User talk:Rjecina/Archive3

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

thanks, and a suggestion

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

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

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

Best, K. Lásztocska ^{Review me?} 01:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

User space protection

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

Re: Romani people

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

Benkovac

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

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

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

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACategories_for_discussion%2FLog%2F2007_July_29&diff=147987200&oldid=147984338
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erdut&diff=148342450&oldid=148284637

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

Many thanks!

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE:Croats

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

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

Nikola Tesla

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

No offence intended

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

Your reversion in ISC article

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

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

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

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

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

License tagging for Image:Chetniks with German soldiers.jpg

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

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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

Serb Despots

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

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

History of Vojvodina

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

What's wrong with the maps?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991

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

hi

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

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

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

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

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

Vandal ip reported at AIV

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

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

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

Re:Croatophobia

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

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

User:212.200.199.125 and that image

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

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

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

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

Editorial policy for history of east and south Europe

Editorial policy for history of east and south Europe

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Gulas paprikas

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

Jasenovac concentration camp

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

Deleting your user subpages

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

Your request for arbitration

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

Saborsko and Gospić

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

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

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

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

Votec

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

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

Re User:Votec

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

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

Secession

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

Croatian Wikipedian's notice board

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

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

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

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

?

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

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

Vlachs of Croatia, Bosnia and Montenegro

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

Yugoslav wars

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

Wait a minute, destroyed by family death???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marco Polo

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

FRY

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

Arise of nationalism

Well, yeah, it could be said that it first came to prominence in Serbia of all Yugoslavian republics - but more precisely, it was Albanian nationalism, and in Kosovo - remember the 1981 rebellion/riots? It's mostly the beginning of the crumbling of Yugoslavia (right after death of Tito - no coincidence there). --PaxEquilibrium 12:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just like everyone says - it began on Kosovo and it'll end on Kosovo. :) --PaxEquilibrium 12:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but that only counts in former hot zones and for politicians from old "bad" parties from the 1990s. The number of people they or their ideologies have killed in truth is killing them. I guess that's the best proof they're human.

...not like Milo Djukanovic is getting older or sick. :) He's 46 after almost two decades of rule, and has bested out every single other Yugoslavian "you-know-what" ruler. --PaxEquilibrium 19:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, those are 2 questions. :)

Well, I haven't heard bad things about him - but there is a possibility that might be a result of lack of information.

There are historical interpretations, sources which stated that Dragutin ruled also modern-day Syrmia. --PaxEquilibrium 22:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Perhaps you're right. Sounds something like Velimir Ilic. :))) Also I think he was the best choice of all 4 SDP leader candidates, no (I don't think Croatia is yet ready for a woman leader - it's Balkans after all)?

But just look at the polls - SDP will win the largest number of votes. In the end it all folds down to blocs and who will be able to form a government, so we'll see. --PaxEquilibrium 23:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Hey, check this video out. --PaxEquilibrium 14:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it - how could a text written over 1,050 years ago be violating copy right? It's not copyrighted. Also, this is a citation of a part of the text, a frequent practice of Wikipedia. --PaxEquilibrium 17:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

How can a translation of Greek be copyrighted? Do you want me to alter it slightly? :) I really don't get the fuzz.

Also, did you see that video? --PaxEquilibrium 17:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

However, this didn't change regime - it is the regime.

What book are you talking about? --PaxEquilibrium 18:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Svetozar Marovic has expressed a lot of discontent recently, which means that he's trying hard to hide his Serbian nationalism. It's evident in cases like the Church conflict - where Svetozar criticized the MOC, giving full support to the Serbian Orthodox Church. President Filip Vujanovic is from Serbia and he's Serbian Orthodox, he swore to protect MOC from the SOC as long as he's President. He also oppose(d) the Montenegrin language, he claims it's one language and supports "Serbo-Montenegrin". I wouldn't be surprised if I found such a case with Milo, but he's off public lately.

All in all, I don't think anything changed - back in 1989 for Milo Djukanovic and his league the goal was stay in power and it hasn't changed until today in any way. The thinking and ideology is completely the same. --PaxEquilibrium 20:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

---

LOL!

Recent discoveries show that Tudjman and Milosevic economically supported each other to stay in power. Croatian President Franjo Tudjman and the notorious Banker of Serbia Dafina that robbed everything that could be robbed and kept Sloba in power had a common account and coordinated investments (both normal ones and criminal activities). --PaxEquilibrium 10:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Most current Serbian political leaders? I am aware only of SRS. Please explain to me. --PaxEquilibrium 16:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Only one of the three persons (one other is dead and the other nobody likes) you mentioned are today political leaders, and I see absolutely no support of ethnic cleansing or genocide.

I'm still waiting. :) --PaxEquilibrium 18:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well yeah, Serbia and Montenegro did commit aggression on Croatia in 1991 and 1992, of course I agree with you on that - and I sincerely do not think how could anyone disagree (however I am aware of the controversies - none of the three was a country, but an inner-state entity in a civil war), but if we speak about specific cases, it can be said without any single trinket of doubt that Serbia attacked Croatia at Vukovar, at least.

Does it mean that one and a half million Bosnians and Herzegovinians that support Republic of Srbska, and millions beyond BH are supporters of genocide???

