User talk:Dado~enwiki

Hi Dado,

This might sound a bit weird, but I've been researching the Srebrenica Massacra in different language versions on Wikipedia (Serbian, Serbo-Croatian, Croatian and Bosnian) and see your name popping up almost everywhere. The research aspires to find an answer how different ethnic communities establish consensus in a highly 'controversial' subject (Srebrenica Massacre) across different language versions. How does the article differ across different language versions, but also how does the community contributing to the article differ? Just by looking at your discussion page, I've noticed that you've been very active in the Srebrenica massacre article. That's why I'm asking you: Is it possible to talk with you about your work on the Srebrenica article? That would really help me a lot! Excuse me for putting it up here, I dont know how else to contact you.

My name is by the way Emina. The research is for my master New Media (Amsterdam, The Netherlands). Let me know what you think.

Keep up the good work, Kind regards, Emina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annie mee (talk • contribs) 11:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dado, hitno pogledaj sta se desava na bosanskoj Wikipediji, provjeri email.

Dado povodom vandalizma na nasoj wiki, nemoj molim te nista brisati. U kontaktu sam s Asimom. Potrebno nam je vrlo malo da ispitamo da li se radi o vandalizmu (99% sanse). --Emir Arven 14:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Zdravo, da se i ja pridruzim. Linkovi koji negiraju Srebrenicki genocid na Srebrenica Genocide Wikipedija stranici nisu prihvatljivi. Sklonio sam ih vec nekoliko puta, ali ih opet postavljaju. - Daniel

--

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia.

I've noticed your edits on Bosanska Krajina, it's shaping up nicely, through inevitably controversial quotes about war-time crimes don't help. I'm wondering in particular about Image:4Nivo3 BK.png

-- can you provide an exact link to Asim Led's original version, please? We need it to verify licensing.

If you have any questions, see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. You can also ask lowly Wikipedians like myself if you need anything.

Good luck. --Joy [shallot] 11:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Srebrenica article in need of vigilance

KOCOBO, Osli73, Srbijanković, Svetislav Jovanović, and Bormalagurski have all teamed up to do a major renovation of the Srebrenica Massacre article. Since they are working in concert, it is easy to make a single user go past their three reverts. It is not clear how administrators will see this. I will hold out as long as I can, but the original editors of this article will need to be vigilant if is not to be lost to nationalist revisionists. All of the above mentioned editors are from the WikiSerbia forum... whatever they call it. 128.253.56.185 22:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Osli's vandalism

Dado, HanzoHattori, Bosniak, Live Forever, Bosoni, Emir Arven, Haris M:

I would like to protect the Srebrenica massacre introduction from any further vandalism by Osli. He repeatedly deletes sentences from the intro that are accurate, true, relevant, and well referenced.

If we can all agree on the text of the intro, then it will become entirely clear to administrators that Osli is a vandal.

Please look at the intro as it stands now. It would be great if we could all leave it as it is now or quickly come to an introduction that we all can agree to. Currently, it explains in stark terms what happened. That is why Osli wants to delete the sentences. Make the truth less clear in the beginning, so that he can then throw in his “Defend Milosevic! Defend Serbia!” propaganda and potentially confuse some of the readers.

Please all take a look at the intro. Let’s all come to an agreed upon intro and let it stand. Then if Osli continues to delete sentences from the intro it will clearly be vandalism and if he continues, perhaps he can be banned. Then we can concentrate on the article and let our own differences of opinion be a source for constructive conversation and continuing improvement of the article.

What do you think? Fairview360 00:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

replacing images

When you make an improved version of an existing image, don't rename it before upload it. Instead, upload it with the same name, and the software will make you confirm the upload, and then replace the old image with the new and improved version. --Joy [shallot] 16:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I tried that but for some reason the wikipedia software could not pick up the change.--Dado 05:54, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've had that problem too. It actually does pick it up eventually, it just takes a while. Asim Led 20:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Image:4Nivo3 BK.png

Image deletion warning

The image Image:4Nivo3 BK.png has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 06:27, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Image:4Nivo4 BK.png

Image deletion warning

The image Image:4Nivo4 BK.png has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 16:40, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright

I took the liberty of digging through you uploads, and found all the images you had uploaded with a source. Here they are:

Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 09:13, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

For these images, we need a clear source. If they are derivs of other images on Wikipedia, they need to licensed under what ever license the original was under. For images you have permission for, state *exactly* what permissions you got from the source, and we can figure out whether we need to ask for more or not. Hopefully that is more clear. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 09:43, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Dakle...

Nisi ostavio nigde svoju email adresu. Zamolio bih te da mi posaljes email na millosh@users.sourceforge.net kako bismo stupili u kontakt u vezi sa necim sto se tice Vikipedije, ali ne i price o clancima. --Millosh 06:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zanimljivo o bosanskoj krajini..

Dado, nasao sam ti socioekonomsku analizu za sjeverozapadnu Bosnu i Hercegovinu od Projekta Evropske unije za regionalni ekonomski razvoj Bosne i Hercegovine [1]. "Sjeverozapadna Bosna i Hercegovina" je u stvari Bosanska krajina, pa ima mnogo informacije o stanovnistvu, privredi, itd, ako hoces da sta dodas tvom clanku o krajini. Asim Led 04:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ARD and Jwalker

Please consider weighing in at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ARD and Jwalker. --Joy [shallot] 2 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)

.ba wikipedians

It occurs to me that you might wish to list yourself at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Bosnia and Herzegovina :) --Joy [shallot]

Russian tsarinas

regarding the names of tsarinas of Russia: if from abroad, they changed their first name, such as Wilhelmina became Natalia Alexeievna, etc. Now, Wikipedia has certain rules that the so-called consort name is not to be used, because of several persons being e.g Empress Maria Fedorovna. And that a pre-marital name should be used. But I feel that it is acceptable to make a formulation "Natalia Alexeievna of Darmstadt" (the "of Darmstadt" being for disambiguation purposes) instead of using "Wilhelmina of Darmstadt". Now, as there are plenty of Germanist and anglicist opinions, I would like to know some of international opinion. In other words, I am asking you to think whether from the perspective of non-Russian Slavonic, (1) would it be acceptable to say "Natalia Alexeievna of Darmstadt" and (2) would that be better or worse than "Wilhelmina of Darmstadt". 62.78.105.68 08:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

n.b. This is an ongoing policy discussion, and several other options are on the table as well as the ones suggested above. Please consider visiting this talk page and endorsing one of the options, or adding one of your own. Thanks! Choess 01:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Bosnians

Could you please make clear in the article on bosnians that the bosniaks are the etnic (by other words bosnians in a genetic way that serbs or croats aren't) bosnians, we need to make clear that bosniak has the same meaning as bosnian. This is critical and fatal information that needs to be in the article...please overlook.

I can guarrantee that the information about Bosnia and Herzegovina's (the same boundries as today, except also having a second coast in and around Herzeg Novi) promising to the Kingdom of Serbia. You should look at 16 August and 1915. I am now uploading a map from the Yugoslav official (now Serbian-Montenegrin) atlas, if that is proof enough. If it isn't, tell me. You are free not to return my added information (though I would appreciate if you do) until I upload the map. HolyRomanEmperor 18:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your response??? HolyRomanEmperor 18:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I though you are going to upload some map. The calendar note that you enclosed is still an internal Wikipedia which may also be an error. I was hoping you will provide an external link. Still though, I don’t see how it is relevant what some have promised to someone else. Many things were promised to many people and they don’t find their way into the article. You will need to explain the relevance and justification of this claim even if it is correct. --Dado 21:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you will get a map :) In several days... I said that that is what I see on the map. And unless me and several other people are blind, it was indeed promised to the king of Serbia. You will get the "map of Yugoslav lands during and after the Great War" two some time nest week. OK? I never lied and I have no intention to start lying now. When the war already had already bygone started, the Entente immediatly started to concider the post-war boundaries. This was the original plan for the post-war boundries of the Kingdom of Serbia. The authorities dismissed the offer for a union with Croats and Slovenes because the most of the population fought to free the Yugoslavs and for Yugoslavism and that over 20% of the population would include Albanian and Croatian minorities. If you don't trust me, I can't change your mind... Although please, next time post something on my talk page. It is somewhat annoying to look at other peoples'... HolyRomanEmperor 11:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, you are not very fond of me. Right? :( HolyRomanEmperor 16:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am completly familiar with the language (you should see my personal page). As I said, you will get the map of the Yugoslav lands (including the enlarged Kingdom of Serbia according to the Entente's forces). It was also said, in the Longon Agreement of the Entente on 26 april 1915. As it is a part of the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina, I msimply think that it is worthy of mention. No? HolyRomanEmperor 19:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I have the honor to congratulate you on your endless fights versus POV breakers, Greater Serbian neo-Chetniks, Croatian neo-Ustashas and Moslem Balias that keep spoiling our free encyclopedia? (your reverts on Bosia and Herzegovina and the Srebrenica massacre) :-) HolyRomanEmperor 18:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I always hate when I see users type things like "the muslims are better off living in refuge, in lives better then all of us in USA, UK..." or claiming that there was no such thing as a Srebrenica massacre. I also hate these Croatian nationalists who keep trying to make the NDH death toll as lower as possible, or those claiming that Operation Storm was a bloodless operation and that there actually wasn't any sort of a greater Serbian exodus from Croatia. I hate that the world is full of those things. HolyRomanEmperor 18:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't being ironic. That was supposed to be a compliment :( HolyRomanEmperor 16:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was a compliment. HolyRomanEmperor 16:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I want to hear your opinion on one matter: the Bosniaks. Are they descendents of an indiginous Bosnian civilization (presumebly Bogumils) and/or descendents of Islamized Serbs and/or Croats? And if they are, to which closer are they related? This could prove useful in articles regarding Bosniak origin. Hope to hear from you soon. HolyRomanEmperor 20:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I want to hear your opinion on one matter: the Bosniaks. Are they descendents of an indiginous Bosnian civilization (presumebly Bogumils) and/or descendents of Islamized Serbs and/or Croats? And if they are, to which closer are they related? This could prove useful in articles regarding Bosniak origin. Hope to hear from you soon. HolyRomanEmperor 20:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that calling Bosniaks descendents of Bogumils might be a bit misleading. Againt (just like before with the Muslims by nationality case) we are refering to a religeon, rather then on ethnicity. HolyRomanEmperor 14:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Bosnian Church's last traces disappeared before the Ottoman invasions. And Bogumils had first appeared in Bosnia in the XII century. Besides, Bogumils settled in Bosnia when they came from Serbia. Their original homeland was Bulgaria, but I don't really believe that Bosniaks are related to Bulgars. HolyRomanEmperor 14:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The old pagan Bosnian religion is originated from Asia and asian-like cultures (like the Huns-Bulgars) And yet, Bosnians are Slavs. HolyRomanEmperor 14:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I keep finding that Bosnia was during the middle ages populated by Serbs, and ruled by Rascia, Dalmatia and Croatia in various intervals. HolyRomanEmperor 14:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The traces of the Serbs and Serbian language (and Croatian language in one case) are later present in independant Bosnia. HolyRomanEmperor 14:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ban Stjepan II Kotromanić claimed that he spoke both Serbian and Croatian languages. He was Orthodox Christian. HolyRomanEmperor 14:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong; but I fail to see an indiginous Bosniak civilization before the XIX century. HolyRomanEmperor 14:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

