Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:01, 1 October 2007

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

thanks, and a suggestion

I'm the first on your new talk page! Haha! ;-)

Anyway, thanks again for your kind comments on my editor review. If you have any criticisms or things you think I need to work at improving, I'd like to hear those too.

On a different topic, I can't help but notice that you and Panonian are still bickering over your subpage of "Borders before and after Yugoslavia." I think he's probably overreacting a little bit, but I also can see his point--it probably isn't a good idea to have such a controversial article (especially one that just got deleted) in your userspace, if for no other reason then because it is prone to starting (and perpetuating!) disputes like the current one. May I make a suggestion? If you really want to keep the article to work on and take info from for a possible later article, why not copy the text into your word processor? Then you can just have a file of it sitting peacefully and unobtrusively on your hard drive, and you can take it off your userpage to avoid more controversy.

Best, K. Lásztocska 01:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

User space protection

Replied on my talk page. Calliopejen1 09:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Romani people

Thank you! Actually, it is already here. It is not on the Romani people page, because just a few population estimates are on that page. The rest are on Romani people by country (see the link "Other Countries" on the Romani people page) :) --Kuaichik 01:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Benkovac

Hi. Please see User:Benkovac's userpage that I consider very agressive and provocative against Croatians. I warned him, but he then mentioned the sources of those comments. I know that generally userpage edits are not up to others, but maybe we should aks intercession or an admin's help. Hvala.--Koppany 10:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ko s đavolom tikve sadi...o glavu mu se obiju

Moraš malo pripaziti s kim se družiš, jer vidiš kako ti lepo tvoji "prijatelji" misle o zemlji Hrvatskoj:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ACategories_for_discussion%2FLog%2F2007_July_29&diff=147987200&oldid=147984338
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Erdut&diff=148342450&oldid=148284637

I nemoj posle reći da je sam došo tamo, jer ti si ga zvao. U svakom slučaju ovo će ti pomoći da shvatiš neke stvari. Meni je stalo da svi članci na Wiki budu neutralni i prema tome ja ti mogu pomoći da i članci o Hrvatskoj budu neutralni (garantujem ti da posle moje intervencije oni neće biti u kategoriji "towns of RSK", ali pošto sam suviše zauzet raspravljajući sa tobom oko Vojvodine, ne stignem da se i sa velikosrpskim nacionalistima raspravljam oko "RSK kategorije". Naravno, ako mi daš više slobodnog vremena, onda se svašta može uraditi...) :)) PANONIAN 07:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Many thanks for your support Rjecina! I believe he will change his behaviour. When you need my suppport just let me know.--Wallak 15:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm also having some problems with some articles now, see Vlachs of Serbia. The problem there is like this, Panonian fears about recognize them as Romanians, though his Serbian Gov. already had in 4 Nov. 2002. Vlachs of Serbia are Romanians of Serbia. Unfortunatelly Serbia gives more minority rights only those from Vojvodina. --Wallak 15:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I voted. That map is indeed false. For example, it includes Timisoara when in fact it was part of Romania by 1918.--Wallak 15:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. As I know or at least I read is that only Romanians from Vojvodina benefit of their rights. They have there schools, church, official language etc. As for the rest of them, for example Romanians of Eastern Serbia, they were considered by Serbia as Vlachs and thus not Romanians. Only after 4 Nov. 2002, after they signed an agreement with Romania, Serbia recognize them as being part of the same minority Romanians. The problem is that they made only in paper, in reality still Serbia doesn't give them the same rights as the other from Vojvodina have.--Wallak 15:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A user reported me for 3RR for the article Vlachs of Serbia --Wallak 17:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a new user but God knows what's in their mind.--Wallak 17:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

RE:Croats

You mean the wikilink you put for Croats of Serbia? I didn't deleted, I've updated the template, see here, there is no need to have links to such articles when you have the template.

As for the other matter I've contacted Mackansen but he didn't answer me. Cheers. --No.13 15:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla

Hi! I'm one of the guys trying to rectify the Nikola Tesla page. There's kind of a serbian cabal trying to erase any mention of Croatia in Tesla's birthplace. I appreciate your collaboration in this matter! There is this guy GlassFET who keeps invoking a mythical "consensus" about the matter. Seems to me he is a dimwitted serbian propagandist. I just thought I'd mention that I appreciate your help as a fellow truth seeker. Frankman 08:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No offence intended

In case you think I was provocative in referring a Croat to an article that criticises the Međugorje nonsense (Prebilovci massacre talk) I meant to say I would not have done it if I had not noticed that you were "interested in atheism." Regards.Kirker 11:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Your reversion in ISC article

I understand your position entirely as explained on my talk page. Nevertheless you have a POV and it sometimes shows in your edits. So do I, and I suppose my own POV sometimes shows in my edits. When that happens we just have to accept correction from other editors.

