User talk:WikiEditor2004: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:51, 30 March 2012 editFocalPoint (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers5,492 edits →Former countries in Serbia ← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:59, 30 March 2012 edit undoFocalPoint (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers5,492 edits →Renaming articles and moving categories Next edit →
Line 856:		Line 856:
	*] to ]		*] to ]
	and categories respectively, without announcing this to anybody. I believe that the previous title was short and accurate and that this move should not have been done without consensus. I believe that you should discuss this somewhere, meanwhile, I am reverting several of your edits. Please let me know where you will discuss this issue. --] (]) 15:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)		and categories respectively, without announcing this to anybody. I believe that the previous title was short and accurate and that this move should not have been done without consensus. I believe that you should discuss this somewhere, meanwhile, I am reverting several of your edits. Please let me know where you will discuss this issue. --] (]) 15:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

			I disagree and I think that such bold moves should not be implemented without discussion. I suggest to discuss the issue in public, not in our discussion pages. --] (]) 16:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:59, 30 March 2012

Notification

Hello PANONIAN, This message is to inform you that I asked for an Arbcom warning as has been promised to you here.--Nmate (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Digwuren notice

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

PANONIAN, you are posting messages to a thread at WP:AE that is already archived. Nobody is reading these messages, so I suggest you stop posting them. If you think that there is a dispute to resolve, please use the appropriate forum per WP:DR. Sandstein 06:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Placa Srbska u 9 veku

This map should be titled 10th century; not 9th. During the 9th century, Serbia was still in its infancy, and if anything, Croatia extended over much of Bosnia.

The naming - "Rascia" was not used in this period, but began later , in the 11th. So using Rascia is anachronistic - it was called Srbljia by COnstantine. ALso, there is no such thing as Pannonian Croatia. This is a misnomer. Pannonian Croatia. according to contemporary sources was called Lower Pannonia or Pannonian Principality. No "Croatia".

It is a lovely map otherwise. Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok for the names - please provide a single source from the 9th century which says the names "Rascia" and "Pannonian Croatia" (PS: you won't find one). The sources from 9th century Frankish Annals - refer only to "Serbs" and Guduscani (Liburnian Slavs), and Liutevid of Lower Pannonia. No "Croats" until c. 860s, no "Rascia" until 11th century.

The territory: Serbia did not ruled over Travunia, Doclea, etc in the early 800s (ie 9th century). This began to hapen slowly; first with the union of Serbia with Travunia (the marriage union with Belos' daughter), then with Peter Gojnikovic's extension over Bosnia and the ware against Mihailo of Zachlumia in the early 900s (ie 10th century). Serbia reached its peak in the 950s when ruled by Cheslav- exactly when Constantine Porphyrogenitus wrote in DAI that the Serbs ruled Zachlumia, Travunia, Pagania.

These are accurate maps of early 9th century, nid 9th century, and mid 10th century ->

Zhiveli Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to take my enquiry into your maps as hostile. As far as I see it, I am merely discussing an interesting topic with a fellow Yugoslav and historian. This is friendly discussion for both our benefits.

Now, you misunderstood my question, and failed in your answer. I asked for a contemporary source (ie a primary source from the 9th century) which states the name "Rascia" and Pannonian Croatia. The Istorijski atlas, Geokarta, Beograd, 1999 as you can see is from the turn of the 21st century. And my maps are not OR; but based on information from credible books. The shading and lack of clear borders are, in fact, more accurate, because we have little solid evidence for what the borders were, if borders even existed back then Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't anywhere say that your map was unsourced. And I'm sure the Serbian education system is great. Plenty of literature exists (in English, at least) which has properly assessed the primary sources. I was merely highlighting to you a topic of discussion; which you might wish to address if you wish to make your maps - which are otherwise very nice- 100% accurate. It was not a personal criticism; although you appear to have taken this that way. So forget it. "you can bring a horse to water ......"

Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Jabuka

Hallo Pannonian, let me try to explain something to you. You and I, both proud to be from Vojvodina, should keep on searching the truth.

You reverted, “that the village was founded by Slavic fisherman”. "Selo je imalo 15 porodica slovenskog porekla", their names were Stoikov, Stepan, Pavao and Damian) They might be coming from Romania or Bulgaria. Written by a professor, who has been living in Jabuka since 1945.

Between the two world wars there were no Serb colonists settled in Jabuka and consequently they were not expelled from Jabuka. Where should they have lived? In whose houses? Please have a look at „Population and major ethnic groups through history:”

You write: “During the war (from 1941 to 1944), on a location named Stratište near the village, German forces killed more than 10,000 people (Serbs, Jews, and Roma) who mostly were brought from Sajmište concentration camp near Belgrade.” Source: ]. More than 10.000 people! But there are no witnesses, no evidence. I spoke with Romanians from Jabuka, I spoke with Pancevac, the newspaper. No answers, no ideas. According to inhabitants there was an execution in Oct1941. In1945 the partisans were searching for mass graves. What they found, was a mass grave with 21 German people, killed Oct. 24TH 1944. Another error: “After the defeat of Axis Powers, in 1944, one part of German population left from the region, together with defeated German army”. When the German army left the village, unlike in Backa, no one of the settlers was allowed to leave Banat. And: “in 1948, the remaining German population left Yugoslavia because of economic reasons.” The people down there suffered from hunger, coldness and malaria. Those who survived after 200 years woul not have left their homes due economic reasons. After 1948 they were officially free, but without property and without passport. Most of them had to work three more years in mines, in factories, on farms or on the road. The newspaper Pancevac wrote about the village Glogonj, some miles north of Jabuka. The same situation, the same history. Hope I can get some more information about the area. Cordially,--Speidelj (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Answer

If I am accosted........I answer your question , but I do not want to do so on Wladthemlat's talk page.

You are right, at that point, nor was Wladthemlat unconstructive there. Howbeit, Wladthemlat is a SPA user with a strong penchant for trolling, who has no more than 5-6 constructive edits on Misplaced Pages. The others are edit-warring over Hungarian related contents with Hungarian users, and that is all. .

--Nmate (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Funny you would say that Wladthemlat (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, you have a message at my talk page. . Adrian (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Communist Camps

I would appreciate it if you would reinstate the inter-wiki link to the German article from which this material was derived. Also, please do not change the Danube swabian text to German.

The German/Axis camps you added are fine as far as I am concerned, but I see no need to modify what I translated from th German Wiki.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imersion (talk • contribs) 20:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Demographics of Hungary

Hello PANONIAN
Important impact to demographics was also Battle of Lechfeld (Magyar defeat). In this battle is interesting also the amount of Hungarian warriors, because it was very important for invasion of the Hungarians into Western Europe. "According to chronicles, the Hungarian army amounted to 25-50,000 men, but a more realistic figure is 10-25,000 men." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omen1229 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Buhuhu

Of course you're wrong about this... You are wrong with 180 degrees. What can I say, "thanks" for contributing at my block (Buhuhu (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC))

As I said, you are wrong with 180 degrees. I am not him, but one of his biggest enemies. You are helping him with this report. Thanks again (Buhuhu (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC))

I am banned user Iaaasi, one of Nmate's biggest opponents. Nmate will be grateful to you for annihilating this account of me :)) (Buhuhu (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC))

Logic isn't your strongest point, isn't it? You don't need to be a genius to realize that any of accounts listed by you isn't a sock of Nmate (Buhuhu (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC))

Checkuser case

Hello, WikiEditor2004. You have new messages at Baxter9's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Imminent ArbCom report

"Logic isn't your strongest point, isn't it? You don't need to be a genius to realize that any of accounts listed by you isn't a sock of Nmate"

A rare occasion when I agree with Iaaasi on something. It is true that the checkuser investigation is a legitimate action but blatantly spurious reports may be indictable. So then we will meet at ArbCom as my wrath that your recent gimmick caused me, needs to soothe.--Nmate (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. I felicitate you on that.--Nmate (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Historical regions by country

I have come across Category:Historical regions by country. Please explain why you created this, since Category:Subdivisions of former countries already exits? Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Jaša Tomić, Sečanj

Sorry about the edit conflict this afternoon. Hope you can sort it. It is best to add (Lutheran) after Evangelical in English because Evangelical has another meaning in modern English (happy-clappy revivalist Christians).

I'm not happy about all your corrections of my corrections on grounds of English usage, but as you seem simply to have reverted to what you wrote (someone ungrammatically) before, I'll leave this page to you. It is after all fairly understandable, which is the main thing.Bmcln1 (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article List of local rulers of Vojvodina, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Misplaced Pages:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. And here is another ... Epeefleche (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not edit war, as you have done at the above-indicated list, which is discussed here. I would request that you self-revert there, for the reasons detailed on the list talk page, on my talk page, in my edit summaries, and above.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Cease your interference

Most esteemed "college",

I do appreciate your efforts but please do be kind enough and do not interfere in what I include, with the best of academic intentions, to the Jovan Nenad article. I am fully aware of your dedication to the subject and I do sincerely appreciate what you've done but please restrain yourself from replacing what I have included in the article and with no valid arguments to do so. For example it is very relevant if Fabijan Literat is considered a protestant or a catholic since the entire scenario has a background of egalitarian perspective. He was a proven protestant as does exhibit his modesty. Consider your English good but you have issues with nouns and pronouns and do not attempt to correct my own grammar in the future.

Sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satoran (talk • contribs) 21:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Response

You are absolutely right but please constrain yourself from delivering false information do those who read our articles. Please, I have studied the subject of Jovan Nenad for some time now, I was even included in a public presentation. Fabijan Literat was a Protestant, just because Ilok has an old Franciscan monastery doesen't mean every Christian from Ilok is Catholic. Everything implies to the fact that he was a Protestant. This was proven by the emminent Academic Historian from Novi Sad, Peter Rokai. Why in the world would Jovan Nenad have the support of Protestant England if not for the very Protestants in his ranks. I implore you, stay out of the subject if you desire to manifest modern political interests.

Regards

Sremska Mitrovica

For your information. Most of the German people of Mitrovica left the region together with the defeated German army, because it used to be Croatia (NHD). After autumn 1944 the partisans carried the German people from Banat to the camp “Svilara”.--Speidelj (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)--Speidelj (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The establishment of Camp Svilara is to be read at Nenad Stefanovic, Jedan svet na Dunavu,Beograd, 1996.--Speidelj (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

PANONIAN, you have a message on Talk:Serbia under German Occupation. --DIREKTOR 17:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Medieval serbian army

Hello PANONIAN I think they should improve this article, I love the history of Serbia, but I like military history of medieval Serbia, although the article is very weak. I wish it were as good or better than medieval bulgarian army. A greeting--190.232.177.48 (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I might have some published sources about this subject, but I do not have enough free time to translate that for English Misplaced Pages. If I find time, I will see what can be done about that. PANONIAN 14:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Niš

Hi,

Will you please check the topic of the following articles: Niš Eyalet (you created) and Sanjak of Niš (created by me). It looks that those articles have the same topic. If that is true, what do you think how we could resolve this issue?

Best regards,

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I never mentioned the merge. I explained that I believe that those two articles could have the same topic. The Ottoman administrative units are not very well defined in the sources. The same unit is refered to as pashalik, vilayet, sanjak .... The article you wrote does not mention any sources and the article I wrote is sourced with works which support the existence of sanjak in period in which your ellayet existed. Therefore I propose you to check the sources you used for this article and investigate if they were wrong when they named this unit as vilayet instead of sanjak.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Bunjevci

Hi,

I noticed that you were editing article Bunjevci. There is one work of Ivan Ivanić that I think is not used in the article and might be useful. Bunjevci i Šokci. All the best,

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Category Bunjevci

Hi,

Sorry to disturb you again. I created an article about Ivan Ivanić. When I wanted to add him in category within ] I could not find category for Bunjevci. What do you think about creating one?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Hello PANONIAN ive left you a reply, regards. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi PANONIAN, I've posted a comment about the symbols which I'd like your input on please. XrysD (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI notification

Please see WP:ANI. Concerning this report about your recent action user:PANONIAN_blindly_revert_warring Hobartimus (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Problem sa IP korisnikom

Можда је најједноставније и најбоље да се све редом ревертује. Јер ако и није кршење ауторских права, нит ја видим да ту има неких корисних информација нит да је у складу са Википедијиним стилом, не наводи изворе... Nikola (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Maps of municipalities

I was wondering if you could make those maps less inward-oriented and more in-context? Right now they only tell people the shape, the list of villages, and their arrangement, but nothing else. For example, you should at least name the territories around them, indicate national borders differently, and similar. --Joy (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but nevertheless any map shouldn't be completely out of context. Notice how all {{location map}}s have other adjacent borders drawn - that's common practice. JFTR I also dislike maps such as the first one at e.g. Ozalj - there is some context, but it's still a blurb. --Joy (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. --Joy (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Pozdrav

Pozdrav Panonian, samo ukratko da vas obavjestim da je u toku formiranje 'Prve Proleterske Intelektualne Udarne Brigade', koja ima za cilj okupljanje svih jugoslavenski orijentiranih pojedinaca - intelektualaca sa ciljem ponovnog povezivanja Jugoslavenskih naroda i moguce uspostave nove jugoslavenske integracije. Za sve ostale informacije, molio bih vas da se obratite na email: yugoslavpro@gmail.com gdje ce vas uputiti za sve detalje ove grupe. Pozdrav; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.147.64 (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Uyvar

Hi, Panonian. Do you have any sources about the eyalet of Uyvar ? Takabeg (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What's Özü Eyalet. Is it same as Silistra Eyalet ? Takabeg (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for Move

Hi! I would like to join these discussions about Request for Move: Talk:Natasa Janics, Talk:Christina Vukicevic, Talk:Milos Raonic, Talk:Kristina Mladenovic, Talk:Alex Bogdanovic, Talk:Irena Pavlovic, Talk:Andrea Petkovic. Greetings and thanks! :) --Aca Srbin (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2011 (CEST)

The map

I don't have any POV towards Hungary and unlike you I'm not pushing to insert a map I made. If you don't think that the current map is adequately accurate you should provide another location map that clearly shows subdivisions and neighbouring countries to replace it with before removing it.--LK (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

In the same article, you added the Serbian Despotate among the predecessor states of the eyalet. However, I don't see how this is possible since there is a gap of almost a century between the last year of existence of the despotate and the first of the Budin Eyalet, and those lands must have been controlled by someone in the meantime.--LK (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

About the new map: I tried to look for a good map to serve as a reference in some historical atlases, but they all show the Ottoman Empire without its internal subdivisions. Online I found plenty of maps (both old and recent) depicting the vilayets, but none that shows all the eyalets in the same picture. I found this map from terra.es but it's about the 19th century. If you can't find anything better, there's euratlas, but as I've written elsewhere I don't know if this counts as a reliable source (it's still better than another wiki though).--LK (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Found these two maps, don't know if that will help you, but check them anyway. Cheers, LK (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The main problem is that there are no two maps of the Empire that have the same borders. The maps you used as a reference contradict each other in too many ways to count, and most are vaguely dated, mentioning just that they represent the situation in the 17th century. Claiming that they represent a year in particular or even that they are to be considered accurate is probably too much, but still, they're better than no map at all. Cheers,--LK (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking about creating a series of locator maps as derivative works of your map central europe. (Like this one). Do you think this is a good idea? Cheers, LK (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Principality of Upper Hungary is a wrong name. It was the short-lived so-called Principality of Imre Thököly between 1682 – 1685. Between 1527-1682 Upper Hungary belonged to Habsburgs. After 1685 Upper Hungary returned to the Habsburgs. This short-lived upper Hungary have never been under Turkish suzerainty or under Ottoman rule. Moreover, the territory of Upper Hungray had never seen Ottoman troops in the history. Thököly fought against Ottomans and Habsburg. Upper Hungary must be colored with other color than transylvania, because it status was different state despite its personal union with Transylvania. It was governed separated by different. The turks were unable to conquer that territories. Therefore the border-line of Ottoman Empire and Upper Hungary must be signaled by black border lines too.--84.0.57.111 (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would not agree that "Principality of Upper Hungary is a wrong name". Certainly, there are several names used for this principality and all of them are valid. Here you can see that name "felső-magyarországi fejedelemség" ("Principality of Upper Hungary") is clearly used in the sources: . Other name that was used is "Principality of Central Hungary" (or "Orta Macar" in Turkish). See quotation from this source as example: "Imre Thokoly who for a brief period was installed as an Ottoman client ruler in an area which previously had belonged to Habsburg Hungary, and was known to the Ottomans as Orta Macar". So, this source and published source that I have in my personal library are both claiming that Thokoly was Ottoman client ruler - it is similar status as was the status of Transylvania. Here is also translation from published Serbian source that I used ("Istorija Mađara, Beograd, 2002"): "Intention of Thokoly was to unite all Hungarian territories under Ottoman suzereinity. Ottoman Porta proclaimed him for a king of Hungary, but he took for himself only title of a prince of Upper Hungary. According to Ottoman document (berat), Thokoly ruled over 13 northern Hungarian counties and this area was called Orta Macar (Middle Hungary) in Turkish. It was defined as an Ottoman vassal autonomous principality and it was obligated to pay 20,000 ducats per year to Ottoman authorities." So, I based my map on these sources and if you think that this info is not correct, please present quotations from some other sources that claiming opposite things and we can analyze these quotations then. Also, you perhaps do not know exact meaning of term "vassal state" - an "vassal state" is not directly ruled by its foreign suzerains; it usually completely run its own affairs, with only obligation to provide certain amount of money or soldiers to its suzerain. That is exactly how Principality of Imre Thokoly was described in these sources. PANONIAN 18:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thököly's upper Hungary existed only for 3years. Before and after Thököly's 3 years reign it was part of Habsburg Empire. Austrian duke (later Emperor Ferdinand I)paid tribute to Turks, to avoid the attacks in the years when he fought with other European powers. Do you think that Austria became vassal country of Turkey? After serials of attempts in the 16-17th century, Ottoman military system proved unable to enter to Upper Hungary, because it had a lot of stone castles. The countries/states of the Balkan region (except bzantine greeks) fell under Ottoman rule very rapidly (often with one decisive battle), due to the lack of the network of stone/brick castles and fortresses in these countries. To built stone castle systems were expensive for the economic level/development in the medieval balkan orthodox countries.

