Misplaced Pages

Istria

Sorry, I failed to understand your statement :( --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Baranja

Pa već smo o Baranji pričali. Ona je samo privremeno bila pod upravom narodnooslobodilačkog pokreta za Vojvodinu dok se ne utvrde granice između republika. PANONIAN (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey

I'm doing fine, thanks for asking. Yes I live in Croatia now and studying Croatian. How are you doing? Everything okey? I read the postings in your poll it is very interesting, you probably know me by now and that I cant restrain myself to get involved in this kind of stuff. Thanks for the invite, I will take part of this the next time I find time for wikipedia, sadly not today. Haha I dident get insultet. Croatia is great, although I think Sweden is the best. But I cant compare Sweden and the Balkans, since I love both. Btw where did you find the whole list of Serbian spiritual sites in Kosovo? Take care - Litany 19:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Tribe/clan terminology

Hi, I see some substantial editing in the article 'Serb clans'/'Serb clans of Montenegro. And because most of them were done by you, I write my comment here. Since I see that there are some problems editing this article I would suggest the following:

1.1. there needs to be drawn an agreement on the terminology. I was suggesting using native terms (my arguments are explained in the discussion page next to the article). I would not call it 'serbianization' since such a practice exists in English language where it is better using native terms to avoid misunderstanding (for instance - Yakuza, instead of Japanese mafia and mafia itself).

1.2. I can understand the wish of using terms 'tribe' and 'clan' and 'brotherhood' (again see my objections to all those in the discussion page). But in case these English terms are used, their usage should be somehow in consistance with the traditional English usage of these terms (please see the relevant Misplaced Pages articles for that). In short, tribe is an assumed collection of somehow related people outside state system. Tribe refers more to political organisation than to kinship. Clan is a group of people who believe to be descendants of a common ancestor (sometimes mythical and not always human) usually the whole line of the ancestors cannot be reproduced. A lineage is a group of people who believe to be descendants of a specific person in history and usually can trace the whole line down from that particular person. Both, clan and lineage refer more to kinship than to politics. Now, you will notice that in this context 'pleme' corresponds better to 'tribe' and 'bratstvo' - to either 'clan' or 'lineage'. Certainly 'clan' cannot be used to translate 'pleme' since members of one 'pleme' can be descendents of totally unrelated persons who arrived and settled down in a territory of a pleme on different times and from different areas. 'Brotherhood' on the contrary is usually a religious or otherwise in English means a fictive kinship and therefore does not fit in Montenegrin case.

2. In order to avoid nationalistic outbursts (of the kind - 'they don't know what they really are' or 'historically they were not Montenegrins' etc) I would suggest re-orienting this article into a territorially-bound. That would mean - this article should be about the plemena/bratstva or tribes/clans on the territory of the current Montenegro. In this way we could do away with many problems and improve clarity of the article. By the way - that would mean that also analogous Albanian social institutions should be mentioned. That might also mean that the reference to plemena and bratstva who once were a historic reality in other territories but who have no substantial meaning in current Montenegro, can be safely excluded from the article. Perhaps there is a necessity to divide the article into one which would be more history oriented and would talk about all the 'ancestral clans' and one which would deal with the territory of current Montenegro. With regards --Bezvardis 22:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Bormalagurski

Why do you keep deleting Boris' userpage? This is only done for users that have been blocked indefinately and will never edit Misplaced Pages again. Boris has the right to come back in a year, and no matter how long that seems to you, it still doesn't give you the right to remove material from HIS page. An infobox about the block is now added on top, and the page should be left untouched, just like any user that hasn't been blocked indefinately. --Svetislav Jovanović 05:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You just don't get it, do you... How dare you remove Boris' name from the WikiProject Serbia list of Participants? He CREATED the project, and you just remove his name! You know, he was one of the only ones that wanted to help during your problem with the hoax, and I know that he felt really bad about what happened, but now you're behaiving like such a traitor and pain in the ass. Now go report me for a personal attack, but I don't care... --Svetislav Jovanović 03:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello again.

Hey Pax. If you're inviting me to chime in on your poll, I'd love to, but it'll take me a few days to collect my thoughts - kind of busy at the moment. As for where I live, I'm currently in Pristina, and I've been here since late June, but I'm Irish by birth. Kosovo is the first Balkan country (province, whatever,) I've spent any real time in, but I hope to get a chance to see some of Serbia next year. Maybe after the snow melts, I'm told Belgrade is really nice in summer. Davu.leon 16:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of us here, weirdly. One of the major guys in the electricity business here is Irish. (No relation to me. Which is good since judging by the power cuts he isn't doing a really good job. ;) Davu.leon 09:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits

I don't like to edit articles as it might start an edit war. I don't want to get involved in that. I much prefer to discuss on discussion page to see and learn more about what people really think. From what i see here on Wiki ...some views/theories are so much more different to what you read in books. Very interesting. I have learnt a fair bit just by talking to people in particular User: Panonian. In my view books are POV of the author and where he/she is from, not always truth. I could write a book on anything and any view, doesn't make it truth, hence when someone lists sources as back up to comments here on Wiki I sometimes laugh.

You have 8,000 edits......that's heaps. I will need a lifetime to get to that.

Jagoda 1 21:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

9,000 I TO SVE STO IMA VEZE SA BALKANU I BALKANCIMA HAHA. DOBRO, ALI JOS PISE NA TVOJ USER PAGE DA GOVORIS MAKEDONSKI. OK RAZUMIS OVO "KAJ SE..UTRE SABALJ"

Jagoda 1 02:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Constitution

Hello.

The constitution of the Republic of Macedonia is basically the same from 1991, but with slight modifications. Take a look at this (in Macedonian) or this (in English). Feel free to ask further. Cheers, Bomac 00:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Поздрав, Bomac 00:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I couldn't find a version of 1974. This is an article in mk.wiki about constitutions of R. Macedonia. Bomac 11:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting

By impressed what do you mean? I prefer the Latin script but I am neither attacking nor against the Cyrillic script. Bosnia did use the extinct script of Bosancica. I did not understand your "P.S." comment. Vseferović 03:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Clan terminology (2)

I don't understand what you mean by cited terminology. I don't see any substantial sources cited in the article aprat from what I have mentioned and PRECISELY because they are inconsistent in translation AND some authors do not translate (for instance M.A.Durham) these terms, I suggested to use the native terms (in consistence with Durham). Translation of pleme as clan is: a) only one of versions (minority by that) in English language literature b) a clear mistake on the part of these sources (which often tend to be written by non-English speaking authors as I understand and which tend to use clan and tribe interchangeably) c) misleading for people familiar with the terms

Secondly, people today live in many different parts of the world. Many clansmen for instance live in Australia or the US. This could be a matter for another as yet not performed historic research to establish these ties. However this should not be the basis for calling them 'Australian clans' (as they have their own) or something like that. At the same time there is a heated debate in Montenegro as you know on national identity and it cannot be solved in any manner. So some people will continue believing a part of people in Montenegro are Serbs, some - that they are Montenegrins, and some - that they are Slavonised Illirians etc. This article also cannot resolve this controversy and it would be better to stay away from the politics. Therefore I suggested to stick to the present political territory as I believe such a policy can free from unnecessary political struggle.--Bezvardis 09:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey...

I understand my comments about one year ago, but I am not saying I am against Cyrillic. I'll be honest I do not prefer it, but hey if you use it it's ok with me. What's happening with you today. I have a day off. Greetings, Vseferović 17:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, the reason Bosnians do not like Cyrillic is due to its affiliation to Serbia culture. As you know, the war was between Bosnia, Serbia, and Croatia so now we are all trying to further separate from one another. Bosnia is trying to change its culture as are Serbia and Croatia. Within the culture is language and everyone is attempting to change it as much as possible, in order to be different from the other. Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia have issues that are not resolved. The easiest thing that should have occurred was the implementation of the "Yugoslav" people. Everyone should have been forced to be called Yugoslavian. If uprisings had been to come up, then it would have been subdued by the government and soon by our generation. Everyone would have called themselves Yugoslavian. There would have been a less likely chance for war. Thanks and greetings, Vseferović 18:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ovo si dobro napisao PAMETNOJagoda 1 02:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Radovane, delijo

All Karadzici come from "Serbian" tribe Drobnjak. Just ask.Momisan 13:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Independent_State_of_Croatia#Population

Can you reference this section? It's not that I don't believe to the figures, it's just that it would be nice to have references. Thanks. --Dijxtra 16:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

???

Hey, I was wondering why did you want to be adopted. My only guess is that you did it just for the heck of it. Am I right? Pozdrav, Vseferović 22:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

ur contribs

If u ask me, they're ok, but at this moment I'm not (at least yet;) qualified to make that statement. I agree with u on most historical issues if that's of any significance. Cheers User:NeroN_BG

ANSWER

Ok,ne slazem se sa tobom ,vezano za Kotromanice .istoriska je cinjenica da su Kotromanici bili pravoslavci koji su priznavali papu kao vrhovnu vlast,a ne SPC.Kasnije su naslednici prihvatili islam,kralj Tvrtko I je poslao Kosacu u Kosovsku bitku,koji je komandovao trecinom srpske vojske,sto je veoma znacajno.Znam da su Srbija i Srbi trn u oku mnogima,pa ako ima neki problem obrati se srpskim administratorima.Promeni ako mislis da bi trebalo to vezano za Tvrtka.... User:bg007 U pravu si,proverio sam i izvinjavam se!tacno je da su u pocetku bili pravoslavci,a sta su onda bili ako nisu Srbi,pa cak i kad su promenili veru.po toj logici pravolavci danas u Bosni nisu Srbi,katolici nisu Hrvati,...Pozdrav! Pa naravno da Bugara nema u Bosni,to sva deca u evropskim osnovnim skolama znaju.BTW Bugari uopste nisu slovenskog porekla ,nego turskog.Samo su uzeli tradiciju,kulturu Slovena.Proveri!Pa dobra,sta su onda pravoslavci i katolici u Bosni?Izgleda da su svi bili Srbi pravoslavni,pa da su vremenom prelazili u katolicizam i u islam.Sta su Dalmatinci poreklom,razlikuju se od kontinentalnih Hrvata po svemu.Prezimena su im drugacija(gle cuda ista kao i u Srbiji,CG i Istocnoj Hercegovini,cak i fizicki drugacije izgledaju od severnjaka.Vatikan je poceo da sprovodi ideju ,da su pravoslavni samo Srbi,katolici samo Hrvati.Zasto?Zato sto su tada u Austro-Ugarskoj i Turskoj,po popisu ziveli Srbi-katolici,ali ne i Hrvati-pravoslavci.Naravno do pocetka proslog veka Muslimani su se izjasnjava ili kao Turci ili kao Srbi muslimanske veroispovesti. To bi moglo da se uzme za pretpostavku,zaista, dosli su iz Bugarske.Tamanili su ih svi od Nemanjica do Ugara.Kog su porekla uopste bili Bogumili?Cini mi se da su vrsena nega genetska ispitivanja Srba,Hrvata i Bosnjaka i da je nedvosmisleno utvrdjeno da je genetska struktura gotova identicna.Naravno to su pocetna ispitivanja, a napredak tehnologije ce nam sigurno dati tacne odgovore i resiti nedumice ,pa i istorijske zagonetke.Vreme pred nama ce nam sigurno dati odgovore.Pozdrav prijatelju!