In the case of the edit you reverted on the ISC page, I have to admit I am surprised. I was giving what in my view was a fairer summary of a view someone had ascribed to Maček. I used direct quotes and gave the precise source (Maček's biography). The effect of your revision was to replace that with words for which there is no source. That is simply not constructive. Admittedly you restored a reference to the sporazum, with references, and maybe a place should be found for that. But it was clearly out of place coming between two references to the events of 1941. Well if you want that bit in, put it back. It wasn't me who undid your revision, or I would have done so more selectively. Best wishes Kirker 21:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC) (PS: you have a VERY interesting user page.)

OK I'll have a look at both matters. Just to be clear about where you stand regarding Einstein, do you agree that (for whatever reason) he did express support for Pavelić and Co in the early, formative years of the Ustaša - before the Ustaša had engaged in any terrorist activity? Kirker 01:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to you on my own page to keep our discussion in one place. Hope you don't mind. Kirker 14:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to keep you informed Rjecina, I have started on the task of making sure Misplaced Pages conveys the true character of the royal dictatorship, wherever appropriate. If you have time, have a look at the "History of Croatia" article, in the section "First Yugoslavia." If you think that what I have done there is reasonable, I will use it as the basis for something similar (perhaps with greater detail) in the Ustaše article. You are perhaps aware that there is a Misplaced Pages main article, "Croatia in the first Yugoslavia," which includes the Einstein/Mann letter. There is a lot of truth in that article, but it is all devalued because so much of it is blatantly anti-Serb POV. Instead of just dealing with the dictatorship there, I am tempted to tackle the whole article. But that may have to wait until October. (I will be spending September in former SFRY - Zagreb, Banja Luka, Jajce, our flat near Poreč and probably a night or two in your own lovely city.) Anyway, I won't forget. Kirker 20:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Chetniks with German soldiers.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chetniks with German soldiers.jpg. Misplaced Pages gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 04:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Serb Despots

I've noticed that you don't quite fancy them. ;) Why's that? --PaxEquilibrium 21:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What's actually controversial (precise wording) in History of Vojvodina, since I obviously miss the point? --PaxEquilibrium 11:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

History of Vojvodina

Well then how about adding "in the name of the Hungarian crown" or "as vassals"... or how about replacing "ruled" with "administered" or "governed"?

What's wrong with the maps?

Jovan Nenad. What's wrong with him? He was a (self-proclaimed) Emperor. Where's the mythology in there? He is the Father of Vojvodina (which is where the historical importance lies).

I have no idea how we can be sure that most inhabitants of present-day Vojvodina were Serbs during Ottoman times... I guess it's logical (there were no major migrations afterwards) but I myself never ever saw a source regarding this particular info...

I know of the 1790 census, what's problematic with it?

I've heard about desires and talks about a special autonomous entity for the Serbs, but nothing more than rumors before the 1848 revolution.

About the other info I have no idea and you're the wrong person to talk to. I mostly deal in Medieval history, and my knowledge in Serbs' particular history does not go far beyond 1537... --PaxEquilibrium 17:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well Bosnian Serb historians Vladimir Ćorović and Željko Fajfrić have written immensely in detail 'bout them. They're both neutral, but Vladimir is a little nationally emotional (and keep on mind that he wrote his book in the early 20th century, so you can expect that it's a little Serbian nationalistic). There's Fajfric "Brankovics" book, a detailed book about the entire Brankovic dynasty viewable online and Corovic's "History of the Serb People" book.

Here's crucial links of Vladimir (I've saved you the trouble to read unnecessary parts of the book) Oporavljena Srbija, Despot Đurađ Branković, Prvi pad Srbije, Razlaz između despota i Mađara, Pad Srbije, Stvaranje nove srpske despotovine and Srpska despotovina u Sremu.

And here's Zeljko's wholesome book Sveta loza Brankovića that contains everything you would ever want to know 'bout the whole family.