something not connected with the subject - Who was Fikret Abdić? A Bosniak general, politician, soldier..? HolyRomanEmperor 14:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I totally support your statements :)) If you didn't already see my POV on nations and nationalism, please ee my personal page :)) HolyRomanEmperor 18:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I totally support your statements :)) If you didn't already see my POV on nations and nationalism, please see my personal page :)) HolyRomanEmperor 18:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Want is your personal (POV) atitude on Fikret? HolyRomanEmperor 18:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What' Sorry if this damned machine repeats my posts - technical problems :(( HolyRomanEmperor 18:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dado, I'm glad you agreed with my proposal for the page on Bosnians. I think we should now decide what historical figures to put up as the 4 representatives. My personal suggestions are as follows:

Tvrtko Kotromanic
Mehmed Sokolović
Husein Gradaščević
Ivo Andrić

If you disagree with any of them or have your own suggestions just say so and I'll find pictures and make an image. Live Forever 21:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Republika Srpska

Hello. I protected the page to stop the revert war, but I cannot revert to any particular revisions now since it would be going against the Protection policy. Making a reversion would mean that I would be getting involved in the content dispute as well. I've turned the case over to the Administrators' noticeboard, so you might want to go there or file a RFC on this case. Tito xd^(?!?) 00:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What can you tell me about your fellow neighbours, the Serbs throughout history. I am percisely thinking from the Early Medieval Ages to the end of the First World War (shortly) And something that you could draft-up about WWII. You're a Bosnian, and I am not, so I think that you would know much about that matter. HolyRomanEmperor 21:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I especially interested the relations between Bosniaks and Serbs throughout the history (please magnify the good, and minimize the bad, like I do). HolyRomanEmperor 13:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that there is no interest in you with this... Sorry to have bothered you. Either you are not communicating with me because of your extreme nationalism (nationalist socialism), or you simply think that national reconcilation between Bosniaks and Serbs should never be finished. Bye! HolyRomanEmperor 14:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are acusing Nikola Smolenski of NPOV and propaganda pushing (which is true) and you yourself push Greater Muslim propaganda. Did you ever read some of your posts. I will keep no side from you two ethnic cleansers, but Nikola is at least talking to me. HolyRomanEmperor 15:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I wrote that before reading your answer. My apologies. Self-defence mechanism (I hate being ignored) Well, actually, it does make someone more neutral. Because if he talks, he is open to conversation (and changing his opinion on many matters). Take user:Elephantus for instance. He is never interested in any sort of a subject that isn't Greater Croatian propaganda, and agrees to argue only when he is forced to (on article talk pages) defend Greater Croatdom. HolyRomanEmperor 21:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

user:Igor silently removes parts of talk pages. That is also annoying me. HolyRomanEmperor 21:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say much in Nikola Smolenski's defence; he is a Serbian nationalist; but I fail to see User:PANNONIAN as a nationalist, even less as a Greater Serbian propaganda spreader. HolyRomanEmperor 21:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although, I am grateful that wiki has all three Bosnian nations. We can come up to something in here. Unfortunatly, I can't say the same for the Croatian articles regarding the recent war. Nearly all of them are highly NPOV and there is nothing that can be done about it... HolyRomanEmperor 21:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I atempt to understand these facts, but I simply cannot. Because facts come from all sides and most are NPOV (here, in wikipedia). Is it a fact that the number of Serbs in Croatia dropped to two fifths because of ethnic cleansing? It is. Why isn't it noted anywhere then? HolyRomanEmperor 21:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Facts": Jews were cursed by God and are responsible for the First World War, so they must be exterminated; ... to kill an infidel (muslim) is not a murder, but a path to heaven; the Serbs are newcomers to Croatia so they must be all killed, exiled or assimilated... HolyRomanEmperor 11:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most Bosniaks are Serbs by origin so, as you see, I have seen many "facts" in my life; and so far the only people that justified extreme speaches by these "facts" were Hitler, Stalin, Šešelj and Tuđman... HolyRomanEmperor 11:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand what I am trying to say? HolyRomanEmperor 11:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand perfectly what you mean; but look, my sister is dead, I have passed through the Karlovac ethnic cleansing camp, and I probably know more about the war than most of the people that suddenly appear and write about it (let's hope that I am one of the rear) HolyRomanEmperor 16:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, I am asking you (since you are only interested in truth, I believe you know) to help me with all three sides in the war; not just one... HolyRomanEmperor 16:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are talking my language! HolyRomanEmperor 17:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to get mad at me for my curiosity, but you mentioned that you were both Croatia and Serbia in refugee camps? HolyRomanEmperor 17:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that there are plenty of articles about the ethnic cleansings in Bosnia and Herzegovina (everyone killing everybody) but noone whatsoever on Croatia. HolyRomanEmperor 17:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles Serbs, Ante Gotovina, History of modern Croatia and Republic of Serbian Krajina all state ...up to 200,000 exiled Serbs from Croatia... which I find very strange. If we deduct the population censuses we will see that there were approximatly 380,032 (from 580,000 to 200,000) Serbs less in Croatia. And please take a look at the talk page on Republic of Serbian Krajina. Notice that there were many Serbs in Croatia that declared themselves as Yugoslavs (almost 100,00) which gives us at least 400,000 exiled Serbs (from almost 700,000 to nearly 200,000! No? HolyRomanEmperor 17:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Croatian history articles all mention ethnic cleansing of Croats in Knin, Ervenik, but none consider the mass Serbian Exodus during Operation Storm an ethnic cleansing! Not even the article on the military operation... HolyRomanEmperor 17:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So far the number of executed Krajina Serb civilians during Operation Storm rates between 2,000 and 3,000, (Veritas, among other sources) but I fail to find any reference on wikipedia... HolyRomanEmperor 17:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only place where the Croatian Army is mentioned as a bad guy is: Operation Medak Pocket where still it is noted that they acted out of contact with their central command and largely on initiative of the local commanders. You won't see that on the Serbian side; nor any of the three sides in Bosnia... HolyRomanEmperor 17:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is pathetic - the POV-ness on wiki depends solely on the fact victor's justice. The articles on Bosnia and Herzegovina are (mostly) NPOV only because of the Dayton Agreement (and thus, an all-sided truce) while the articles on Croatia (purely a Croatian victory) will always remain pro-Croatian; even those directly regarding the Serbs.... HolyRomanEmperor 17:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the end of 1991, the Croatian Army conducted numerious atrocities. The worst is the fact that 7,000 citizens of Bjelovar and Kutina are still missing. The Croatian authorities deny that, and they deny Veritas to come and conduct the research, while the Serbian authorities claim that his was the Serbian Srebrenica massacre. We can't say anything, but the population is missing. HolyRomanEmperor 18:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and thanks. As you predicted I already new that. I appreciate your concern on the numbers warning, but I think that my upper-mentioned statements are more than enough to prove it. HolyRomanEmperor 15:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And about the facts (note: I don't want to insult anyone) I have read many historical sources about Bosnian history, and it's fairly related either to Serbs or Croats. I do believe that one has the right of any whatsoever self-determination, but not to change history. The only wiki that wants to argue about the matter is user:Mir Harven, a man who almost claims that there were Croats before the dinosaurs. HolyRomanEmperor 15:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i do not desire to point out someone's "claims" over something (if we do that, 40% of the world would "legally" belong to the Germans), but I think that we should expand all aspects of something's or someone's history. I am uploading the pic from the History Atlas confirming my previous statement (Bosnia and Herzegovina given to the Serbian crown), but if that will offend you in any way (tell me if it will) I won't. HolyRomanEmperor 15:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing... would you care to help me write an article similiar to the Bosnian genocide... regarding the Serb Frontiersmen... HolyRomanEmperor 19:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Emir Arven hates me because of my religion and ethnicity... Please, look at his talk page (the archives2), my friend. HolyRomanEmperor 15:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I have offended him in a way, but I don't see (many users have warned me, though, that he is a Greater Muslim extreme nationalist :( HolyRomanEmperor 15:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, I guess they were right. Emir Arven is a racist and a nationalist :( You cannot even begin to imagine the way he treated me (I guess he cannot accept me as a non-Bosniak) I hope that you don't feel that way (after your heavy losses) HolyRomanEmperor 20:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've been very useful with Gotovina :) plz tell me that you need something back. I am all ears! HolyRomanEmperor 20:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nikola Smolenski

Since what this user is doing doesn't quite classify as vandalism, but rather an edit war/ POV dispute, you can try following the road to arbitration. Follow the guidelines in this page along with User:Emir Arven who also requested this, to try and resolve your disputes and edit wars with him first. If nothing on that list works, the last resort is to request arbitration towards his actions in which other users will come together and decide whether his actions are right or wrong. Good Luck. -- PRueda29 ^Ptalk29 19:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nikola_Smolenski has proven freindly to me, but I strongly disagree with him not mentioning that Bosnian and Serbian languages are also official in Republika Srpska. You have my support there. HolyRomanEmperor 11:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The name is "The Exodus" that is typically used for the event. Why is it wrong if it refers to a major-class ethnic cleansing? HolyRomanEmperor 12:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2,000,000? But that is the entire Bosniak population... HolyRomanEmperor 19:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse that I will support any mention of an exodus in that course! HolyRomanEmperor 21:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, my friend. I changed to "ethnic cleansing" to resort the suffering of the refugees. Is that OK? HolyRomanEmperor 22:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am currently reading the Oxford English Dictionary. I looked under the Exodus word. It says that it means

1. a mass departure of people
2. (Biblical) the departure of the Israelites from Egypt HolyRomanEmperor 22:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Could we keep the current phrase? HolyRomanEmperor 22:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kategorije

"Revert. What is the star for?"

