And I genuinely think this is not a POV but a Wikipedia common priciple.
2.Concerning that rest of your comment I do not discuss that at some point of the history of Wikipedia the article "Dalmacije" deserved the star, I question if it does today. Perhaps in fr.wiki and it.wiki we are too fussy but please give a look to the following article: "Prima guerra mondiale (1st world war)" on it.wiki or "François Mitterand" on fr.wiki. Those articles did not pass the criteria to get the star and are quite huge and well made.
3. to answer to your question. Yes it happens (a lot) that users put in question the merit of starring an article.
4. The size of the article count. I mean we do not report in our article sensational discoveries that would win the Nobel prize even if they are only 100 words long. For getting a star the size of the article counts. 
Now please make abstraction of everything and answer to the mere question "Does this article deserve the star as it is today compared to what has become the standard and the quality of Wikipedia (in all the languages) since 2006?". Do you think the answer to that question is "yes" ? Indeed, if the user of the contributors to this page is "yes", my remarks have no interest.
--Dontbother (razgovor) 21:32, 7. studenog 2011. (CET)
replies: text: Does this article deserve the star today? Probably not.

text: Will I bother to do anything about it, like talk about it anymore? No.

text: I contribute to articles which coincide with my interests, knowledge and available sources. That is the way this article can be helped, above talk can help, but only indirectly, and that is not good enough to not be qualified as trolling, having in mind that you already spent in vain time of 2 admins :). I would like to hear anybodies ideas how to solve problem of surplus of stupid categories, like described here: Categorization_system_strengths_and_pitfalls, fussing about stars of 5 year old articles, no. Or, ask me in 2013 (if we survive cataclysm in 2012 :). Further trolling may not be tolerated, this is second warning. SpeedyGonsales 22:22, 7. studenog 2011. (CET)
replies: text: : Well, it is a fact that this page is only 17 Kbytes, really to small to be starred. Also in the hr:wiki project the ratio starred articles / total articles is amongst the lowest of WP. For example:

text: : 1872 it:wiki - 1400 ro:wiki - 1171 fr:wiki - 1080 en:wiki - 976 es:wiki - 718 de:wiki - 333 hr:wiki

text: : The suspicion that the project is managed with excessive self-consideration is somehow fair. --141.227.1.38 08:06, 14. lipnja 2013. (CEST)
Qualifying my remarks of trolling is somehow excessive. Giving me two warnings for this is perhaps inappropriate.
I have not insulted anyone. My remark was about the size of the article but Kubura had the ability to make of it a case of national pride.
The way the people discuss and write here is too aggressive for my standards and believe it or not, on fr.wiki and it.wiki we would have not replied like you to a mere remark on the size of a starred article.
However the discussion is closed. Feel free to put a star on all the articles, if you like doing so. 
From my side I intend to use my right to vanish, you will not hear from me anymore.
I would cancel my user ID but as you know this is not possible. Do of it whatever you like, you can even block my account forever. 
Adieu et bon courage.
--Dontbother (razgovor) 06:28, 8. studenog 2011. (CET)
*Please write in Croatian --Zeljko (razgovor) 12:01, 14. lipnja 2013. (CEST)
Such provocations in foreign languages ​​should be deleted. --Zeljko (razgovor) 12:19, 14. lipnja 2013. (CEST)
thread_title:  Ukratko  

message: Poštovani, karta je kontradiktorna s tekstom, odnosno u tekstu stoji da je Pag sastavni dio Dalmacije sto i jest, cak vecim djelom i administrativno kao dio Zadarske županije no na karti nije obilježen.
— Prethodni nepotpisani komentar napisao je 95.168.121.17 (razgovor • doprinosi) 25. rujna 2019. u 21:06
thread_title:  karta