Your map try to demonstrate 1 year event in an article which represent 145 years history (1541-1686), it seriously mislead the reader. Therefore the representation of that single short period map (whitout the other two maps) is a falsification of history.

Wait a second: who exactly say that states and territories that existed only for short amount of time cannot be presented in maps? It is completely irrelevant whether this principality existed for 3 years, 3 days or 3 centuries. It existed, and due to that, it is valid subject to be presented in maps. Also, I created another map that show territory of Royal Hungary before Principality of Upper Hungary was created and that map too was included into article, so what exactly is a problem here? As for tribute, I know that rulers of some countries payed money to rulers of other countries just to avoid their attacks and that such payment does not automatically mean that these rulers were vassals. However, in the case of Imre Thokoly we have sources that claiming that he was a vassal. As I already said, you are free to provide quotations from other sources if you think that these quotations are contradicting to sources that I presented. PANONIAN 18:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Read the Imre Thököly article. He hold two positions, prince of Transylvaia and prince of Upper HUngary. Despite the half year personal union, the two states were not united and it was governed absoulte separately/independently. As "prince of transylvania" he became vassal of Ottomans, but as prince of Upper Hungary he didn't became vassal. Your map is tried to represent Upper Hungary as Ottoman vassal, however it is falsification of History. Turks were unable to spread their power to upper Hungary.

My source claim that his Principality of Upper Hungary was defined as an Ottoman vassal autonomous principality. It does not speak about Transylvania. Do you have any source that says that status of Principality of Upper Hungary was different? And when I say "source" I do not refer to Misplaced Pages articles, but to books, web sites, what ever. PANONIAN 13:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Now, let examine what some other sources are saying about Imre Thokoly and Upper Hungary:

- Quotation: "Thokoly was received with great pomp by the pasha of Buda in the summer of 1682 and at once a joint army of kurucok and Turks embarked on the conquest of Hungary. They spedily captured the north-eastern strongholds of Košice, Prešov, Levoča and, at the cost of 4000 Turkish dead. Fidiakovo. Thereupon the pasha Ibrahim delivered to Thokoly the antham of Mehmed IV which declared Thokoly to be king of all Hungary and Croatia, as tributary vassal of the sultan..."
- Quotation: "Thokoly was crowned the king of central Hungary by the governor of Buda, Ibrahim pasha, and thus became a Turkish vassal."
- Quotation: "In 1682 the Turks decided to help Imre Thokoly, the Hungarian leader, and Thokoly agreed to be a vassal of the sultan."
- Quotation: "the insurrection continued until it culminated in the expulsion of the Germans out of the whole of Upper Hungary by Thokoly. He was recognised by the sultan as vassal king of Upper Hungary"
- Quotation: "In 1682 a Turkish army invaded Northern Hungary and placed Thokoly on the throne of Northern Hungary as a vassal of Kara Mustafa."

I doubt that all these sources are wrong, and there are more in google books search: PANONIAN 13:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Your sources didn't support your claims. Read it again and again. Thököly as prince of Transylvania became vassal of Ottomans, but Upper Hungary did'nt became vassal state. Some information for you: Don't confuse the two state: Upper Hungary is located in present-day Slovakia and Northern Hungary, Until Transylvania is part of present-day Romania. Thököly captured all of Upper Hungarian castles and cities without assaults and sieges, because the guards were mostly Hungarians and sympathized with Thököly.

Read about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/Kuruc

The Kuruc uprising didn't mean the expansion of Ottoman Empire, because the territory of Ottomans didn't became larger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.114.139 (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You have semantic problems which inhibits your correct interpretation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.114.139 (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, claim that "I have semantic problems which inhibits my correct interpretation" is not quite example of friendly behavior. Also, which of the sources that I presented is claiming that Thököly became vassal of Ottomans "as prince of Transylvania"? I do not see such sentence in any of presented sources. Can you say in which source you found that and on which page? Also, These sources are clearly stating that "Thokoly was recognized by the sultan as vassal king of Upper Hungary" not as "vassal prince of Transylvania". I really do not see how this claim can have any other interpretation. And what you want to claim anyway? That Principality of Upper Hungary was an fully independent internationally recognized state instead vassal Ottoman principality? I do not see that you provided any source that can support such claim and without sources we cannot have serious conversation. And personally, I do not care what was status of Principality of Upper Hungary, but I am always trying to make correct maps which are based on available sources and I repeat that you did not provided a single source that can support your claims. PANONIAN 18:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody used that title "king of upper Hungary" hahahaha. It is 1000% sure, that Thököly didn't used that title. A book from 1872??? hahaha more funny and "very" reliable source. Again, you tried to falsify a 145 years long history. Thököly's success was Hungarian success which was supported by locals and kurucs in Upper Hungary. (Thököly was supported also by the vast majority of cities towns and villages of Upper Hungary.) Ottomans were not able to conquer that territory after dozens of Ottoman attacks the conquest of upper Hungary remained unsuccessful attempts. The poor medieval Serbia Bulgaria hadn't stone castle/fortress systems that's why they were occupied suddenly by the Turks. I feel a bit frustration in your false map edits.

Principality of Hungary - Articles for deletion

You may be interesting about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Principality_of_Hungary --Samofi (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Western Bosnia 1994.png

A tag has been placed on File:Western Bosnia 1994.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: maps

We should discuss this at Talk:Independent State of Croatia where someone else already brought it up. --Joy (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You can e.g. ask about this general issue at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I'm just a single person, who is not entirely uninvolved, so it's better to appeal things in general. --Joy (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Vrelo Bosne, Sarajevo.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Vrelo Bosne, Sarajevo.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

Speedy deletion nomination of File:VolgaBulgaria.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:VolgaBulgaria.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Visoko3.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Visoko3.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Visoko2.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Visoko2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

Ottoman Empire Barnstar

		Ottoman Empire Barnstar
		Awarded for valuable contributions to WikiProject Ottoman Empire, For your extensive and detailed work related to the Ottoman Empire, I hereby award you the Ottoman Empire Barnstar.- Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. PANONIAN 08:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Tuzla Municipality Location.png

A tag has been placed on File:Tuzla Municipality Location.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Slo regions marked3.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Slo regions marked3.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

Zastava

Moram priznat... zbunia si me sa tim zastavama na Commonsu, ali ako je tebi tako draže dobro :). Meni je samo bitno da su točne boje.