Zamolio bih te da više ne revertuješ ovo, jer ako pogledaš ove kategorije, biće ti jasno o čemu se radi:

Dakle očistio sam kategoriju Bosna i Hercegovina, tako da se u njoj sada nalazi samo članak samo o Bosni i Hercegovini, a sve drugo je u podkategorijama. To je uobičajen izgled kategorije za jednu državu, kao što se vidi ovde:

Zvezdica služi da bi članak o Republici Srpskoj stajao zajedno sa člankom o BIH Federaciji i Distriktu Brčkom ovde:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Subdivisions_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina

PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned Nikola Smolenski to "ease" with his nationalism. But I am warning you too (since you two have serious unsolved issues). I, from a historian's point of view; am insulted when you judge De Regno Sclavorum and De Administrando Imperio to be false just on henious rumors... The Serbs say that the first one is wrong because it implies that Montenegrins were ethnic Croats, and the other the Croats vice versa (but nothing contradictory about Bosnia, though...) HolyRomanEmperor 15:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, not a single historical source like that has been proven false... HolyRomanEmperor 15:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Izvini Dado, ali nisam upućen u tu mapu. Mislio sam isključivo na tvoj stav prema cijelom historijskom izvoru. Iskreno da ti kazem = clanak o tome je glupost. Najnevažniji dio DAI-a je doseljavanje Slovena na Balkan... DAI spadna u svijetsku kulturnu baštinu, i mnogi (kao i ja) su kroz historiju proučavali to dijelo. Ono govori, sa filozofske tačke gledišta, o tome kako bi vladar trebalo da izgleda. To o doseljavanju Slovena je jedan od najnevažnijih dijelova... HolyRomanEmperor 17:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uzgred, Dado, što ne koristiš mIRC kao i mi ostali bivši Yugo; mogli bismo bolje da se sporazumeme tako. HolyRomanEmperor 17:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mapa Bosne

Dado, I have no problems with having yuor map in the section on medieval history of the Bosnia and Herzegovina article. However, I wish we could take the text away and move it to the image page or something because right now it seems to big to me. I dont know, perhaps I'm just being stupid, but I like for the text of a section to go farther down than a mere image. A pet peeve if you will. Asim Led 22:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation!

This is a note to a user 213.244.195.41 who added this garbage on my user page that I have reported his/her action for blocking from Wikipedia.--Dado 04:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Dado. I placed a warning on the anon user's talk page, but at the moment I feel this was simple vandalism on their part. If they persist in adding vandalism to your page, please don't hesistate to revert it and place {{test}} messages as appropriate on their page (and relist them on WP:AIV if they persist after {{test4}}). I know that having one's page vandalized is rather shocking, but be comforted in the knowledge that the administrators can verify that you are not a Willy on Wheels sock from your contribution logs...and nobody would take action against you without checking that. --Syrthiss 04:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you contribe a little my Duklja article (if you know anything about the subject)? HolyRomanEmperor 10:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Emir and Asim now remember me as a Muslim-hater, when in fact, during Operation Storm in 1995; if not a certain Bosniak soldier (or in fact, all 10,000 Bosniak Corps of the Serb Krajina) my mother would not be alive today. And I am thankful for that. :) HolyRomanEmperor 13:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Hi Dado!

I'm writing just to apologize because it seems you felt offended by what I wrote in the talk page of the Serbophobia article, and it was not my intention. We're both here to give contributions to Wikipedia, not to argue... :-)

See you,

Milena 10:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dado, thanks again for your message. And you're right, it was done completely unconsciously, because it's a bit hard for me to find the right words in English. Anyway, I'll take care the next time something like that happens! Thanks again! :-) Milena 09:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnians and anthropology

Dado,

Thanks for your message, it would be my pleasure to contribute, and feel free to use the statements mentioned on the discussion page there, they are all scientifically sound (I have studied this stuff specifically for a research thesis for good few years, :-)). Some good sources to reference here are always Ivan Lovrenovic (cultural studies); Tone Bringa did a wonderful anthropological study on the life in Bosnian villages just before the war (it is called Being Muslim The Bosnian Way, however, it is in fact a comparative cultural and anthropological study of all rural Bosnians, and, most importantly, it was empirical - she did it by living there, interviewing all three sides/inhabitants, gives a historical perspective and, most interestingly, establishes that no Bosnians of any side she encountered ever debated the issue of whether Bosnian Muslims are really Serbs, or really Croats - it appeared that was irrelevant to them at the time, while she regularly encuntered those questions on her visits to Serbia and Croatia; she states that Bosnians, in fact, had a very strong sense of shared culture); Ivo Banac (historically speaking); Vladimir Corovic (historian with some good anthropological observations); Dvornikovic, and some others. However, I won't be able to do much in January (holidays), but will try and leave some more info for you here, if you like. Fomafomich 22:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And a bit more: Gramatika toposa Bosne: Antropolosko-teorijska studija o spoznaji bitka mjesta by Muhamed Hamidovic. Here are a few quotes about and from the work:

"U danasnjoj historijskoj rekapitulaciji humanisticke misli o ovim prostorima, i pored svoje egzemplarne realisticnosti, mozemo reci da je prepuna metafizicke simbolike i sakiomski mitologiziranih naucnih ideja."

Apart from mentioning this as a statement from an anthropologist, this is interesting as an anthropological trait of the population -- myth/mythology is a preferred method of knowledge transfer, and it is supported by two things - one, that the Church was not well organised, and even where it was, there were not many written testaments left to the posterity to learn from. Knowledge transfer was very much dependent on oral tradition. Thus, strange things - such as the portrayal of Kraljevic Marko as a freedom fighter, can become 'facts' of collective memory, though they don't correspond with historical fact. Or another strange one - naming one of the first brigades of the Bosnian Army in the 1992-1995 war 'El Fatih' (after Bosnia's Ottoman conquerer). It's only slightly better than if the Serbs chose to call one of their brigades 'Murat' or 'Bajazit'. Which means that this is a shared way of making sense (or nonsense) of historical memory.

"Poznato nam je da svako doba pazljivo izvlaci iz sirokog mitoloskog fonda samo onaj materijal koji intimno odgovara aktualnom stanju duha."

"... kultura nije historija, kao sto ni ljudski duh nije historija; samim tim kultura se ne moze staviti u sluzbu politike kao sto je to moguce s historijom. Historija u sluzbi politike cesto je brza od stvarnosti."

- These are very interesting arguments regarding the debate on language, dialect, proximity, 'ancient hatreds', etc ...

"Klasicni srednji vijek ostavlja Bosni temelja razvoja urbanog tipa protoposa kao znacajne odrednice srednjovjekovne bosanske kraljevine i civilizacije gradova ... Bosanski srednjovjekovni kontekst civilizacije utemeljuje se u periodu izmedju V i X vijeka, uz pojavu uspostave struktura, a u mentalitetu i osjecajnosti njenih stanovnika rezultira sintezom raznih slojeva kultura. Dotadasnju pagansku bastinu pretvara u krscanski doprinos ..."

"...Prema navodima Marka Orsolica, katolicu su bili naseljeni na sjeveru i zapadu Velike Bosne (za vladavine Kotromanica), a kasnije i u sredistu Bosne. Pravoslavci su bili na jugu i istoku, u Humu, a postepeno se sire preko rijeke Drine. Bosanska Crkva i vjernici bili su smjesteni u sredistu Velike Bosne i to na istoku do Drine a na jugu do Huma. Nacini bogosluzenja i opci kodeksi ponasanja trajno su uoblicili njihove atnropotopose pa je moguce identificirati razlike i slicnosti. Zanatski - znaci urbani karakter, poprimaju naselja u blizini franjevackih samostana. Veca grupa antropotoposa centralne Bosne cinila je sukladnu sustavnu mrezu, funkcionalno zavisnu, kao trgovacka mjesa, posebni trgovi, tadasnji moderni katuni i rudarska naselja uz rudnike. Postojala su izolovana naselja i autarhicni nacin zivota koji je zadrzan kao glavna okosnica ekonomskog ravoja u nanovo formiranim gradovima-utvrdama. Vjerovatno su iz klasicnog feudalnog sustava izrasli razliciti vidovi dihotomija tadasnjih naselja tipa trgovista-pazarista, katuna, varosi i gradova."

