User talk:Ceha: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:15, 13 February 2007

Image:Wance-Owen.GIF listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Wance-Owen.GIF, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 00:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other images that you have uploaded have been listed for deletion as well:

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and write articles, however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is Ceha). Logging in does not require any personal details. There are many other benefits for logging in to Wikipedia.

Please note these points:

Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
Please use a neutral point of view to edit the article; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do that.
Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted texts, advertisement messages, and texts that are not related to that article. Both adding such unreasonable information and editing articles maliciously are considered vandalism. A user who repeatedly vandalises articles will be blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, ask me on my Talk page – I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia.

from Wikipedian: ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure you read some of these links to understand how Wikipedia works. Also note that deleting large portions of text without discussing it in the talk page, it is considered vandalism. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Medak pocket

Please don't blank large sections of this article, while adding unreferenced and POV statements. - SimonP 04:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV means "point of view," it means that your edits are reflecting only one view of the affair while ignoring others. You are removing large sections of the article, without presenting any evidence that these sections are incorrect. For instance all of the specifics about the course of the battle. You are also making claims without providing any references. The information currently in the article is based on that provided in the references listed at the bottom. You have provided no specific references for your claims. - SimonP 14:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop simply reverting this page. If any of the information is incorrect, please present some evidence to demonstrate this. - SimonP 04:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting article, but it does not disagree with anything in the Wikipedia page and agrees with most of it. The article simply makes clear that the Medak Pocket Operation must be understood in context of the wide conflict, and that there are open questions that need more study. It provides no justification for blanking most of the article. - SimonP 00:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make POV articles, publish them, don't use the wiki as your personal loudspeaker. please edit only on the Croatian wiki, as we do not have time here to correct your POV edits here, and you seem to only add the Croatian popular consensus (according to you) which is not NPOV nor factual in any way.

--Jadger 05:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you are correct, none of your article isn't POV, which in case you did not realize it, is a double negative and just another way of saying you are POV pusher.

Again your english is severely lacking, as "we" does not signify a large group, only more then one, which it does as I am not the only one who has tried to stop your POV pushing.

and as for your list of books, you never did such a thing, and you have never once properly cited anything, only vaguely claimed it was the stance of the Croatian government. I did not know you were the official spokesman for the Croatian government. Congratulations, when did you get the job? (in case your english is even more lacking then you have shown, that is called sarcasm)

--Jadger 03:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTF are you talking about? I NEVER quoted Canadian soldiers, I quoted the UN article and the DND (department of national defense) page on the PPCLI, never once did I quote a POV person, I have only quoted from knowledgeable and credible groups that are respected the world over.

Now that I have run out of facts? I still have many more left, and atleast I started with facts and concrete proof, you on the other hand have only spouted hateful gibberish the whole time.

and yet again you do not properly cite a "source" so I cannot look it up properly. learn how to cite something instead of just spouting of random words pretending they are titles, or else someone can say that The Grimm fairy tale books contain proof that pigs can fly.

--Jadger 07:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer your questions once you have answered mine, as I asked the questions first, and you simply sidetracked the discussion and turned it into a flaming war.

--Jadger 18:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceha, don't let them get you "out of the track". You're dealing here with heavy POV-pushers. Your criticizers are the persons who think that they (who live thousands of miles away) know better what was going on over here, better than us who lived here.
Have in mind that some people here have to defend their lies, so that their military salaries and pensions never came in question. What if someone finds out what really happened? Tega se oni bojidu.
Someone never won a war or a battle; the same ones were known for their losses and disastrous defeats. So, now, those ones have to "think up" battles, victories and someone else's defeats. And get some money for participating in a battle which never happened.
Navrati na hr.wiki, dat ćemo ti informacija. Kubura 10:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Thanks for uploading maps related to the war in Yugoslavia which you have claimed to be your original works. Since another user has expressed doubts about this claim, you should attempt to substantiate them and provide more details (such as what Internet sources you have used in making them). Uploading a new version of the image in an attempt to avoid deletion is not an appropriate solution; it sends exactly the wrong message.