Red Croatia Pamplet

Interesting bit of information. But I question whether it constitutes Greater Croatia - it looks more like an attempt at Greater Montenegro with land claims on Croatia, BiH, Serbia and Albania, with close regional ties to Croatia that would play the role of a benefactor and counterweight against Greater Serbia. Think along the lines of British and Russian support for Serbia. Also the closer ties it proposes is similar to the stabilisation pact of EU/NATO for the region (minus Serbia).

Also, do you have any credible sources for the claim that Tudjman wanted a Croatian Orthodox Church in Montenegro? - this sounds far fetched too me (certainly if there was to be one it would be in Croatia?). Sounds more like an attempt by disgruintled nationalist Serb elements in Montenegro to undermine the legitimacy of Montenegran independence by painting a conspircay theory of Croatian involvement - almost as good as the Vatican and fourth reich conspiracy theories. iruka 02:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC) (it's Marinko - changed alias from Croquoll to Iruka (dolphin in Japanese)

Hi Pax (HRE), how are you? I am still around, all though dont edit much anymore. In reference to the above Crvena Hrvatska pamphlet you have been posting around, i am quite familiar with it. It isnt a pamphlet from Brkovic as far as i know, rather a scare campaign by the pro-serb parties to scare off voters from voting for an independant Montenegro. The idea was to say if you believe in a Nezavisna Crna Gora, then it could be swallowed up by our evil northern neighbours - the Croats. Its all politics as far as i know. Anyway, whats new with you? Uvouvo 04:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, it is a pity, and a laugh :) Anyway, your right, i have seen that map used. What i meant is that pamphlet was put together for political purposes. Uvouvo 22:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The above comment by user Uvouvo does make sense. In any case, if Montenegro wants to go it alone, it needs support from the EU and neighbours like Croatia to act as a counterweight against the influence of Serbia. Judging by comments made by Dodik in BiH and Tomislav Nikolic, the dream of a Greater Serbia still exists as a distraction to the social and economic reforms Serbia must undergo, so the fear of Serbia would be legitimate on the part of the Montenegrans.

As for Greater Croatia including parts of Serbia, this certainly is fantasy only entertained by a very small minority. It appears that Tudjman had no pretension and any form of Greater Croatia (before BiH declared independence) would have only restored the boundaries of the Banovina Hrvatska or just included Western Herzegovina. After that, Croat influence in BiH was merely for geo-political reasons, and once BiH had stabilised and was no longer see as a source of potential instability, the Racan government stopped the previous HDZ govt's policy of funding the Herceg-Bosnia entity. iruka 01:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input!

Thank you for taking part in my RfA. The RfA was not successful, mostly because I did a pretty bad job of presenting myself. I'll run again sometime in the next few months, in the hopes that some will reconsider.

In the meantime, one of the projects I'm working on is A Wikimedia Administrator's Handbook. This is a wikibook how-to guide intended to help new administrators learn the ropes, as well as to simply "demystify" what adminship entails. If you are an administrator, please help out with writing it, particularly on the technical aspects of the tools. Both administrators and non-administrators are welcome to help link in and sort all of the various policies regarding the use of these tools on wikipedia in particular (as well as other projects: for example, I have almost no experience with how things work on wiktionary or wikinews). Users who are neither familiar with policy or the sysop tools could be of great help by asking questions about anything that's unclear. The goal is to get everything together in one place, with a narrative form designed to anticipate the reader's next question.

A second project, related but not entailed, is a book on wikimedia in general, with a history of how various policies evolved over time, interesting trivia (e.g., what the heck was "wikimoney" about?), and a history of how the wikimedia foundation itself came about and the larger issues that occurred during its history (such as the infamous "Spanish Fork").

Again, thanks for your input on the RfA, and thanks in advance for any help you might be able to provide for the handbook. --SB_Johnny||_books 14:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The "other" project

Yup, that's really a book that should be written, and written by us (the wikimedians), before it gets written by some crusty academic looking to dismiss our efforts. Sure, we screw up sometimes, but when you look at what we've accomplished, only a fool would shake a stick at it.

I made an outline for the book a month or two ago here, but I've been too tied up with other projects since then to make a serious try at working on it and asking for contributors. With Jimbo going semi-emeritus now, I think we'd better start getting this stuff down (wiki style!) before the beginnings are forgotten, because sooner or later we're not going to have all that many of the "first generation" still here and interested in talking.

I'm not part of the first generation, and frankly I'm more than a bit daunted by the prospect of asking the first gen people to tell their story, but perhaps if we got the story started and asked them to correct us?

Anything I can do to help make this happen, I'll do. Please stay in touch! --SB_Johnny||_books 22:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

jag

kao djete su uvjek govorili da sam sladak kao Jagoda..pa tako su me zvali Jagoda i jos me zovu to familja i prijatelji. Jagoda je moj nadimak Jagoda 1 02:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC PS Ajde javi se na Makedonski malo haha Jagoda 1 02:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Constitution of Serbia

COUNTRIES RUSH TO INCLUDE KOSOVO IN THEIR CONSTITUTIONS, AFTER SERBIA 'S MOVE

After Serbia included Kosovo in its constitution, other countries from the region have declared their intentions to do the same. They point out that they are doing this in line with their good neighborly relations policies. The governments of Albania, Bosnia, Croatia and Hungary have made it clear they are planning to adopt new constitutions which mention Kosovo in their preamble. They say they must stand by Serbia, just as they did in the original Battle of Kosovo in 1389.

A Croatian government official said "We fought in that battle together with the Serbs, we lost in that battle together with the Serbs and we should remember that battle together with the Serbs." A Hungarian representative echoed him, saying, "Hungarian soldiers fought and lost side by side with Serbian soldiers." A Bosnian government spokesperson said, "If King Tvrtko would be alive today, he would be very proud of us." Albanian representatives stressed, "Teodor II Muzaka didn't give his life in vain in Kosovo, we Albanians realize, just as our Balkan neighbours, that it was an important loss." Commenting on these moves, a Serbian official said, "Both Prince Lazar's body and his head would be turning in his grave, if he knew that his Balkan war buddies' sacrifices were not being respected. By including Kosovo in their constitutions they show that this lost medieval battle is as important to them as it is to us." When asked whether "the fact that the Serbs were on the winning side (the Turks), too, complicates the situation?" the official answered, "It doesn't matter if Vuk Brankovic fought with the winners, what matters is that a Serbian prince (Lazar) led the losers!"

The government of Kosovo plans to include Kosovo in the new constitution, too. When asked by SEE Online whether that was necessary, a spokesperson replied, "Duh! We lost in that battle, too! We not only lost, but we hosted the battle. We are so proud we hosted that bloodbath, that we will mention it in our constitution more than one time." He reminded us that another battle had been lost in Kosovo by Janosh Hunyadi (in 1448), and that this doubles the responsibility of Hungary to include Kosovo in its constitution. Albania’s responsibility would have been double, too, if the Serb forces didn't interrupt Gjergj Kastrioti - Skenderbeg, in his way to assist Hunyadi in losing the battle to the Turks.

A Turkish government official said, "We can't express the regret we feel that we won those battles. This makes it impossible for us to include Kosovo in our constitution. In fact, this is making us reconsider the motives behind the Serbs' decisions to help us win those two battles." He added, however, that Turkey plans to include other battlefields in its constitution. "The Albanians kicked our butts in no less than 27 medieval battles! We just have to include those battlefields in our constitution, and Kruja will be first in the list." He said, they also plan to include Austria in the preamble, because, "one of our most glorious losses was at Vienna."

France has declared that they want to commemorate the Battle of Waterloo in their new constitution, even though it is not a medieval battle. A French official pointed out, "Everyone is remembering their Waterloos, and we have to remember our Waterloo, too. And, our Waterloo is Waterloo, Belgium."

A member of the European Medieval Association said they are thrilled with the decisions of these countries to include medieval battlefields in their constitutions. According to her, "In no way should Serbia, or any other country, be seen as having a medieval mindset, if it includes the site of a medieval battle in its constitution." She adds, "You have to know where you lost your medieval battles! And what better way is there than by mentioning them in your constitution?!"

In the meantime, a local entrepreneur in Prishtina, Kosovo, has begun selling ready made constitutions which include Kosovo in them, where all you have to do is fill in the name of your country. "With the surge in demand for new constitutions with Kosovo in them, I figured I have to work on the supply side." The Kosovar government, on the other hand, has enabled a feature in its website through which you can automatically "Add Kosovo to your constitution" with just a click of the mouse for only 25$.

SEE Online asked some Kosovar citizens about this. A library worker expressed complete shock that somebody was asking her opinion about the matter. She says "I can't think of any good reason why should anyone ask us Kosovars whether they should include Kosovo in their constitution or no! Seriously. Can you think of one?!" A shopkeeper shows similar surprise: "When has anyone asked us whether we want Kosovo in their constitutions?! Anyway, how is that going to affect my daily business here in Kosovo?"

Disclaimer: All characters and statements are entirely fictitious and any similarity with real characters or statements is completely coincidental.

posted by --Albanian since Stone Age 04:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is where I got it from . It sounded funny to me so I just wanted to share it.--Albanian since Stone Age 15:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it. However, it's just the same text.--Albanian since Stone Age 20:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hercegovina

I realised while editing Herzegovina that we don't have an article on Stefan Vukčić Kosača. Perhaps you'd be the person to knock something up? :-) --estavisti 11:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Slavic Ancestry Userbox Template

First of all, this is the 1st time I'm replying to someone, and I'm not sure if the reply should be written here or in my talk page, so I apologize in advance if I made a mistake :)

I believe we actually have three SAME-TYPE templates ;) I wasn't aware of the existence of your template, and this is the first template that I came across: User:Brendel/Userboxes/User Slavic

I didn't like it much, so I decided to freshen it up by adding a picture of Slavic countries in the ID box. I wasn't aware that users were obliged to use template userboxes, as opposed to creating their own, but if that is the case, I'll change/delete mine to be in compliance with the rules.

However, I must admit that I still prefer my solution to yours - while Pan-Slavic flag was approved as the official flag of all Slavic nations more than one century ago, I have a feeling that it's slightly outdated and obsolete, and that its colours fail to represent and include those Slavic countries whose flags sport other colours (Ukraine, Bulgaria, Poland, Bosnia, Macedonia, Montenegro, etc.). For that reason, I believe that the map of Slavic-language-speaking countries is a better way to represent Slavdom, since it includes all the countries where a Slavic language is spoken.