"Veliki dio trgovista smjesten je neposredno uz utvrdjene gradove kao politicke centre po pravilu jedan do tri. Kasnije, upravo zbog tog visokog stepena razvijenosti, otomanska vlast je sluzbeno priznala Visoko, Dubrovnik, Vrhbosnu, Blazuj, Kresevo, Fojnicu, Konjic, Prozor, Travnik, Zenicu, Kakanj, Sutjesku, Olovo i Zunovnicu."

"Nakon snaznih i dugotrajnih upada u Bosnu i ranijih utjecaja antickih kolonizacija u prostornoj organizaciji, vijekovima je preovladavo feudov posjed i valstita kuca u tipizaciji teritorijalnih matrica jedinica Bosne. [Feud] je bio gospodar zemlje i ljudi." Potcinjena sela us mala, prostorno neorganizirana i ekonomski vrlo slaba. Unutrasnja drustvena organizacija nije se znacajno izmijenila od perioda antike. Povlacenje u samodovoljnost i anonimnost zivota u nasljeima udaljna od vaznih putnih pravaca, doprinijelo je stagnaciji i na specifican, spontan nacin omogucilo oscuvanje authotonih i tradicijski lokalnih obiljezja zivota ruralnih etnickih populacija. Rijetki pravoslavni toposi najcesce su katuni koji sluze za povremeni seznoski boravak cobana sa stokom u cilju njihove ispase."

"Osnovno obizljezje drustvenog razvoja epohe je plemenska i porodicna zadruga, a sto su naslijedjeni ostaci antickog i rimskog tradicijskog utjecaja. Pojavio se jos jedan, vec poodavno, iz neolita zaboravljeni drustveno-nuzni oblik antropotoposa sa elemntima sezonskog nacina koristenja teritorija i boravke cijele visegeneracijske porodice - gradina. Mnoge negativne osobine su iznikle i motivirale podanike zadruge da u hijatusu potraze iskonske prahistorijske nagone ka odmetnistvu, hajduciji, uskocenju, pljacki, ratovanju iz zasjede i otimacini tudjega."

- This is very interesting, as it seems to have survived from Middle Ages well into modern times. 'Drumski razbojnici' operate in contemporary Bosnia too ...

Then there are arguments about the reasons Bosnian nobles took to the teaching of the Bosnian Church - one of the key things mentioned by Fra Leon Petrovic was that the population was unwilling to engage in monogamous, religion-binding marriage. People like Sandalj Hranic or Herceg Stjepan, can't remember which one now, 'dismissed' their 'wives' and took different ones as they pleased. Under the Bosnian Church teachings, they only had an obligation to 'keep' their wives if they were 'good to them' (such treatment of women survived into Ottoman times, and Hasanaginica was a brilliant example of that - ne cekaj me ni u rodu, ni u dvoru mome ...). One Vicar Fra Bartul wrote that many Bosnians would convert to 'proper' Christianity if they only didn't have to practice 'lawful and binding marriage'. If you look into the treatment of women in Bosnia historically, I think that it definitely still has legs (you've probably heard people talk about instances of such and such who 'dismissed his wife' ('otjerao je zenu').

Sorry for this long entry, but it may help with a few little bits and pieces, :-).

I would mention things such as Jurjevo/Djurdjevdan/Zeleni Juraj (it also has a name in the callendar of Bosnian Muslims, but I can't remember it now), which is celebrated by all three sides and is a shared pagan left-over ... Hope this helps. Fomafomich 07:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding with me?, you are wrong Bosanac is derived from Bosnjak and not the other way around! Bosanac is first mentioned in the time of Austrian rule of Bosnia, and at that time it was derived from Bosnjak. The ethnical name of bosnians goes thorugh history as Bosnjanin, Bosnjak and Bosanac. Bosnjanin is the native bosnian version, bosnjak is the ottoman/latin version and Bosanac is the Austrian/Germanic version. But they all mean the same. Damir Mišić 23:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I am greatful for the suppot. But you don't seem to understand what I am trying to explain or say. In the latin languages (Spanish, French, Italian and so on) Bosnian is said Bosniaque and pronounced like Bosniak, by other words Bosniak means bosnian in the latin languages, you get it?. If a german perhaps would say "In bosnia bosnians lives" the frenchman would say "In Bosnia bosniaks live", ok? Bosnian=Bosniak, Bosnian is just the germanic version and Bosniak is just the latin. Damir Mišić 00:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No dado my friend this is not misplacing the right for anyone in bosnia to call themselves bosnians, this is a plain explation of the languages. Even if Bosniak doesn't mean bosnian in etnhic sense (which is actually does) it sure does mean that in a language sense. Simply put everyone in Bosnia are bosnians, but not everybody in bosnia are ethnic bosnians. Would you call a black man living in Bosnia and ethnic bosnian? Sure he's bosnian but not an ethnic. Damir Mišić 01:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serbophobia

Tačno je da je Srbija država svih njenih građana, ali su Srbi najveća etnička zajednica i čini mi se da su jedini kostitutivni narod Srbije. Znači, ako se sudi Srbiji, onda se indirektno sudi i Srbima, naročito pored ove nacionalističke žabokrečine u nas gde se sve to tako shvata. S druge strane, ovaj novinski citat ima i svoje mane, jer se može smatrati i kao nerelevantan... Što se tiče ovoga, biću neutralan. Inače, srbofobija postoji. Nije bitno ko je nju izazvao, ali postoji dosta ljudi koji se naježe kad se spomenu Srbi i koji su protiv svega što je srpsko. Isto tako, postoje i ljudi koji su protiv svega što je američko, bošnjačko, palestinsko, jevrejsko... Ne bih se bunio da se napravi i članak koji direktno objašnjava fenomen mržnje (fobije) prema Bošnjacima, jer ona postoji u manjem ili u većem obliku. Na kraju, izvini što ti pišem na našem jeziku, a ne na engleskom. Pozdrav, --M. Pokrajac 20:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice your attempt to get people to vote on the article deletion. I love the way you request the vote from serial 3RR offenders too. Oh well, every vote counts I guess! As Miguel de Unamuno used to say: "Podreis vencer, pero no convencer" (you may win but will never convince) - Asterion 20:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Bosnia and Herzegovina

Dado, I've created a mini-template for Wikipedia users from Bosnia and Herzegovina if you're interested:

Live Forever 21:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mesa selimovic

The current article on Mesa Selimovic is obscure and according to me full of lies. The serbian users told me that "the Bosniak users accept the article as it is". Now is this true? For example the quote where Mesa "states" that he's of serb nationality lacks sources and sounds like something made up by serb nationalists. I am very familiar with Mesa and he is my most beloved Bosnian author after Mak Dizdar, and I can insure everyone that Mesa never stated he was serb! Mesa counted himself as Bosniak (Musliman) to the very end of his life even he's serb wife said this in an interview recently shown on HRT channel. So please inform me about the current situation on the article do you really accept it as it is? to just remind you mesa is even in the list among the 100 most famous serbs and he has been removed from bosniak writers list. Damir Mišić 18:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no qoute anywhere that says that Mesa declared himself as serb, checked the pages you gave me. Looks like they (Millosh..) made it up all please assist me in correcting the article on Mesa S. Damir Mišić 12:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian Demographics

The source is reliable believe me, yes it lists serbs and croats as minorities in Bosnia since the last demographics check of bosnia counted Bosniaks to be 51.2% of Bosnia's population making croats and serbs minorities. And if you look after carefully the population of bosnian croats and serbs is also correct. So yes it is reliable Damir Mišić 12:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniaks in Turkey

I see you have reverted the edits about the Bosniaks in Turkey that User:Damir Mišić added. I've checked User talk:Damir Mišić and you say it is because the source has some serious credibility issues. I don't understand why ? because Croats and Serbs are a minority in BiH. Generally, the Croats estimated at 15-16% and Serbs estimated at 35-37% and Bosniaks anywhere from 48-52% sometimes even 55% of the total population. Also, you say the site depicts Republika Srpska as part of Serbia. I don't think that's the case even though it might look so I'll give you that. The site is simply showing the area where the Serbs are the absolute majority and that is in RS, Central Serbia, and most parts of Vojvodina. The Croats are shown as an absolute majority in parts of Herzegovina, Western Bosnia, and Croatia. The Albanians in Albania, Kosovo, and Western Macedonia. The Hungarians in a few areas of Vojvodina etc. etc.

I find it naive to think that a website as eurominority that is a neutral site all about European minorities whould do it deliberately or make such an error and depict RS as part of Serbia.

PS. Hope you don't mind that I've addressed you on your own talk it is because I wasn't sure if you even noticed the talk about the same issue on Talk:Bosniaks since you havn't responded on the talk. Anyways, I, User:Damir Mišić, and User:Duja have already talked about some of it so I would appreciate it if you responded on Talk:Bosniaks. -- Zec 12:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well the "map" on the webpage is not actually a "map" with state borders, it shows how the different ethnic groups are split over the area. But yes I admit it can be interpreted in a negative way, for example as if the parts were serbs live are "native" serblands. But I don't know what do you say?. Damir Mišić 17:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images for srebrenica massacre article

Thought these images may come in hand on the srebrenica article or bosnian genocide article.