I will repeat again - you still have not answered my question, and Vuk Draskovic is nobody. I'm still waiting... :)

It's a pure lie that it doesn't guarantee rights for everyone. It's not discriminating Serbs - it actually mentions them in the Preamble (the previous one didn't). However, it's designed to assimilate Serbs - on that one he's right. --PaxEquilibrium 19:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am. He didn't became Minister of Foreign Affairs because of the will of the people, but just because the S&M institutions were inherited by Serbia - and he became transitional Minister, everyone wanted to replace him but he was so stubborn he actually made it a whole year practically. And no - nearly no one supports him. He also is no political leader today - his SPO is trivially irrelevant, holding rule in practically a single Serbian municipality. --PaxEquilibrium 20:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You support Belarus? The only less democratic country than Montenegro in Europe? Why? :)

Are you saying that most Serbian Deputies are genocide-supporters just because they voted for links with the Republic of Srbska and obviously "support" it (including President and especially Prime Minister)?

BTW check out the last parliamentary election. Vuk's list didn't even accumulate enough votes to actually enter the parliament, with all little allies gathered around SPO. And with local elections forthcoming, SPO will finally definitely lose its meager positions in local self-management (several municipalities, only one in which they rule on their own). Also I'd like to see him run for President, so that he can really see the figure which supports him (lower than on last election). But he's obviously aware of that. ;) He resigned from his position as party president, but the board dismissed his resignation - they won't let him resign. ;)))

I am still awaiting your answer regarding the "most Serbian political leaders are supporters of genocide and ethnic cleansing". So far I see only one - and he's not even activem, due to the fact that he stands on trial. --PaxEquilibrium 09:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S - regarding the cro election, I reckon that's because HDZ propaganda recently (return of faces to the 1990s, replacement of the HTV editor with Tudjman's protegee, presenting HDZ and HSP in good ways and SDP as bad) resurrected is a result of that poll - but I'd still like to wait for the election. I myself haven't decided for whom to vote myself - bu it's surely not gonna be HDZ. Because if they really win (again) that would mean that nothing on situation has actually changed in Croatia... --PaxEquilibrium 09:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you shouldn't automatically add Bosnian and Serb votes to HDZ. If you remove them (and add the Serbs to SDP), then SDP wins? --PaxEquilibrium 21:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that, but I cannot support undemocracies. Belarus is a dictatorship. Besides, Montenegro was/is more "neo-Communist" than it (far more).

Well you said most modern Serbian political leaders were supporters of ethnic cleansing and genocide. I just asked you to explain me which are those, aside from Vojislav Šešelj who isn't even in Serbia but on trial abroad (and is opposition)? Could you elaborate please?

Myth? As far as I understood you also agreed on this? Slobodan Milosevic is no traitor - he never betrayed anyone, because he was bound only to his family and the ruling political elite and never the people (especially not foreign people). Also I just reside in Serbia, but am from Croatia. The comparison which you mentioned is completely not sensible. --PaxEquilibrium 21:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know that (btw shouldn't it be primer, ekavian?). I know well of controversial statements of Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica (from that one in 1992, across claims that the Hague Tribunal is nothing to DSS in 1997, to indirect defense of Slobodan Milosevic, and his levitation between SRS and DS - but always closer to DS in the end, not to mention several other links to some people), but he himself is a moderate nationalist - and always "gravitating" between the patriotic and democrat blocs (like Ivo Sanader?). However I fail to see that he anywhere supported ethnic cleansing or genocide - his own words not long ago was that the Serb forces conducted genocide in Srebrenica in 1995.

No, actually I'm not sure I understand after all. :) --PaxEquilibrium 12:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't so oddly remove every single word and replace it that way - I'm notifying you that I reverted your edit. You should explain/ordain it better a bit. --PaxEquilibrium 11:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't. What made you come to that conclusion? As I said, for me (although I most surely recognize it) the national concept has no greater meaning to me...partially perhaps because of "mixed" origin (which I myself do not recognize). What I say for myself is that I am of white race and of Slavic ethnicity. I am actually shocked as to what precisely made you think that, because this attitude of mine I strongly "propagate" to everyone on Wikipedia! --PaxEquilibrium 18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW (related to old story), Vuk Draskovic said that he will not run for President this time. :) --PaxEquilibrium 18:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Will look. BTW your English has considerably improved since the first time you got here. :)

The link you gave me does not exist?!?

I do not see what there is not to accept. They cannot be the same - no one's the same. ;) But to me (and hopefully, most of the rational world) they are guilt...for whatever reasons are those. True, Milosevic ceased power in 1986 and Tudjman in 1990 - but I recall Tudjman's ultra-nationalist speeches there as well, in 1989 for instance. Then the (hatred?) speech to diaspora in 1987. But why I wouldn't really dare call Tudjman "answer to Milosevic" is because Tudjman's ultra-nationalism started in the 1970s, and is one of the many reasons why he went to prison. If you ask me, Tudjman became a lot more rational, less ethnic hater in the 1990s, than he was back then (and he also stopped being anti-semitic altogether). :))) --PaxEquilibrium 20:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the strongmen in Belgrade is called Boris Tadić, and if I recall he's like him. Like I said, everyone is different - but I asked you, tell me, what precisely Serbian leaders are you referring to, apart of Vojislav Seselj (which isn't really a leader but more of an icon)? Also speaking two-ways, I think the situation is at least a little worse in Croatia because actually the HDZ is there in power. I know numerous times more people would be glad if a Croatian version Adenauer comes to power. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 20:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

But that is different in the case of Serbia - in Serbia completely new people and political parties are in rule. What do you want it, to be like Montenegro, where Milo Djukanovic says that he's sorry for conspiring, spreading ethnic hatred, ordering the killings of hundreds of people and gets away that easy?

