User talk:PaxEquilibrium

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Redcroatiaappeal-danu1l.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Redcroatiaappeal-danu1l.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

WOW

"if I stayed - I would've lost my life, or lost my soul - for the moment that I would fire a gun (regardless to where is it pointed) - my very point of existence would have died forever, never to be resurrected; with that single shot."

Amazing words. Thanks for that.

Mike Babic (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol, thanks? :D --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 07:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia ethnic map, 1991

Hey. I got the original ethnic map of the university of belgrade for bosnia for 1991. Ceha's indeed is an edited version that shows croats and bosniaks more numerous, far more than in 1981. Tell me, how can I upload it? This is map is part of a book so I can scan it... but what then is the copywrite status? I don't want to upload it and have it deleted. Pozdrav, (LAz17 (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)).

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bosnia-ethnic-map.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Bosnia-ethnic-map.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

You have been unblocked per your appeal and consensus of comments on the admins' noticeboard regarding the possibility of doubt in the previous checkuser findings. Please don't give me reason to regret this. Thatcher 16:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

lol, trust me, he won't. PaxEqulibrium has always been a respected editor throughout Wikipedia. Yes, he has had his moments, but who hasn't? Anyways, welcome back, Pax! --Prevalis (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, welcome back :) BalkanFever 09:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Always nice to see a user get back on his feet, welcome back Pax :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Stvarno sam bio iznenađen kada sam video da si bio blokiran, i prvi, a posebno drugi put. Šta da ti kažem, welcome back, i srećno ti wikipedisanje. -- Bojan  09:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Does pax know that he's unbanned? (LAz17 (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

Yes he know--Rjecina (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Funny story

Hi, I just heard that you were unblocked. This is hilarius. Supposedly, someone stole your account. Again.

So, there is "another" active wikipedian in your vicinity using the same IP for 2 years, and you don't know who this is and how to stop him from stealing your identity.

This is hilarius. What is even more hilarius is that en:wiki have admins who are ready to buy this fairytale.

Good luck with your future sockpuppets. Anything goes here. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

...You are mistaken, my friend. Pax is currently studying at the University of Belgrade...which, as do most schools throughout the world with internet access, share IP addresses...So it couldn't have been Pax who did such a thing, as we all know PAx wouldn't commit to such crimes...Pax is a good Wikipedian, and I stand by that. --Prevalis (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And we are supposed to believe you ,just because you say that??? LOL--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 09:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, I feel that even if Pax did use sockpuppets he's been banned for quite a while and deserves a second chance. (A third chance, however, is a different matter as I'm sure we'll all agree.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's think this way.

What a person whose wiki-identity is stolen do? It would propably immediately contact some admin and tried to take back his account and win back the respect of the comunity.

What a person who was blocked for having 70 sockpuppets would do? He would waited 3 months so noone can recheck his old IP addresses, and then he would claim that this "identity thief" used inly his job's IP address.

Pax waited 3 months and few days.

So, people, don't be naive, or even worse - don't knowingly support sockmaster just because you share (greater-serbian) political views with him.

--Ante Perkovic (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

important

It is of huge importance, that you tell the copywrite status of the 1991 ethnic map that you uploaded. Ceha is trying to get it deleted because of copywrite status. If you created it you can say it's your creation and are releasing it to the public domain. This way the map can be secured and not deleted. (LAz17 (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)). These are your maps which need copywrite status... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:BH1991.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BH1991.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BH1991.png Please also leave a comment in the talk page of those maps, as we need to keep them. (LAz17 (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)).

And do tell us how you made them. Cause if you made them editing (or coloring) anything remotly similar to [1] than it should be deleted because you did not have copyright to edit that kind of data. You had to get submunicipal borders from somewhere. Also according to Laz, those maps are not correct and do not show settlment borders [2], see eastern tip of Derventa, Donji Višnjik settlment. No copywrite rights, bad borders, bad data. Simple solution, simple deletion. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ceha, you made your maps by editing other maps. That's a fact. I see nothing wrong with coloring over the national geographic map. Pax is under no obligation to tell us how he created his maps. Be it painting over, using a base map, or doing all sorts of other things such as paint, GIS, photoshop, or other things. According to me, Pax's map is far more accurate than the miserable map(s) that you support, some which have already been deleted. (LAz17 (talk) 05:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)).