Image:Utakmica19fq.jpeg

Image:Naslovna465-big.jpeg

Da te obavijestim...

da sam napravio Prijezda, Prijezda II, Matej Ninoslav, Stjepan, Borić i popravio Kulin; pa ako bi mogao da pomognes u ukljucivanju linkova u ostale clanke o Bosni (i njenoj povijesti). --HolyRomanEmperor 15:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article in need of thy attention

...Demographic_history_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina. I hope that my messages will not find deaf ears in you this time :-) HolyRomanEmperor 01:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unitary Islamic Bosnia

I very much believe that classifying the article for speedy delete is inappropriate (based upon my comments on the talk page, and do not appreciate your reverts based on an assumed bias you think I possess, whereas you and the author are far more biased (albiet polemically). Since I do not wish to get into a revert war with you, I will let someone else - hopefully yourself even - remove it, after you've evaluated the considerations in a calmer manner. I do understand how articles such as this can bring out the worst in people, as such I wish you the best. Cheers. hellenica 06:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright, as I said, articles like this are meant to inflame, I would feel similiar if one were to indict my own brethren with similar allegations. I am certain the AfD will come to that same conclusion. hellenica 06:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Regarding your post here - Very simple - I processed lots of speedies today, and for this one I only read the first 2 paragraphs. Not until I read the 3rd paragraph after you posted on my talk page did I understand what you were referring to. However, because it is mixed in with text which reads as if it were appropriate, the speedy is not quite so clear cut - at least in my view. I suppose, in my mind, if that offending paragraph were removed, the article would read "encyclopedic" - but this is an opinion of someone who is completely not knowledgeable of the field, so admittingly, I am uncomfortable getting involved with this article any more than I have to. Suffice to say, I think it should be deleted, so if you like, you can check my comments here as well: see this AfD page. I hope this answers your questions. --HappyCamper 06:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

That article is outrageous. I voted strong delete. Damir Mišić 19:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article on RS and Unitary Islamic Bosnia.

Dado, it really bothers me that certain people are trying to undermine wikipedia`S integrity, and are spreading very inconstant information. I could also start spearing false information on subjects which fit my world view, but these are not objective facts and do not belong in a encyclopedia or in science. I will keep trying to make it as difficult as I can for those people. And I would like to ask to keep doing the same.

Greetings -- Namek 21:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Charming Man

I have recently nominated an article I wrote, This Charming Man, for featured article status. If you consider it to be worthy, you may vote here.

AfDs

An AfD discussion should last about a week - but because of the periodic backlog, it may take 10-14 days before the discussion is closed. Hope this helps. --HappyCamper 13:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unitary Islamic Bosnia

There is no standard measure of consensus on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Consensus), but one thing I can tell you: 16 votes to delete against 9 votes to keep is not consensus in any admin's book. Often anything which doesn't have at least a 2:1 delete to keep ratio is kept, barring extenuating circumstances (i.e. clear copyright violation). Johnleemk | Talk 06:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not the place to decide on redirect deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Johnleemk | Talk 06:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DAI picture

Could you please reach a compromise there? We know that Duke Trpimir of Dalmatian Croats conquered the territories from roughly Bosna to Drina, it is then that all of Croatia got included. Both De Regno Sclavorum and De Administrando Imperio confirm that a part of Bosnia and Herzegovina was a part of Serbia. Please understand that that map is neither claiming an "ethnic" (hate that word) makeup of that part of Bosnia and Herzegovina nor stating a historical "legal" POV push of Greater Serbdom's claim on Bosnia. Have on your mind while jugding DAI that it is one of the rare historical works from the Early Medieval Ages that entered the international cultural bastion (the other being only Miroslav's Gospel). I am willing to reach a consensus with you. --HolyRomanEmperor 00:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is anyone who understands the Bosniaks' suffers because they "did not exist" or "are a new nation" in Bosnia and get generally discriminated by Christians, it is us. The Croatian HSP and HDZ parties will always look at us not like Serbs, but like Serbians; immigrants (or occupiers) from Serbia that belong in Serbia, but not in Croatia. (I believe that the Bosniaks are even called Turks!) Pozdrav! --HolyRomanEmperor 00:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Svrzina.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Svrzina.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --OrphanBot 10:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demographic history of BiH

Don't get mad; there is no obstacle and no problem whe we work together as one in coordination and harmony. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hi Dado. I looked at the histories of the articles you linked from my talk page, and I see shocking level of edit warring by a number of users. I've left very clear messages with Nikola Smolenski, Elephantus and Asim Led since all of them appear to be warring on more than one article. However, I see at least one article in which you have been revert warring with Nikola and, by way of being fair, I should give you a similar message. I recognise, however, that the scope of your reversions is considerably more limited than that of some other editors.

Can I encourage you please to stop this now, and engage on the various talk pages? I can find very little evidence of this having been tried with any determination. Edit wars, especially the dry, sterile type here are disruptive to the usual functioning of Wikipedia and cause an unnecessary degree of wasted time and effort by all involved.

You seem to stay carefully inside the three revert rule, but I'd like to encourage you, in the strongest possible terms, to stick to a much higher standard than that. I wonder if I can help those you disagree with reach any kind of agreement? I hope it does not come to me having to construct electric fences with blocks, but we should be clear that such an option must be considered, and considered very soon. Thanks. -Splash^talk 23:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Momo i Uzeir.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Momo i Uzeir.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- Longhair 01:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banja Luka?

...was a Bosniak city up to what time exactly? --HolyRomanEmperor 10:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I was refering to the city's founders, actually. From what I've understood in Bosnian wikipedia, the founders of the city were the Ottomans (first inhabitants being Moslem Slavs or proto-Bosniaks), and according to the censi, only until recently (especially after the Bosnian War) they held majority (at least relative). I may draw a parallel with the City of Karlovac - from the day of its founding in 1527 up to 1991/1992.

The reason why I asked is because I noticed the "four S"s on the coat-of-arms of Banjaluka, and as far as I understood, the Coats-of-arms are (relativly) ancient (like with the case of the City of Sarajevo). It confuses me quitte a bit. Is it new, like 1991 - present? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

I noticed that you recently filed a request for mediation on WP:RFM. As the new chairman of the committee, I've been busily trying to streamline the process to make it easier for users to request mediation, and easier to provide exactly the information the Committee needs to accept or reject cases. In doing so, I have developed a new format for RfM that mirrors closely the format used at WP:RFAR. Although the new format was implemented shortly after filed your request, I'd like to ask that you reformat it to the new format to make the RfM process easier on the committee members and yourself. You can find instructions for the new process at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide. I, and the rest of the Committee, appreciate your help greatly.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 16:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Don't apologize, I've read a thousand time longer messages! :)

Thanks! That's exactly what I wanted to know. Here, have a reward:

! --HolyRomanEmperor 20:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juče sam pokušao ispraviti nepravilnosti oko jeyika koji se koriste kao službeni u Republici Srpskoj (na stranici Republika Srpska). Pravilan naziv za jezik koji koriste Bošnjaci u Republici Srpskoj bi trebao biti "bošnjački" (Bosniak) a ne "bosanski" (bosnian). To je ustavna odrednica koju je nametnuo Visoki predstavnik 2002. godine:

Амандман LXXI 1. Српски, хрватски и бошњачки језик, ћирилично и латинично писмо, равноправно се употребљавају у Републици Српској. Начин такве службене употребе језика и писма уређују се законом. 2. Овим амандманом замењује се став 1. члана 7. Устава.

Dakle, jezici su regulisani zakonom i svako drugo tumačenje bi bilo zlonamjerno i ntačno. Naime, dugo se već vodi spor oko toga da li postoji ili ne postoji bosanski jezik. Stav u Republici Srpskoj je da zvanično postoji bošnjači jezik, mada niko ne spori pravo Bošnjacima u Federaciji BiH da ga nazivaju bosanskim. Bosanski jezik jezik za Srbe (a i Hrvate) ne postoji jer u BiH (bar na papiru) ravnopravno žive tri naroda od kojih dva imaju svoje jezike od prije rata (srpski i hrvatski). Drugo, dobar dio stanovnika bošnjačke nacionalnosti se ne osjećaju Bosancima već Hercegovcima i tu činjenicu treba uvažavati. Zašto se njima ne bi priznalo pravo da pričaju hercegovački. Dakle, bolje je ne otvarati Pandorinu kutiju bez potrebe. Na kraju, mislim da nije fer sjediti u Njujorku i zavađati nas koji smo ostali živjeti u bijedi nadajući se da će nam nekad biti bolje. Trifko

By the way, I never got to thank you for your short-lived revert on Duklja. Thanks! --HolyRomanEmperor 12:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dado,

Dado, I am sorry to bother you again; but your informative description on the Banja Luka problem interested me greatly in the current situation on BiH? What about the war refugees? Could/Did they return (I specifically mean the Bosniak population of eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Serbian population in the Una/Dinara valley of Bosnian Frontier)? Thanks in advance for thy information! --HolyRomanEmperor 22:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote logo

Could you please tell me what font-size and font-face did you use to make the Wikiquote logo in your language? Thanks. —SCriBu ^msg

Ok, thanks for the response. I realised however that the bs logo has exactly the same text i wanted to write for the romanian Wikiquote. :) I just wanted to ask for your permision to use it. —SCriBu ^msg

Bosnian Serbs

I just did some foolish copy/pasting and inserted pics (but mistakingly made errors) at the Bosnian War history part. Since you're the expert on the Bosnian War, could you please take that part over? Thanks. --HolyRomanEmperor 11:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I voted strong delete, regards Damir Mišić 15:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your very fine work in arguing with those Serbian partisans. I do however fear that the rant article might stay because they recruited so many people from the Serbian Wikipedia. That's unfair play and should not be accepted. Croatian historian 13:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Bosniak sentiment

Dado, I have created a new article: Anti-Bosniak sentiment. When you have the time, your help would be welcome and much appreciated. Live Forever 02:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been nominated for deletion. If you could take a minute to cast your vote, it'd be appreciated. Live Forever 22:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamization

Dado, I was wondered why you reacted so heavily upon the mention of the word. It is a simple variation of the word assimilation. It was a common practise of the Arab states and the Ottoman Empire. Bear in mind that 8-9 million Turks are ethnic Albanians, tens of millions of Slavic origin, and God knows how many are of Greek heritage. Also see the article Islamization.