Pozdrav! :)

- Dugouha 13:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

By saying that the map was obsolete, I was merely expressing my opinion. Of course it is still in use, and it is officially as legit as the map, it's just that I like the map better. Matter of personal tastes :)

As for your comment about the map, I'm not sure I got it right. What do you mean by "is it logical?" And which countries should the map represent if not those in which Slavs hold relative or absolute majority?

Thinking now... you might be referring to those countries in which Slavic immigrants are numerous, yet fail to represent majority (e.g. USA, Australia, Canada, etc.)... Well, they might feel left out, true, but I'd like to remind you (them?) that the stress here is on ancestry and the map shows those countries which their ancestors most probably came from. Heck, I'm one of those minority Slavs, and I don't feel left out ;)

Finally, the remark about Russia's Siberia and Far East is apparently totally irrelevant, as it is obvious that the map is cut off for the purpose of space economy, and that by including Russia's European part, it implicitly includes the whole territorry of Russia.

Anyway, the bottom line is that we seem to be bickering about matters of personal taste, which is futile per se - k'o što ono kažu, svijetu je teško ugoditi. A i dosta je bilo svađe među Slovenima (posebno balkanskim) zbog kojekakvih gluposti i bez ove naše prepirke :)

If your userbox hasn't already been set as default/template Slavic Ancestry userbox, maybe we could make a poll or something, to see which one other users prefer. If it has been set as a template, then it's fine by me - I'll change my page to make it rules-compliant, after all, you're here longer than I am, and I'm sure you know the ropes better than I do :)

Just let me know what to do.

Sve najbolje!

- Dugouha 00:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

p.s. seems I entered an extra character when replying, and it messed up my subtitle formatting. It's fixed now, sorry about that :)

- Dugouha 00:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at this

Names of Battle of Kosovo in different languages. If you know something else, please add it. I will answear your poll toworrow, and I'm looking forward to it. Best regards - Litany 18:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hvala!

Kako ide? Hope it's all good! Thanks for visiting my page. Doviđenja! The RSJ 00:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Izvini, ne znam Bunjevački :) - The RSJ 01:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Questions

You support the independence of Montenegro - but it's not jeoperdized. It's nice that you feel enthusiastic about a country's sovereignity - but what's the purpose if there's no reason?

Also, how's in Saudi Arabia? --PaxEquilibrium 20:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the late answer. I think I just forgot to edit my userpage in a long time, that's why its still there. Thanks for telling me. I'll see if I should keep it there or not.

As for Saudi Arabia, life is well uh... different you might say. Army surrounds lots of things and quite boring for me living here. --Petrovic-Njegos 06:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

Greetings to you too! Your articles seem quite good and NPOV to me, but I must say I'm interested in history, but just that - I don't have any deep knowledge, my field of education is law:) So I can't actually contribute much, I just further educate myself and translate some articles to Serbian wiki. Best regards, Velimir85 19:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• We've developed a number of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.
• The project's monthly newsletter will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—and wherever—you'd like:

• Additional reviewers for the military history peer review and A-Class review processes are always needed!
• Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
• All project members are invited to help with this fortnight's project collaboration.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Misplaced Pages.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 19:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Possessive, not Obsessive

Dunno, I respect your enthusiasm and energy, however, your texts ARE fairly single-sided. Also, I can understand how you feel when someone starts to edit "your baby", we all are a bit possesive, for sure. However, we have to accept that there are other people with, perhaps, opposite opinion. Also, little bit of self-criticism (like every good communist;-) goes a long way.

As for Sideshow Bob, I had a look only at his edits on Grand Duke Mirko Petrovic, and I pretty much agree with them. I think we should all remove any nationalist labelling (Serb, Montenegrin etc.), as it doesn't really add any value to the text and it is clearly pretentious and with an agenda behind it. As long as you are persisting in keeping these labels (as in Serbian cyrillic etc.) I cannot but see you as a nationalist. Anyway, it's much more colourfull on Misplaced Pages with you and CG around. I trully appreciate what you have done. Momisan.

Balkan military history task force

Hi there. I see you joined up to the task force. I have made some suggestions at the talk page of the task force: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/Balkan military history task force#How to organize this task force. If you want come and discuss the proposals. Kyriakos 08:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why have you removed tags?

For Pagania, Zachlumia and Travunia? You did not answered any of the questions and the article is still the same as the were. I am reverting the tags. --Factanista 19:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you can remove the tags just like that. You have given no arguments that would support the current position that Pagania, Zachlumia and Travunia were Serbian principalities. Perhaps accuracy tag should be replaced with neutrality tags but some kind of tag should be there. --Factanista 19:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

But I did - I explained, then waited a whole week, then reminded you; then waited more and then I wrote that the discussion is closed and final comments than waited some more and then I removed the tags. Didn't it seem the obvious thing to do? --PaxEquilibrium 14:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You from Yuga, Serbia?

We need information on the exact day the Yugoslav war ended with Nato, was it June 11 or 10th? How is life ther? I spent some time in Croatia as a student, I understand your language, not much difference, i think yuga was one great country.

10 June 1999. Life's horrible. Just horrible. No comment... and I'm from Yuga, but not Serbia. :) --PaxEquilibrium 11:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I there, i had to take some classes in zagred some time ago, but that was after war, why did macedonia ever separate, i mean, exceltp slovenia, (partially) all other 5 republics stink and are going nowhere... So, you are sure june 10th was the end, i recall official signing was june 11th? Final bomb was on that day? So what's wrong in yuga, you guys can not go travel much? what part of yuga u from?

Macedonia firstly supported Milosevic, but Macedonian nationalism and fear of the growing Serbian nationalism kicked in. It wanted, in the likehood of Slovenia, to be "free". Yes, June 10th was the end of it. I'm fro Croatia's Frontier, but I'm now in Belgrade. And no, we don't travel at all (actually, depends what you consider by "travel" :) --PaxEquilibrium 23:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

??

pa....

jel ti to stvarno?! pravi hrvatski vracas na pogresni?! --VKokielov 01:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

kada izigravas ples s persiranjem, izgleda sizofrenicno. --VKokielov 00:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Translation: When you dance around with "ti/vi" (tu/vous), it looks schizophrenic. --VKokielov 00:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I would be very careful what I say about me. Not only have I edited Misplaced Pages, less than five hundred times in the past four months -- how much of that has been interaction with users? -- but, also, it so happens that the only one I bump into is you. Only you. That should tell you something. As should your failed RfAs, and the fact that Serbs from Serbian Wiki voted against you. --VKokielov 00:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"altogether with other weird edits of yours (like on Jakov's user page, which altogether you in anger, totally against WP:Civil, justify like someone just threw a nuke at you ) have been completely unconstructive to this Project. " What are you talking about? If you mean the "it looks strange" bit -- of course it looks strange. He writes "Croatia is first" and then goes and tells me that he barely has time for EN. It doesn't take any time to register. You know that. --VKokielov 00:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You deliberately misrepresent what I say. I don't know what to do. First of all, no Croat voted for you. Second of all, the Serbs who are most prominent on Sr::Wiki voted against you. Now, as regards your complaints against me, I will repeat myself. It is striking that you are the ONLY ONE THAT notices. Is it, mayhap, because you are the only one I brush shoulders with? I'm not talking about my rightness or wrongness, now -- only about your reaction to it. --VKokielov 00:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That's right. The others haven't the leisure I have in confronting you; they have a turf to defend. I don't.

Please don't switch between "ti" and "vi" capriciously, or do any of the other things you keep doing -- like using "thou" in ordinary English speech. It impresses no one, and if you think it does, then you've misread people terribly. --VKokielov 00:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Question2

I live in Saudi Arabia with my parents.--Petrovic-Njegos 05:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Bulgaria

For your information, the "Macedonians" started to consider themselves as "Macedonians" after decades of serbian terror. This is all a serbian lie to tear off these lands from Bulgaria. If you admit that in the past this population used to be Bulgarian, in what reasons you claim that nowadays it all of a sudden became Macedonian??? Now the government in Skopie is trying to prove that Samuil, Gotse Deltchev, Nikola Vaptsarov and so on and so on are Macedonians, which is simply ABSURD. If there was a Macedonian ethnos i think it would have had heros, not invent them from our history.

It would be far better for the population of the Reopublic of Macedonia to finally join Bulgaria. From economic point of view, it is better for you, not for us; from politikal point of view, the percentage of the Albanians which now constitutes about 40% of the population there will greatly decrease and you will not have problems with them.

I heard for the stupid and insulting campaign of a Dutch deputy for recognition of Macedonian minority here, perhaps your statement has something to do with it... --Gligan 07:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. There were Slavs all over the Balkan Peninsular before the arrival of the Bulgars. The founder of Old Great Bulgaria, khan Kubrat had five sons, who after his death moved in different directions. One part of the Bulgars lead by Asparukh settled down in what is now northern Bulgaria and southern Romania; one part of them under Kuber settled in what is now Macedonia, but they were not so strong, and bacame vasslas of the Byzantines, but when khan Krum captured Sofia and the lands between the two states they naturally united.

Our nation was established as a union between Bulgars and Slavs, so it is natural that we wanted to liberate all the Slavs from the Byzantines; and the Slavs themselves wanted to join Bulgaria which was in their eyes the mother country. Some of the Slavs (the serbs) refused to do so (I guess they were bribed by the Byzantines, but no one can be sure about these reasons), while the Slavs to the east of Belgrade (including the lands of modern Macedonia) accepted Bulgaria as a state of their own; their never tried to establish states of their own because they were integral part of our society. Even under the Turkisk rule, when there was not a strong centre or an Emperor in Preslav or Tarnovo, when there were almost no Bulgarian institutions those population remained Bulgarian, they never stated themselves as Macedonians until the serbs started interfering from the 19th century onwards.

I hope you are wise enough to think neutrally and logically on what I wrote above and you will reach the same conclusions. --Gligan 09:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the late Middle Ages, the serbs did not claim that these lands (Macedonia) are theirs, they did not claim that the population there was Serb or Macedonian; this began from the 19th century. Macedonia was the heart of thier realm, because there were not so big and developped cities in Rashka or Duklja such as the newly conquerred Skopie (their new capital), Ohrid or Nis. My nationalism (as well as nationalism as a whole) is perhaps backward nowadays because it leads to conflicts. I understand this very well. We cannot take back Macedonia by force, but this does not mean that there is no chance. The local population should be persuaded, it should be allowed to read books about their history without censureship by their government. A society cannot live in a great lie forever. You agree that for instance Samuil was Bulgarian Emperor, but why then the government in Skopie persistently insists on its theory??? Because they are seeking ways to support these lies, otherwise the Macedonians themselves would like to join Bulgaria. This is why I am writting some nationalistic statement, I simply want the people to think on this and discover the truth (if they want to).