Laz, try to read wikipedia's policy about copywrite. Editing maps without copywrite writes on those belgrade's maps(which he did do) is a breach of copywrite. Editing any map (including National gographics) without premision of the author is a breach of copywrite contract. Only of my maps which were deleted were due to copywrite problems.
For all the maps, according to wikipedia policy, author must give checkablle sources so it can be validated. So, yes, Pax obligation is to tell us how he created those maps and if they are in any breach with wiki policies (which they are) they will be deleted.
As for my maps of which do we argue about they are made by coloring blank municipal map of BiH (which can be downloaded from the net with edit copywrites) and bih census of 1991 and other sources which are listed there.
Laz, please, try to comprehend than according to you is not a valid wikipedia mesure and that you should stick to wikipedia rules. They, on all possible levels, do promote deletion of Pax's map. Only reason why it hasn't been done yet is because of our outgoing discussion. Hower, as it reaches it's end, those maps will be deleted for certain. --Čeha (razgovor) 07:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that you do not understand one thing. When I took cartography, our professor said that nobody can attack someone for using a certain base-map, when it comes to copywrite issues. Basemaps really can not be copywrited. It is what is on the basemap. Furthermore, it is okay to reproduce a map that looks like another map, but which is a bit different. Pax probably used GIS to get some cadastral sub-municipal borders, and then when he finished he just removed the borders, which is easy to do in GIS. The point is that you want to get his cartography skills and other stuff, so that you can enhance the quality of your bad maps, to try to make it look like they are good. (LAz17 (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)).
Laz, you are a bit paranoid, aren't you? Those maps were made by editing (probably in paintbrush)map (of which you claim it is from Belgrade's University, and which can be found on Rastko pages. I advised you to read [3] and [4] because you confuse fredom of information legistlation with public domain. There is no blank submunicipal basemap of bih whith free copywrite and you and Pax can be blocked if eather of you do post copyrighted material despite appropriate warnings. --Čeha (razgovor) 04:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually all base maps are free. Nobody can persecute someone for what they use as a base map. They can only quarrel over what is shown on the map, if it is too similar. I can take a rand mcnally map of a state of the US, scan it, delete everything on there asides from the border of the state, and put whatever I want on it, and it would be okay. It is not possible to persecute based on the base map. Furthermore, one can re-create base maps. And lastly, if this is true what you say, then nobody can make any new maps that are accurate. You are using a bosnian base map for the entire country, so by your logic, it must be deleted ASAP. (LAz17 (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)).

Ceha, you see this map?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DemoBIH2006a.png You took that and changed the colors as well as other things. Why should your new version of this map not be deleted? Same stuff. (LAz17 (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)).

Pax is not aware that he is unblocked... is he? (LAz17 (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

Laz, again, do you read wikipedia policies or? Did you read what copywrite had sorce of this map [5] ? According to copywrite I had rights to change it. Pax's map does not have needed copywrite. I'm sorry to tell you that, again. If you can find apropriate base map wich shows submunicipial borders of BiH from institution which has the right to show it and which does not have copywrite issues, do please tell me. I'm very interested in that kind of map>:)
Pax's map are going to be deleted because of the breech of copywrite. Simple as that. Do try to read wiki policy before going into the discussion. --Čeha (razgovor) 07:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually these maps may be perfectly fine. We need to hear what PAX says. And he need not say how he made it, as it is legal to use any base map. His map does not have any boundaries inside the country. (LAz17 (talk) 04:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)).