I would like to hear your opinion on the matter. Best regards. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Islamization

I agree that the word has a negative conotation, but hey, doesn't every word have a negative conotation? When we use the word Serbs, we are reminded of many unfortunate events of the 1990s like the Srebrenica Massacre, when we use the word Islam everyone thinks of Islamic fundemantalism, fanaticism and terrorism; the word Croatia, unavoidably resembles the Independent State of Croatia and the word Ustaša carries a huge weight of genocide and holocaust with it, no matter that it was a quasi-peaceful movement of the 1920s Croatian people. The Chetnik movement was among the first movements to free Eastern Europe from Axis control, and the first liberational expression of the Yugoslav people. Although it was mostly Serbian and containing stricly Orthodox and some Moslem and Catholic members, quitte a number of Slovenes joined the movement, and even some Croats. But, after the events of collaboration with the Italians, and at some cases even the Germans in their desire to fight Communism, the enemy of Monarchism. And after the 1990s quasi-Chetnik groups under Serbian Radical Vojislav Seselj, would you say that the Chetniks don't have a negative conotation attached to the name?

You must admit that there indeed were forceful conversions, most present in Thessaly, Dobruja and Kosovo. However, the majority of the conversions was peaceful, where populations converted en masse like happenned in the Bosnian and Albanian lands.

Note that the word Christianization is the standard term for the baptising missions of Cyril and Methodus in the 9th century in our lands.

Regards, Dado. I only asked you this because of your long-ago notifications at the Talk:Demographic History of Bosnia and Herzegovina. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that too. I don't think that that word can be used for the colonists' actions. Extermination is the proper usage for the Colonization of the New World. :-) However, I always see the good side of everything, so Islamization rather reminds me of the Birth of Islam in the depths of mysterious Arabia. Kinda' romantic, too... --HolyRomanEmperor 23:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I’m the user that was formerly known as Bitola. I decided to make some changes (changes are always welcomed from time to time) and I created a new user account. I was pretty much involved in the Macedonian articles heated area for several months and these days I will take some rest from all that bickering. In the same time, I would like to thank you for your voting for the brief option on the Republic of Macedonia talk page (the option I was supporting). MatriX 17:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniak Shiites?

Are there any Bosniaks that are followers of Shi'a Islam? --HolyRomanEmperor 22:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that one, Dado. :) Now, there is one more thing that's been bugging me. For as long as my knowledge setves me, the Bosnian language uses both Latin and Cyrillic scrypts, but Kserofovic has deleted my changed to add the cyrillic scrypt to Template:User_bs. Could you give a hand to elaborate the misunderstanding? --HolyRomanEmperor 15:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar that the Cyrillic scrypt was never in reality very widespread in Bosnia and Herzegovina after the die-out of the Bosnian Cyrillic, but I like keeping things official just as they are declared. Oh, and the same can be said for Petar Kocic. In the 19th century or so (before, probably) the population of the Bosnian Frontier preferred the Cyrillic scrypt, including the Moslem populace. This is probably because of the indiginous Serbian population that the Ottomans brought there and colonized the Frontier from all over the Empire.

In my personal opinion, the Bosnian language is a direct successor of the broken Serbo-Croatian in Bosnia and Herzegovina; and I think that it is more than obvious. What do you think? --HolyRomanEmperor 19:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosanski Jezik

You asked the question who was adding Cyrillic to the Bosnian language template. Well, it is the user HolyRomanEmperor that has been changing the template. Please see what can be done with the issue.

Hvala, Thanks

Kseferovic 00:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually

When I said direct successor I merely meant that it succeeded the deceised language in 1993. Nothing based on origin/consideration, but merely the abolition of the language.

Actually, I am intent to correct you. The Serbo-Croat was created in the mid 19th century. In 1850, the Vienna accords concluded and officialized the Serbo-Croatian language, instead of the Croatian, Serbian and other variants. Also, take a look at an interesting thing. the Serbian language was created in 1847, which means that it existed for 3 years. The Croatian language is only a little older (existed a little longer). Before that were the Church Slavonic, Old Slavic and Russoslavonic languages; with the Church Slavonic being particularely strong in BiH.

As you know, not a single Slavic state but Bosnia left such a vast contribution of medieval linguistical remains (Stecci), and BiH has always been (95%>) the most Slavic region on Earth. Strangely, there are so many controversies over it. :)))

So, the Serbian and Croatian languages were only revived in 1941-1944/45 by the Axis, which's still not over a decade. Only since 1993 do we have the Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian languages. Why I was telling you this is to show you how ridiculous is to claim that the languages are distinct. You might notice that the Timokians and Vojvodinians speak the Serbian language much more different than the Serbian language spoken, say... in Belgrade. So different, that the Bosnian language is in fact far more similiar.

But I've went too far from the subject. :) I think that you can handle it however you want, but a language template that contradicts with the construction of the language itself is somewhat illogical to me. Cheers.

P. S. That's really amazing :) (regarding the Islam in BiH). Isn't there any official specifying of the branch of Islam (Sunni, perhaps? as I have heard?) --HolyRomanEmperor 13:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odgovor

Ne slažem se sa tobom u vezi nekih stvari koje si napisao, ali sada sam prilično zauzet, pa nemam vremena da vodim privatne rasprave o tome. Nastavićemo drugi put. PANONIAN (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest edits in Serbophobia

Hi,

I'm glad that you aren't opposed to the new version as a whole, and I appreciate your edits to make the article more NPOV. I'd just like to make some minor remarks about two of the edits you've made:

1.You replaced

"Those accusations supposedly created an environment in which many Serbs were expelled or they simply left their homes in Krajina in 1995 and in Kosovo in 1999.^{[citation needed]}"

with

"Those accusations of Serbophobia supposedly created an environment in which many Serbs feared repraisals by opposing army and left their homes in Krajina in 1995 and in Kosovo in 1999.^{[citation needed]}"

Now, as we know, many Serbs allege not only that the Krajina Serbs fled out of fear, but also that they were expelled. Let me stress that we are describing their allegations, not what you or I think is the truth.

2. You replaced

Serbophobia is attributed to (but not only) Croats, Bosniaks and Kosovo's Albanians

with

Serbophobia is usually alleged to (but not only) Croats, Bosniaks and Kosovo's Albanians.

I suppose you suspected that my wording was Serbian POV, but your concerns are groundless: the word "to attribute" doesn't mean that the attribution is correct, it's a bit like "to ascribe", "pripisati". Besides that, "to allege" can't replace it adequately, because it can't be used with "to someone". The same applies to "Serbophobia is perceived in the behaviour of the media", since the wording doesn't mean that Serbophobia really is there just because someone perceives it there. However, I'll try to find other words to satisfy your concerns.

I hope you accept my arguments and don't mind if I re-include the first claim, albeit in a modified form, especially as it could cause a new pointless edit war even before the last one has ended. :) --85.187.44.131 17:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crna Gora

Dado, I've threw a look at the Bosnian wiki - and the article on Crna Gora is HUUUGE. Since you're one of their most prominent admins, I think that you should know (and arrange it, if possible). --HolyRomanEmperor 15:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...

OK, Dado, da budemo iskreni. Ti si Bosanac, ja sam Srbin. Da pričamo pre 20 godina, ne bi bilo nikakvog konflikta. Ja znam da ti veruješ svemu što si čuo od, uglavnom bosanskih izvora, kao što ja verujem svemu što sam čuo od srpskih izvora. Ali hajde na trenutak da stanemo i da razmislimo.

Bosna, avgust 1995. godine. 28. nije bila ni jedna granata bačena. I onda odjednom eksplozija u marketu. Pre svega, zašto bi to Srbi uradili iako su znali da će NATO intervenisati? Evo, pročitaj ovaj izveštaj:

Руски пуковник Андреја Демуренка је одмах после гранатирања пијаце Маркале у Сарајеву, БиХ, изјавио да су Срби неоправдано били оптужени само зато да би то био повод да их нападне НАТО.

Пуковник Демуренко, који је био начелник штаба једног сектора миротвораца у Сарајеву и командант руског миротворачког батаљона, сачувао је комплетну документацију која се односи на Маркале. Показао је анализу коју су направили француски официри у сарадњи са Холанђанима и Данцима. У тој анализи се само доказује да су гранате испаљене са српских положаја а никакве друге хипотезе се не спомињу.

Дакле, под притиском Американаца, доказивала се само тврдња да су Срби кривци, а ни једна друга верзија се није анализирала. Тек касније, пуковник Андреј Демуренко је доказао официрима, који су направили ту анализу, да су они неправедно пожурили да оптуже Србе за масакр који се догодио у 28. августа 1995. године, јер са њихових положаја никако нису могле бити испаљене гранате.

"Кренуо сам, на основу анализе коју су направили Французи, до места одакле је требало да наводно, гађају српски минобацачи. На површини од сто метара, где је требао бити тај злокобни минобацач, није било апсолутно никаквих трагова на трави. Војници одлично знају да тамо где се фиксирају минобацачи мора да остане траг. Друго место, где су по француским прорачунима требали бити српски минобацачи, било је шумовито. Добро је познато да минобацачи не могу да гађају из шуме, јер гране могу да зауставе гранату. Осим тога, због зграда које окружују Маркале, ни случајно није могла стићи граната са српских положаја. Свакоме ко барем мало зна нешто о артиљерији јасно је да граната не може да шета. Осим тога, било је нелогично да једна граната побије и рани толике људе а две остале нису никога ни огребале", сећа се Демуренко.

Кад је руски пуковник доказао да су Срби експресно и безразложно оптужени и све то саопштио бројним дописницима листова и агенција, Американци су побеснели и одмах су почели да траже да се Демуренко под хитно врати. Касније су се, ипак, охладили и одустали од терања Демуренка, да се не би правио велики скандал.

Познати московски историчар, Константин Никифоров, који је једно време радио и као писац говора Бориса Јељцина, у својој књизи пише и о масакрима на Маркалама.

Никифоров тврди да су официри руског батаљона, који се налазио око Сарајева, категорички тврдили да Срби нису могли гранатирати Маркале. Тај историчар је дошао до информација да у августу 1995. године Маркале нису гађане из минобацача, већ су, по сценарију западних обавештајних служби, ту крваву акцију обавили Муслимани, са једне од суседних вишеспратница.