Ćuj, ja stalno živim u nadi da ćeš komačno da svatiš da bi mogao na kraju Srbiju i Srbe staviti, puno više nego šta historija zahtjeva, kao nacističke kolaboratore na ovom projektu :). I da će ti ova američka i britanska gospoda koja mene okolo prate to upravo to sada i pokušat forsirat. Nadam se da češ da sagledaš širu sliku koju eto iz nekog razloga pokušavaš staviti na Wikipediju, i koji bi to impakt ovde eventualno imalo na obradu historije Srbije u Drugom ratu. Molim lijepo, mi smo kolaboracionistička gamad i sluge okupatora, ne vi! xD Idem sad na Brač opet par dana, ćut ćemo se brzo. --DIREKTOR 12:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Pa šta sad? Da brišemo one delove istorije koji nam se ne sviđaju? Ako je u Srbiji bilo kolaboracionizma, onda ne vidim zašto to negirati. Događaji iz Drugog svetskog rata nemaju nikakvog uticaja na poboljšanje društvenih uslova u današnjoj Srbiji. Pored toga, besmisleno je koristiti Vikipediju kao mesto za propagiranje nekih političkih ciljeva, pogotovo putem istoricizma i udešavanja istorijskih članaka u smislu podrške željenim političkim promenama. PANONIAN 13:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ma ne! Govorim ti da naglašavaš više nego šta je povijesno točno, to nije u redu. I ja nikako ne negiram kolaboracionizam u Srbiji, ali "Srbija" kao takva nije bila kolaboracionistička država, shvaćaš? To je bitna razlika. (P.S. nije mi uopće jasno zašto pričaš o ostvarivanju nekih "političkih ciljeva", i još manje zašto pričaš o životnim uvjetima u Srbiji.) --DIREKTOR 14:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Dobro nije bila država i gde se to kaže u novom infoboxu? Pokušao sam da napravim kompromis i da uklonim sve opise koji tebi liče na državu i stvarno ne vidim šta je još problem? PANONIAN 14:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox je ok ako ti tako želiš, ali kako je dosta čudan i nema nigdje takvo nešto, tako ne vjerujem da će takav i ostati (ja ga neću dirati). Ostaje još par problema osim toga.. treba negdje staviti infoboxe za njemačku administraciju i za Nedićevu vladu kao prvo. Mogli bi staviti na onaj tvoj članak Government of National Salvation (Serbia) infobox za Nedića ? Onaj infobox trenutno tamo nije za vlade, nego za vladine agencije (najčešće se misli na američke). Nedićeva vlada nije država, prije nego šta išta kažeš, ali jest politički entitet i svakako može koristiti former country infobox, dapače, trebala bi. --DIREKTOR 16:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, to jeste neki napredak, a ako neko drugi bude hteo da menja taj novi infobox o tome ćemo pričati tada. Što se drugih članaka tiče, kao što se ti ne slažeš da Srbija bude predstavljena kao država, tako se i ja ne slažem da Nedićeva vlada ili nemačka vojna uprava budu predstavljene kao države/teritorije. Dakle, ako onaj infobox u članku o Nedićevoj vladi ne odgovara možemo napraviti novi (takođe u slobodnoj formi), ali nikako se ne slažem da bude onaj "former country". Zanima me samo šta bi konkretno ti stavio u taj infobox kao i šta bi stavio u infobox o nemačkoj vojnoj upravi? Iako se po rečniku pojam "politički entitet" može odnositi i na teritorije i na vlade i na entitete bez teritorije, Nedićeva vlada nikako nije bila "country" i uopšte mi nije jasno kako da sada ti zagovaraš neku državnost kad si se tome protivio. PANONIAN 16:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Očito, nije mi na kraj pameti predstavljati Nedićevu vladu ili Njemačku administraciju kao dražavu. Kao šta ste i ti i Nuujinn i Fainites (i ja) utvrdili, Template:Infobox former country se može koristiti za sve vrste (historijskih) političkih entiteta, od vlada, do njemačkih administracija, provincija itd. Template:Infobox former country je infobox koji se treba i mora koristiti za Nedićevu vladu. Kažem opet, razlikuj teritoriju od političkog entiteta. I kao šta sam rekao nebrojeno puta, taj infobox je ok za političke entitete, ali ne za territory ili area. Vidi na primjer Governorate of Dalmatia. Bilo mi je drago pričati, ali sada stvarno moram na katamaran. Ćujemo se. --DIREKTOR 16:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"Infobox former country" je mnogo neprimereniji za članak o Nedićevoj vladi nego za članak o Srbiji i s obzirom na ove sporove najbolje je rešenje koristiti "free form infobox" za sve srodne članke, jer se u takvim infoboxima mogu koristiti opisi koji nikom neće izgledati sporno. Ne postoji nijedan izvor koji tvrdi da je Nedićeva vlada imala capital, zastavu, grb, himnu, religiju, monetu... PANONIAN 16:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

PANONIAN, sad nema smisla to šta govoriš. Ta vlada je politički entitet i imala je i capital i zastavu i himnu i monetu. Ona zastava je Nedićeva zastava i to uopće nije nešto o ćemu se može raspravljat. Njegova vlada je imala i svoju monetu i svoju himnu. Ukratko to je povijesni politički entitet i MORA imati taj infobox. Zar ćeš opet da praviš spor gdje ne treba? Pa čija je onda bila ona zastava?

Jao.. ćuj. "Srbija" je ime koje se predominantno u tom povijenom kontekstu koristi za sami teritorij, ali ponekad (prvenstveno u našim izvorima) i kolokvijalno za Nedićevu vladu ("Nedićeva Srbija"). Ako ti naš izvor kaže da je to bila "zastava srbije", time misli na Nedićevu vladu. Ukratko: to je Nedićeva zastava. Ako smo zaključili da se "Srbija" kao termin u izvorima prvenstveno odnosi na teritorij, i da će tako biti i na našem projektu, tada "Srbija" u svom infoboxu nesmije imati zastavu. Nedićeva vlada, ili "Nedićeva Srbija" u našim izvorima, svakako ima zastavu - iako nije država - pa je MORA imati.

Ma za cijeli ovaj nered je kriv Nedić koji je, iako ga Švabe nisu jebavale dva posto, gurao svoju jadnu vladu kao nekakvu "državu", pa je stalno spominjao nekakvu njegovu "Srbiju" i izmišljao kojekakve zastave, grbove i himne. Otud ova konfuzna situacija. U suštini, "Nedićeva Srbija" nije ispravan izraz, i zvati Nedićevu vladu "Srbija" je povijesna greška, koja se ustalila kolokvijalno u nas. Izvor koji zove tu zastavu "zastava Srbije" promovira tu grešku, ali autor nije toliko kriv jer samo koristi ustaljeni (ali krivi) termin. --DIREKTOR 17:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTORE, problem je što ti ne samo što uopšte ne razumeš istoriju i državno-pravne odnose, već svoje pogrešno shvatanje pokušavaš da nametneš drugima i time trošiš vreme drugih korisnika na gluposti. Zašto se lepo ne ostaviš te teme (koja ti očigledno ne ide) i ne pokušaš da radiš nešto korisno i konstruktivno? Nemoj molim te da mi objašnjavaš na šta autori izvora koje sam koristio misle: ako u knjizi piše crno na belo da su to zastava, grb i himna Srbije onda je to nesporna činjenica sve dok ne pronađemo drugi izvor koji tvrdi drugačije (a takvog izvora očigledno nema). Nema ni izvora koji tvrdi da se pojam Srbija odnosi na Nedićevu vladu ili da je Nedićeva vlada imala zastavu, prestonicu, himnu i monetu. To je isključivo tvoj lični stav koji nije potkrepljen izvorima i samim tim je nebitan. Ako ne prezentuješ bilo koji izvor koji potvrđuje tvoje tvrdnje nemamo o čemu razgovarati. Takođe, ako misliš da nametneš svoj stav u člancima i da to pitanje rešiš silom, tražiću pomoć svih mogućih administratora, a nemoj sumnjati da će oni od tebe na kraju zahtevati izvore koje nikad nisi prezentovao, pa ih verujem ni nemaš. Čoveče, zar nemaš ništa pametno i konstruktivno da radiš u životu? Piši o nekoj temi u koju se razumeš. PANONIAN 21:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Satellite image of Moldova in September 2003.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Satellite image of Moldova in September 2003.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

Bačka-Bacska

Your reasons for the removal of Bacska from http://en.wikipedia.org/1944%E2%80%931945_killings_in_Vojvodina is inaccurate. In Misplaced Pages, it is common that place names be included in other languages, especially if other ethnicities are referred to within the article. As the article is about Germans, Hungarians as well as Serbs, it is appropriate to include Bacska as the Hungarian name for the region.

There are many examples of this, not just in Misplaced Pages, but elsewhere.

Here is an example from the Sombor article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Sombor

In Serbian, the city is known as Sombor (Сомбор), in Hungarian as Zombor, in Croatian as Sombor, in Bunjevac as Sombor, in Rusyn as Zombor (Зомбор), in German as Zombor, and in Turkish as Sonbor.

Do you have any objection in me re-including Bacska as the Hungarian name?Htcs (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please inform yourself about complexity of naming issues in Central Europe. Hungarian name of the region is mentioned in the main article about Bačka and there is no reason to mention it in this article as well. Sombor is in fact good example against your proposal: there are 6 official and several unofficial languages in Vojvodina and both articles (Sombor and Bačka) are mentioning names in all relevant languages, not only in a "selected language" which might look important to some users. This is the only possible way of NPOV presentation. PANONIAN 07:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your argument. If you are maintaining that it is NPOV not to include names and spellings from other languages, then that is nonsensical. I do a lot of research in Western and Eastern history and it is default everywhere, including Misplaced Pages, to include names and spellings of other nations if they were relevant. That is why Bratislava is also known as Pressburg in German historical texts. The simple reason why Bacska should be included in the article is that it is the name used in many of the sources. It is also easier for a reader to recognise that Baҫka is also Bacska, which I am reliably informed that other ethnicities know it as.Htcs (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I found the Wiki-policy for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28geographic_names%29

Read point 2 under General Guidelines. Htcs (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You do not understand that point 2: it speaks about alternative names of article titles, not about usage of names in text. Alternative names Bačka are to be posted in Bačka article, while main name of the region used in English is to be used in other articles where Bačka is mentioned. PANONIAN 15:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right. I think that point 3 talks about content where it is permissible. Also, the Zombor example I gave is in the content part and not the title. The guidelines suggest Point 2 - all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead This could be a solution.Htcs (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

But in the Sombor article alternative names are names of Sombor and that is why they are listed there. In the case of "1944-1945 killings in Vojvodina" (or now "Communist war crimes in Serbia in 1944–1945"), region of Bačka have nothing to do with article title. It is just name like any other mentioned in article text. Article would look ridiculous if we provide all alternative versions of all names that are mentioned in the article text. PANONIAN 20:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Your recent changes to the article, weakening the Hungarian POV, makes more sense and that Bacska is now not necessary. There already is a link in the main article about Bacska (entered as 'B-A-C-S-K-A) in Misplaced Pages search).Htcs (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Purge vs Killings vs Massacre

Considering the contentious issues in the discussion pages regarding the terminology of what happened to the peoples of Vojvodina in 1944-45, purge is the more appropriate word for the reasons I have already stated in the discussion page.