Due to wikipedia policies, maps has been deleted. Laz do try to read previous conversation I'm not going to explain it all ab infinitum.--Čeha (razgovor) 06:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Email

Sorry but I can't trust you like earlier and because of that our only possibility is to talk on discussion pages. user:Thatcher has fallen on your words but every checkuser is knowing story about 3 months.

Like we have spoken in better times about Podgorica Assembly I am not interested in emotional arguments and personal thinking, but only in sources. All sources are speaking that annexation of Montenegro has been against Montenegrin laws. If you want more data which is not in article: Podgorica Assembly has been against points 2 and 70 of Montenegro constitution.

All statements which can be declared questionable are supported by sources, and because of that I can't understand where is problem. It is important to notice that event writen in article are supported by montenegrin historians, school books ..... I can understand that Serbia and people from Montenegro which are today for union with Serbia see things differently and this can be added in article, but only in separated section using rules Wikipedia:Fringe theories. In my thinking this is only possible solution if you want to add your theories--Rjecina (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Što ste ga napali, covječe?! Ma pusti te ga na miru. Čim je deblokiran, vi nalazite razlozi da biste ga odmah blokirali, opet. Ma kakvo je to poštovanje, ljudi? --Prevalis (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina, zna se da su namjere Podgoričkog skupština bile ilegalne i nijesu se slažili sa tadašnjom Crnogorskom ustavom, ali Srbi propagiraju to i kažu da su to neistine i da su činovi te skupštine bili fer. Pa šta će čovjek uraditi ako samo može koristiti izvore sa Srpskim bibliotecima? Mora da doprinosi nešto, barem njihove mišljenje, zar ne? --Prevalis (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Čeho, o'kle znaš sad da je slika o demografiji stanovništva Bosne i Hercegovine ilegalno postavljena na Wikipediji. Gdje su vam dokazi? Pokaži nam vaših izvora za vašu žalbu, pa ćemo vidjeti ko je u pravu ovdje. Možda je tvoja informacija pogrešna i bezvrijedna, možda i nije ali ćemo ikako saznati kada vidimo te vaše izvore. ;) --Prevalis (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Pozdrav prevalis. Imaš 2 izvora i većina ti se može naći u mojoj raspravi s Lazom [6]. Međutim s obzirom na dužinu, dvje stvari su najbitnije:

• Podopćinske granice prikazane na slici nisu granice naselja. Ovdje se nalazi prilično dobra karta (bar tako mislim) položaja i granica naselja [7], a Pax-ova karta ima iste granice kao i na [8]. Pogledaj onaj mali dio špic općine Derventa na istoku. Gornji Višnjik. Drugačije. Korisnik Laz tvrdi da je to zato jer su to granice katastarskih jedinica a ne naselja [9]
• Podaci koje je korisnik Laz17 koristio za prikaz toga se razlikuju od popisa stanovništva 1991, što možeš vidjeti na [10] pod podnaslovom valid data. Imaš i neke podatke za kupres pod podnaslovom Kupres data request gdje vidiš razliku barem na području jedne općine (Laz je pustio još par općina, ali te rasprave su poslije izbrisane).

A glavni razlog ti je što su karte vjerojatno pokupljenje s www.rastko.org što su POV stranice (velikosrpske). Uglavnom, Pax ih je vjerojatno odtuda pokupio i zatim prefarbao. S obzirom da nije imao valjan copywrite, niti izvore karte su sada izbrisane.

U svakom slučaju, dodatna objašnjenja ne škode. Pozdrav,

--Čeha (razgovor) 07:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ceha, da ti nesto priopcim... podatci sa http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorija:Popis_stanovni%C5%A1tva_u_Bosni_i_Hercegovini_1991. su takreci isti ko sam mojim podatcima. Mozda se razlikuje broj stanovnika za nekoliko ljudi, ali je procenat isti. Dakle nije bitno koji se podatci koriste. Problem je da ti koristis podatke sa http://www.fzs.ba/Podaci/nacion%20po%20mjesnim.pdf sta je totalno sranje. Ko sto vidimo, taj tvoj PDF file je sranje, zato sto neprikazuje sva naselja. Najbolji primer je glamoc. Naravno da nikad necu da priznam taj glupi pdf file. Ali priznajem taj sa hrvatke vikipedije, jer su ISTI procenti kao i moji podatci, sa sve te jedinice.