If the Macedonian population was ready to really have its own seperate country, they should say something like this: Samuil (or whoever Bulgarian heroe they consider Macedonian) was a Bulgarian, yes our lands were once Bulgarian but we now feel that it would be better to be independent. But instead what do they say??? Our Macedonian state was liberated from Bulgarian yoke under our great Emperor Samuil, Gotse Deltsev and Yane Sandanski fought for the liberation of Macedonia; so this shows that they are trying to prove something which is wrong, and this thing is that they are not Macedonians, they remain Bulgarians genetically and they do not want to admit it. --Gligan 15:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The Macedonian lands joined Bulgaria in the middle of the 9th century, never heard of Serbs there before that time. It is true that the Macedonian government admits Samuil proclaimed himself as Czar of the Bulgarians; but it claims that this step was only to gain international recognition and he remains Macedonian ruler nonetheless, which is of course nonesense. He was not proclaimed emperor until the death of the last Czar of the former dinasty Roman in 997.

I am glad to talk with so smart person.:):):) --Gligan 19:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It was interesting for me to learn this. But the Serbs left these lands and they were settled by Bulgarian Slavs and the following situation occurs: the same as in the Crusade Campaigns, they were trying to reconquer (in the 14th century) lands which no longer belonged to the serbs for five centuries, which were already Bulgarian. The Serbs held these lands for less the 30 years until thier empire desintegrated and did not have time to repopulate them with Serbs; so under the Ottoman rule the population there remained mostly Bulgarian, as it is now ;)

I hope that I will not insult you with this question; but why do you think it would be better for Macedonia not to join Bulgaria? :):);) --Gligan 16:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, under joining I mean incorporation of Macedonia into Bulgaria (forming one state called Bulgaria with three historical regions Moesia, Thrace and Macedonia) , and under "better" I mean for the population of Macedonia.

The Macedonian lands remained in a state called Serbia for 30 years; they were conquered by the Turks much later, but then they consisted of numerous independent feudal states of Valkashin, Uglesha or Simeon, while the territories of the Serbian Kingdom remained to the northwest : ) --Gligan 18:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. By Constitution Bulgaria is not exactly the state of the Bulgarians but the state of all its citizens no matter of their origin, religion or believes. We even do not have an official religion, we are traditionally Orthodox Christians but nowhere in the Constitution is written that it is the official religion of the country (which I personaly don't like). As far as the national recognition is concerned, I can only guess, because after all I am only 19 and still do not understand the whole politics of our government. But in my opinion the vast majority of the current Macedonian population will be officially recognised as Bulgarian. The problem would be that some people would not wish to call themselves Bulgarians and will think us for occupators, but these I think would be minority and with the time they will understand that there are no Macedonians (at least their children). I fear this will be a difficult process, as it was when Macedonia was conquered by the serbs in 1913. I doubt that it would be an official recognition of the Macedionian ethnics, but people can still consider themselves as Macedonians if they want to because in our country is allowed to consider youself as a Marsian if you wish; but with the time this number will steadily decrease as they read books or watch films on the theme and they will regain their Bulgarian indentity. After all, it is an honour to be Bulgarian ; ) The Albanians and the other peoples of Macedonia will remain, of course, Albanians, Roma or Turks; but there will not be a recognised national minority because both the Albanians and the Turks will constitite less than 10% of the population of the enlarged state.

It would be better for the peoples of the both countries to stand together because it would be easier to withstand the national interests, which I think are one and the same for Bulgaria and Macedonia. An important point is that it would not be necessary for Macedonia go through the long and very difficult way to the European Union.

No, the serbs will not like this at all :):):) --Gligan 19:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, this is why the unification should not took place suddenly but only on condition that the Macedonian population realise what the situation is (I mean when they finally they find their Bulgarian indentity). This might happen in 20, 50, 100 years or not at all. When we discuss this matter with friends, they often say that time will come when the Albanians will become majority in Macedonia and then the Macedonians themselves will want to join us. They also say that we shall gradually show them through the media who they are. One of them even told me that the most popular tv program in Macedonia is the Bulgarian Planeta TV (which I doubt). --Gligan 20:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

nationalities

Don't say foolish things. I don't know the difference between Croats and Serbs. I know only where you cast your lots, and how your own side reacts to you. You can't help it. I still don't know why. Even in what you just wrote -- "I am Serbia and you're Croatia". --VKokielov 00:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Pardon -- "I'm the Serb and you're Croatia". Wonderful slip-in. congratulations. --VKokielov 00:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh -- I see how ir goes. You're poor Dubrovnik or Vukovar, and I'm mean old Yugoslavia.

I'm tired of this crap. From now on, when you address me, do it in English -- and do it like a human being. I'll address you only in English also. If you can comply with that simple precept, we'll get along just fine. --VKokielov 00:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

all right

So I've been accused of being strange myself. Not once. Sometimes because I'm a foreigner.

I know what you mean to do. I understand you. I even believe you're honest about it. But you're going about it the wrong way. Please take it firsthand. I was raised to laughter, and not once. I was raised to laughter -- and I should have been. There are certain norms of behavior with which human beings must comply. These norms aren't absolute, and they vary from place to place, but the thing to remember whenever you break them is that the human being on the other end of the line (or internet connection, perhaps) may read something very different from what you wrote. --VKokielov 00:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe you and I can find a common language. Let's promise each other, instead of addressing each other in English, that we will not talk about these Balkan topics. If you have something against what I wrote, ask someone to talk to me -- I'll do the same with you. God knows neither of us are short friends here, and we have a few in common. Deal? --VKokielov 00:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oprosti to o sizofreniji. Meni je hrvatski sasvim u redu -- nije tu stvar u hrvatskom. Stvar je u tome sto si vise puta presao s jednog nacina obracanja na drugi, pa to me zbunilo, kao sto su neke druge stvari koje si radio -- kao naprimjer to besprekidno bacanje teksta koje si izvodio (mada naravno na samom pocetku). Dopustimo da smo mi iz istoka burni ljudi i da ne znamo, kad dodemo na Internet, kako se treba ponasati. Ako ti i ja mozemo utemeljiti primirje medu nama, bit ce obojici dobro, jer ja kao stranac stvarno nemam pojma. (Kao sto sam rekao -- zato drzim se daleko i nikad ne vodim napad) --VKokielov 01:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Nemam drugih rjesenja. I nemoj da se stavljas na zrtvu -- to je ono najgore u tebi sto svi mi tko ne slazemo se s tobom volimo najmanje. Ti nisi zrtva, nego vrlo dobro obavjesten sidjeljak -- opet kazem, to izlazi iz komentarija na tvom RfAu, od administratora na wiki:sr, wiki:hr, i wiki:bs. --VKokielov 01:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Trebam to kvalificirati. Mi smo svi tko ucestvujemo u ovim svadama, svi smo sidjeljaci -- ali bogme ne znam zasto ti pretendiras na neutralnost kada neutralnosti tu nema. Razlika medu tobom i Dujom ili Joyem jeste -- ili barem bila je do ovog proljeca -- da su oni dosta daleki od tih samih svada. Ali ipak, oni ne stavljaju "sh" predlozke na stranu i ne brane ono sto ne mogu dokazati. Dijxtra, koji stavlja taj "sh", izgleda da vjeruje u to -- dobro njemu. Ja se s tim ne slazem. Ne treba zivjeti u proslosti. Ali ni Dijxtra se ne pravi na jednog neutralnog i nevinog. --VKokielov 01:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:PaxEquilibrium/VKokielov babble

Dobro -- kad ne razumijes, ne vazi. Inace nikad necemo doci do primirja. Sto je na kraju krajeva nas cilj, zar ne? Ako, naravno, neces da me zgazis? :D --VKokielov 01:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Nemoj da moju ljubav prema Izraelu nazivas nacionalizmom. Ja pod nacionalizmom razumijem fasizam. Ono sto ja ispitujem prema Izraelu, ili sto Hrvati ispitaju prema Hrvatskoj -- to nije fasizam; to je ljubav naroda koji te je odgojio i u kojem si odrastao, a koji te branio. --VKokielov 01:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

crnogorac?!

a ja mislio da si hrvatski srbin? --VKokielov 02:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ma kakvi da je on Hrvatski Srbin. On je Hrvatski Crnogorac a živi u Beogradu. On je rođen u Karlovecu, ali je rasta u Crnu Goru. Njegovo majka je iz Cetinja. Malo dođe porijeklo Paštrovića i Grbalja. Crna Gora 02:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ovo postaje samo malo iritantnim. Necu vise diskutirati. Ako ne mozes uzet na lice i najmanji udarac, i to onaj za koji sam ja spreman uzeti odgovornost -- necu s tobom nista imati. Nisi ti s neba pao. --VKokielov 14:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Đe si brate sokole!

Zdravo Pax-e. Izvini što nijesam odavno napisao pismu tebi. E vala sam kazao VKokielov da više ne provocira Crnogorci na Vikipediju.

Kako ide s tvojim doprinosima. Viđio sam da sada imaš preko 9.000 doprinosi. Bravo!

E vala je žalostno što Milo nije više naš Premijer. E, dobro si reka što Milo više neće da bude Premijer Crne Gore.

Viđim da se još zbavljaš sa istorijom Hrvatske. Oću da budem ka ti, dobar istoričar na Vikipediju.

Prijatno Pax-e i nemoj da nikad prestaneš s tvojem dobro radnje na Vikipediju.

PS, Što je Boris Malagurski blokiran od oba Engleski i Srpski Vikipedije. I možeš li da mi malo pomogneš sa Crnogorskom Vikipedijom (ja sam napravio testna vikipedija prije mjesec dana) Crna Gora 02:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

A bit of help please

Can you please help me with dealing with the User:GiorgioOrsini, the one you pointed it out to me on my talk page? He keeps vandalising(simply removes content from) List of Croatians and I don't know what to do, who to contact, etc. Thanks in advance. --Factanista 21:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ragusan???

I have replied to your message on my Talk page. --Slowking Man 10:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

?

ne razumijem kako covjek koji je prezivio rat moze razgovarati kao sto ti. Nadam se da ovo poredenje te nece opet uvrijediti, ali ti govoris kao Dalai Lama u okolnostima koje ga najvise mrze i ne zele.