Purge is an English descriptive word. The fact that you cannot find this word in the Serbian sources does not invalidate its use. It is a totally appropriate word to use in the context, rather than killings or massacre.

чистка is the google translation of 'purge' but in Serbian, it may not mean the same thing in a political context as it has multiple meanings in English.

The Oxford English definition of Purge is as follows:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/purge

Primary meaning: 1 an abrupt or violent removal of a group of people: (used in a phrase) - the savagery of government’s political purges

from Latin purgare 'purify',

You should re-evaluate your rationale for altering the title and consider that others have a better command of English. Htcs (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any source that mention word "purge" in relation to that specific event? That word is just too similar to term "ethnic cleansing" and I argued on article's talk page against accuracy of that view. PANONIAN 07:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You do raise a point. However ethnic cleansing would only refer to ethnic minorities, like Germans, Hungarians and Rusyn. As Serbians themselves were killed by Partisan Serbians in Serbia, the word purge is more descriptive. These Serbians would have been classed as 5th columnists by Tito. Purge is a word. The OED definition is all that is needed. It does not have a POV and doesn't imply any nationalistic bias like 'ethnic cleansing' or 'massacre'. To answer your original question, I have not come across the word purge in the sources I am familiar with to date. However that is immaterial for the reasons I've described here and expounded in the article's discussion page.Htcs (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is your opinion. My opinion is that term "purge" is more POV than "killings" and that, therefore, it should not be used without background in reliable sources. Do you have anything against word "killings"? Do you imply that such word is inaccurate or something? PANONIAN 15:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm only trying to help. Yes, I think that 'killings' is too personalised. The difference in understanding between 'killings' and 'purge' is subtle but quantifiable. A purge is instigated by a government and uses its forces to purge its population. Killings is much too POV as (in the case of the article) leads the reader to believe that the partisans were out of control and acted independently, murdering innocent civilians. This is exactly what a nationalist Hungarian POV is.

In this case, a purge is really the correct word.

I would be happy to have a 3rd editor look at this if you are agreeable.Htcs (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, you have a point. I renamed that article to "Communist war crimes in Serbia in 1944–1945" (It omitted similar events in Central Serbia which also were notable). I also expanded article with elaborated events in Central Serbia and performed some copy edit. Feel free to say is there anything else that should be changed there. PANONIAN 20:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The article reads a lot better. It has changed the tone and is more NPOV than before and shows that it wasn't localised in a single country.

In my opinion, using the term 'War Crimes' may cause issues with other editors. Truthfully, I cannot comment on whether a directive from the military administration of Yugoslavia can be called a 'war crime'.

I still maintain that 'purge' is a better word. Maybe you can judge this for yourself? I have spent too much time debating this, so I will leave it up to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Great_Purge under 'Purge of the Army', has a short list following that describes some Soviet purges in the late 1930's.

As for other changes, I will put in a small section on the Rusyn deaths with a source for this information.Htcs (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I renamed article in accordance with name of corresponding article in Serbian Misplaced Pages where term "war crimes" is used. Perhaps you might be right that term "purge" would be more accurate (and I now saw some Serbian sources that indeed using this phrase). So, you proposing title "Communist purges in Serbia in 1944–1945", right? OK, that title would be fine, so feel free to rename article or to expand it with info about Rusyns. PANONIAN 05:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Htcs (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Orthodox seminary in Sremski Karlovci.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Orthodox seminary in Sremski Karlovci.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

Some forgotten views

Hi Panonian, you might find this one interesting: http://svesrbstvo.blogspot.com/2011/09/blog-post.html FreedonNadd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC).

Nomination of Buta-ul for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Buta-ul is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Buta-ul until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Daizus (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A heads up

You have been mentioned in a thread at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts regarding Butaul. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ad hominem

Please refrain from ad hominem remarks when replying to me and other editors. It's not my intention to escalate this conflict (I see you already received a Digwuren notice) but I will if you will continue with the personal attacks. Please argue about the content, not about me. Daizus (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Notification

You have been mentioned in a thread at Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Milan Tutorov about Butaul, an Avar lord in Eastern Europe. Daizus (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Vojvodina gepids langobards009.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vojvodina gepids langobards009.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Serbinum vs. Serbinium

I moved one of your old maps between these two, feel free to check. --Joy (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That's why I wanted you to check :) The old state was schizophrenic - the article text at the Gradiška site was adamant in saying that it's there, but the maps were clearly not pointing to the same place. Sure, old maps can often miss precision, but these ones missed two major rivers - probably largely impassable at the time. The variant with the extra i was not actually mentioned in the text at Serbinum, so I moved it out until this is resolved. I had googled it and found a single 1912-ish book saying the same, so it didn't seem like an obvious mistake. If you want to move the pictures back, then you better have an appropriate caption :) --Joy (talk) 08:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again, please explain the old maps at Serbinum properly. Find a source that says it was a mistake to place it north of Drava, and reference it. --Joy (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello PANONIAN! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:East%E2%80%93West_Schism#Was_the_Kingdom_of_Hungary_Catholic.2C_Orthodox_or_both_in_1054.3F

Check mate? :)

Origin of the Serbs article

Per Talk:Origin of the Serbs#Massive PoV fringy garbage and WP:BRD, it's your turn to discuss. --Joy (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm moving comments to the talk page where they belong. --Joy (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Maps

Hello, PANONIAN! Hope you are good. I have one question for you, and i hope that you will help me. I want to create article Territorial evolution of Serbia. You may see simmilar articles, like Territorial evolution of Poland. But, this is the problem. I want to create set of maps that will follow the Serbia (and territory of Serbia) from medieval times, up to today. Look at Poland article. Something like File:Balkans Animation 1800-2006.gif, but since medieval times, and with much better precision. So, we need image of every territorial change of Serbia since then, and i will create gif later from that. You can help me in this way. I would love to create image by image, so i want to ask you to help me in base map choice. Maybe Blank map of Europe, and just Balkan? Or maybe to create map from scratch? See Category:Territorial evolution for more of those. Please, this means a lot to me, help me to create one great map that will be useful for years to come. As far as we know, first map will be this. Thanks in advance --WhiteWriter 18:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Bosut culture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Greek

Scordisci (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to State

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Help

I've seen some of your maps and I can tell that they're just great. I would like to ask you to make a new map of ethnic groups in the former Yugoslavia based on this map. If it's possible do so. I'll be very thankful. --Yerevanci (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it will be great. But I have a question. Did all of them (Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia and Bosnia, FYROM; and maybe Slovenia) have censuses this year??? If yes, then I think that's the best option. --Yerevanci (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

What about Albania and Kosovo? Do you think they should also be included?? And Slovenia? I know that Albania hadn't had a census for 20 years, but the EU forces them to do one, because of their candidance to join the EU. I think Albania's part is easy, because it's the most monoethnic country of the Balkans. But Kosovo is contoversial. You can probably can use this one. --Yerevanci (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

So the final map will include former Yugoslavia, Albania and Bulgaria??? --Yerevanci (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to show the distribution of Albanians in Albania and Kosovo. By the way, what nationality are you, if it's not a secret?? Just being curious :) --Yerevanci (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, then I think a map showing distribution of South Slavic ethnic groups is the best option. Good luck with it!!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yerevanci (talk • contribs) 22:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I saw this edit where you say that Central Serbia no longer exists. I am confused, how do you mean that no longer exists? Greetings. Adrian (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Vidi stvarno :). Thanks for the explanation. I was just surprised when you said that Central Serbia no longer exists :). Greetings. Adrian (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Pavle Bakić

I've have provided a clear source unlike yourself so you had no reasonable right to revert me. Also on that not you appear to have broken the 3 revert rule so I'd suggest you self-revert before I take this somewhere else.--English Bobby (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly my source is perfect legitimate as it has been used on many Wiki pages by another user than just myself. Secondly anyone who uses Misplaced Pages is entitled to present their political views so as they don't bait other users with the intention of starting rows. If anything it would seem your own political inclinations have more to do with this dispute than mine, so try growing up.

Thirdly "taking this somewhere else" was referring to you breaking the 3 revert rule. If you don't self-revert I'll take this to the administrators notice board. Simple as that.--English Bobby (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Constantinople

In response to your statement, "....that the Constantinople article does not show that(the name was changed in 1930)."
The information has been removed....
"Constantinople as the name of the city was officially changed in favour of the Turkish name Istanbul in 1930.