Sorry for any inconvenience. Regards, Mike Rosoft 16:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I am afraid the maps do not seem to be your original creations; rather, they are derivative works. (See Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ for the difference.) I am trying to find out what the copyright status of the original map images is. (The site [1] has no online contact to its administrators and no copyright information.) - Mike Rosoft 01:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Dragutin

Koliko sam shvatio ti tražiš originalni dokument u kom je Stefan Dragutin od mađarskog kralja dobio teritorije. Ja nemam pojma gde to da nađeš, jer knjige koje ja imam o tome uglavnom navode drugu literaturu odakle je podatak uzet, a ne taj originalni dokument. PANONIAN (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srem i Gorjanski

Nikola Gorjanski (Mikloš Garal) jeste vladao Sremom prema ovoj mapi Euratlasa:

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1400.htm

To je jedina referenca koju imam o ovome za sada. PANONIAN (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pa što se tiče "privremenog stanja" na kartama, u istorijskog kontekstu baš ne možemo koristiti tu reč "privremeno", jer čak i ako je jedna država vladala nekim područjem 200 ili 500 godina, pa posle toga više ne, i to bismo mogli okarakterisati kao "privremeno", kao i vlast drzave koja je negde vladala svega 2 meseca ili godinu dana. Poenta je da bismo na Vikipediji trebali koristiti jedan neutralan prikaz koji bi samo nabrojao ko je sve vladao jednim područjem i kada, i ne upuštati se u to ko je imao više "prava" da tu vlada, ko je bio "oslobodilac", a ko "okupator", itd. Dakle, jednostavno napišemo taj vladar (ili država) je vladao od tada do tada, drugi je vladao od tada do tada, treći od tada do tada, itd. Lepo i jednostavno i bez dokazivanja ko je bio veći i stariji. PANONIAN (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Što se tiče Slavonije i Srema, rekoh već da je problem što se te mape iz jugoslovenskog atlasa razlikuju od ovih mađarskih. Da bismo rešili problem, treba to istražiti bolje i navesti u kom je tačno vremenskom periodu Srem pripadao Slavoniji, a u kom užoj Mađarskoj. Na primer, na svim mapama Euratlasa je Srem deo uže Mađarske, a ne banovine Slavonije. Naravno, ne znači da je to tačno, jer koliko sam video, ima na tim mapama Euratlasa raznih drugih grešaka, ali prvo treba bolje proučiti šta je tu tačno. Na primer, u ovom starom jugoslovenskom atlasu koji ja imam hronologija ide ovako: u 11 i 12 veku je Srem deo uže Mađarske, dok je na mapi iz 1300 godine zapadni Srem (do Mitrovice) deo Slavonije, a takođe i na drugoj mapi iz 14 veka. Suprotno toj mapi, Euratlas pokazuje da je Sremom 1300 godine vladao Ugrin Čak (što potvrđuje i knjiga "Istorija Mađara", dok su banovinom Slavonijom u to vreme vladali Babonići. PANONIAN (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mislim da nemamo isti atlas, ali su u svakom slučaju slični. Dakle, slažem se da treba napisati da su delovi Srema bili deo banovine Slavonije, ali treba navesti tačan vremenski period kada je to bilo. Ono što je sigurno to je da je današnji Srem tada bio podeljen na dve županije: Sremsku i Vukovarsku, i da je teritorija Vukovarske županije ta što je pripadala Slavoniji. Probaj da nađeš još podataka, pa ćemo to ubaciti. PANONIAN (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:B_change_1991_2005.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:B_change_1991_2005.GIF. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 15:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