Croatian historians recorded Vojvodinian demographic data? BTW notify me if you need clarification/translation for those sources. Oh and I trust you. ;) Be sure to tell me what you think after you read these. --PaxEquilibrium 19:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW I've got books of Konstantin Jireček that go in some detail into the 1389-1537 period. It's the second half of the second tome of his "History of Serbs"; since he researched on his own and used mostly Byzantine sources, he doesn't go far into details like those two - but contains actually different info. And it's completely free of any Serb POV. However, I', not sure if there's an online version. --PaxEquilibrium 10:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991

Oh, the article got split by the moves. I'll fix that, and merge to the riot title (as I explained on the Talk page just now). --Joy 00:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

hi

Please review the Demographic history of Bačka and the Creation of Yugoslavia articles and article talk pages. I see that you previously edited those articles and 3rd opinions are badly needed at both places. Hobartimus 10:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that source it was very informative to see that colonisation took place at such a large scale.Hobartimus 02:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that several new users/IPs joined in with a few hours history, reverting as their first edit. Do you think it is worthwile to ask for admin help(semi protection or other)? I read somewhere that meatpuppets can be treated the same as sockpuppets (banned) in some cases, and these people brought in by Panonian are clear meatpuppets if not outright socks. Hobartimus 13:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks nice will start to work on it shortly. Hobartimus 20:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Panonian launched a new wave of personal attacks against me and I noticed you were also attacked a few times by him. Do you know any place or method, where he can be reported for constant personal attacks, constant revert warring and massive POV pushing (his edits/works were called propaganda/POV by a LOT of ppl those could be quoted). Hobartimus 02:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandal ip reported at AIV

I have blocked the editor for a short while, and have rolled back their edits where necessary. However I noticed an edit summary by you which appeared to be a threat (regarding using a picture involving Chetniks, Nazi's and another organisation) in one of the examples. Such comments, especially in sensitive areas, are very unhelpful and I strongly suggest that you do not do so again. LessHeard vanU 22:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm not an administrator, though I agree with your assessment that this is likely the same editor as the IP that was blocked. If the IP continues this course of action, I would suggest either alerting LessHeard vanU, who is familiar with the situation or posting a report to WP:AIV with a brief explanation of the situation. If you have any more questions, please let me know. -Chunky Rice 00:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(To Rjecina)Thanks for your note. I'm afraid I am not familiar with image copyright, but it looks as if User:SGGH (below) is and is looking into it. If you (or he) need an admin to resolve matters then please do not hesitate to contact me on my talkpage(!) LessHeard vanU 23:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Croatophobia

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anti-Croatian sentiment (second nomination). The article was a recreation of that. Sasquatch t|c 01:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you take it over to WP:DRV. You may have a point there but I still feel the original issues of it being OR and not a widely used term still pertain as addressed in the AFD. Sasquatch t|c 02:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:212.200.199.125 and that image

I have left a length message on the talk page telling him his actions have been poor, and that his continual reversion of what you do will get him nowhere (I am also about to protect that image for a few days). However, I would also ask if it is possible that you can provide a link as proof for the copyright assertion you have made for it? A simple link would be fine. I would ask that even if the IP hasn't been causing trouble, because it would set the copyright-fearrs' minds at rest :) appreciate it, and hope to hear from you soon. SGGH 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a brilliant link, thankyou. Well now that IP has zero reason to revert that image anymore. If he does after the protection expires, let me know I'll take care of it (protection is set for 4 days at the moment) and if he attacks you in any other way let me know, and I'll see whats in it. I'll let him know now that you were right about the copyright, but try to provide a link in the image summary next time :) and I hope it isn't someone who knows you, cause if it is they are very sad :D SGGH 18:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. Also remember the 3RR rule, which allows reversion of vandalism but not content disputes. This was kind of a content dispute rather than obvious vandalism but I thought I might remind you, so take care and happy editing :) SGGH 18:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well unfortunatly I'm not too knowledgeable with sock puppets, but have you tried WP:SSP? I know how you feel, I have an ex-girlfriend on wikipedia! My current girlfriend is also on here, which makes things a little vulnerable :D SGGH 18:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Editorial policy for history of east and south Europe

Editorial policy for history of east and south Europe

Interesting data over there. Speak of the devil, both Encarta and Britannica speak of union of Montenegro with Serbia and mention no controversy over there (nor anywhere else with the total union of Yugoslavia). --PaxEquilibrium 20:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, why don't you check out my proposal at the talk page of that article (Creation of Yugoslavia).