<ref:Caroline Finkel, Osman's Dream, (Basic Books, 2004), 57.
<refBBC - Timeline: Turkey./ref>
<ref:Room, Adrian, (1993), Place Name changes 1900-1991, Metuchen, N.J., & London:The Scarecrow Press, Inc., ISBN 0-8108-2600-3 pp. 46, 86./ref>

...with the Turkish Postal Service Law, as part of Atatürk's national reforms.

<refBritannica, Istanbul./ref>
<refLexicorient, Istanbul./ref>

Hope this information helps. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Körös culture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Körös

Starčevo culture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Indo-European peoples

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

apology and answer

I have not noticed that part of articles (Name) because I did a lot of changes in other articles. Have a nice day or night.--MirkoS18 (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

no problem. PANONIAN 09:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Brčko District, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Palanka and Gredice (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Minoritarian languages

Hi PANONIAN, I really hope you didn´t got me wrong as I was a bit harsh on you, but it really surprised me that you could even think that we were wanting to impose Cyrillic to all Croatian articles :) I hope you see more clear now what is in question there. You asked me how could we know if Serbian has official status in certain places, but Mirko brought a source where all specificities are listed. Even if it wasn´t for that document I supose we could eventually find a way somehow (municipalities official websites, governament ones, etc.). Anyway, it is recognised currently in a duzen of minor places, and there really should be no reason whatsoever not to include them, much less the events from the 1990s. This should actually be a sign of tolerance and healing process. Now, beside these few places, I really think Serbian could be included in the lede in some few other places with strong Serbian minority presence, Knin to start with. If you notece in many countries these city articles include many languages in the lede without a problem, so it is a bit hard for me to understand why Serbian in particular doesn´t have the right to be present in the places where their minority is more present. We already agreed to include it in the places where shares official status (infobox and lede), now, with regard to the rest (only lede), some proposals are percentage of population (+10%, or +33.3%, or majority). Don´t forget that the places with large Serbian minority are not as much at all nowadays. Pozdrav! FkpCascais (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I simply do not agree with that approach, not only in relation to Croatia, but to other countries as well. If usage of these names is controversial somewhere then we have to find solution which would not be controversial (In the case of Croatia, such solution must be approved by Croatian users). Otherwise, Misplaced Pages becomes a battlefield instead a place that collects and presents knowledge. PANONIAN 20:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, each one has the right to have his own opinion. I just wanted to make you clear that absolutely no one was proposing to have Cyrillic in all articles. However, I don´t understand what is exactly that you don´t agree on that approach? In my view you are disagreing with a wide-accepted practice on WP then. For exemple, Wrocław includes in the lede German (despite sensitivities betwen the two nations) and even Czech and Silesian German in the lede. Why shouldn´t the places with majority of Serb population (one of the options) in Croatia have the right simply to include the name in the lede? FkpCascais (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see of what significance the ethnicity of the Misplaced Pages user has... --DIREKTOR 21:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Panonian has the impression that if something is sensitive to readers of some ethnicity, that then it should be removed. Beside en.wiki being primarely directed to English speaking world (not Balkans), it also fails under WP:OWN, as articles about Croatia, or any other country, are not owned by Croatian users, or, again, any other nationality... FkpCascais (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I am simply saying that articles about one country should be written in NPOV way and that they should not be seen as insulting or tendentious by citizens of that country. I am not saying that Wiki articles about Croatia should be "owned by Croatian users". I am not Croat and I edited various Croatia-related articles and my edits were not seen as POV or tendentious by Croatian users. And why is that? Because of the simple fact that I do not edit Croatia-related articles with tendentious aim of proving that Croatia in fact "rightfully belongs" to Serbs, Hungarians, Germans, Italians (or to whom ever). By the way, if I would care how Wrocław article would look then German name would not be there, that is sure. PANONIAN 22:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Why should they not be insulting to the citizens of that country? :) People are not objective, or at least most people aren't, and I dare say especially those just out of a war. Who's to say what the citizens of this or that country might find "insulting"? --DIREKTOR 22:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

They have a officially recognised minoritarian language, and no one should feel "insulted" by that. Shouldn´t the Serbs in Croatia feel equally insulted for not having the right to add it, when officially recongised by the governament? We are talking of local places, not national use. If you defend equal rights, then you should not deny them to anyone. Anyway, in your view Serbia is obligated to include all languages, but some other counties are not? Anyway, whetever is decided on that discussion there, I will apply the exact same principle to Serbian articles, whetever the "sensitivities" are. FkpCascais (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Main problem here is the fact that names in question are not only "minority names", but also names that representing certain political ideas and projects (and some of such projects are also including genocidal aims). I can bet that in 70-80% of cases these "minority names" are not included into articles because of "minority rights" but because of irredentist political projects. Wrocław is just perfect example of this. It is well known that Poland is ethnically almost homogeneous country and that there is no sizable German minority in Polish cities. So, it is very clear to me that German names were added to first sentence of Polish articles because of irredentist reasons and as obvious provocation to Poles. Nobody would have problem with minority names if they indeed are only minority names. However, they are clearly something else. As for the issue whether you "will apply" something to Serbia-related articles, please be sure that you apply only NPOV views. Otherwise, I will certainly revert you. :) PANONIAN 09:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You are mixing your own POV with offial language status. It is absolutely irrelevant if you (or anyone) find any nation "genocidal". Serbs in Croatia are not obligated to renounce their rights because of any past events. Individual people can (and should, if) be punished, an entire national minority should not. Official status cannot be ignored by any WP user, however you have the right to oppose its inclusion in other places in Croatia where Serbian doesn´t have official status. FkpCascais (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a note, the adjective is "minority", as in "minority languages". --DIREKTOR 19:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. PANONIAN, I am sad that you are mixing things here. After all, in those places even local governament stamps include both, Croatian and Serbian Cyrillic, so I don´t understand how can you renounce that right based on the argument that Serbs in Croatia should have some feeling of guilt and renounce to their language because of it. I really hope that you are aware that among Serbs of Croatia there is also many different people, and many of them also suffered a lot and many were even expelled from their homes with their land rights still denied by Croatian Governament despite the fact that they had nothing to do with the war there (case of good friends of mine here in portugal who cannot return there). Anyway, all this is really irrelevant after all, as en.wiki is not the proper place to ask for payment or change (kusur) for events that happend in the past. English speaking world, to whom this wikipedia is directed, should not have their articles (yes, their, as it is their wikipedia) involved in, basically, personal national disputes. Saying this, and to conclude, no one is wanting to impose Cyrillic to all Croatian places, that would be a total nonsense, but not including it in places where has official status is as nonsensical and unfair as the first option. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Also PANONIAN, I will just ask you to read your oun last comment at the discussion. You said that you disagree the inclusion of Cyrillic in any place where there is non-Serb majority, right? But in all places where Croatian Governament granted Serbian to have official status are obviously all with large margin Serbian majority. So why can´t you agree to be included in those places, just as Hungarian in Senta is, or Slovak in Kovačica? The list of places is in the discussion, so please confirm each one by yourself if you don´t beleave me. FkpCascais (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not "mixing my POV with official language status". We speak here about alternative names in general, not about "official languages and names" and how exactly is German name official in Wrocław anyway? And I never said that any nation is genocidal, but many of various irredentists from various nations who do not accept existing ethnical and political borders are very genocidal. As for Serbian language in Croatia, if Serbian language is official in same municipalities in which Serbs are forming majority then usage of Serbian names would be in accordance with my position that they could be used in articles about places with Serb majority. Also, it is correct that "official status of some languages cannot be ignored by WP users", but there are various ways how this status could be reflected. For example, we can include an "Language" section into article where we can say something like "Croatian and Serbian language are officially used by municipal authorities" or we can include into infobox an new section named "official languages" where official languages could be listed. As I said, I am not against inclusion of Serbian names into infoboxes of those municipalities where Serbs are forming majority, but if Croatian users do not agree with that then my position towards this would be neutral. My main concern here is the possibility that somebody start with inclusion of Serbian names in POV way into articles about places in Croatia with Croatian majority, which would certainly trigger "retaliation" of some Croatian users and similar POV-ization of articles about places in Serbia. So, let just keep peace in Misplaced Pages, OK? PANONIAN 06:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