I've reverted your changes to Croatian Krajina because they were clearly not true. See the talkpage, and read the figures by the ICTY and the Croatian government. Everybody knows that most of the serbs feld during Operation Storm of Ante Gotovina. So it's kind of obvious that the region now has a Croat majority. But it had definately a Serb majority in the past. Maartenvdbent 13:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From history of date page, you've given to me "The source "www.srpskapolitika.com" is a serbian nationalist website". As for validation of census in 1991 you can see the differences between censuses of 1991 and 1981 (when Republic of Croatia was still memer of the Yugoslavian Union, and you can see that they are pretty alike). Croatian Krajina was not only the territories which were later included in Serbian rebelion, but also other territories (whole of Lika, area around Karlovac, etc) in wich Croatians had more than 80%, and wich were hevilly populated. Please read more literature about this issue before you make more misaikes like this. Also, try to avoid words everbody knows, and clearly because they are not NPOV.

Ceha 22:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what is wrong with you... I did not give that source "www.srpskapolitika.com", I never even visited that website. I only quoted on the talk page of Croatian Krajina the article Republic of Serbian Krajina, on which are census data of ICTY and the Croatian government. Please look at that talk page before you make any changes.

What do you mean by word everybody knows? I really don't know what's your point...

I will quote the article Republic of Serbian Krajina here for you again. You can see that it includes the UNPA zones North and South, and sectors West and East. Even in the Croatian census the Serbs are the biggest minority in the overall total. Croats were never in the majority...

Demographics

By the start of the 1990s and before the war, about two thirds of the Krajina (later UNPA zones North and South- not Western or Eastern Slavonia) population was Serb. These Serbs accounted for about 29% of their total population in the then-SR Croatia. The increase in ethnic tensions caused the demographic proportions to shift markedly even before the fighting broke out.

The official census held in the spring of 1991, just before the war began, is recorded in Republic of Croatia statistics books, but not currently available online. Hence, there are two different sources for pre-war population distribution: the ICTY indictment against Milošević, given in the 1st table below, and the official Croatian data excerpted from the books, presented in the 2nd table.

The allocation of the population in the different parts of the RSK was, according to the ICTY source, as follows:

UNPA Zones North and South	UNPA Sector West	UNPA Sector East	Total
168,437 (67%) Serbs 70,708 (28%) Croats 13,101 (5%) others	14,161 (60%) Serbs 6,864 (29%) Croats 2,577 (11%) others	61,492 (32%) Serbs 90,454 (47%) Croats 40,217 (21%) others	244,090 (52.15%) Serbs 168,026 (35.9%) Croats 55,895 (11.94%) others
(Source: ICTY)

However, the cited figures differ from those published in official Croatian census, which gives the following data:

UNPA Zones North and South	UNPA Sector West	UNPA Sector East	Total
169,906 (66.7%) Serbs 69,646 (28%) Croats 13,183 (5.5%) others	35,206 (35.4%) Serbs 43,063 (43.3%) Croats 21,183 (21.3%) others	57,208 (30.4%) Serbs 92,398 (49.1%) Croats 35,578 (20.5%) others	258,320 (48.16%) Serbs 205,107 (38.24%) Croats 72,944 (13.6%) others

Both calculations does not include "rose zones" (zones outside UNPA, but inside RSK). These zones are usually with much bigger percentage of Serbs than UNPA zones. Examples of rose zones include Medak, Vrlika, Teslingrad, Vrhovine, and Plaski. The largest discrepancy is in the UNPA Sector West, which might refer to the fact that this zone originally included large patches of western Slavonia (areas around Grubišno Polje, Daruvar, Pakrac and the western slopes of Papuk), but these weren't controlled by the RSK in the later stages of the war. Maartenvdbent 10:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbs from rebelled areas (no Krajina, a bunch of areas has names Krajina, like Imotska, Sinjska, Cetinska, Omiška...) have been evacuated. That was planned and organized evacuation.
If someon doubts you that, than here are the sources.
This order is given from the rebel Serb top authority on the day of Operation Storm. 5. August 1995.