I did, several times: President of the Republic of Serbia Boris Tadic and President of the largest ruling political party, the Democratic Party. If you didn't know Boris Tadic has numerous times apologized to every Croat in the world for the horrible crimes Serbian citizens or ethnic Serbs inflicted upon them during the 1990s - once even this year. You should also know that he is the draftee of the Resolution that banned genocide denial of the Srebrenica massacre. By the way, his wife is of Croat descent. Changed opinion? ;) --PaxEquilibrium 21:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

To add another, this one from the opposition - Cedomir Jovanovic from the Liberal Democratic Party (btw he claims that Serbs in Croatia live far better than Serbs in Serbia). You told me to give you one and here's two...so? ;) --PaxEquilibrium 22:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sadly - bad news always get there first, and good ones are often missed. For example, no one noticed that the Serbian Minister of Economy Mladjan Dinkic was proclaimed best Economy Minister in the world. :) BTW he's of G17 Plus, a small but notable party that is part of the ruling coalition - and he has never supported the war, AFAIK he never has mentioned ever anything about it - but has hired numerous people of different ethnicities; what is interesting to note is that he said that he wouldn't rest until he found a Croat from Zagreb to be a member of his party - and he didn't rest. ;) She is now his right hand and party vice-president. --PaxEquilibrium 22:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't told me...you asked for one political leader. ;) By the way, in March this year when the Serbians were negotiating a government, a little controversy was raised when according to some proposals all Ministers would've been Christians, so one seat reserved for Rassim Ljajic, was given to a him - the Minister of Labour and Social Policy. He's a Muslim, and he is also Serbia's President of the Coordination Team with the Hague Tribunal. I also remember that in some talk shows there were bad opinions because no minister is Croat. Oh and Rasim Ljajic is evidently another Serbian political leader - he's president of the Sanjak Democratic Party - that never supported the wars to the west in any way.

Are you talking about Mladja? Why do you think he is bad? Just because of the Cyprus money controversy? --PaxEquilibrium 09:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Croatian election

Done. You'll just have to correct to party colors. --PaxEquilibrium 20:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not sure whether I'll vote for HSS-HSLS...or maybe HNS-LD or even SDP HR. --PaxEquilibrium 21:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I'd like to see some ethnic minorities in the government, that which he's asking is really improper.

By the way, was there a minority member of the government in Croatia since 1990 (a Serb?)? --PaxEquilibrium 21:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

MNE

Montenegro - did you hear about the new Constitution? --PaxEquilibrium 18:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I never take any offense that's not directed against me. :D

But I still don't get - what Serbian party "screams"? --PaxEquilibrium 18:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd not dare say most Montenegrin nationals want that. That's desired by the minor political elite that reigns Montenegro as a result of Slobodan Milosevic's heritage from 1989 till toay.

Also please do not compare the situation of Croats and Serbs in Croatia with Montenegrins and Serbs in Montenegro - it has absolutely nothing similar. Don't you agree?

By the way - the new Constitution isn't discriminatory against Serbs, but the Constitutional Act is. --PaxEquilibrium 09:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well my opinion is that there is absolutely zero threat of assimilation to Montenegro - after all, one of the reasons to evade that was an independent MNE, and with that done so did any such possibility disappear. Also the (factually non-existent) "Montenegrin language" is now the primary official language in Montenegro, and Serbian is only recognized for usage - while no religion is anymore sanctioned by the Government (thus no longer the Eastern Orthodox Church). See other cases like Moldova. And Macedonia is a very strong fully fledged nation that is not jeopardized by neither Bulgarians nor Serbs that (some of them) claim them.

Of course that Montenegrin leadership doesn't fear assimilation of Montenegrins into Serbs. After all, only yesterday they were Serbian nationalists unmatched in former Yugoslavia. Do you forget who those people are: Milo Djukanovic, Svetozar Marovic, etc...? --PaxEquilibrium 21:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well that's not quite fully correct with the case in Macedonia. The Macedonian language is a dialect totally different from Serbian dialect Macedonian and Bulgarian dialect Macedonian. It was created in the late 19th century, and Tito only promoted it, completely forcing out the majority Serbian-like and Bulgarian-sounding dialects out of the Republic of Macedonia, so that know they all speak this formerly minor dialect that was spoken near Ohrid, close to Albania.