Ako si bio u SFRJ, onda si citao Anne Frank's diary. Razdijelenje toga s ovim je moderna greska -- kao i greska jeste mislenje da, ako bi se dvojica strana obmjenile, da ne bi nam Jevrejima ili vam Krscanima pod arapskom hegemonijom bilo osam sto put gore nego sto je njima pod nama. --VKokielov 16:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Stavit cu za tebe objasnenje moga oca, koje je on meni uvijek stavljao na sto, da bih ga razumio: "nije moguce drzati se od strane u ratu. Moras izabrati stranu. I pazi, ako izaberes pogresnu stranu, tebe nitko nece postovati, jer niko ne voli izdajnika." --VKokielov 16:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ne znam. Mozda si u pravu. Ali, kao sto je u slucaju i s Jevrejima -- ovo nije prvi rat. I nece biti posljednji, ukoliko se sve ne preobrati o ne postave s glave na nogu. Tesko je tu pricati o osjecajima uopce, a kad pricas o miru (kao sto sam ja neko vrijeme), pocinju na te ispod obrva gledati. --VKokielov 21:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A sto je treba mrzit? Zasto nije moguce samo zanemariti? Ostaviti na stranu? Zasto ne pustiti svakoga da ide svojim putem? Negodovanje i mrznja su razliciti pojmovi. --VKokielov 23:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"Ne. Koju god naciju odaberem, neko - gdje god bio, ali uvijek neko - ce me mrziti zbog toga sto odabrah; tako da je poprilicno svejedno. I opet, kako mogu da se solidarisem s onim protivu cega nastupam istovremeno (mislim na politicke odredbe). Pa hajde, ici cu tvojim rjecima :) - ti si Jevrejin, i Jevreji gdje god da su u svijetu (pa cak - ne, pogotovo sada kada imaju svoju drzavu) ce uvijek osjecati vrlo jaku pripadnost jednih drugima, i tako mislim da ti jednostavno to ne mozes razumijeti. Kod mene ("nas"), to je zaista neprimenjivo." Pogodio si u tacku. To ti je istina. Istina, i velika zalost. --VKokielov 23:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Please!

Be advised not to leave offensive and meaningless messages on my talk pages!

List of Croatians

Please see Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. Your edits of plain removal are classified as vandalism according to Misplaced Pages's policy and are not allowed. Please refer to defining your edits, as you may be blocked for further activities in the likehood of your latest contributions. --PaxEquilibrium 23:37, 18 November 2006 --GiorgioOrsini 16:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Croatians & Vandalism

These are not offensive messages, but a re excerpts taken from the Misplaced Pages:Vandalism policy page, which deals with these things. Also, the removal of warnings is a no-no, especially when they're justified, like in this case. You may get an extended block, as it seems as if you're hiding that which you're doing. --PaxEquilibrium 17:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

My further advice to you - please stay away from my talk page and do not tutor me or threaten me with blocks!--GiorgioOrsini 01:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

stvoreni da mrzimo

Ovdje prestupas granicu koju ne smijes prestupiti. Prije nego se upustis u tu diskusiju, moras prvo opredjeliti sto mislis pod onome sto si rekao. Da li to znaci da nema nista u zivotu osim ove emocije? To je potpuna neistina. Ja volim svoje roditelje i umro bih za njih -- kako bi oni umrjeli i za mene. Jesam li spreman umrjeti za Arapa? Kad tone u vodi, valjda, jesam -- jer on u taj trenutak vise nije Arap, nego covjek kao sto sam ja. Ali onda moram da se pitam: tone li on u vodi, ili pak samo se cini na to? Sto se mene tice, ja bih volio da kazem: ja cu ga spasiti prvo, a pitati potom. To bismo svi voljeli da kazemo. Ali nemam sumnje da bih ga ostavio da tone ako bi to znacilo da cu spasti svoje roditelje - s kojom god zaloscu on tonuo.

Ovo je u nama ljudima od trenutka kada smo rodeni. Mudrost je u tome da razumijes to, i primis stanje stvari onakvo kakvo jeste. Ja smatram da treba da ljudi razumiju: mrznja medu plemenima ne postoji. To je jos jedna gromka izmislica -- jos jedan primjerak praha u oci. Ono sto je natjeralo te vojnike da ubijaju, da tjeraju, da siluju, to nije mrznja, nego oholost -- prljava oholost s dodatkom odsustva savjesti. Danasnji ljudi, svojom vecinom, nemaju savjesti; savjest nije upucena njima. Pa i oduvijek tako bilo -- i u Njemackoj 1940h, i u Angliji 1900h kada su djecu bestidno ganjali po fabricima da rade dane od dvadeset i cetiri sata bez prekida. Razlika medu tim vremenom i nasim jeste, da je taj skup ljudi koji je to poricao i koji je u tome vidio svu gadnost koja je zracila odande, taj skup je u to vrijeme imao dobro osjecanje za ono sto se jos tada moglo zvati "covjeske vrline." Sada te vrline se priblizavaju sve vise do nestanka, a svjest o njima je vecim dijelom vece izgubljena. Mislim, naravno, na spremnost zrtvovati za one koji su ti bliski -- a jedna od stvari koje ces morati zrtvovati -- nema sumnja o tome -- jeste komfortan zivot, bez neprijatelja i zlozelatelja. --VKokielov 23:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

etnicko pripadanje nema nimalo veze s time. Sam si rekao za to. Znaci treba odgovor traziti drugdje -- jere ocigledno je u pitanju nesto sto je povezano s etniconscu, ali ne identicno njoj. --VKokielov 01:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

da ga poznajem? naravno bih ga prvog spasio. Da ne poznajem obojicu, ne mogu obecati nista. -VKokielov 21:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Nisam uvjeren da ona druga vrsta postoji. da, naravno, pod tom zastavom svasta se radi, ali se nikad ne zna sto je stampano pod odjelom, ako me razumijes. --VKokielov 00:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Eastern Slavonija, Western Srijem, Baranja

When was this region, de jure part of a Serbian state? iruka 00:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In response:

• the Serbian Kingdom (Syrmian) for which you must be referring to the Lower Srijem (below Danube) as the Upper Srijem was ruled by a Hungarian Ugrin Csák;
• the Serbian Empire - I'm assuming you are referring to that of emperor Dusan - the boundary of which was at the Drava and Danube rivers & as such did not include Baranya, Srijem or Slavonija;
• the Duchy of Syrmium; the Serbian Dukedom; the Dukedom of Serbia and Tamis Banate; - most of these entities were merely adminstrative provinces of the Hungarian kingdom which at times involved some measure of autonomy to reflect the high migration of Serbs to the region. However, in most cases, they did not include Western Srijem, and Eastern Slavonia, nor Eastern Srijem since the treaty of Karlowitz as these areas were part of the crown land of Croatia and the triume Kingdom of Croatia - however the Serbian Voivodship did include Baranya;
• the Kingdom of Serbia - In wikipedia it mentions that Srijem joined the kingdom of Serbia on Nov 24 1918, but the map only shows eastern Srijem. There is a problem with this b/c at the same time, the territories were part of the State of the Croats, Serbs & Slovenes that declared independence from Austria-Hungary?;
• the Serb-Hungarian Baranya-Baja Republic - a disputed territory between Hungary & Kingdom of Serbs Croat and Slovenes that did not include Srijem or Slavonia;
• the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes - drawing a long bow here aren't we? By that rational, all of Vojvodina, Sandzak etc was de jure part of Croatia;
• Kingdom of Yugoslavia - same point as for the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes;
• Autonomous Province of Vojvodina (in the Republic of Serbia)- Srijem, Baranya or Eastern Slavonia not part of this entity;
• the Serbian Autonomous Region of eastern Slavonia, croatian Baranya and western Syrmium and the Republic of Serbian Frontier - they are not dejure recognised entities and existed as self-proclaimed republics and as a result of a military campaign. These regions were reintegrated into Croatia by the UN as part of the Dayton accords and were explicitly recognised as an integral part of the republic of Croatia.

So in conclusion, there was never a de-jure internationally recognised Serb state that was composed of Eastern Slavonia and Baranja and Srijem. Serbian Autonomous Region of eastern Slavonia, croatian Baranya and western Syrmium was merely a vehicle for Milosevic's regime's attempt at a land grab for the oil fields in Eastern Slavonia. As Milovan Djilas stated in an interview I saw in the early 1990's, the AVNOJ boundaries between SR Serbia and SR Croatia were drawn on the basis of ethnic delineation. Thus SR Serbia got Eastern Srijem, whilst Croatia was compensated with Istria. iruka 03:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You are trolling? no? ;) Apart from the fact that Croatia-Slavonia was one crownland (of which Syrmia was a part off), and that prior to being reunited, it had previously existed as one entity as the kingdom of Croatia within Hungary and before this as part the Kingdom of Croatia under various stages of the Trpirmir dynasty. This continuity in terms of integralness to the various Croat states over the ages and Croat demographic was why Western Srijem remained part of SR Croatia, and Eastern Srijem was given to the SR Serbia by virtue of the Serbian demographic there, as alluded to by Milovan Djilas's comments. iruka 14:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Upper Srijem was ruled by a Hungarian Ugrin Csák and the lands were reincorporated into the Kingdom of Hungary and subsequently the Slavonia crownland that often changed hands between Hungary and Croatia. Speculation over his effective control is neither here nor there. iruka 14:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

...it was a part of the Serbian state, but was never a de-jure internationally recognised Croat state that was composed of Eastern Slavonia and Baranja and Srijem. :)))

Touche! :) But you miss the obvious Republic of Croatia recognised in 1992 that comprised the territory of Eastern Slavonia and Baranja and Srijem. ; )

Putting aside Baranja; Eastern Slavonia & Western Srijem was internationally recognised as part of King Tomislav's & Kresimir IV's Croatia. It was part of a crownland (initially Croatia then as Croatia-Slavonia) recognised as a title by the nobility of Europe. It was also part of the autonomous Banovina Croatia within the first Yugoslavia; NDH; and the Peoples Republic of Croatia and Socialist Republic of Croatia in the Second Yugoslavia. Thus you have a relationship between Eastern Slavonia/Western Srijem & Croat state, with interruptions, spanning over a thousand years. iruka 15:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, the original reason was to storm Croatia through those territories, but in the end it ended to historical territorial aspirations. Ethnic definition? The Yugoslav republics were formed by neither historical nor ethnic definitions, or a combination of the two. I hope you're not referring to the Ustasha Axis Independent State of Croatia that contained eastern Syrmium.

The modern boundaries of Croatia and BiH was largely formed by the treaty of Karlowitz which roled back the Ottoman Turks gains in Europe. The triune kingdom of Croatia included Eastern Srijem - I believe this was the basis for it's inclusion in the NDH? Ethnically, as stated earlier, and per Milovan Djilas's revelations, the AVNOJ boundary between SR Croatia & SR Serbia was drawn in 1945 on ethnic lines. Even 50 years later, Croats still held a relative majority in the area that constituted the self declared Serb autonomous region of Eastern Slavonia and Baranja and Srijem. Any historical claim was overshadowed by the demographic reality and the stronger historical connection with various iterations of Croat statehood. As for places around Knin (Kraljevski Nin) and Petrova Gora (King Petar Svacic) - the historical Croatian connection is obvious. To claim the AVNOJ boundaries do not resonate historical and ethnic realities would involve an oversight of these strong facts to the contrary. iruka 15:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There are no speculations. In the time Hungary ruled Slavonia directly from 1225 to 1467, this one time it was in Serbian hands. --PaxEquilibrium 14:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe such a notion is erroneous - "...Hungarian influence was stronger in the north of Croatia (Slavonia)..." in terms of granting land, only the king could do that - but he was king of Croatia 'and' Hungary. "...In 1222, the powerful Croatian nobility forced King Andrew II to issue the Golden Bull, a charter limiting royal authority. Every year he had to convene an assemly (sabor)of the armed nobility and hear complaints and requests, and the nobility had the right to resist if he did not respect their privelages." (Ivo Goldstein, history of Croatia, p22). Hardly what you call direct rule - sourced from a historian of Jewish extraction - hardly a nationalist. Furthermore, from the same source, "...in 1273 in Zagreb, the first sabor of 'All Slavonia' (today this region is Croatia north of the mountain of Gvozd (also known as Petrova Gora) and the Sava river). The nobility voted for various legal regulations and were clearly ambitious to rule alongside the king in accordance with the 1222 charter. The ban approved the assembly's conclusions." iruka 10:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted that having a separate ban in Slavonia was a sign of continuity of the Kingdom of Croatia because a Slavonian ban existed in the Croatian kingdom which had bans in a few different areas. Indeed, Petar Kresimir IV organised the Pannoanian Croats (in modern day Slavonia and northern Bosnia) into his kingdom peacefully by taking on the ban of Slavonia and future king of Croatia Dmitar Zvonimir as his adviser. iruka 10:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Arpad house died out in 1301 and it was the King of Naples from the French house of Anjou that acquired the Hungary-Croatia throne. After Louis's death, there was anarchy & civil war in Croatia over accession, with some nobles ruling in their own right and others gathering around Tvrtko of Bosnia. iruka 10:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

''That's what I've been trying to tell you - western Syrmia (most eastern Slavonia) weren't a part of the Croat medieval state.