RSK, Vrhovni savjet odbrane, Knin, 4. avgust 1995., 16.45 časova, Broj 2-3113-1/95. Faksimil ovog dokumenta objavljen je u/The faximile of this document was published in: Rade Bulat "Srbi nepoželjni u Hrvatskoj", Naš glas (Zagreb), br. 8.-9., septembar 1995., p. 90.-96. (faksimil je objavljen na stranici 93./the faximile is on the page 93.).

Vrhovni savjet odbrane RSK (The Supreme Council of Defense of Republic of Serb Krajina) brought a decision 4. August 1995 in 16.45. This decision was signed by Milan Martić and later verified in Glavni štab SVK (Headquarters of Republic of Serb Krajina Army) in 17.20.

These orders are given two days before the Operation Storm, 02. August 1995.

RSK, Republički štab Civilne zaštite, Broj: Pov. 01-82/95., Knin, 02.08.1995., HDA, Dokumentacija RSK, kut. 265

This is the document of Republic headquarters of Civil Protection of RSK. In this document it was ordered to all subordinated headquaters of RSK to immediately give all reports about preparations for the evacuation, sheltering and taking care of evacuated civilians (evakuacija, sklanjanje i zbrinjavanje) (the deadline for the report was 3. August 1995 in 19 h).

RSK, Republički štab Civilne zaštite, Broj: Pov. 01-83/95., Knin, 02.08.1995., Pripreme za evakuaciju materijalnih, kulturnih i drugih dobara (The preparations for the evacuation of material, cultural and other goods), HDA, Dokumentacija RSK, kut. 265

This was the next order from the Republican HQ of Civil Protection. It was referred to all Municipal Headquaters of Civil Protection. In that document was ordered to all subordinated HQ's to implement the preparation of evacuation of all material and all mobile cultural goods, archives, evidentions and materials that are highly confidential/top secret, money, lists of valuable stuff (?)("vrednosni popisi") and referring documentations.

Drago Kovačević, "Kavez - Krajina u dogovorenom ratu" , Beograd 2003. , p. 93.-94.

Note: Drago Kovačević was during the existence of so-called RSK the minister of informing and the mayor of Knin (the capitol of self-proclaimed state)

Milisav Sekulić, "Knin je pao u Beogradu" , Bad Vilbel 2001., p. 171.-246., p. 179.

Note: Milisav Sekulić was a high military officer of "Srpska vojska Krajine" (Republic of Serb Krajina Army).

Marko Vrcelj, "Rat za Srpsku Krajinu 1991-95" , Beograd 2002., p. 212.-222.

Note: Marko Vrcelj was a military officer of JNA (later named: Vojska Jugoslavije - Army of FR Yugoslavia). During the wartime 1991-95, he was on the various military functions in "Srpska vojska Krajine" (Republic of Serb Krajina Army).
Hope this'll help you. Kubura 10:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consent of the West

Mogao bih navesti ozvor, koji je uostalom vec poznata knjiga Death of Yugoslavia. Ne diram clanak dok ne odgovorite. --VKokielov 02:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian Krajina --VKokielov 22:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:B 2005.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:B 2005.GIF. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 13:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:BiH95.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:BiH95.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 13:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Bih Stan 1991.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:Bih Stan 1991.GIF. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 13:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Coutillier.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:Coutillier.GIF. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 14:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Bos_towns_change_1991_2005.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:Bos_towns_change_1991_2005.GIF. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 22:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Elections_of_1990.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Elections_of_1990.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 09:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your post on my user page

yes I doubt the theory of evolution, but because it is simply a theory, and people have now taken it on as a new religion, substituting it for the other religions and following it just as fundamentally and attacking people for not believing the same thing as them. I do think that for the most part it is true, but as they say nothing comes from nothing and so, how can you evolve from not existing? there still has to be a beginning, which evolution does not explain. I am a deist, believing that something created us then we evolved from then on into what we are now. IN this way, I am more agnostic, as the Theory of Evolution has instead of providing an alternative to religion, has become a religion in itself to some people.

Also, I would prefer if you do not attack me for my beliefs, and call em derogatory names.