Well Nicholas has always been Montenegrin, we can't say that he "became Montenegrin". And he was also always Serb - and yes, to his death. --PaxEquilibrium 12:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Rječina. I wanted to ask you if there's a noiticeboard for Croatian users. If so, could you point me to it? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Late answer

Hi. On July, 21st you left a message on my talk page. I am sorry, I was very busy then and in the time since then, I did not answer. If there is anything interesting related to that, please let me know. Best wishes, :Dc76\^talk 17:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Vrlika

That edit [1] is an vandalism. You've gave a source, and that person has deleted it.
Personally, I think we're dealing with one person that we know. Similar edit pattern.
However, don't loose your temper and engage in the edit war. Put your version (you can do that, because you've given an reference), and then use talkpage and tell him that he cannot delete these lines just like that. I repeat, don't engage in the edit war. Explain your opponent there, what he has to do and what he cannot do.
Than he'll have to answer. Kubura 13:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

He removed my edits as well, I think it is time to report him, from what I can see in the talk pages, he doesn't listen to reason. --Jesuislafete 18:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This user Kukar has similar edit and threat pattern as user Votec. Kubura 06:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It dosnt look like Im deleting anything does it. What I do is revert back to the versions that other people have deleted from. What i find interesting is people are deleting areas where citations are needed and anything to do with Serbs or Serbians in Vrlika and Kukar. Kukar 18:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you are overreacting. It happens a lot on wikipedia. Just because things are removed off a page, does not make it vandalism. Vandalism can have many meanings--including clogging up a page with irrelevent info. Vrlika must be the first Croatian geographical page with such a large portion devoted to churches. Amazing. --Jesuislafete 02:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I deleted that by accident on the graves. I put down Old-Croatian as it is Starohrvatski on the reference. Accept my apology. Kukar 04:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way Rjecina, I think you are doing an excellent job with your edits. Svaka ti čast. --Jesuislafete 02:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Watch out for edits

Don't worry, it's bound to be unlocked at some point. Plus, we both need to keep an eye out for Croatian pages being vandalised mostly by anonymous users, like the one at Lika, but now user:Paulcicero is jumping on the anti-Croatian bandwagon, so watch out. Apparently, he thinks it's encyclopedic and very important to add that "Lijepa li si" is a fascist song in the page of Josip Simunic. I wonder why he doesn't add his favourite food and TV show while he's at it. --Jesuislafete 05:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Marco Polo (and Ghepeu)

Hi Rjecina, I'd just like to turn your attention to the Marco Polo article, there are basically two problems here:

• Our pal Ghepeu, insists on saying "most sources support the Venetian theory". And that "Polo was a self-declaring venetian citizen". What this means, really, is "we think most scientists believe this theory" and "Polo says he was born in venice, so the above thingy is stupid". He also insists on uncompromisingly calling Korčula "Curzola", without even the contemporary local word for the island in brackets ().

• I seriously suspect a lot of stuff was removed from the Korčula theory arguments subsection. In any case it needs expansion, could you add a sentence or two?

Thnx, DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Because you do not answer I am going to remove the POV tag from Marco Polo article. Regards.--Giovanni Giove 23:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Panonian

Panonian has dissapeared from Wikipedia. In fact I don't regret it, but it is strange in fact. Maybe he turned rusty? Do you know what happened with him? In fact, it is not a bad idea to check what he did on the Wikipedia; many articles made by him are not as objective as expected. Fcsaba 19:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

I'm sorry but I don't understand you (on both accounts)? --PaxEquilibrium 16:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah...I forgot you're socialist-orientated. :) --PaxEquilibrium 17:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That's nothing new... the Albanian National Army exists for some time by now (both in Macedonia and Serbia, allegedly with roots in Greece and Albania). We shouldn't be surprised that it grows.

Also you still haven't voiced yourself regarding the Serbian politicians. :) --PaxEquilibrium 23:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, like I said. I will not comment Vuk Draskovic because he's not (practically) a politician at all, but just a writer. And you should know that Vuk has had those statements while he was under influence from being together with Vojislav Seselj, and the Croatian Mirko Jovic, forming together the ultra-nationalist SNPO (Serbian People's Renewal Movement). As the three parted on their own ways, SNO became a Slavonian regional Serb nationalist party, Vojislav Seselj went to lead the "Chetniks" in their atrocities and Vuk aimed his SPO to become the leader of the democratic opposition by 1992, and has peace/secession of hostilities implanted in its program. I myself never support those kinds of things - that's why I am never supporting Vojislav Kostunica or Stjepan Mesic, and of course not Milo Djukanovic or Svetozar Marovic. And about Tomislav Nikolic - we're talking about presence I shall remind you again, and he is not today the Speaker. As for Ivica Dacic - the kind of which political party he is leader I obviously see, but could you tell me where did he as an individual agitate for war? I can't quite remember.

About Boris Tadic that is false, and considering that he's one of the rare ex Yugoslavian leaders that actually prides himself on that, probably even insulting. Boris Tadic never said he's sorry because of his wartime statements - because there is no such thing. What he did is apologize, as President of a country, for the historical part in the wrongdoing during the 1990s citizens of that country or its leadership conducted.

True, though today having a different opinion, Vojislav Kostunica has never repented for (any of his) sins unlike Vuk Draskovic, but DSS-NS leader isn't just Kostunica. There is Velimir Ilic of New Serbia - and though a heavy Serb nationalist Ilic, he has never supported the war at all. Dragan Markovic "Palma" of the minor United Serbia, yes, he has (and fiercely), bu Vojislav Mihailovic of the Serbian Democratic Renewal Movement has never. So no, I don't see some sort of a "pro-war" majority. BTW one of the political leaders that ran in the election were supporters of the Bosnian side in the war, financed terrorists in Serbia and greatly agitated hatred towards Serbs. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 09:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You should know that below 20% seats were reserved for SDP in its coalition with the Pensioners. And also I can't quite remember the bad opinions of Covic in general (and regardless, he's irrelevant just as Vuk - actually even more). --PaxEquilibrium 09:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the sad truth is that members of the so-called "patriotic bloc" received majority votes (which for the first time, actually showed itself on act with the election of Tomislav Nikolic for parliamentary president), however good news is that they are obviously weakening.