Никифоров је уверен да су и у фебруару 1994. године западне службе организовале акцију под називом - “Циклон-1” када је на Маркалама погинуло много људи. И тада су крваву акцију извели Муслимани. Циљ оба “циклона” је био да се створи повод да НАТО нападне српске положаје.

Dakle, opšta logika govori da bi bosanski Srbi trebali biti moroni baciti granatu u trenutku kad je pretnja od NATO-a bila najveća. Zaboravi na "biased reports" koje smo svi čuli, sedi i razmisli o tome. --serbiana - talk 22:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Rastbosne.png

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Dado, if you could take the time sometime to read over the history section and add/take out references where necessary to make the article (well, section) complete, it'd be much appreciated. Live Forever 19:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Mikulic.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mikulic.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chetniks

Could you provide some sources on 80000 Bosniaks killed by Chetniks in WWII? i woud like to read it up.

Bosnian grammatics

I remember that you mentioned the Bosnian grammatics from the end of the 19th century. Who wrote it and was it in Arabic, Cyrillic or Latin scrypt? --HolyRomanEmperor 14:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of it at Bosnian language. There should be. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dado, ako bi mogao ovih dana pratiti članak o Bošnjacima.. trenutno provodim značajnu reformu i, iako ne vjerujem da će nastati neki veliki problem, našao se onaj Šveđanin. Live Forever 17:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnianins

Well I am not sure if it is an word in english, but to simply write bosnjani sounds to un-english. Damir Mišić

Bosniak history

Dado, since you're a Bosniak - most definately your word will worth over mine (non-Bosniak) - in the face of Emir Arven to whome I think non-Bosniak words do not worth. Tell me, please, firstly what should be done (proffessionally) and then your personal POV. I am against putting "Category:Bosniak history" to all and every single one Bosnian medieval ruler. I consider this highly errorous - I know many will disagree and I support even their theory to an extent (that Bosniaks are direct descendents of the Bosnianins - how Damir called 'em :0), but won't this open a can of worms, as to the fact that there is no presence "Category:Serbian history" or "Category:Croatian history"? I strongly believe (now, and sadly admit) that Emir Arven considers Serbs and Croats aliens to Bosnia, that came there only to seize more territory in the names of Croatia and Serbia, respectivly. Just look what comments were made: "Serb user is trying to deny Bosniak history! Again! Bosniak history is history related to Bosnia!" Tell me, please tell me, isn't "Category:History of Bosnia and Herzegovina" sufficient for this? --HolyRomanEmperor 07:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture Wikiproject

Hi, many thanks for all your architecture and design edits. I was wondering if you might be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture. Also we've been revamping the Architecture Portal and nominations to Portal:Architecture/Selected picture candidates and Portal:Architecture/Selected article candidates will always be welcome.--Mcginnly 09:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniak page move

Hi Dado. Could you please go here and write what you think about moving the page "Bosniaks" to "Bosniak people". Most other articles about ethnic groups follow that convention so I feel like it'd be a good move to make. Live Forever 18:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Markale Massacre

Hi Dado, you might also find this topic interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markale_massacres

- Bosniak

Serbianna Link - unrealiable

Serbianna website is not only unrealiable, in fact, they are bold faced liars. They expose videos of Bosniaks who were beheaded by Serbs and use such videos to falsely present Bosniaks as beheaders, read here, I am personally involved with this story: http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2006/04/srebrenica-massacre-photo-story-he-was.html

- Bosniak

Image Tagging for Image:BHMunicipalities.png

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

incorect Bosnia maps

I don't know what are your political preferences, neither I care, but removing maps of B-H that include entity borders and replacing them with maps that include only municipality borders is simply wrong.

One more reason for reverting those changes is that those maps are uncorrect. For example, try to find municipalities of Bužim, Istočni Drvar, Istočna Ilidža, Istočni Mostar, Istočni Stari Grad, Istočno Novo Sarajevo or Jezero on your map.

Those maps are simply incorect in so many ways that they should be deleted ASAP. I don't really understand why you put them there in the first place. -- Ante P..

Hi,

I'm free this weekend and I can help you make those maps. First, let's agree on blank maps. If you have some ideas, please post a smaller version here, so we can discuss it. Let's first discuss colors (I believ we need 2 colors for each entity) and then we can talk about other details. I moved discussion from my talk page to Image talk:BHMunicipalities.png, so we can discuss everything there (and on talk pages of the new maps, after someone upload some. --Ante Perkovic 21:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dado,

stop it. I am being tolerant, but the map is not killing you, I inserted B&H in EVERY sentence, please just stop it. This will not make RS independent, but inform people where it is in Europe. And RS is not the same as B&H so stop adding that map. --KOCOBO 20:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RS is not the same as B&H since Sarajevo is not in RS, but it is in B&H. This is just an example. The map I'm adding is good, the one you're adding is wrong, because RS does not include the Federation territories. IT IS MISLEADING TO ADD ONE MAP SHOWING RS GREEN, AND ANOTHER MAP SHOWING B&H GREEN AND CLAIMING ITS THE SAME THING. WHO'S BEING MISLEADING HERE? --KOCOBO 20:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dado, trenutno sam zauzet, molim te nemoj dirat clanak dok ovo sasvim ne raspravimo, ok? --KOCOBO 20:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odgovor

Ok, daću ti da pogledaš dve stvari. Ovo je prva: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praetorian_prefecture_of_Illyricum Kao što vidiš dole, taj članak se nalazi u više istorijskih kategorija, ali radi se o tome da ni jedna od tih država ili teritorija nije postojala u vreme o kome članak govori. Drugo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina Ne govori li ovaj članak o istoriji Bosne pre nego što je Bosna kao politički pojam nastala? Znači, zašto bismo samo u slučaju RS i Federacije kategorizovali članke na osnovu toga kada su ova dva entiteta nastala ako se to nigde više ne primenjuje? Znači: ako hoćeš da izbaciš iz kategorija RS i Federacije istorijske članke o vremenu pre nego što su one politički nastale, ok, ali onda izbaci i istoriju Ilira i Rimljana iz članka o istoriji BIH, ili izbaci Gale iz istorije Francuske: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_France Ja sam, znači, te članke kategorizovao samo na osnovu opštevsžećih principa i standarda. Zašto bismo imali drugačiji standard za RS i Federaciju od onog koji se svugde primenjuje? PANONIAN (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pa čekaj malo, pokušavam da ti objasnim da istorijske kategorije nigde nisu onako usko vremenski ograničene kako ih ti vidiš. RS i Federacija nisu samo politički već i geografski pojmovi i nihova istorija nije samo njihova politička istorija već takođe istorija geografskog područja koji one uključuju. Po onoj logici koju si napisao na mojoj strani za razgovor ovaj članak uopšte ne bi trebalo da postoji: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_(until_958) O kakvoj se istoriji Bosne tu govori u vremenu kad Bosna nije postojala kao politički pojam? Upravo se govori o istoriji geografskog područja koje danas zauzima Bosna, bez obzira da li je Bosna u to vreme postojala i u političkom smislu ili ne. Pogledaj i ovo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States Vidiš da istorija Amerike ne počinje sa Kolumbom, već sa Indijancima. Znači govorim ti o nekim opštim principima. Sad mi lepo objasni zašto insistiraš da se ti principi ne primenjuju u slučaju RS i Federacije? PANONIAN (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pa RS i Federacija nikako nisu jedinstven slučaj. Postoje na primer članci koji se nalaze i u kategoriji "History of Serbia" i u kategoriji "History of Vojvodina", a Vojvodina na primer ima mnogo manje autonomije od RS i Federacije. Međutim, nekog možda zanima samo istorija Vojvodine, pa će to moći da pronađe u posebnoj kategoriji, isto kao što nekog možda zanima samo istorija jednog od entiteta BIH. Ako postoje ove podkategorije, korisnicima se samo olakšava da nađu ono što traže. Pa u kategoriji "History of Bosnia and Herzegovina" ima 127 članaka. Valjda će nekom biti lakše da se snađe u entitetskim kategorijama gde ima manje članaka ako traži samo nešto određeno. Imaš i mnogo drugih primera na Vikipediji, na primer kategorije "History of Catalonia" i "History of Spain" ili "History of Wales" i "History of Britain", itd. Opet pričam o nekim važećim principima. Zašto oni ne bi važili samo za RS i Federaciju? Dalje, činjenica je da postoji određen broj članaka koji su deo istorije samo jednog od entiteta. Prema tome, ako već imamo entitetske kategorije, i ako su ti posebni članci tamo, zašto ne bi bili i oni koji su zajednički za oba entiteta? PANONIAN (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vidi: niko ovde ne deli Bosnu tom kategorizacijom. U članku "History of Vojvodina" se ne nalazi ni jedan članak koji istovremeno nije i u kategoriji "History of Serbia". Ja isto nisam sklanjao članke iz kategorije "History of Bosnia and Herzegovina", samo sam pored te kategorije dodao i druge. Konkrektna veza Evlije Čelebije i RS je ta što je on pisao o tom području, a veza Stjepana Tomaševića i Federacije je ta što je on vladao tim područjem. Pitaću te nešto drugo: po čemu članak Bosnian pyramids ima više veze sa istorijom BIH, nego sa istorijom Federacije, kad ni jedna ni druga nisu postojale u vreme kad se pretpostavlja da su piramide građene? Po čemu članak Drina Banovina ima više veze sa istorijom BIH, nego sa istorijom entiteta, kad ni BIH ni entiteti nisu postojali u vreme ove banovine? Znači, standarde kategorizacije ne možemo primenjivati selektivno, ako nešto važi za jednu stvar mora važiti i za drugu. PANONIAN (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ti u stvari mešaš dva različita standarda kategorizacije. Standard koji ti pominješ primenjuje se samo kod teritorija koje više ne postoje. Na primer ovde: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Independent_State_of_Croatia ili ovde: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Republic_of_Serbian_Krajina Pošto te teritorije imaju jasno određen vremenski rok u kojem su postojale njihove kategorije uključuju samo članke iz tog vremenskog perioda. Ponavljam, ovaj princip se primenjuje kod teritorija koje više ne postoje, što nije slučaj sa RS i Federacijom. Kod teritorija koje postoje i danas primenjuje se "princip istorije geografskog područja", odnosno ako se neki istoriski događaj odigrao na teritoriji današnje Federacije BIH on je po "principu istorije geografskog područja" deo istorije Federacije BIH, bez obzira da li je Federacija u to doba postojala i kao politički pojam ili ne. I ako pročitaš bolje moj prethodni odgovor videćeš da nisam napisao da je Evlija Čelebija "pisao o Republici Srpskoj", već da je "pisao o tom području", odnosno o "geografskom području koje se danas nalazi u Republici Srpskoj". Niti sam napisao da je "Stjepan Tomašević vladao Federacijom BIH" već "geografskim područjem koje se danas nalazi u Federaciji BIH". Takođe, nije pitanje da li je Bosna postojala pre ili posle Drinske banovine, već baš u to vreme. Inače, da nećeš da kažeš i da je Bosna postojala pre Ilira: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_(until_958) Objasni mi onda ako po tebi "princip istorije geografskog područja" ne važi zašto onda ovde piše o Ilirima i Rimljanima? I šta ti znači to da "ja u svojoj slijepoj zelji da opravdam teritorijalni subjektivitet RS-a"? Hahaha Aman zaman čoveče, znaš šta, u početku sam se svađao sa tobom, jer sam video da si ti taj koji u člancima o RS iznosi svoja lična gledišta i političke težnje o RS, a ja sam samo hteo da te članke uredim onako kako su uređeni članci o svim ostalim teritorijama. Istina je da podržavam nezavisnu RS (kao što podržavam nezavisnost svakog drugog ko je želi), ali nisam moje političke stavove pokušavao da ubacim u članke o RS. To si radio ti a radiš i dalje, a razlog zbog kog sam te pustio da to radiš je taj što sam shvatio da će upravo takvi kao ti i napraviti RS nezavisnom. Svojom političkom propagandom koju plasiraš ovde zaista nećeš postići svoj politički cilj ukidanja RS. Jedino što ćeš postići je to da Srbi iz RS koji čitaju članke koje ti pišeš još više zamrze BIH (znaš valjda za koga navijaju na utakmici) i da budu odlučniji u traženju nezavisnosti. Nemoj zabooraviti da BIH postoji samo zato što su Srbi iz RS na to pristali, ali ti si taj koji ih stalno ubeđuje da se predomisle. Dakle, samo nastavi tako. :)) PANONIAN (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ono što smo razjasnili je samo koja su moja politička opredeljenja a ne ono što radim na Vikipediji. Pogledaj ove kutijice na mojoj strani (ako ih već nisi video): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN#Interesting_Articles_about_Serbia Nadam se da ti se sviđaju. :)) Znači ja samo podržavam narod RS u onome što žele. Ako žele da budu nezavisni podržavam ih u tome, ako žele da budu deo BIH podržao bih ih i u tome, mada obojica znamo da to nije ono što žele. A šta mislim o suverenitetu svih država sam napisao u tim kutijicama. Ti si očigledno rob ideje o "državi kao najvećoj svetinji", iako je država u koju veruješ u stvari ono što ti uzima slobodu samo toga nisi svestan. Što se tiče mojih edita na Vikipediji, ja u njima nisam plasirao moja politička ubeđenja već sam se trudio da uvažim standarde i političku realnost. Šta kaže politička realost o RS: 1. RS postoji, 2. RS je deo BIH. Ja potpuno uvažavam obe ove realnosti, a ti si izgleda zaboravio na prvu. PANONIAN (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A evo ti i dokaz da uvažavam obe ove realnosti: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doboj&diff=63202801&oldid=62927489 Kao što vidiš, dodavao sam i kategorije BIH na članke o gradovima RS tamo gde oni nisu postojali. Da zaista ovde hoću da plasiram moja politička ubeđenja onda bih brisao a ne dodavao BIH kategorije, zar ne? Prema tome, ako ja uvažavam obe realnosti red bi bio da ih uvažiš i ti, jer Vikipedija ipak treba da piše o realnosti a ne o nečijim željama, zar ne? PANONIAN (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srebrenica