Eastern Slavonia and Western Srijem at different times were part of the medieval dukedom of the Pannonian Croats, whose control was only interrupted for brief periods by the Byzantium or Bulgar empires. This region later become the Slavonia ban's part of the Kingdom of Croatia, and was part of the rule of King Tomislav, Kresimir IV and Dmitar Zvonimir (himself ban of Slavonia prior to accession to the throne). iruka 10:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That's just like the Greater Serbian demands for Krajina (although Greater Croat demands in this case, won).

Greater Croatia? Such a notion ignores the fact that the region collectively was closely associated to Croatia historically (through the Socialist Republic Croatia, People's Republic of Croatia, Banovina of Croatia (exclusive of Baranja), Independent State of Croatia, Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia (1867 - 1918) (exclusive of Baranja), Kingdom of Slavonia (exclusive of Baranja) & Kingdom of Croatia (exclusive of Baranja). Furthermore there was a strong ethnical link with the ethnic makeup just before the 1990's war containing a relative majority of Croats; it was composed of 90,454 (47%) Croats, 61,492 (32%) Serbs, and 40,217 (21%) others. iruka 10:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Why mention 1992? I already mentioned 1939 being the first time, so there's no need to mention all the latter you mentioned. Over a thousand years? I think you're slightly overestimating. Then again, with interruptions, there are also centuries-old relationships with the Serb state. :)

The 1939 Banovina Hrvatska did not contain Baranja, but incorporated much of Srijem.

With the exception of Baranja (most closely associated with Magyar history and ethnicity), any tenuous association with adjoining Serb populated areas within the Hungarian kingdom under the guise of municipa autonomy is overshadowed by it's legal, historical connection with the Croatian crown via such agreements as Pacta Conventa, the various Golden Bull, and the two variations of the Nagodba agreements, which governed it large Croat population as well as significant numbers of Serbs, Germans and Magyars. iruka 10:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course they weren't. For differents part of the country different years were used (1878, 1910, 1918, 1939, 1941) and they were semi-ethnical - for example, trying to grasp one nation, but totally leaving large chunks of the other nation in that "nation-state" of that state (supporting a single ethnic group - such was evident in the Croatian case; or Slovene). --PaxEquilibrium 16:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Marinko"

By your rationale, ethnic borders could never be achieved because any border proposal would disadvantage some group. I think the Partisans achieved a fair balance. The 1945 AVNOJ border between Eastern part of the SR Croatia and Vojvodina of SR Serbia, was actually drawn on an ethnic basis that largely coincided with historical ones. With regard the large Serb populations in Lika, Kordun and Banija, they largely remained in Croatia because it was historically, geographically and economically an integral part of Croatia, contained a large number of Croats, and was not readily linked to Serbia because of the decision to restore the territory entity of Bosnia & Herzegovina in it's Ottoman/Austria-Hungary borders and served as a tampon zone b/c of the role BiH played in nationalist Croat/Serb visions. Serbia got to keep Eastern Srijem, Banat and Backa, Sandzak and Kosovo. Montenegro got the coastline from Boka Kotor to Budva. Croatia got Istra and Baranja. So every group had some gain and something to complain about.

At the risk of contradicting the fact of my response on the subject, it's a shame the subject of borders dominates the region. Had SR Serbia focused on democratic and economic reforms rather than the military acquisition of the SR Croatia's oil fields (Slavonia) and tourist city of Dubrovnik , it would not find itself in the position it finds itself today - minus Montengrans and Kosovars as partners; and among the bottom of Europes economic ladder; and the subject of political parody over the mention in it's new constitution the site of a medieval battlefield. iruka 10:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Factanista

Factanista ima potpuno pravo sto govori. Nije bas sve 50/50 na Wiki. Neki imaju vise prava i i to stalno minjaju Wiki kako ono hoce.

Jedno Pitanje..kako je on moga izbrisat sve sto je pisalo na njegov discussion page? Ja sam to isto mislio jednom radit ali ti se reko da nemogu to ja brisat ako neman tvoj ok.. cak sve je copyright pod Wiki i nista se nebrise...ali on je sve izbrisao.

Ja ga ne tuzim ..samo pitan jeli moguce ..jer i ja bi tako sve izbrisao pa se vise ne vratio.

Dosta je i meni bilo od nekih poput Giovanni itd... Jagoda 1 02:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser confusion

In regards to Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ragusan, I hope I cleared up some confusion on your part by adding that explanation from UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs), a checkuser. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 03:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:

здраво! Извини за овако спор одговор на твоју поруку. Пишем на српском јер видим да ти је сх матерњи језик. Што се тиче национализма и википедије и мог одласка и доласка......... Не знам шта да ти кажем, јер било каква тема у том правцу захтева дуго разлагање, а ово није место за то. У једној реченици, не могу да смислим било какав облик национализма, а нажалост тога има свуда, било да је српска, хрватска, словеначка или босанска википедија. Неки људи из дотичних држава као да нису сити ратовања па би хтели још и још увек млате неку већ испрану националну реторику. То је био једини разлок мог привременог одласка са српске Википедије. На њу сам се вратила, али избегавам чланке које су на онај или овај начин везане за ратове, политику, религију и такозвани патриотизам на тлу бивше СФРЈ. Бљак...  ;)

Хвала за звездицу!!! :) Поздрављам те!

п.с. Одакле си?

Svetlana Miljkovic 07:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Smoking

A prije li si opazio... :))) Hvala. Jakiša Tomić 08:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Petition

I open a petition here. --PaxEquilibrium 19:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I Dunno

I sed i think so, but im not sure. Uno, dont quote me on that.

THE MILJAKINATOR 05:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey!

Pa ti si HolyRomanEmperor! :)tj. bivshi HRE. Sad znam ko si ti :) Otkud PaksEkvilibrijum?

Nije samo bio u pitanju BMalagurski ili kako mu je vec bilo prezime.. Vec chinjenica da su chlanci koje je ON pisao ostali (i dan danas). Ima jedan chlanak koji je on napisao, i koji josh eto stoji tako na srpskoj vikipediji, a kao da ga je Mitevic pisao u ondashnje ratno hushkachko vreme.. Stoga, nije on kriv shto je tako lud, vec shto ga je celokupna zajednica, tj. wiki community, podrzhala u toj ludosti..

Shta ima po Beogradu? :)

Svetlana Miljkovic 10:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Mapa Vojvodine

Naprotiv, mapa Militargrenze je netačna. To sam već davno proverio. Granica Vojvodstva Srbije i Kraljevine Slavonije je bila kod Iloka. PANONIAN (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey!

You've heard Albanians complaining that they don't have rights? Or you've heard Macedonians complaining about the rights of Albanians in Macedonia?

If the first, I can tell you one thing (let me put it in Serbocroatian): Даш му прст, а он хоће читаву руку. That is the simpliest way of explaining that situation.

If the second, it is a result of the first (the quote in Serbocroatian). Regards, Bomac 18:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard about the "Yugoslav Serbo-Macedonian Alliance...". Also, there weren't any such attempts of "removing" Albanians through the Constitution.

You made me curious about this. Do you have any links? Thanks in advance, Bomac 19:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

AVNOJ Borders of the SFRJ Republics

The visual effect of the examples you have provided would change if you included Vojvodina & Kosovo which whilst enjoying autonomy were still part of SR Serbia. It would also change if you used the Triune Kingdom or the NDH instead of the Banovina.

Regarding BiH, the decision made to not include parts of BiH in either Serbia, whose claim was compromised by the Chetnik activities against Bosnjiaks (Muslims), a key interest group for Tito and the fact that most Serbs resided in Western Bosnia, difficult to link to SR Serbia; or Croatia who had a strong claim becuase of practical application (Herzegovina adjoins Dalmatia) and history but compromised by the NDH's activities, and the Muslims notion that Bosnia is indivisible. There was also the fact that many territories in Bosnia were heavily mixed and would require a population swap - an untenable position. The potential exception would have been Herzegovina where the populations were less mixed.

Note that what I wanted to show by my example was that it was not only Serbs who had people outside it's respective 'motherland' albeit in the Serbs case it was more pronounced - many Bosnjiaks resided in Serbia and Montengro, many Croats in BiH & Vojvodina, many Albanians in Serbia and Macedonia, many Hungarians in Serbia.

With regard to Slavonia, the association with the Croatian (read here Trpirmir, Arpad, Anjou, Hasburg dynasties) kings and the triune kingdom, Banovina, NDH and Socialist Croat federal republics merely reinforce the historical link and correspond to the ethnic reality of the region. Hence to conclude that Eastern Slavonia and Western Srijem, indeed the whole of Slavonia as a part of Republic of Croatia resulting from that continuity, as strange and detrimental to Serbia, is itself strange and does not factor in the continuity mentioned above.

I also think it is important to remember that the so-called gains and losses by the Republics often reflected either ethnic reality, historical links or both (albeit with a heavy bias towards more modern history); and these two criteria often reflected economic and geographical viability of the republics. Thus Bosnia was too mixed to split. Regarding the Lika, Kordun & Banija Serbs, to remove that area from Croatia would not only cut the historical continuity the area had within various iterations of the Croatian state, but undermine the geographical continuity and economic viability of both entities, as was demonstrated in the case of the short lived SAO Krajina.

Regarding the loss of Montenegro, it depends on how you view it - one could view it as loss of a Serbian land, or the reinstatement of Montenegran independence taken away from them in the early 1900's.