You forget Mladjan Dinkic too. :)

About Ivica Dacic yes as I said we all know which party is he President, but interestingly, he's attempting to copy HDZ in Croatia by reforms. Keeping by Milosevic's heritage, he also evicted a lot of his old guard, supported a minority government of Kostunica (the previous one) and regularly votes for many laws, rather than the Radicals who oppose practically anything. SPS also completely abandoned dealing with greater rhetoric, and they know mainly deal with social life of people. It is to my opinion that this actually saved it from failing to enter the parliament, allowing just enough votes to pass the census. But he's still a bad guy, because the party hasn't really abandoned Sloba's heritage, just like Ivo is bad as President of HDZ (though undoubtedly better than this guy). ;)

Actually for Nebojsa Covic, I have to defend him. His change of attitude has nothing to do with that. All he was - was regular Mayor of Belgrade. And he was known as a very good mayor (of course, not better than Nenad Bogdanovic, who just know died of cancer). In 1997 he was supposed to get elected for Mayor again, but he was shocked by the enormous rigging votes in the election. He standed down and revealed the secrets to the democrat opposition how Milosevic managed to win all this time - one of the greatest methods was by abruptly adding the votes of all ethnic Albanians with voting right. He then went on a local campaign to convince the people of the truth behind SPS, eventually forming a nation-wide party (Democratic Alternative) that joined the DOS in an effort to oust Milosevic.

Well that's what I've been trying to explain to you about Draskovic - he wasn't in position because of people's will. In 2006 he imposed himself as a transitional Minister of Foreign Affairs (until the election), as Serbia was a successor of the S&M union, so it "inherited" him. And then his party had three seats in the parliament (of total 250). :)

Do you really think it's actually relevant that Tomislav Nikolic was Speaker of the National Assembly for three days? ;D To me numerous times more shocking thing is that Vladimir Seks (who is paired to Vojislav Seselj - check out the nicknames - rather than Toma) is Speaker for a full session, a man who is a hard-line ultra-nationalist and most probably a war criminal.

No, AFAIK no one dislikes Stipe around those circles. It is just I that (as well as the liberal circles) don't really like people that just change their official opinions because of the situation, most notably I hate that kind of people because of Milo Djukanovic. So Stjepan Mesic is (the memory in my mind about some Croatian critics calling him an Ustasha, justly, is still fresh in my mind) just like those people, albeit countless times better than Kostunica, of course. --PaxEquilibrium 12:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I skimmed and didn't get to read thoroughly, but they contain nothing that's not known to me, so there's not pretty much I can say. Good work on the article. ;) I'll try to comment more when I get to read in full details. --PaxEquilibrium 22:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Vladimir Seks I've met with the eye. I good recall his ultranationalist rhetoric, almost matching those of Vojislav Seselj (check out the initials - they must be copies). You would never believe me if I wrote what nonsense he kept saying...about how Serbs are ruling SR Croatia, about how these so-called Serbs will be given the choice to leave to Serbia or become Croats, how Serbia stole Sandzak, Syrmia and Montenegro (!) from Croatian national land, as well as a bunch of nonsense on Bosnia and Herzegovina. And if I recall, and I do recall, he ordered arrests of civilians of Serb ethnicity and their detainment, through "searches" across Croatia. Some tortured and brutally treated, like those from Dubrovnik, he tramped with the JNA and Serb forces for Croatian POWs. --PaxEquilibrium 23:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Prebilovci Page

Look, Rjecina, I now very dam well why you deleted some parts of Prebilovci Page, because that mention of Virgin Mary. I just write what is true. So if you want to be an ashole, it's ok, but if that comes with missusing ypur powe, itäs an another thing. Make it how it was oon the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.67.92.73 (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

sorry

Ok, toyr right. Unlock the prebilovci page and it will be alright.

sorry

Ok, your right. Unlock the prebilovci page and it will be alright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.27.187.225 (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Prebilovci Page

Rerete saying that. Tou are just missusing ypur power here on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebsterMasters (talk • contribs) 15:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

anothe thing

I also think the Prebilovci Massacre page should be removed. I don't know who acctuallt created it, but since I come from the village of Prebilovci, I know that there isn't anything callaed the Prebilovci Massacre. Not everyone Serb was from that village but from other places as well. Check it out yourself. The Prebilovci Page was also written first, and the context as well. Yours Sincerely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiceinwiki (talk • contribs) 12:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

!!!!!!!!!!!111

Don't delet anything more - you have no right what so ever! Let's negotiate beetween someone with more status insted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiceinwiki (talk • contribs) 15:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Island of Vukovar

Could you help me please to expand the the article? Island of Vukovar --Anto 18:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

re Look this

fascinating. I'm the talk of the paese, it would seem. ;D DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Statements

I remember you criticizing Kostunica's statements about Bosnia and whether he is Premier of Serbia or the Serbs, as well as if something like that happened in Croatia, Sanader would no longer be in position. Well, the day you said that Sanader made on HRT statement that Croatia will support any solution that supports the integrity of the Croatian people and its full rightness and equality to the other two. ;)

Also, I don't think the political-propaganda campaign is fair. Every time I see 1 SDP and 4 HDZ commercials, and maybe perhaps one next to it, e.g. HSS - HSLS or HNS-LD... --PaxEquilibrium 19:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes...and sadly also take along with them the territories they inhabit.