--Jadger 18:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never stated it attacked religion originally, I know that very well, Darwin had originally planned to be a minister.

Why would almity [sic] being needed to create a miracle, when it can just pair few mothers and fathers create a mutation which helps that specices to better adapt to its enviroment? Ceha 10:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC) where would these fathers and mothers come from? there must be a beginning, they simply didn't poof exist. nothing comes from nothing

If you would read my above statement, I am a deist, I believe something more powerful created the world, and the world has evolved from this beginning. This act of evolving would also have had to of been created by the more powerful being.

--Jadger 19:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:B change 1991 2005.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:B change 1991 2005.GIF. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sue Anne 04:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:BiHInv.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:BiHInv.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Hetar 08:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vojvodina

Why have you been arguing over Vojvodina so much? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you won't give me any specifics, eh? ;) --HolyRomanEmperor 21:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:1991_S_towns.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:1991_S_towns.GIF. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maps of BiH

While the information on the population statistics cannot be copyrighted, the map themselves can be. Since you said you created those images, I replaced "PD-inelligible" with "PD-self". Subst:nsd 09:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

Mislim da si ti kod članka o Sremskoj Mitrovici napisao da je između 1929 i 1931 bila deo Drinske banovine. Međutim pogledaj ovo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Banovine_kj.jpg Tu piše da je ta mapa nacrtana 1930, što znači da je Mitrovica već tada pripadala Dunavskoj banovini. Odakle ti podatak da je pripadala Drinskoj banovini? PANONIAN (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evo ti i originalni izvor za tu mapu gde kaže da ona pokazuje granice iz 1929 (a ja ne vidim da Mitrovica tu pripada Drinskoj banovini): http://pubwww.srce.hr/hpm/p0259002.htm PANONIAN (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK

Odgovaram - naljutio sam se samo zato sto si mahinalno izbrisao mnogo recenica. Nema frke. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E, samo nemoj stavljati tvoju verziju - mislim, jednostavno je uklanjanje je ipak vandalizam. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evo - uno momento (ajd' vidi tamo). E i da, nije Srpska Pravoslava Crkva dala meni info - vec Rimokatolicka (Vatikan) :) --HolyRomanEmperor 23:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution to Municipal election in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1990

Thank you for your contributions to this article. However, I must suggest that you refrain from referring to yourself directly on the article (as you did while adding image comments). It goes against encyclopedical tone. Regards. --Hús ö nd 20:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demografija

Pozdrav. Hoću nešto da te pitam u vezi ove tvoje mape: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1991_BiH_towns.GIF Da li imaš detaljne podatke o etničkom sastavu gradova Doboj i Bosanski Brod po popisu iz 1991? Znači podatke koliko je ukupno stanovnika bilo u gradu i koliko je od toga Srba, Hrvata, Muslimana, Jugoslovena, itd. Ako imaš te podatke, bilo bi lepo da ih napišemo u člancima o ta dva grada. PANONIAN (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, znači tako si dobio podatke? Hm, mislim da to baš nije najtačniji metod. Znam već za taj veb sajt odakle si uzimao podatke, ali problem je u tome što ako je na primer neko naselje u opštini Doboj označeno slovom g, to samo znači da je to naselje gradskog tipa, a ne da je deo samog grada Doboja. U toj opštini su slovom g označena sledeća naselja: Bare, Centar, Čaršija, Doboj Novi, Donji Grad, Orašje i Usora. Ne mora da znači da su sve ovo delovi grada Doboja, već je možda neko od njih posebno gradsko naselje u dobojskoj opštini. Znam sigurno da su na popisu iz 2002 u Srbiji slovom g označavana i takva naselja. Na primer u opštini Novi Sad, slovom g su označena naselja Novi Sad, Petrovaradin, Sremska Kamenica i Futog, a od toga su samo prva tri deo gradskog područja Novog Sada, dok je Futog potpuno posebno gradsko naselje. Dakle, jesi li siguran da su sve ono delovi grada Doboja a ne posebna gradska naselja? PANONIAN (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject South Park