Btw so what, you are fond of HSP? --PaxEquilibrium 13:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Check the history of this article or just scroll up. I've answered you lengthy and asked you a couple of questions myself. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 16:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry? Just see the "Serbia" paragraph, there's my question. Also, did you read that to the up? --PaxEquilibrium 17:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I meant this reply I gave you, to the just up of here. --PaxEquilibrium 17:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I must say I am not quite in favor of that. Don't get it wrong, it's a brilliant idea, but it's overloading Misplaced Pages. Don't forget that every single edit is always kept and nothing is deleted in Wiki, and this way it's quite meaningless. Also it shows as if we don't trust each other. :)

Yeah, well, can't be said that he was quite successful in his previous 2004-2007 term, right? But also remember that Kostunica didn't win the election, he only managed to become President through cunningness.

You didn't answer me that huge paragraph about Montenegrins... ;) --PaxEquilibrium 20:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Every single edit is kept. So let's simply continue at the talk page to the bottom. The page isn't too big for archive, and the talks are over there still fresh. ;)

..why won't you answer me the other thing??? --PaxEquilibrium 20:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

? Why did you suddenly abandon your rule on editing (Croatians Croatia, Serbians Serbia)...you're not using double standards, are you? --PaxEquilibrium 22:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

But it's funny how you called upon in editing Croatia, but even in this same subject by applying a Mark II version calling users of Montenegrin confessional ethnicity (!) as a criteria, and then with Vojvodina you used the standard principle of consensus (which I use). Now please don't tell you wouldn't find that questionable from my feet. ;)))

I don't understand your mention of Serbophobia...? --PaxEquilibrium 22:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So basically you're trying to create Croatophobia and delete Serbophobia?

I am discussing exactly that "against rules" - which rules? And my long essay which he decided to ignore is dedicated wholesomely to that. Please, read it.

It's not similar, because Hungarians were in minority in Vojvodina then. And please define "proud Montenegrin" please. Because "proud" members of nations on Misplaced Pages (and in the real life, mostly) are always nationalists, and they are always POV and biased. Are you looking at teh same time for a proud Krajina Serb to go and edit the Serbs of Croatia article and prove that independence of Croatia was against the rules as well as takeover of the Republic of Serbian Krajina...please tell me?

If you just go and view what you did, it's like you're using different criteria and different reasoning, but in every single moment you seem to have the Serbs at the edge of your knife. ;( Don't tell me that that wouldn't make ya skeptical if you were watching yourself from someone else's eyes. :X

But again - you mixed up the term. Now again you refrain to users from Montenegro, but I remind you that you didn't invite on that criteria, but based on users who nationally identify themselves as Montenegrins and now you've even written "proud Montenegrin". Didn't you read when I wrote about Bormalagurski suddenly deciding to become a Croat to make his vote count? --PaxEquilibrium 23:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There are many neutral Serb editors on Misplaced Pages, though. Shoot. I'd like that article deleted, though. I don't think that you have that kind of opinion, but that's the kind of it you're showing.

And I will repeat myself. You asked for users of Montenegrin national confession, and not those who supported an independent Montenegro. I for example was a supporter of Montenegrin independence in 2006, so I guess you mean me? --PaxEquilibrium 23:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Right now I'm a bit scared and will probably abandon the Creation of Yugoslavia article...I've seen Hobartimus delete traces of Hungarian part in genocide throughout WWII... and I'm a little worried about the Talk:Creation of Yugoslavia and your shockingly undying support of him (just like you once said that whatever is OK to Hobartimus is to you as well). --PaxEquilibrium 23:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Another reason why I got that (possibly wrong) impression is the contents of this one of many subpages of yours. --PaxEquilibrium 00:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. For me too this process lasted for 35 days (actually it bases on the way you view it, you could also say it's a process that lasted from practically 6-7 years, from the Nis Declaration to the proclamation of Saint Vitus' Day's Constitution. And the latter is not my opinion, but is fact. Actually you forgot about the Yugoslav Committee in there. No, I do not agree - as I pointed out at the talk page. And other does not contain blatantly wrong information so it's not "critic", it just needs expansion. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 19:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW I have this morning decided to become a Magyar. ;) I guess you're now free to ask me something in regards to that. --PaxEquilibrium 11:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I don't understand, why did you delete them? And let me remind you, everything stays on Misplaced Pages (history) - nothing's deleted. Of course I'm not gonna delete any part of my talk page - when it becomes too large, I'm gonna archive it.
I'm sorry but I cannot be very much active, I've had a heavy tonsillectomy with complications and you know - the older you are, the worse's the operation.
Well I guess that that rules me out then - I do not nationally self-declare as a Serb. --PaxEquilibrium 14:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Gulas paprikas

Ah, very, very naughty indeed. --PaxEquilibrium 23:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Jasenovac concentration camp