Out of curiosity, how would you have redrawn the AVNOJ boundaries? What would have been the criteria? iruka 07:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Wasn't alot of the Kosovo tension over a referendum promised circa 1945 then reneged by Tito over whether it would be included in Yugoslavia or Albania?
• Re Kosovo autonomy, I can understand how in most respects except for monetary, foreign and military functions, the region was self-governing; but Vojvodina had a majority of Serbs - if it was the case that Vojvodina was assuming a status of almost a republic, then it would have had to be supported by Serbs?
• The notion that Serbs were without an effective motherland is a claytons one. The goal of a unitary state resembled a Greater Serbia in effect under the hegemonic influence of the largest ethnic group, the Serbs. The goal of preserving and codifying federalism resembled quasi-independence for the Croats and Slovenes. Hence the idea of cultural autonomy model you suggested would not work given the end games in mind. The European experience has shown that the best model for preserving national is achieved through a nation state that accomodates minority rights, and wider issues within regional frameworks such as the EU and UN (despite their flaws).
• I disagree with your notion that Croatia could only function once the Serbs left - I believed that Croatia could have functioned with their Serbian population, had the Serbs not allowed themselves to be manipulated by Serbia - a folly they have dearly paid for. Serbs functioned well within the structures of the Kingdom of Croatia the Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia & Slavonia, holding the position of vice-ban. They operated well within the Banovina and the Croatian Republics in the Second Yugoslavia. The reason for this is because they were more closely linked with their Croatian kin because of shared historical experiences such as the reformation, revolutions etc, exposure to same institutions and eduction, integrated economic systems (the whole of Lika, Kordun, Banija, Northern Dalmatia and Zagreb are one economic entity). This commonality was stronger for most of the time, than some epheral national consciousness with Serbs everywhere. But unfortunately, scaremongering, rural backwardness and political opportunism won out in the end. Despite this, Croatia still functions with a sizable Serb minority today. iruka 16:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Little question

Do you know why Estavist and PANONIAN both claim to be leaving Misplaced Pages... on the same day?? It seems like the number of us former-YU editors is dwindling. All of a sudden, I may be second-closest to being admin someday :P. (Heaven help us if that actually happened...)

Also, sorry about the King Petar Krešimir article. Unfortunately, I don't have access to many printed sources as I live in Canada. Trekking over to the Croatian library in my area for Misplaced Pages's sake would quickly result in me failing school, which is why I don't contribute very in-depth info. Regards. --Thewanderer 22:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Bosniakophobia should be given a chance

Some Serbs that Bosniakophobia is not an English word? Well, Serbophobia is also NOT an English word. It's not located in English dictionary. In the beginning, Serbophobia returned only 2 matches at Google. When Serbs introduced this word to Misplaced Pages, thanks to thousands of scrapper pages, Google now returns close to 3,000 matches (all copies of Misplaced Pages content). Serbophobia was also nominated for deletion etc, but nobody deleted it. Bosniakophobia should also NOT be deleted. Bosniak 07:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak, one illegitimate article doesn't warrant another. I agree, the Serbophobia and Croatophobia are both dubious articles, just as is Bosniakophobia, Anti-Bosniak sentiment and other such made-up, politically motivated articles. Drop the whole nationalist blame-game and spend your time on something constructive instead!Regards Osli73 12:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Kosovar (the User)

PaxEquilibrium, you wrote a message in my talk page. I wrote a short message back below your message. I also send you some greetings in the Talk:Kosovo page. Take care and I hope I am not taking too much of your time. Yours, Kosovar 19:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Afrika paprika

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've blocked both IPs. You're welcome to file a request for checkuer if you'd like, otherwise, no further action is necessary. —Pilotguy (push to talk) 21:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed your report from WP:PAIN - not because it wasn't personal attacks, but because someone got to the IP address and blocked it already :) Shell 16:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You too?

Eh, you left too? I tried to leave, but I am too notorious wikiholic (as Duja said), and since I do not have job, the ways to spend my free time would be too limited without Misplaced Pages. :) I hope you will come back too. PANONIAN (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't wish talking to people with mental illusions

TThis includes you, a war criminal defending editor and denier of serb beast crimes.

I don't know wether user Duja has mobilized serb nationalist for this ridiculous vote, or if these supposedly non-serbian voters actually are serbs hiding behind wikipedia accounts. No matter what, you are all voting for the removal of a page listing devilish people - and in doing so you do not less than support them! Some call this page POV just because it lists? It's unbelievable - well it wasn't me or any other editor that killed the children or women which earned the criminals a place on the list of serb criminals. Becasue of your scandalous denial and the belief that commited war crimes should be hidden away and forgotten, your deeds will be answered with consequences. I'm sure these consequences allready are present in your lifes to an extent - how can anyone who votes for denial feel good inside their damaged souls? But like I said time will catch up with anyone who does so. Truth always prevails and those who work against it will regret it deeply with time. The moral equivalence that wikipedia's extremely amateuristic writers are trying to follow is horrible, being neutral does not apply when it comes to choosing between the evil and good side, anyone who thinks so automatically has chosen the evil side. Being equivalent in the Bosnian "war" (aggression!), is like being neutral and equivalent to the Holocaust of Jews. We are talking about peaceful human beings killed by humans possesed by evil forces - and you are neutral?, well keep on dreaming..neutral is the last thing you are. I and every peace loving man or women whish you no good, for people like you are the reason of war and misery, sorry but that is the truth - it's an evil path you have choosen for yourselves. My suggestion to you is to try to save yourselves before it is to late and you will regret all your bad acts. (This will probably be removed sooner than I wrote it, obviously another example of denial and injustice) Ancient Land of Bosoni

POV?

"This is an incomplete list of people, with Serb ethnicity, who have been accused of war crimes and attrocities commited during sgovernmental military campaigns, mainly carried out in Bosnia between 1992-1995, on civilian Bosniaks and warprisoners of both Croat and Bosniak ethnicity." No where does it say that every Serbian is a war criminal. It points out those who are currently hiding, being tried, or have been sentenced. How is it POV? Greetings, Vseferović 21:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That statement was not there when this subject was introduced to me. I do not agree with that statement, however, now there is nothing wrong with the artilce. It is as neutral as it can be. Thanks, Vseferović 21:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course the other two articles will show up. However as far as I can see there are only a few Bosnian Muslim leaders indicted of those 2-3 were jailed, the rest let go. This is according to the articles List of ICTY Former Yugoslavia War criminals. (Bosniaks have done some attocities, but ona a much lower scale, look at the Serbian attack on Srebrenica for example) Thank you, Vseferović 21:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Response

I understand, however, I did not make the list. We may have to remove some people and add others if the article is kept. And yes, we have to define a war criminal. To answer your question, Draza Mihajlovic, in my opinion, is a war criminal considering that in every school in Yugoslavia students learned that he was a criminal. He was fascist and fascists are not welcomed in this world. If you would like you can play "Devil's advocate" and say “why the fascist ideology would be bad?” Well, today's society defines it is a bad ideology. (I thought you were for the SFRJ ideologies and nation) Thanks, Vseferović 22:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

He was a Cetnik leader, which automatically defines him as fascist. They were the ones who hand in hand fought with the Germans during the Second World War, meaning they agreed with the Nazi ideas. They carried out many missions for the Nazi's during WWII. He was tried by the OZNA and the SFRJ.

The English article has a lot of POV, but these to sentences provided some interesting detail overlooked by the English article:

• Sa svojim trupama se na početku borio protiv Njemačkog okupatora, dok je kasnije četnički pokret počeo otvoreno surađivati sa okupatorom u borbi protiv jugoslovenskih partizana. Odsjek zaštite Naroda (OZNA), 12. marta 1946, uhapsio je Dražu Mihajlovića.

Thanks, Vseferović 01:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Protection

You're welcome. If you ever want your page unprotected, just let me know. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edits

You made this edit on User:Factanista. Please review WP:SOCK and do not make further such edits. You need to file a checkuser request to confirm if the user is indeed a sockpuppet; otherwise such edits can be considered as disruption. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 06:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Odgovor

I find it interesting that you changed your opinion considering that you seem to be one of the users for SFRJ. However, it seems that now you are defending Cetnik ideoloy. I do not understand your viewpoint. Nothing good can come out of the Cetniks and the Ustase unless one supports the nationalism in those countries. A true Yugoslavian actually detests the work of Draza Mihajlovic. I mean he was a Cetnik and worked against Yugo. That is enough for me, since no one unless they are Cetnik or Ustase, can they say that Yugo was a horrible country. It is actually positive that Tito removed their freedom. Thanks, Vseferović 22:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal Information

For posting personally idenitifying information , I have indfefinitely blocked you from editing. An indefinite block need not mean you will not be unblocked. But There is no excuse for posting personally identifying information anywhere on Misplaced Pages, without that person's consent. Should I find this to be the case, I will remove your block and apologize.--MONGO 19:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I must say I have no idea what you're talking about. What personal information? When, why? What are you talking about? No apology needed - just let me see if you had any reason to ban me in the first place. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 20:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the funniest things is that I do not know personal information of any User whatsoever. :) --PaxEquilibrium 20:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Searching around, it seems that I posted around personal information about a user called Pschemp. This is very, very weird to me - I've seen the talk page of him/her right several seconds ago for the first time in my life - and have never met him/her ever before. I really do not understand... --PaxEquilibrium 21:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Come on, own up, apoligize and say you'll never do it again (assuming you did not do it and unless this was a tactic to get a permablock so that you can retire :p).--Euthymios 21:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Read below. :) --PaxEquilibrium 21:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL, sorry about that. BTW if you haven't left WP then why don't you revert your userpage?--Euthymios 21:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

To make a long story short, there was odd sequence of events involving Misplaced Pages:Oversight which led to the block, which I have now removed. I apologize for the inconvenience. Best, Mackensen (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I am blocked again. --PaxEquilibrium 11:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Yes, it very much does appear that way. I hope you don't have to go through anymore of that! semper fi — Moe 21:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

My guess as to what happened

At 12:54 (UTC) today, you made an edit to WP:ANI, which added to the bottom of the page a notice of Pschemp's alleged real name and contact details in a special box. Immediately under it, you added the following:

== Afrika paprika == ]. All self-confirmed and evident. He has been banned - but that ban gave no effect as he kept returning for all these weeks (months?). --] 12:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The next edit, at 12:56, was from User:BusterD, and carried the edit summary:

(→User:Jaakko Sivonen - deleted user info)

I didn't see it at the time, but saw MONGO's note to Pschemp, just before I went to dinner. I looked at the diff, and saw that the personal info had been deleted in the very next edit. I sent an e-mail to the oversight mailing list from this page — the best way to do it, as it gets the entry permanently removed without drawing extra attention to it first. I did wonder if PaxEquilibrium might be innocent. The user who has been posting that info in the last few days normally put it in the edit summary as well, and used IPs or newly-created accounts. I wondered if PaxEquilibrium had copied that info, and then accidentally pasted it into a genuine post, or if the software bug which sometimes causes an old edit to be reinstated when a new edit is made had struck again (which would mean that that info had been posted and then reverted in previous edits to the noticeboard shortly before PaxEquilibrium made his post.