Te karte nisu iz rastko organizacije. Te karte su sa univerziteta beograda, i rastko ih samo prikazuje. Nije rastko previo te karte. karte neodgovaraju cehi jer se surprostavljaju sa njegovom ustaskom propagandom koja zeli da prikaze da ima sto vise hrvata po herceg bosni, centralnoj bosni, i posavini. Ceha pljuje na svim mapama, dal su sa univerziteta beograda, sa magazina national geographic, ili sa drugih izvora. Otvoreno je rekao da nece da stavlja mala srpska naselja na mape, ali u privremeno ima mala hrvatska naselja. Uzas je od coveka, treba bit izbrisan sa wikipedije ako se ja pitam. Plus, zove me slep jer je on slep - mozes na diskusiji videti da mu lepo priopcim mape od kljuca i od sanskog mosta... covek nevidi gde su njegovi podatci pogresni... ko da jede pa moram da mu sazvacem, da mu sve objasnim da svati to sto se jasno vidi ali on zaboga nevidi. On je nacionalista koji je protiv znanja, nego je za propagandu velike hrvatske. (LAz17 (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)).

Ok, Laz za ove optužbe si prijavljen na ANI-ju. Mislim da sam pokazao i previše strpljenja oko nekih pitanja.

I nemoj lagati. Rekao sam da karte ne prikazuju enklave manje od 150 stanovnika. To što si ti ugrožen (i uskoro blokiran) to je tvoj problem. U općini Glamoč uopće nema hrvatskih naselja.

A da si malo pročitao pravila wikipedije shvatio bi što su službeni izvori, što je provjera podataka i što može proći kao valjani podatak. Ono što si ti meni slao nema nikakve reference, ne može se nikako provjeriti i može sasvim lagano biti izmišljeno. Nakon što te odblokiraju, potrudi se proučiti pravila, da se incidenti ne bi ponavljali.

Što se tiče podataka, ponoviti ću ti još jednom, i to blago jer mogu vidjeti da imaš problema sa shvaćanjem. Taj pdf file po kojemu cijelo vrijeme pljuješ je službeni podatak. Prilikom izrade karte su korišteni podaci po naseljima iz knjige bilten 234, što lagano možeš provjeriti po nacionalnim wikipedijama s prostora bivše jugoslavije.

U budućnosti, nadam se da ćeš se malo civilizirati te da se nećeš ponašati ko 13o godišnje djete.

--Čeha (razgovor) 22:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Koga to zajebavas? Kakvo Glamoc? pricamo o grahovu! Imas hrvatska mesta tamo, mesta koja imaju 2 stanovnika i oko 100 stanovnika. To mozes, a ispod su 150, a srpska u tomislavgradu nemozes zato sto su srbi. Pokazujes direktnu nacionalisticku mrznju jer diskriminises protiv srba. (LAz17 (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)).

Bre providan si sa tvojim stvarima... evevi gde su neki drugi podatci, jer je ociledno da nisu pobrisali ono sranje gde si branio tvoje dve lazne mape - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bosnia_and_Herzegovina/Image_discussion_Bih_1991.jpg (LAz17 (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)).

This is english wiki and we all need to write using english language.

For all users interested in discussion about Bosnian maps you can enter discussion on User:Rjecina/Bosnian census

Pax we will speak about Podgorica Assembly tomorow. From time to time I have really enyoyed our discussions :)--Rjecina (talk) 06:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Data which I talk about is that data from ex-yu wikis. That is the official data from 234 Bilten and census 1991.