Well, the editor should use the preview button rather than making all these separate edits, but it's easy enought to wait until he's finished and look at the editing as a whole CitiCat 03:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleting your user subpages

No problem. In the future, you can just be {{Db-userreq}} at the top of the page, and it'll get deleted. CitiCat 04:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Your request for arbitration

As an arbitration clerk, I am leaving you this note to advise that the Arbitration Committee has declined to hear the case you filed concerning Serbophobia. Some of the arbitrators made some suggestions for other possible means of resolving this dispute, which you can find in the page history at WP:RfAr if you have not already seen them. Regards and good luck, Newyorkbrad 22:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Saborsko and Gospić

Hello Rjecina. Sorry I didn't respond to you on Saborsko massacre earlier. If User:Kubura is happy with the page as it is now, I have no further ammendments for the time being. Now to talk about Gospić: you must believe me when I tell you that I am on nobody's specific side in the ethnic conflict disputes; my purpose of late has been to use our editorial abilities to ensure that parties are not misrepresented in the way that they can be when potrayed by rival governments, unsympathetic media and politicly motivated "international" courts. As you know, Croatians have been on both sides of the gun with regards international condemnation: whilst Milan Babić was tried for crimes against ethnic Croatians, you have Gotovina is in the dock now for crimes against Serbs, not to mention the Croatian comedian duo Dario & Mario, who were given 15 and 25 years for atrocities against Muslims in Bosnia. In other words, yes you are right to voice your concerns that Croatian crimes have been overblown, inflated and exaggerated. Now if you're interested, I will glady help you straighten out the Gospić massacre article; I will even go ahead of you if you so wish, even if the local Chetniks accuse me of being an Ustashe agent. The thing is, I am not an expert on the events themselves; I know of them from the outside looking inward. My editing is more aimed at quashing POV-style sentences. Where there is war, never should anyone say "Group A started attacking Group B", because Group A will never accept that; what they do is in retaliation to something; but at the same time, we don't say "Group B did such and such to Group A"; we simply state that "...fighting emerged between the two groups". It may be like tennis in that every hit is in reply to an offensive, but there is no clear definition to say who served (attacked first). I am not only talking about the Balkan wars, but all of the worlds battles going back to Time Immemorial. Perhaps my edits are more philosophical in nature, but as they say "there is no smoke without fire". Likewise Rjecina, when Chetniks tell me "there is no fire", I look for smoke! :-) , so; as a gesture of good will, let us take an interest in Gospić, now would you be so kind as to tell me everything you know to be wrong with the article: and I will make edits on it, even if it just ironing out POVs. I noticed you said that of the people killed, fewer than half were Serb. Serbs are obviously claiming that they were in the majority. So where did you get the information from? But where did they get theirs from too I ask. Drop me a few words on my Talk Page and piece by piece, we will get to the bottom of it. Thanks. Evlekis 22:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I totally agree that it should be changed. 24/50 is not a majority, a plurality maybe but not important. In the end of the day, an act is considered to be a war-time atrocity because the victims are human beings. It doesn't matter to which ethnic, religious or political groups they belong. Can you direct me to your source which informs that the number killed was 50, and Serbs were 24 of them? If I don't read from you by tomorrow (Thursday) evening, I'll investigate it myself; at this minute I am a little busy with non-wiki priorities so to speak. We'll speak soon. Evlekis 20:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

All right, I've made somthing of an edit. Obviously I cannot interfere with the 23-100 piece because they are both sourced. I believe that the 50 (24 Serbs) part does outweigh the previous, because that was concluded by an investigation after the 23-100 sources; plus they are just reports. If a Chetnik wishes to revert me, I will retrun it and bring the source closer to the new addition. Are you all right with this? Evlekis 20:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, I've made another alteration now. This should better describe the situation and ease off the "just Serbs" part. Evlekis 08:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Votec

I haven't really followed what you two are doing, but it appears that the two of you have a conflict of interest. I would recommend that you request full-protection in Requests for protection so that nobody can edit the article and so that the two of you can discuss the issue. You may also want a third opinion. Regards, bibliomaniac15 Tea anyone? 23:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case, you will probably want to request this at WP:ANI, where administrators will look at it and decide on how to act. I'm not even too sure what to do in this case. bibliomaniac15 Two years of trouble and general madness 20:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Re User:Votec