I recall well enough him not just having that position during electoral campaigns. I think he will remain. Also, that seems to the result of Hloverka-work. :) --PaxEquilibrium 20:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, one of the most fearsome electoral campaigns lasts here, not just for President and local self-management, but for the future of the country, which is uncertain as everyone patiently awaits 10 December...so it's more troublesome that an orginary electoral campaign in Croatia with Sanader's case any way. DS and DSS are flaming the country with political fights. --PaxEquilibrium 09:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

---

By the way, what make you of Serbian capital in Croatia? --PaxEquilibrium 12:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Both. --PaxEquilibrium 23:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Yeah, I know. ;)

Not quite correct, the first Yugoslav state was that of Liudevit TransSavian of Continental (Pannonian, Savian) Croatia.

Hmm...no, I don't why you deleted that.

Hm? Croatia has only one capital, Zagreb? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer about the funds/investments... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

On other side I must say that I feel sorry for Serbs because nobody outside Serbia understand that Bosnia, Kosovo and great part of Croatia are historical Serbian land. Here is argument for this statement [5] --Rjecina 17:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC Lol, what were you trying to say? :))) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again

Throw me an email, please I'd like to discuss something with you. You set up an email in your account, click on my name and use the "email this user" link on the left. Hobartimus 12:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian rulers

However, it was the double-crowned Kingdom. All Bosnian Kings were also Serb Kings. Without the Serbian crown there was no Bosnian Kingdom? --PaxEquilibrium 22:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK.

I just thought that it would logical to call the fiefland/realm in accordance to The Crown to which it belongs. By the way, the two (Bosnia and Serbia) were one whole country...for a month or so. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 10:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy

Hi. Thank you for your clarification. The original sentence was unclear to a reader from outside Croatia, but your message and the provided source clarified it. I have added a more comprehensive version to the article. I hope you will like it. Tankred 18:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it is a good idea to split the coherent "Unfolding" section. As far as I know, it was a single event known under two different names. By the way, there are two sentences (about the Zrinski family) in the Legacy in Hungary section that should IMO belong to the Legacy in Croatia section. Tankred (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem now? Why are you deleting, sabotating!? Why? You will pay for this

Hello

You should know that what Justiceinwiki has done isn't a clear violation of WP:SOCK - having several accounts is not prohibited, though using them to game the system is not allowed. But I don't see any clear cases of him doing that, otherwise he would have been blocked long ago. Nontheless, I'll keep him from editing with multiple accounts, because it is confusing and makes the discussion harder.

But I have one request, please don't say "vandal revert" to Justiceinwiki's edits - they're not vandalism, you have a content dispute. In fact, I would like you to stop reverting him and talk to him instead. I'll take care of the sockpuppet allegations and keep him from confusing the issue with multiple SPA accounts. Thanks! henrik•talk 23:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Zrinski-Frankopan

Looking at the page, no one has responded to my suggestion, so I am feeling there is a little lack of interest in solving the problem. If it were up to me, I think that the Zrinski-Frankopan conspiracy article should be on its own, but if the merge is deemed necessary, then I think a sub-category in the main page should be good enough. I might have time in the next few days to do some more research on it. --Jesuislafete (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Socks

Thanks for your help on socks, but please use the [[tl|sockpuppet}} template and its options, not the table you use. The template is more flexible and puts them in categories. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ustaše

Sure, I'll see what I can do... DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I didn't respond earlier, I'm pretty busy with exams :( DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this will help

Have a look at the Wikipedia:Categorization article, there's a lot of txt there, but I think it will explain just how to solve the Ustaše article problem. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I answered your query here, Talk:Ustaše#Political_Infobox —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esemono (talk • contribs) 09:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! Jmlk17 03:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know...

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:Giovanni_Giove/personale

AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

More trolls

I hate dealing with new people on Wikipedia who do not know the rules. This one guy keeps trying to turn the Lika page into his own personal website. How would you deal with them? --Jesuislafete (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure there is enough evidence to prove they are the same? Will the admins accept it? If so, then I will report him. --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Several things:

1) "Between 1910 and 1921 300 000 Muslims of Bosnia has died, been killed of left for Turkey". Do you really believe this is possible?

2) General compromise is that the Chetniks (the controversy is whether they acted upon Draza or independently) killed a total of 8,000 victims, both among Bosniac and Serbian historians.

3) Beware you don't end up like Franjo Tudjman. :))) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Really horrible...it's just slightly less than in Serbia. I mean just look at HDZ. :D

I know. Look at Abkhazia. 239,872 before and 45,953 Georgians after, however 250,000 expelled Georgians is the most repeated number. But I simply do not touch these issues, because it is how Franjo Tudjman turned from an interesting peaceful good man do one of the greatest monsters of the modern Croatian world. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

1530 Benedict Kuripešić is writing that in western Bosnia are living Vlachs from Smederevo and Belgrade (source: Kuripešić:Itinerarium der Botschaftsreise) What's this? :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I know, but that's not the answer to my question. :D Do you plan to create an article on him? I guess I was also surprised because Serbian nationalists constantly talk about him... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Then I don't get what's that doing in Future articles and why do you need it. :))) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he makes clear difference between Vlachs and Serbs in Bosnia - that's why he's studied. I just don't understand what has that got to do with the Frontier/Croatia...?