I was going to post to the noticeboard after dinner, suggesting that PaxEquilibrium might be innocent and a glitch in the system might be responsible. However, when I got back to my computer, I found that the info had been oversighted, and Mackensen had unblocked PaxEquilibrium. I endorse the unblocking (though I also endorse the original blocking, as that's an emergency security measure that we take while investigating the posting of personal information).

Since PaxEquilibrium's post has been oversighted, the next post looks as if BusterD posted the good part of PaxEquilibrium's post, whereas in fact he really removed the bad part.

Hope that makes things clear. AnnH ♫ 21:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I was blocked by an autoblock by MONGO. Could someone please lift the autoblock? --PaxEquilibrium 11:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be lifted now. Sarah Ewart 11:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm the accidental culprit in this. I apologize to anyone affected by my poorly worded communication to MONGO. I had sent a personal email and associated diff which looked strange to MONGO because of the database blanking removing the vandal's tracks. My intention was ask MONGO to offer an administrator's view of the database blanking, which related to a bad vandal I had warned and then was really quickly squashed by an admin. I had no argument with that appropriate action and didn't want to raise any chat on a public talk because I didn't understand the action.

My curiosity about how admin tools work and my poor communication skills were the contributing factors, and I sincerely am sorry for any inconveniences I was involved in causing. BusterD 15:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Until reading on this talk page about the terrible mess I caused I was unaware of this page and now know where to turn when I see activity of such a damaging kind. WP Admins were all over this situation in minutes. I had been innocently reading my watchlist, saw the inappropriate posting, and made what I judged the correct change, then warned the user. Before I could report the activity, virtually all database records of this incidents were deleted from my user view. I saw my contributions wiped off, and sensed this was how the pedia dealt with those risks, and then used a back channel to ask an admin I trust for perspective. MONGO misinterpreted my email as a notification and call to action, and MONGO wasted no time protecting the community. That's my first-hand view of what happened. BusterD 15:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Montenegrin Demographic data

Why did you delete my entry? I have put source, but you still delete it. Can you explain this? Please check history http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Demographic_history_of_Montenegro&action=history -Ego and his own 14:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice my entry in Source section: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Demographic_history_of_Montenegro&diff=89608035&oldid=87219276 -Ego and his own 15:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You are working here as POV pusher, as you didn't use same rule to other parts of article. This document show that ethnicity of people that lived in Montenegro at that time are called Montenegrin and document author is ruler of Montenegro at that time, if that is not official I really don't know what it is. You have there the source section and all data that you need to find it. It is printed in Belgrade, Published by CID Podgorica 1999. year -"Acts collection of Petar I Petrovic" -Ego and his own 15:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by the Ruler of Montenegro that in Montenegro lives Montenegrin people is not demographic data? And the statement that in Montenegro lives Serbs are Demographic data? Can you explain this? Also explain where are sources in that form and details that you have asked for other statements on this page? -Ego and his own 16:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is that reference about that? Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/Demographics -Ego and his own 17:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Button

Oh, no, you didn't do anything bad, I understand that I had forgotton to complete a page move for over 20 minutes and had broken the other half of the joke, I understand your motive :) semper fi — Moe 17:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: COC

The Church was manned by World War II Nazies... and the sole reason of its existence was to wholesomely assimilate an ethnic group... mostly dealt with forceful subjection. --PaxEquilibrium 15:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So write it like that. With this - I agree. Plantago 15:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

POV article

PaxEquilibrium, I see that you have retired but as you have previously been active on some Balkan-related articles so I though I would ask for your time on the Srebrenica massacre article. While no one is disputing the the massacre as such, the numbers killed or that it was a case of Genocide, some of the Bosniak editors are very adamant about using wording, choice of text and sources which provide a very POV article. Attempts to NPOV the article/text (always referenced and explained on the Talk page) are met with quite a bit of aggressiveness. As I'm presently the only non-Bosniak editor active on the article it's an uphill struggle. Your presence would be much appreciated.KarlXII 13:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Pax, sorry if I was unclear above. I invited you to the Srebrenica massacre page to act as a second opinion on the ongoing discussions there. Right now it is very polarized and I'd like some fresh editors to the article to maybe calm things down.KarlXII 12:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Archont Petar

Can you please repeat all that at Talk:Archont Petar? :) Also add some paragraph breaks to help readability. --Joy 00:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Good morning Pax (or maybe it's evening or afternoon where you are, but whatever). How come you put a "welcome" template on my talk page? I've been an editor for ages, and got a welcome message ages ago. But still, it is nice to meet a good editor such as youself. Keep up the good work. Bye. - Ivan K 01:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Critics

Yes, you have a very good point. I'm am truely sorry for what I have done but I just hate it when people act so stupid and don't know anything on the subject, and yet, they contribute to it anyway by putting their false information on it.

I sort of disagree with you about my Montenegrin. I truely do understand it and know how to write it, but I am writing in non-stop English that I am forgetting some words and how to phrase out the words.

Yes, I do have pride in my Montenegrindom, but my actions have led me to downgrade that pride on wikipedia. From now on, I am neutral on many matters. If I know about a topic and write about it, I want people to agree me, not to go against me.

Also, I am terribly sorry for critisizing you for being a "Serb nationalist and using too many pro-Serb sources" when I know you try to stay neutral. I just had this bad hunch that you may be at it "again" while reviewing the talk page on the Duklja article.

You and anyone else may critisize me all you want and I will stop critizising you and any other person. And yes, I can get pissed off very easily at times, but I let it go until I really get ticked when the person who is pissing me off does it constantly.

Well, I see that you're making great hunches on these sockpuppets, though I wouldn't want to go too far with this. Well, anyways, I just wanted to clear things. Thanks again. Bye. --Crna Gora 02:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Jezici

Hrvatski je skoro uveden kao službeni u Vojvodini (pre nekih 5-6 godina koliko se sećam), a dotle je bilo samo 5 službenih jezika. Bivši srpsko-hrvatski je oko 1990 jednostavno preimenovan u srpski, a hrvatski je desetak godina kasnije uveden kao nov službeni jezik. Što se tiče ustava, Vojvodina je između 1974 i 1990 imala ustav, predsednika, ministarstva, itd, odnosno imala je sve što i tadašnje republike, samo se nije zvala republikom već pokrajinom, a tada je bilo 5 službenih jezika, dakle umesto sadašnjeg srpskog i hrvatskog bio je srpsko-hrvatski. E sad, možda bih o periodu 1974-1990 i mogao nešto napisati u članku Politics of Vojvodina, ali pošto sam sada zauzet drugim stvarima, to će morati da sačeka da nađem više vremena. PANONIAN (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nisam imao vremena da ti ranije odgovorim, ali što se službenih jezika tiče, partizani jesu koristili proglase na raznim jezicima, ali Vojvodina nije zvanično formirana pre 1945, pa se o njenim službenim jezicima i ne može govoriti pre 1945. E sad, da li su svih 5 jezika postali službeni baš 1945 ili je neki dodat tek kasnije, to ne znam. Za ustav Srbije iz 1990 znam šta je pisao o jeziku, ali službeni jezici Vojvodine bili su definisani statutom Vojvodine a ne ustavom Srbije. PANONIAN (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Rudjer Boskovic

I see I maybe got tangled into things I shouldn't have meddled with. You see, I was always taught that Rudjer Boskovic was a Serb, but I realize that he is considered a Croat. I apologize for complicating things, I was only writing what I thought was right. I won't edit that article anymore... --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Rudjer Boscovich had a Croatian father and Italian mother. He was born in Croatia. That would make him Croatian and part Italian. He has no blood or birth link to Serbia. Just Serb propaganda.

God Speed Jagoda 1 22:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

He had no blood or birth link to Serbia... well, except his father's humongous interest in Serbia and the its Churches and Monasteries... He wasn't born in Croatia - he was born in Ragusa. As for who his father really was - he indeed converted from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (perhaps), but we all today learn that he was Croat - and so that should it be. The minor less significant Serbian claim should also be mentioned, but only as such. --PaxEquilibrium 21:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Are people born in Monaco called French???? Paxi, people of Ragusa were Croats just like you have French in Monaco. Religion and interests is not a factor in someones origin. His father could well have been a Bosniak. I too love the pyramids does that make me Egyptian? Does your love of the Dalmatian dog make you Croatian?

Rudjer Boscovich. He was known as Croat-Italian.

Nobody can change that fact as we know it and have always known it.

Ivo Andric also loved the Serbian culture etc... but his origin was Croatian. It's called respect. Croats and Serbs have always found eachother interesting. Now to get onto your band wagon..Tesla was a Vlach by origin but some say Serb..in the end he said he was Serb and that's what we should write.

This topic has no end..and to tell ya the truth it's areal sick topic. We all know the truth yet someone wants to keep bending it into some SerbPov. Jagoda 1 04:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

007

////007 u Crnoj Gori. Cujem prvi put ali vidim da se spomije ...trebamo vidit film. 007 in Montenegro.

Jagoda 1 00:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nisam to znao da je Bond poceo karijeru u Crnoj Gori. Drago mi je to znati sad jer ja volim te filmove ali nisam gledao sve (ima ih dosta, preko 20 haha). Znam da se pricalo da se taj James Bond "based on some true to life Serbian secret agent." Neznam jeli taj Srbin bio za KGB ili nesto drugo..

Kako mogu dati zvezdu User "God of Justice"...zaboravio sam.

God Speed

Jagoda 1 22:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Mislio sam i tebi dati jednu zvezdu ali sam je povuko/obrisao. Vidim da tvoj User page nema vise nista jer mozda ti tako volis. Znam da si imao prije dosta tih zvezda. Popov je Bond ..izgleda tako, veruj meni bice i film jednog dana o tom Popovu, mora biti. Cuo sam da ce biti film od Josipu Brozu - Titi, Stallone i De Nero radu dva razlicita filma od njemu. Volio Titu ili ne, covek nije bio tolko los, Tito se borio protiv nacifasisma i moze se slobodno reci on je donekle i zaustavio to u Evropi. Svak ima dobru i slabu stranu ali to je Titina dobra strana.

Opet makedonski pisi kad tolko dobro razumes i znas hahahaa Jagoda 1 00:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

CG Wiki

I've started up a CG Wiki at cgwiki.elwiki.com (it'll become a seperate website once it gets 10 articles, and it's for free). If you would like, you can join it (you can become a bureaucrat and a SysOp), though I will need extreeeeeeme heeeeeeeeelp!!!!!!!. And, it's written in the Montenegrin language as intended. Think about it and if yes, come join and help out. Please, just do follow the rules of the Montenegrin language on the wiki when contributing. Bye. --Crna Gora 04:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Call him Pixie

Tvoje novo ime je PIXIE Jagoda 1 04:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Napiso sam ti nesto na User:Crna Gora i User:God of Justice. Pogledaj njihov Talk. Jagoda 1 04:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your User page

Your User page is already unprotected. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)