Is the guy another Chetnik supporter? (i.e. does he write to support them anywhere?) DIREKTOR 15:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I see... well I'm currently involved in no fewer than 6 disputes (mostly with Italians and Serb radicals) and I really can't get to Jasenovac right now, so I'd reccomend you simply immediately report the fanatic here. It's difficult, however, to get someone banned for personal attacks but nevertheless, best of luck. DIREKTOR 15:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Secession

Important notice: In 1991, Rjecina, Croatia hasn't declared secession (odvajanje, odcjepljenje), but "razdruženje" (something like "dissolved partnership"). Kubura 18:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Croatian Wikipedian's notice board

At Misplaced Pages, edit warring is harmful to the encyclopedia. We do not encourage it, we do revert solely to bring real life nationalistic disputes into Misplaced Pages to get your point of view across in articles (this goes for the "Chetniks" or whatever the term is that you feel are also perpetuating a point of view). As such, I have deleted the board you created. If you continue to bring real world nationalistic disputes onto Misplaced Pages, you will be indefinitely blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not the place for nationalist fighting. Please reserve that for football stadiums. Revert-warring along nationalist lines is not acceptable, ever. Nor is canvassing. Moreschi 21:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Try WikiProject Croatia. If by "spy" you mean stalking other users, that is expressly forbidden and will get a long term block.Rlevse 23:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Not national-extremist fighting, right.
Still, users have to be informed about certain events.
Sometimes other users from certain country:
- need information from countrymen (help with arguments),
- sometimes other users from certain country should be informed about certain events on this wiki regarding their country.
It might be event like voting. This might collide with rule WP:CANVASS, but there's a "remedy": both sides should be informed, and without suggesting about voting. At least, serious users should be informed.
I've witnessed few times that there were votings on Misplaced Pages about names of certain articles or when there was RfA for some users, about whose behaviour the users from certain country didn't knew anything. Kubura 00:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

?

What are you talking about? Paulcicero 22:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well good i think its a stupid idea anyway Paulcicero 23:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Vlachs of Croatia, Bosnia and Montenegro

Maybe this article would help you (see also the references). Cheers! --Olahus 18:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yugoslav wars

Ya know I'm not sure that the SANU 1986 Memorandum is the direct cause of the Yugoslav wars. It goes a little deeper and more complicated than that I'm afraid. --PaxEquilibrium 22:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, destroyed by family death???

I was originally planning to rewrite the whole article and greatly expand it, but I backed off.

In that manner of context, yeah. But to me personally, nationalism never rose up in former Yugoslavia. It was already there.

I'm just annoyed with silence. I've met plenty of Croatian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Albanian, Romanian American editors that are "silent workers", and for them edit wars do not exist and they never end up answering my questions.

Yes, I understand your logic. But you forget that that was all an agreed war. The Krajina authorities were just a puppet of Franjo Tudjman and Slobodan Milosevic, the Two Towers that destroyed Yugoslavia and were probably the best Yugoslav political friends in reality. Both Franjo Tudjman and Slobodan Milosevic supported the removal of Serbs from Croatia, and today we know that Milosevic greatly encouraged (to my opinion even threatened by war in east Slavonia) to take over Krajina and deport the Serbs to Serbia, so that he could ship them to Kosovo. It just is the truth that the RSK authorities officially called its population to flee, and organized it. Its defenders were even preparing for evacuation. . But so is the case that the Croatian state core wanted to remove them and conspired and promoted it. In the end it's just like you said - they appear to have had some logic in them next to their criminal minds, and obviously cared for their people unlike Serbia.

Btw have you been wiki-stalking me? :) --PaxEquilibrium 01:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This actually not correct. That's not accepted in Serbia, but actually by the allies, and I say traditionally because only recently did Kocevic and Zerjavic research the matter into much more full details. I believe that the actual source is the secret German Nazi archive, which was getting worried by the world's attention Jasenovac might draw.

I do not know of such statement. I believe he cited between 90 and 100 people.