I have thought of creating a WikiProject for South Park since it is now near its' 10th anniversary and has more articles than ever. I feel we could all do the following things through this project:

Cleanup any short/poorly written/unformatted articles
Merge/lengthen the many character articles
Improve the South Park main page

I have seen your South Park fan template and wondered if you were interested in joining. If so reply to my talk page and I'll get back to you as quick as I can. Thanks, Mr. Garrison

WikiProject South Park page

We have our own page! Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park. Be sure to list your name in the members section. Mr. Garrison 18:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juraj Julije Klović

Hello. Go to the talk page of Juraj Julije Klović and help out with the discussion. A fanatical Italian user keeps on inserting his POV/nationalism into the article, and has now requested the page be moved to "Giorgio Giulio Clovio" - which is false as the man was a Croat and was born in Croatia. There is a vote on the rename happening on the talk page. Please help, as he is canvassing for votes from other Italian users.

I ne samo Klović

Ne znam da li si primjetio ili bilo tko drugi ali talijanski nacionalist Giovanni Giove i njegov dezurni zastitnik i mecena Aldux rade ogromnu reviziju clanaka hrvatskih povijesnih licnosti iz Dalmacije, ponajprije onih koji su radili i djelovali u Dubrovackoj Republici i Mlecanskoj Dalmaciji. Pogledaj samo listu: Frane Petrić, Andrija Medulić, Benedikt Kotruljević, Stjepan Gradić, Ivan Lučić, Ivan Duknović, Joakim Stulli, Ivan Lupis, Juraj Dalmatinac, Rudjer Josip Bošković...itd, lista se nastavlja. Tko je sljedeci? Junije Palmotić? Ivan Gundulić? Faust Vrančić? Marin Držić? Marko Marulić? --Anon

Tenks Promijenio sam par stvari, a ako i ti vidiš nešto, evo ti par preporuka u čemu su direktno protiv wikipedijine politike. 1)Imena. Ako je neki autor znan bolje pod hrvatskim imenom u engleskom govornom području, upotrebljava se hrvatsko ime. Isto vrijedi i za gradove. Ne može ti neko pisat svako malo Zara... Može staviti na početku da je grad tada bio poznat kao Zara, no na svakom sljedećem pojavljivanju mora pisati Zadar. 2)Ne mogu stavljati Italian painter itd, ako nemaju dokaza o talijanskoj etničkoj pripadnosti. Mogu staviti painter of Italian renessance (tako je napravljeno na Jurju Dalmatincu).(Pripazi kako su s druge strane svi autori iz Dubrovnika stavljeni pod Ragusan, a ne pod Croat, što je isto ne viđeno licemjerje...) 3)Venecijska republika nije talijanska pokrajina! U sastavu tog entiteta su bili djelovi današnje Turske, Cipra, Grčke, Albanije, Crne Gore i Hrvatske. Sve osobe koje su s rodile u njoj nisu Talijani! Kada se stavlja ime grada može se staviti da je tada bio dio venecijske Dalmacije, a nikako frazu koju oni koriste (which is now in Croatia). Nije ovo što je sad prolazno>:) 4)Tražiti potkrepu bilo koje promjene koju rade. Neki verificirani link