Who's attackin' you? :) I just ask(ed) questions, some of which you didn't answer. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Bodin's realm

There is no fantasy about Constantine Bodin. The land of Bosnia (yes, you could say eastern and central modern geographical Bosnia) was indeed ruled by Bodin. This is documented in all sources, contradicting and non-contradicting ones and is something supported by Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian historians. He didn't rule just eastern Herzegovina. He implanted his cousin Stephen to rule as Prince in Bosnia, he then became the founder of a local Bosnian regional dynasty.

I don't quite understand what you mean. Which 2 questions? If I recall you didn't answer to me. :))) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how is it stealing map from Croatia. The only territory that's differing is the one in the Byzantine Empire. Also, the map you've got is 1102 and represents Doclean territory in 1097, when it shrunk greatly. To attempt to discredit everything created in Serbia in the early 20th century because of the time period is essentially foolish ("stealing") and can be done the same way for Croatian maps. I've got two different Historical atlases from the period of SFRY (one from the 70s and the other a bit later) and they both present the possibility of the border to Sava, but leaving a "?" mark on it.

Anyway, what is the problem? As far as I understood you just disputed that Bosnia was held by Bodin and now it's cleared up? And you still didn't answer about those questions. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you advising me to destroy my historical atlas printed over 30 years ago in Zagreb and go rampant on a campaign of madness blazing around former Yugoslavia's museums and thousands of its residents' private houses with a torch on probably one of the most bizarre quests the world has ever seen? Do you know that this would also include pretty much most of historical data, because we simply do not know the eastern border of Serbia before the 12th century (and relatively other), and that can be pretty much said for most of Croatia's borders before the same time period? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that cannot be asserted for the Early Medieval times. Only for High and Late Middle Age we know that, because that's the time there are crown records of the Croatian Banate, the Bosnian bans issued edicts and Stephen Nemanya in Serbia established a rule that noblemen regularly record the precise borders of their fiefs.

Yes, and before Croatia it (Bosnia) was a part of Serbia. And before that again a part of Croatia. And before that God knows what in the Serb-Croat mixes, as some individually claim that Una, Vrbas, its close flowlines, Drina, or even Morava was the border, all results of historical (mostly mis)interpretation.

Constantin Bodin's borders' reconstruction are on the mere basis that we knew that he ruled "Doclea, Serbia of Rascia and Bosnia, Travunia, Zachlumia and All Dalmatia", the borders are odoka mostly made on some Catholic ecclesiastic sources. However what precisely was this Zachlumia, Bosnia or whatever, is a mere result of historical guessing, like with most borders from that time period. Imperial Byzantine bureaucracy actually aside from Porphirogenitos' time ca 948 when he recorded all the Slavic lands in detail, didn't help a lot. The only data for the period before that brings more detail and is contemporary is that "The city of Rassa was the most eastern point of the Serbs land of Rascia", meaning that its most eastern tip of border was at today's Novi Pazar.

Well then you'll have to say that for most of the maps from that time period. I know that some do not put question marks at all, but that's because they didn't prove quite the full decency to leave that questionable for the reader.

Well, I'll then give you a task - pick a (South Slavic) realm from before the 12th century and a specific year and shoot - I'm all years. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The wars date from the time Rascia became more prominent and was factually independent from Doclea, with its branch of the Doclean ruling family (the Vukanovics or Urosevics) leading wars against the Byzantines alone. The Catholic sources seem to mark Zvecan - although like I said, all this is relative.

I have no idea absolutely what you mean by small village in Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia? Could you please elaborate? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

---

By the way, Vuk Draskovic has recently apologized (to the Croatian people) for his flaming speeches in 1990 and to an extent 1991, claiming that it was a horrible mistake. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

---

I knew about those first two wars, but never heard about the 3rd. Very interesting. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I corrected much of the article. Do you also agree to rename it properly? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that's what I've been saying - remember?

You didn't comment my clean up. Is everything OK? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Serbian flag 1941-1944

Do you have any sources for the flag of puppet-Serbia? Although I've previously assumed it was just the Serb tricolour, some sites claim that this was how the flag looked. Hmm, most Serbian sources seem to avoid mentioning this flag altogether... --Thewanderer (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous Stamp fear

Don't worry, Rjecina/Kubura/Afrika_Paprika/etc..., I will not revert your fanatical edits, but I will monitor all of them and notify the top wikipedian authorities about abuses and typical Tito-era falsifications. And don't be afraid by a stamp about Italian Fiume (LOL).....You nationalistic Croats go down to the ridiculous level lately.....--Cherso (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Duke or King?