Well the best answer is that Tudjman was, like Milosevic, a man of very little moral standards. The only thing that we can say with certainty today is that Tudjman obviously cared to an extent about his people, at least more than Milosevic. And Milosevic didn't hold those territories under occupation - the support of Krajina was mostly in 1991, and ended with the withdrawal and that last Bulatovic-Milosevic-Karadzic-Babic-Abdic concord in 1992. Eastern Slavonia, Baranya and Western Syrmia is the only part of Croatia that could be said was under "FRY" occupation, to an extent (and remember that Slobodan Milosevic became the true ruler of FRY in 1997). Keep on mind that Milosevic and Tudjman made commercial agreements, Croatia became another drop-off point in the cigarette smuggling (Milosevic was a major mafia boss) and that FRY supplied Croatia with weapons. Milosevic was worried how the war went, especially after the UN took protectorate. In 1995 he did everything imaginable in his power to make the Z-4 plan. We know are sure that he guaranteed to Tudjman that the Z-4 plan will fail. And remember that anti-Croat propaganda limited itself only to the beginning. The Dalmatian pogrom, the Gospic massacre, takeover of most of West Slavonia with reporters reporting thousands dead and lands burnt, Serbs wide-scale discriminated fired and evicted, even lynched in places like Vukovar... But mysteriously, afterwards - nothing. Serbia media never ever reported Operations Flash, Storm, nothing, before Milosevic's fall in 2000. It just kept neutral, numb about anything related to Croatia, except that in 1998 "the war ended by peace between Serbs and Croats" (!).

I just remembered one thing (the Trpimirovici-Nemanjici allegation). I've heard claims that Nemanjics' realm is a Croat realm. Ante Starcevic, for example, alluded that the Croatian historical national area sprang from the East Alps to Attica, which was the place were Emperor Dusan stopped with his conquests. :))) --PaxEquilibrium 18:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the claim is not based on the allegation that the Nemanyiden descend from the Trpimirovics (so far I haven't seen anywhere data on that, but Verancin demands it to stay in Misplaced Pages), but on something different. Actually, two theories. The claim that proto-Serbs were a part of the Croatian nation before secession as a different people and the claim that Montenegrins are Croats (Ante Starcevic called on both, for example). --PaxEquilibrium 18:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Article

Check out the Serbian presidential election, 2007 article and tell me what you think. --PaxEquilibrium 19:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In that way he will become first modern Serbia leader which has lost position in normal way. I don't understand. What do you mean?

I've seen. Nice job. --PaxEquilibrium 20:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Also does that mean that you would actually be glad if Tomislav Nikolic wins (since we now know Maja Gojkovic won't run)? --PaxEquilibrium 20:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you mixed the first one with Milos Obrenovic? And he was elected Supreme Prince in 1817. Actually he abdicated willingly. Aleksandar Karadjordjevic was elected Prince in 1843, and he was deposed (which's worse that that which you said). Milos Obrenovic died normally, yeah. Isn't that ordinary, death? :) Milan Obrenovic abdicated willingly. I don't understand what you mean about Petar Karadjordjevic.

Firstly, you should stop mixing Serbian and Yugoslavian rulers, so I'm just going to tick off the Yugoslavian ones. ;)

And as for the most modern ones: Slobodan Milosevic's Presidential seat was confirmed in the 1990 presidential election; he got re-elected with the formation of a rump Yugoslavia in 1992. In 1997 his term normally expired and he never ran again. Milan Milutinovic's term also normally expired in 2003.

Of course that Boris Tadic will win, but you say that you'd be glad if he loses - whom would you want to see?

Most leaders killed or deposed? I don't think it's most. --PaxEquilibrium 21:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course I do not have different opinion from you (lol, you know?). But Milos Obrenovic had died of normal death. :)

You should leave 1980. Freedom (if at least on paper) and parliamentarism was (re)introduced in Serbia in 1990. And for "real rulers" you have to look for both Presidents and Prime Ministers at the same time. Milosevic was probably the real ruler of Yugoslavia, but so was Tito - and Yugoslavia is not Serbia, so do not count those ones. Slobodan Milosevic was the President of Serbia from 1992 to 1997, when he didn't run again (he had a short 1991-1992 term before FRY was constructed previously). He was succeeded by Milan Milutinovic, who served the office in full term until 2002. Dragutin Zelenovic was Prime Minister in 1991, and Radoman Bozovic in 1991-1993 during the FRY transformation; Nikola Sainovic was once up to 1994. Mirko Marjanovic served in two separate terms (before and after 1998) to 2000. Zoran Djindjic was Prime Minister in 2001-2003, and yeah; he was assassinated. But Vojislav Kostunica already had served a (2004-2007) term. Get my point? --PaxEquilibrium 23:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I forgot Zoran Zivkovic who was Prime Minister in 2003-2004. --PaxEquilibrium 20:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer me, who would you like to see in place as President of Serbia? --PaxEquilibrium 21:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering that Serbia is being torn apart by battles between Kostunica and Tadic, you can guess - both are. I mean originally it's supposed to be a Semi-Presidential system anyway, which means that both President and Premier are important in the first place. However here's the true kick. Most of the government are Boris Tadic's men. However, the Prime Minister is Vojislav Kostunica, who comes from a minor party in the ruling coalition. And now you can guess everything yourself, don't you? :) --PaxEquilibrium 15:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Many of those dead were Roms, Jews, Croats and others. You forget that not only Bosnia-Herzegovina, but modern-day Croatia too counts (in which the number of Serbs increased). In addition to that, tens of thousands of people were shipped from Montenegro and Serbia to NDH camps. I don't think that that number is a Serbian invention at all, but of course, it's obviously false and used by nationalist Serbs. --PaxEquilibrium 15:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant to say that a lot of Serbians were deported to NDH, as well as a lot of Montenegrins. It's best that you don't accept any figure at all, just know that hundreds of thousands were brutally killed and not end up in revisionism like Franjo Tudjman. :) There are other people for that.