"if Croatian users don´t agree with that then my position would be neutral." But how is that neutral in that context if that goes against widely accepted practice on WP? It really doesn´t matter what Croatian users think (or any from any particular country), they are not owners of the article of Croatia, just as anyone else is... PANONIAN, the entire problem is that the "retaliation" and POV-ization had already started before the discussion was taking place. Some Croatian users removed all Serbian references from all articles, and Mirko restored them adding some more where it found more objection. I am not sure what is the idea you had about me, but I entered into the discussion preciselly in order to end with this polarization of sides and create a consensus which will be applied from now on. Acting a bit as mediator, I wanted to see all proposals everyone could have. If you carefully read my comments there, I was very open to any sort of middle ground consensus which would go along what is common in other WP articles. I don´t support the inclusion of Serbian everywhere, and I am aware of the "sensitivities" of course, but I am also not willing to renounce totally towards those "sensitivities" as after all, that shows lack of sensitivity towards the other side. PANONIAN, you said here to me that you agree to add it in places with Serb majority, and that is basically the basic proposal about the places where it has official status (the places where it is official are the ones listed and all with major Serb majority, many other places with Serb majority are even excluded from the initial list). Why are you saying this to me here, however you avoid to be as clear there on the discussion? I am sorry, but I did got a bit offended by your words, as you allways expressed yourself as if I was demanding something irrational, and in fact I wasn´t. I did asked several time "what about the rest of places with srong Serb minority and without official status?" but just wanting to hear everyones thought and see what could we decide. FkpCascais (talk) 07:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I meant that my own position would be neutral, meaning that I will neither agree neither disagree with inclusion of Serbian names in these several articles. What ever you agree with Croatian users regarding this issue, I will accept. I am trying to support views that will ensure peaceful coexistence of Yugoslav nations and not the views that could be a source of never-ending conflicts. And "retaliation of Croatian users" that I spoke about is not related to any Croatia-related article, but to some edits of User:IvanOS in some Serbia-related articles. In fact, it is how I found debate about this. I noticed that edits of User:IvanOS were kind of "retaliation" for edits of User:MirkoS18 and I, thus, concluded that edits of both users were disruptive when naming issue is in question, so I am simply trying to prevent that these things happen again in the future. As for my position regarding minority/alternative names in general (regarding all countries and cities of the World), I think that it would be best that these names are not used at all either in first sentence or in the infobox and that they should be rather used in more encyclopaedic way within "Name" sections or within separate articles that dealing with certain exonyms. Of course, regarding some articles that speaking about places where minorities are in majority, I think that minority/alternative names could be "more widely" used in these articles (inluding the first sentence and the infobox), but this certainly does not mean that they should be used like that. PANONIAN 18:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to drop a reminder that when dealing with "Names" on geographic pages, list them in alphabetical order.--Jesuislafete (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No! Serbian should be first! ... :) ... I´m just joking, of course Jesuislafete, I allways favoured that convention, however, in the infobox case, even if hypotetically in the alphabet Croatian was not preceding Serbian, it should be placed first as it is the primary official language, and Serbian the minoritarian one. Also, the Serbian and all other minoritarian language names (in infobox) should be written in minor letters from the Croatian one. I favour a solution like the one found in Kovačica, where the lower version in latin of Kovačica is the one representing the Slovak language, and I favour a similar display of minoritarian languages in Croatia. FkpCascais (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Beli Manastir (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary

Darda, Croatia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Serbian Militia

I have created an article about Serbian Militia not really knowing how important this unit was and how long it played important role in the history of the region that is subject of your interest afaik. There are all kind of subunits that I don't know (yet) how to treat (pomoriška milicija, potiska milicija, šajkaši, srpsko-bunjvačka milicija...). I believe that your participation in editing of that article can help improving it to the class it deserves (which is sure much more than present stub or start class). Sorry for disturbing you if this is not something within your scope of interest.

Best regards,--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Izmjene

To nije odmazda, ali kako su u Sonti Hrvati većinsko stanovništvo iza naziva na srpskom jeziku stavio sam i na hrvatskom jeziku (istina, imena su ista), jer se na nekim drugim mjestima događa da srpsko i hrvatsko ime nije isto, kao npr. kod mjesta koje se kod Srba naziva Svetozar Miletić, a kod Hrvata Lemeš. Najčešće su srpska i hrvatska imena slična pa tako ime na latinici (najčešće) znači i srpska latinica i hrvatski jezik općenito. Mađarski jezik je dodan jer tamo živi i velik broj Mađara, pa onda... Pozdrav! --Ivan OS 10:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Iz članka Krnjak je uklonjen srpski naziv, u skladu sa odlukom iskusnijeg suradnika od mene, koji se nalazi na wikiprojektu o Hrvatskoj, koji je rekao kako kod naziva mjesta gdje su istaknutije neke nacionalne manjine, u infokutijama nepotreban naziv na nekom od tih jezika, uključujući i srpski. --Ivan OS 10:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Na wikiprojektu Hrvatska je dogovor takav. Kako u Vojvodini ima puno Hrvata i Mađara, stavljao sam manjinska imena jer sam mislio da nitko neće imati što protiv toga. Ali ako se vi ne slažete, neću to nametati i neka sve ostane ovako kako je. Pozdrav! --Ivan OS 12:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Erdut map

That was an accident; I was removing several problematic jpegs and didn't check that one. My apologies. --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Z10

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

WikiEditor2004 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Quotation from Misplaced Pages:Three-revert_rule: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period". As far as I see, my reverts were far out of scope of 3 reverts per 24 hours. My first revert was in 25 December, the second one in 26 December, then third one came after 4 days. Excuse me, User:Reaper Eternal, but I would kindly ask you to explain how exactly is this qualified as violation of 3rr? Did you checked the dates near the reverts? PANONIAN 9:09 am, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Ah, but further down in that paragraph: "...it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." Edit warring is not permitted, period, even if it occurs over a longer time frame than 24 hours. TNXMan 14:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Edit-conflict - I was declining this request at the same time. Here's what my note said: I'm looking at the article history, and what I see is a classic case of edit-warring, complete with lots of counterproductive threats on both sides. I'm looking at Talk:Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós, and I see absolutely no discussion of the edit you both disagree about. What the two of you are doing is useless, and will not result in a consensus. When your blocks expire, talk about it politely, like two reasonable adults, on the talk page, and then, when you reach an agreement, make a lasting change to the article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What ever. I am not touching that article any more. User:Daizus is free to edit it as he likes. PANONIAN 14:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, too. If you are right, and it's important, someone else will come along and make the necessary changes eventually. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Operation Corridor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brčko (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Gratian 367 383.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gratian 367 383.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Donauschwaben

This] could be inersting.--Speidelj (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Constantius II 337 361.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Constantius II 337 361.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Klek (Zrenjanin) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Solute and Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary

Futog (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary

Reformists of Vojvodina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Yugoslav

Sremska Kamenica (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Irig

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Banat

Thanks for the additions, I was hoping someone will add the Serbian side articles after the reorg. When Classical antiquity ends it is a subject of debate. That's why I used Ancient times term and not Antiquity. This period doesn't end in 271 AD but rather around 5th century. This is when Early Middle Ages start if you check both articles. But it is of course subjective. The {{History of Romania}} does include Banat and yes, similar templates for other countries should be added as well, but there is a space problem. Regards. Too bad both you and Daizus got into an edit war. You both should know better and take it easy ;-) Regards. --Codrin.B (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I also think that small space is main problem for inclusion of country history templates and the best approach would be inclusion of all relevant templates, not only those related to history of Romania, Serbia and Hungary, but also one related to history of Vojvodina (and 5 history templates are lot more than this article can handle). Therefore, I think that we should keep only Banat history template. As for Classical antiquity issue, if you do not agree with my interpretation of chronology, you are free to change it. Maybe the time of the Huns would be better limit between two periods. As for me and Daizus, we both were blocked because of our behavior and I must say that question whether to include an link to the article was the most stupid thing because of which someone might be blocked. PANONIAN 19:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. There is no space for those big templates indeed. Maybe if more content will be added in the future. It's not that I disagree with the timeline. I was pointing your to those articles to see that Early Middle Ages start about 5th century AD. But it is very subjective and I was struggling myself on various history articles to separate the "Ancient times" and "Middle Ages" sections. It is not that clear cut. But I personally think that 271 AD it is a bit early for Middle Ages to start. Regarding the conflict, you guys should stay away from edit warring, it adds to your records and it is pity. We don't want to lose the people who contributed a lot. Just try to see each other points, work on separate articles, take breaks to cool off if necessary, get a beer, ask for 3rd party reviewers etc. See WP:DISPUTE. Cheers!--Codrin.B (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Molin, Serbia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary

NEVEN Serbian Craftsmen Singing Society (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Marigold

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Međimurje County, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kingdom of Croatia and Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

NEVEN

Zdravo PANONIAN.

Trenutno sam veoma bolestan i ne znam kada cu moci da se posvetim Wikipediji, a veoma sam zahvalan na trudu koji si uložio da središ članak. Impresioniran sam šta si sve uradio, a posebno mi se sviđaju doprinosi oko Novog Sada i Srbije. Ono sto sam hteo uraditi je da na engleskoj W postavim članak kao jedan što sam uradio kada sam počeo a odnosi se na Srpsko Zanatlijsko Pevačko Društvo "Neven" koje ove godine treba da obeleži jubilej 120 godina od osnivanja. Možeš pogledati link i dati eventualne predloge, ali mislim da je najbolje, zaista najbolje....ako imaš Skype adresu da nas dodaš u kontakte, a naša adresa na Skype je szpdneven

http://sh.wikipedia.org/NEVEN

Dugo nisam radio na W i neke sam propuste napravio prilikom uploda fotografija koje se odnose na licence. Napominjem da sam sve fotografije izvukao iz naše arhive, a da sam nekima i sam autor.