Sorry if I made a mistake - the article says Duke. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

RFCU and Cherso

Here it was Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Giovanni_Giove_(3rd).
There it says that these two are unrelated. But...
It may be the other person that re-edits Giove's words, so that it doesn't look the same as Giove's work, or Giove's meatpuppet.
One may think that these users are two different persons, which is possible, they could be the ones that share same Italian revisionist ideology (and expansionist, Croat denialist etc.). Typical attitude of unsatisfied Italo-optants.
But, the thing that makes me believe that this one is in connection with Giove is his threatning with reporting to wikipedian top authorities. Sounds like Giove's threatning with reporting to admins.
But, most important thing: Sritan ti Božić! Kubura (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

History repeats here sadistically. Svaku malo appears an idiot that'll give and sell any part of motherland Croatia (not to mention foreign rulers that ruled Croatia), just to keep himself on the position of Croatian ruler (coastal cities, Croatian littoral, Eastern Croatia, gospodarski pojas). Kubura (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep fighting

Dear Rjecina, thank you for fighting for truth. SANU is trully a poisonous source of dangerous lies and propaganda about Croats and Bosniaks. Bosniak (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

New Year's

Sretna Nova Godina!!! Sve najbolje. --Prevalis (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year! --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's sad to hear.

Which part precisely is POV? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I also wrote Andrija Radović. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, negotiations started in 1914. Sekula Drljevic's book on the unification's plans was one of main basis for the unification.

• Military Union: First element would be unification into one Army
• Economic Union: adoption of the Serbian Dinar currency (which was already mass-used in Montenegro), also the agreement would've been to make the border between the realms opened, control outer borders together and import a single citizenship for both states
• Political Union: an Alliance (military and other) cemented by numerous treaties to be signed, in which Montenegro and Serbia would always stand together on Foreign Affairs.

King Nicholas sent the letter in early 1914 proposing to form a Committee, half of the members nominated by him and the other half by the Serbian Government. The reason for this was popular demand from the reigning People's Party that demanded unification with Serbia to be held.

Unfortunately, the outbreak of the War to End All Wars prevented this. All that happened was that the border between the kingdoms was opened and that the Army of Montenegro integrated into the Serbian Army, the Perper also went out of usage in favor of the Serbian dinar. No other move was made as Montenegro quickly fell to the Central Powers already in early 1916. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the other matters, yes, it might've been unconstitutional - so it says in the article, Nicholas and his Government in Exile dismissed the Declaration.

That, true as it may be for Radomir Vesovic (I have no knowledge about the other event), it seems to me a bit far-fetched to be related.

That's not true, the 1911 statistical office data was used (just like at the previous election) and the second seems quite weird to me...

That's also incorrect, 165 MPs were nominated and so what?

The mobilization AFAIK was not initiated by the Serbian Army, but the Allied forces, and that started long before, in accordance to the liberation; also 10,000 seems a bit too much. I consider this OK, order needed to be saved, especially because of the Italian invasion, and then its agents inciting against the state.

I've just read the discussion on Cro Wiki. Like I said before - the voting might've not been fully honest, but it was certainly oh-so-much-tenfold-more than the actions of the Communists, such as during the 1945 Tito or King referendum. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to the Podgorica Assembly, it's poor preparations and formations were not quite OK (if you mean by that with "honest"). Just keep on mind that the decisions of the Great National Assembly represented the will of the people, as opposed to a very old and angry 80-year old man who can't make up his mind and has been abandoned by practically everyone.

Also, check out Andrija Radovic. It's directly related to the subject. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In the very end, he was abandoned by virtually everyone.

That's an incredibly gross overestimate. I have been reading somewhere even 30,000 (but counting also all the insurgents up to 1924), but those are all incredibly unrealistic. There indeed yes were several thousand of them, but just thousands. Montenegro at the height of its power could raise 47,000 soldiers, and if that estimate for the Greens' armed strength was true, then the Greens would've greatly outnumbered the Allies in Montenegro (who had below or near 10k tops). ;) If that's true, I don't know how they didn't manage to win and fight the Allies off MNE. :D ::::That's not nearly the same. The Whites greatly outnumbered the Greens. Let me also remind you that the Greens were for unification with Serbia too, but when they lost they got angry and resorted to violence to accomplish independence from the united state - thus, theoretically speaking, they would've probably lost some of the support they had in the first place, wouldn't you say? :) Also, it was Allied military control, with domestic support. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A best observation of the event is that we see that which was directly before and after the Podgorica Assembly. Let's observe what was before:

1. The last session of the Serb-Montenegrin National Assembly favored union with Serbia

2. On the last parliamentary election the political option that in its campaign promised to make Montenegro a part of Serbia won

Let's observe what happened then:

1. Not a single Montenegrin current opposed the unification before and during the Great National Assembly's session

2. The White List favoring unconditional unification defeated the pro-conditional Green List overwhelmingly

And now let us observe that which followed:

1. The Greens called for boycott of the 1920 elections. They were defeated, as the vast majority of the eligible voters in Montenegro voted.

2. An overwhelming majority of the votes went to the Serbian People's Radical Party and the Democratic Party, both of which were pro-union.

As a conclusion it seems a logical fallacy to think that the majority was in favor for union before and after, but just in that specific moment a great part opposed. :)) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The Christmas rebellion wasn't raised just by Montenegrins themselves, there were also direct Italian agents (the least part of which were from Montenegro itself or were Montenegrins themselves). And the very fact that the insurgents' HQ was in Gaeta in Italy and not Montenegro itself also speaks much about them. :S --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I shall direct you to the related article: Andrija Radovic. Cheers! --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)