What do you mean by western Syrmia? I don't understand you. Also, people have calculated censuses municipality-by-municipality for the territory of modern-day Croatia. In the 1931 census there were 636,284 Serbs, and in 1948 543,795.

I wouldn't call them "problems". Milan Bandic seemed like a nice guy and was my personal favorite for the new SDP leader. I think the situation is even more with Serbia. Practically ALL Serbian leaders are/were Montenegrin. Even today, the President of Serbia is a Montenegrin (OK, Kostunica may not be, but still, he's just a very rare exception). ;)

You still didn't answer - who would you like to see President of Serbia, if not Tadic? --PaxEquilibrium 12:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ceda still hasn't told he'll run in the first place. And in the end, keep on mind that he represents a small ultra-liberal portion, that still doesn't enjoy support in mostly conservative Serbia. As flavor on top of it, there's no party like it in former Yugoslavia - and very little in Europe at all. It'll be years before LDP is able to enter any government, lest even give a President.
I'll deal with it. That's because the Chronicle explicitly tells the names, genealogies of those people (without a link between the Trpimirovic and Vojislavljevic) and every single (of its at least three) version(s). But sure, most of those names are truly found only in the chronicle, so it deserves at least a footnote.
I don't understand what you mean with that last point. --PaxEquilibrium 16:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't get it (what massacre?).

Well then, let's correct it. :) I never mentioned I do not like it! If you're using Montenegrina, then you should've noticed 2 of the four versions of the Chronicle (one mentioning it and the other not). Understood. I will note that. The 2 links you gave is one identical version. --PaxEquilibrium 17:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW let me quote to you what the author of the version of the LjPD in question on the Archbiship:

"He so much mixes regions, genealogy and chronology that it is obvious that he would rather write fairy tales than history".

The man is Joannes Lucius, to us better known as Ivan Lučić. --PaxEquilibrium 21:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And I shall repeat again - the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja has several links at its bottom. The "Croatian version" is another example. I sincerely have no idea why you just chose the two links you like, instead of all of them. ;) Besides I told you it's Montenegrina. And if I have to point as well - pointing. Was this really necessary? :))) --PaxEquilibrium 09:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not the third. The first is the third.

Well for some Croatian nationalistic claims about these things it's a little funny that the people in question dismiss a domestic Croatian version in favor of another. :))

Huh? No. There are numerous versions of the chronicle that survived to this day - the Croatian being just another. Let me then mention "Il Regno de gli Sclavi" of Mauro Orbini in Italian from 1601, it also bears no mention. --PaxEquilibrium 10:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. There are countless versions. The Chronicle is a part of Orbin's work. --PaxEquilibrium 14:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Marco Polo

Sure, here's the short version. Basicly, Zenanarh and I believe both the "Venice theory" and the "Korčula (Curzola) theory" are equally valid. We believe they should both be represented equally. We have an often quoted Britannica reference, and Zenanarh has brought sources showing that the theory is not unfounded (see talkpage).
The "Venice theory" is supported by a relatively reasonable unregistered User that calls himself "Gallileo" and (of course) Giove. They believe only their theory should be priamrily shown, with the "Korčula theory" barely mentioned.
Giove started the Request for Comment and psted his standard radical views at he beginning (along with a notorious sentence that states Croats exist from the 19th century) and then stopped writing anything. The unregistered User ("Gallileo") engaged in a debate and we sort of managed to prove our point. We could, of course, use your help. DIREKTOR 14:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

FRY

Did you know that practically all FRY leaders were Montenegrins? --PaxEquilibrium 10:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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. 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. 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.

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/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 💕 !

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/Ustase

Will be posted in one hundred forums all over the world

Example > http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=1120986#1120986 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brkic (talk • contribs) 08:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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