Hey man, seeing as you were involved in this article, perhaps you'd like to come and help provide sources? - FrancisTyers · 00:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srebrenica Massacre is being vandalized

I am okay with shortening it, but if they are going to delete the verifiable facts, then we have a problem. It is common sense that Srebrenica Genocide is the first legally established case of genocide in Europe after Holocaust. There is no need to cite sources for that, for example.

Bosniak's Reply to Dado

Hi Dado, you have my respect friend, as you are one of few dedicated Srebrenica massacre editors. I am not expecting you to be the only one monitoring and protecting the article, I encourage other Bosniaks and other reasonable people to do the same. Srebrenica massacre article must be protected against vandalism. Maybe we could protect the article in a way that only registered users can edit it?

Editing WP:Lead

The Lebanese claims of Israeli border violation are discussed extensively on Talk, and included as a non-mainstream opinion. Please discuss on the page's Talk if you feel that it isn't dealt with appropriately. If you go to Ayta al-Sha`b, you can see that the "Israeli version" is accepted by the UN, EU, G8, and many media sources including al-Jazeera. Thank you, Tewfik^Talk 05:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for saying it was in the Lead, however the rest of what I said still stands. This discussion has been had at length on Talk, and the consensus is to follow the internationally held version. If you have something new to add, please do so on Talk, though it seems that both sources you provided have also been discussed. I know that it is frustrating to be shot down, but please check the talk and the sources above, and you can understand just how many times we have been through this. Thanks, Tewfik^Talk 05:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not an issue of source credibility, but rather the fact the UN, EU, G8, and pretty much every reliable media source has echoed this version, including other POV organisations like al-Jazeera. There is discussion here and here. This has been the consensus throughout; as you can see you are not the first person to present these sources. Additionally, there is some recognition of the Lebanese position, but it is accorded secondary status due to international consensus. As for the reversion, my regular editing function was not functioning, but as I had already left a message on your Talk, I assumed that my lack of summary would be forgiven =D. I'd appreciate if you self-revert, though no hard feelings. Tewfik^Talk 06:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to you on Bosnians article discussion. Bosnjaci was translated as Bosnians in the 18th century, it's only the last two centuries that the, in German and English, constructed translation Bosniaks is used. Bosnjaci can be translated as either Bosnians or Bosniaks, to attribute only 'Bosanci' the translation 'Bosnians' is subjective and imprecise. Bosoni

So you disagree with my version of the Bosanci article? Well are you, in that case, aware of that you disagree with historical facts. It is not my fault that 1 + 1 equals 2, sorry but it is not. Bosoni

Hello Dado, the RS article is not as dangerous to Bosnian identity, as the Bosanci article is. In it's present version it denies Bosnian nationhood, if "Bosnians" translates "Bosanci" - why are there then links to "Bosnians" in articles about the Middle Ages in Bosnia. So Tvrtko Kotromanic was a Bosanac? He must have been before his time. Please Bosoni

Constitution of BiH

Is there an on-line version of it? --HRE 13:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info

Dado, posto si ti admin na wikicitatu, mislim da bi se trebao kandidovati na meti za birokratu kako bi meni i Haracu mogao dati admin ovlasti, jer evo Harac me upozorio bilo je nekih vandalskih napada, a nema nikog od administratora. Inace, provjeri i email. Pozdrav. --Emir Arven 16:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian Project

Dado, molim te da se uclanis na projekat koji sam poceo: Wikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina. Cuo sam da si bio bolestan, drago mi je što čujem da si sada dobar. Kseferovic 04:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dado, gdje si? Dodji i pomozi nam

Dado, gdje si bolan? Dodji i pomozi nam oko Srebrenica Massacre clanka. Trebamo tvoju pomoc. Bosniak 22:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LocationEurope.png

I used a file you originally uploaded Image:LocationEurope.png for use in a Diplomacy userbox. The new image is at Image:Diplomacylogo.gif . I wasn't sure of how to tag/summarize it so I simply snagged your image summary. Is that alright? Thanks, The freddinator 00:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Top Editor's Award Star Recipient

		The Top Editor's Award Star Recipient
		To Dado, for his long time positive contribution to the Srebrenica massacre article from User Mozart Amadeus Wolfgang . ^(talk) Congratulations!

Image tagging for Image:Omarska.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Omarska.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Omarska.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debate on the correct adjective for Kosovo

Hi! Based on your interest in the Balkans, you may be interested in the currently ongoing debate on whether we should be using Kosovo or Kosovar/Kosovan as the adjective for Kosovo. —Nightstallion 15:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image permission problem with Image:Ferhadija.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Ferhadija.jpg. I noticed that that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --ChrisiPK (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:SrebrenicaBH.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:SrebrenicaBH.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Banja Luka ethnic.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Banja Luka ethnic.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Momo i Uzeir.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Momo i Uzeir.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:FERHADIJARUSEVINE2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:FERHADIJARUSEVINE2.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 02:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Hamdija Pozderac big.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Hamdija Pozderac big.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bosniaks: Images of notable Bosniaks for the Template:Bosniaks infobox

Please, join the discussion.

Regards, --Wusten fuchs 11:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Manjaca camp.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Manjaca camp.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Omarska 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Omarska 1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:4Nivo3 BK.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:4Nivo3 BK.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Kastel.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kastel.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Banja Luka ethnic.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Dado. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Dado~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

23:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

11:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:MostarBH.png

The file File:MostarBH.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned map.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.