Hvala Ti.

Nadam se da ćemo se videti i lično upoznati. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Stump (talk • contribs) 13:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Dobrinci (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Roma people and Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary

Srpska Crnja (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of cities, towns and villages in Vojvodina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Urban settlement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of cities, towns and villages in Vojvodina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Selište (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Podunavlje (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Morava, Bela Crkva and Lovas

Eparchy of Šabac (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Soko

History of Serbia after 1918 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to KLA

Markovac (Vršac) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary

Slovaks in Hungary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Urban Municipality of Požarevac (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Bare, Rečica, Poljana, Lučica and Dubravica

History of Vojvodina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Lazo M. Kostić

Hello PANONIAN. I've noticed that Kostić has been used as a source in various Vojvodina-related articles. Unfortunately this fellow seems to have been a Serbian ultra-nationalist and cannot be considered a reliable source. He was part of Acimovic's government, charged as a collaborator, and went into emigration. Some of his works are fiercely anti-Croat and extremely nationalist. The final damning issue is that the vast majority of his reprints have been done by Dobrica Knjiga or the Serbian Radical Party (Šešelj particularly loves this guy). I'm going to be removing him from articles, just giving you a heads up beforehand.--Thewanderer (talk) 23:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Urban Municipality of Vranje (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Tumba, Stance, Studena, Katun, Dulan, Rataje, Bresnica, Pavlovac, Beli Breg, Buštranje, Ćurkovica, Davidovac, Drenovac and Lukovo

Vranjska Banja (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Crni Vrh, Slivnica, Lipovac and Babina Poljana

Jermenovci (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary

Kaluđerovo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bela Crkva

List of Serb countries and regions (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to BIH

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Požarevac

re User talk:Lothar Klaic#Požarevac: which edit did you have in mind? A diff, please]. I suspect you confused me with someone else or with some other page. (and I completely agree with your comment whatever happened). Lothar Klaic (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The proper forum for article editing is article talk page. Please let us continue in Talk:Požarevac#Wikiproject scope. Lothar Klaic (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Protestantism in Serbia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Church of God, Evangelical Church, Padina, Roma people, Nazarene and Lokve

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WikiEditor2004. You have new messages at Codrinb's talk page.
Message added 18:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Codrin.B (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Swabians

Please kindly undo all the removal of Swabian categories from the relevant articles as long as they clearly mention such people. It doesn't matter if they immigrated or what demographics they have currently. Categories are for the topics or subjects an article covers.--Codrin.B (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If you speak about category named "Danube Swabian communities" that was posted into articles about places where 90% of population are Romanians then I will certainly not return such categories there. I suggest that you create some more accurate category (for example "Settlements that formerly had sizable Danube Swabian population" or "Settlements that formerly had Danube Swabian majority/plurality" or anything similar) and then we can discuss this in serious way. PANONIAN 23:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It is called Category:Danube Swabian communities not Category:Current Danube Swabian communities. You keep missing the HISTORY component from all these categories and project tags. We are not only focused on the PRESENT and GEOGRAPHY. This is my last friendly request, from Romanian to Serbian and neighbor to neighbor, to stop this Balkan ethic cleansing bullshit and focus rather on quality content which you have created before. There is already enough of a precedent about Balkan conflicts and loads of users got blocked. I might be more forgiving and understanding but the admins won't be. Please stop. --Codrin.B (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Better be concerned about your own hostile behavior and threats addressed to me (unlike you, I was quite polite in our conversation). Regarding the subject, term "Danube Swabian communities" is exactly same as "Current Danube Swabian communities" (if not specified otherwise). Anyway, I created new category named "Former Danube Swabian communities in Romania" and I think that it could be a fair compromise. PANONIAN 00:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Your provoked me man and you really managed to piss me off. But you came to your senses (I hope) so I'll give us both a break. That category you created seems extreme overkill/too fine grained. It might be removed by the admins or others. It's just about good for a handful of articles. How many types of "Swabians" do you think Romania has? And how many countries have "Danubian Swabians"? And how many "Former" vs "Current" communities can be identified accurately, not having demographics data at the level of village or even family? You only split general categories like this when you have a real reason or lots of articles in them. It is called Overcategorization. Please read about it. And why don't you write some nice articles about Serbian history instead or write something about Dacians/Moesi/Triballi south of Danube? I will be the first to read and help. I promise --Codrin.B (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)]]

I provoked you by what exactly? I only tried to make Misplaced Pages categorization more accurate and I do not understand why you fight so hard to make it inaccurate. Can you tell me what purpose that can serve? Some of the articles that I removed from wrong categories did not even mentioned ethnic groups of the "ethnic categories" into which they were included. Also, why issue of "eternal ethnic property" is so important to you? If you want to write about Danube Swabians in Romania or about Romanians in neighboring countries, you are free to expand texts of such articles. I cannot understand what goal you want to achieve by inclusion of articles into inaccurate categories. Why you mixing history and geography in ridiculous way? Please tell me what is wrong to have place articles categorized accurately by their current and former demographic situation? I saw that some articles about places in Hungary with more than 90% Hungarians were categorized as "Serbian communities", "Jewish communities", "Slovenian communities", etc and were not categorized at all as "Hungarian communities" (who represent more than 90% of population there, as I said). So, it is not only that it is inaccurate to categorize place with 90% Hungarians as "non-Hungarian community", but it is highly POV and ethnically insulting for people who live there. Seems that you lack not only knowledge about direct connection between certain subjects but also sensitivity for NPOV approach. PANONIAN 12:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:History of Serbia during Ottoman administration

See Category:History of the Ottoman Empire by country for cat names - you can start a discussion to move them all, or just revert to Category:Ottoman Serbia; I'd go with "History of X during Ottoman administration" as it is better than "Ottoman X". There should be a norm, you know. --Zoupan (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Zoupan that either all categories should be moved after discussion, or none.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Petržalka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Paris Peace Conference and Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary

Batschka-Torontal District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary

Cyrenaica (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Capital

Großbetschkerek District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary

Jimbolia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Paris Peace Conference

Neusatz District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary

Sălaj County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Paris Peace Conference

Titel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary

Zombor District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion of sockpuppetry

G'day. You go right ahead. User FkpCascais did the same thing a little while ago. Peacemaker67 (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

perhaps I am being a bit hard on old Fkp. It may have been some other character who doesn't like WP:RS... Meanwhile, now that your SPI CHECKUSER has been turned down on the basis of the lack of any actual evidence (despite my plea that it be done to put this nonsense to bed), I choose to take the moral high ground and refuse to engage in any WP:BOOMERANG, although I will warn you that should this type of nonsense continue in place of actual discussion based on WP:5P, I will resort to Hamlet. "O, 'tis most sweet, When in one line two crafts directly meet." Chin up, sunshine. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Former countries in Serbia

Hi. I noticed that you removed category "Former countries in Serbia" because of this discussion. However, why only such category related to Serbia was deleted and other similar categories were kept? If Serbia-related category is deleted, then you should delete all other:

PANONIAN 08:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, I didn't participate in the discussion, nor did I close the discussion. I was merely helping implement the closure.

If you feel that these or other categories should also be discussed at CfD, feel free to nominate - Noting that I have no idea if they have been nominated recently or even at all. Though before nominating, that might be something you may wish to check into.

I hope this helps. - jc37 21:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't suggest to remove them all wholesale. I suggested that you nominate them for WP:CFD. - jc37 05:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the difference? If Serbia-related category is good for deletion, then all of them are. I do not see any possible argument why Serbia-related category should be deleted, while other ones should be kept. PANONIAN 05:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If that is true, then giving the community an opportunity to come to a consensus on this would be a good thing. - jc37 08:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

But that also would be time wasting. I rather do something than talk. Besides that, if somebody does not agree with my action, he is free to revert me and to start discussion about the subject. PANONIAN 13:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Renaming articles and moving categories

Since 17 March, you have moved several articles from names such as:

History of Ottoman Serbia to History of Serbia during Ottoman administration

and categories respectively, without announcing this to anybody. I believe that the previous title was short and accurate and that this move should not have been done without consensus. I believe that you should discuss this somewhere, meanwhile, I am reverting several of your edits. Please let me know where you will discuss this issue. --FocalPoint (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree and I think that such bold moves should not be implemented without discussion. I suggest to discuss the issue in public, not in our discussion pages. --FocalPoint (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Simo Mladenovski, Banatsko selo Jabuka, Skopje, 1988.