To bi manje više bilo to. Ne može te neko nazvati nacionalistom, a sam biti talijanski irendetist. Za imena manje-više ne znam, al isto ne daj se navuči da te isprovociraju u neku raspravu za koju nisi spreman (vidio sam da je Aldux izbrisao na Francescu Patrizziu Factanistino i samo spominjanje hrvatskog imena Petrić, što je ...) Ak vidiš što, obavijesti me:) Ceha 0:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Pa recimo problem je u tome da se radi o licimjerju. Ako je npr. Joakim Stulli "Ragusan" onda je i Franciscus Patricius "Venetian", ne mozemo biti selektivni. Uostalom Patriciusa sami Mlecani nazivaju Hrvatom. Meldolla takodjer isto tako, covjek je uzeo nadimak "Il Schiavone" sto znaci "Slaven", ovaj to mijenja u "Dalmatinac" sto je smijesno. To je ono sto me smeta. Ako se isti kriterj primjenjuje na clancima Marko Polo i Julije Klovic onda se to treba isto primjenjivati svuda. Dakle radi se o sljedecem: spomenuti clanci trebaju imati sljedece: hrvatsku verziju imena i hrvatske kategorije (ex: Croatian painter stub, itd.) i naravno maknuti reference tipa 'Italian' ili 'Croatian' i staviti 'Venetian' ili 'Ragusan' ili ih maknuti uopce ako je to problem. Dakle samo se treba primjenjivati isto pravilo kao i kod Polo i Clovio clanaka. I ovog Giove'a treba sprijeciti vec vise, covjek je poznati rasist sa news grupa, ponajprije sam ga susretao na soc.culture.croatia gdje je redovno pljuvao po Hrvatima i opcenito po slavenima. Covjek je fasist. -Anon

Potpuno se slažem. Treba se primjentiti ono što se dogovorilo i to je to. A taj lik je zbilja pun bisera...

Ceha 0:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For Khoikhoi

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I am not nobody's sockpuppet. I'm on wikipedia since 2005 and I can not see how somebody can accuse me of something and just block me out without any valid reason. My entrence to Internet is via modem and my internet provider is through college of computer and electronics in Zagreb. Could that explain similar IP adressess?

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am not nobody's sockpuppet. I'm on wikipedia since 2005 and I can not see how somebody can accuse me of something and just block me out without any valid reason. My entrence to Internet is via modem and my internet provider is through college of computer and electronics in Zagreb. Could that explain similar IP adressess? |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am not nobody's sockpuppet. I'm on wikipedia since 2005 and I can not see how somebody can accuse me of something and just block me out without any valid reason. My entrence to Internet is via modem and my internet provider is through college of computer and electronics in Zagreb. Could that explain similar IP adressess? |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am not nobody's sockpuppet. I'm on wikipedia since 2005 and I can not see how somebody can accuse me of something and just block me out without any valid reason. My entrence to Internet is via modem and my internet provider is through college of computer and electronics in Zagreb. Could that explain similar IP adressess? |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Khoikhoi has reverted all of my contributions about Croatians in Dalmatia, my contributions on the talk pages, why were some pages reverted, and then he blockes me out of his page, so I coud not tell him anything which I think about. And all of this with explanation that I am an "sockpuppet of banned user Afrika paprika, based on contributions" I've been on wikipedia (which can been seen from my contributions since November 2005). How can somebody just come and turn me off? Ceha 23:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted Khoikhoi and asked for clarification. Your account being actually older than that of Afrika paprika himself does make me doubt, I must say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional unblock

I suppose I should give you a second chance, but please be aware that you were blocked in the first place because your contributions closely resembled that of the banned user Afrika paprika. As I discussed with Fut.Perf., WP:SOCK states:

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual.

However, on the condition that you not revert the articles anymore, and you to get consensus for your edits, and not revert the articles that you've been edit warring on, I will unblock you. Agreed? Khoikhoi 07:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 355: / Line 355: @@
 :I've contacted Khoikhoi and asked for clarification. Your account being actually older than that of Afrika paprika himself does make me doubt, I must say. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 01:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
+== Conditional unblock ==
+I suppose I should give you a [[WP:AFG|second chance]], but please be aware that you were blocked in the first place because your contributions closely resembled that of the banned user [[User:Afrika paprika|Afrika paprika]]. As I discussed with Fut.Perf., [[WP:SOCK]] states:
+<blockquote>The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual.</blockquote>
+However, on the condition that you not revert the articles anymore, and you to get consensus for your edits, and ''not'' revert the articles that you've been edit warring on, I will unblock you. Agreed? <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 07:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)