Again, Laz, I would like to ask you that you do not lie. You mentioned Glamoč, which can be seen on ani; Discussion is indeed leading nowhere. Ceha has openly said that his map is a simplified map, so he will not take into account small settlements of certain groups. Let me clue you all in to what this means. For example, he justified excluding two serbian regions in the municipality tomislavgrad, because he says they are too small. Yet, he includes two even smaller croat regions in a nearby municipality, glamoc. How can he know what he is doing when he is on purpose excluding serbian areas because of small size, yet not excluding croat ones that are even smaller? That's just mind boggling. It spells of propaganda and POV. (LAz17 (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)).

end of quote.--Čeha (razgovor) 07:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

both start with a G and they sound the same. You could have easily figured out what I was talking about. (LAz17 (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)).

I'm not a mind reader. Lern to express yourself. And no, GLAMOC and GRAHOVO do not sound similar.--Čeha (razgovor) 09:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have created new section on Podgorica assembly talk page.--Rjecina (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:

No problem, mate. It's ridiculous that these Croats would be this anti-Serbian, especially towards you, a respected Wikipedian, but hey, they are propagandists just like the Serbs, but no matter, it will and will always be an endless war. I will look deeper into this situation, as requested by Ceha and Rjecina. --Prevalis (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

About Nikola Radonjic, I haven't really written any Historical article after you left but I'll give it a shot. I want to get more active on Wikipedia, now that we all have some backup :D. I have a lot of articles in mind, and will be writing up a bulk of them by the end of December, hopefully. --Prevalis (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have some text about him in the Historical Lexicon of Montenegro, but if you'd like, you may e-mail me the book. Holmia, with proper references, can be created even if it doesn't exactly pertain to Wikipedia guidelines, as it was significant in the Vasojevic clan history, unless you suggest we add Holmia as a section within the Vasojevici (or Nikola Radonjic) article. However, in the Lexicon, his name is given as Nikola Milošević Vasojević, son of Prince Staniša Mihaila Milošević Vasojević. If you say otherwise, then so be it, you'd know better. But I'd suggest the article be named Nikola, Knez of Vasojevici, Nikola, Prince of Vasojevici or Nikola Vasojevic. You decide, because I, at this point, am undecided. --Prevalis (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I forgot to mention, a certain Montenegrin Wikipedian known as Sideshow Bob, has returned to Wikipedia, as had CrnaGora (but he remains largely inactive :S). --Prevalis (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, mate. How was your trip? --Prevalis (talk) 04:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyways, I wrote up the text to the Nikola Vasojević article, but I was waiting on you for your sources, because my source is, well, the only one I can find :S. You may e-mail me via the E-mail User function as I have registered my e-mail on Wikipedia ;). --Prevalis (talk) 04:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Name of Montenegro

I nominated article about Montenegro on Serbian Wikipedia for featured article, but I'm not sure from where name Montenegro came from. Various states that it came from edict to Vranjina monastery, but who gave the edict and when? Uroš in 1276 or Milutin in 1296? And do you have something about Venetian, Dubrovnik and Kotor sources for names Cerna Gora, Montagna Negra, Montenegro and Monte Negro? -- Bojan  21:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Why? Well, there is a faction among Serbian Wikipedians who calls for overciting. But now they are minor problem. What it is your opinion about article Montenegro regarding NPOV? It is clear now that the article wont pass the vote, but I'll renominate it later. -- Bojan  15:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Mhhm, sources for what? I think that more important is what' is referenced rahter than how many references are in a article. Anyway, I'll expand article for the next nomination. -- Bojan  08:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I missed, sorry. I added into the article parts about Montenegrin cousine, generating electricity in the country (from Italian Wikipedia), climate and list of the biggest towns of Montenegro per last census. -- Bojan  20:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Montenegro makeover

Hi,

Since you are the creator of this WikiProject, was wondering what you thought of this makeover created here. I've posted a notice on the WikiProject's talk page here. Let me know what you think, if it is ok with the group to merge the original page to the new one created. Regards. Wiki Raja (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Mapa - Ugrin Čak

Zašto si uklonio moju mapu iz članka o Ugrinu Čaku sa objašnjenjem da je sporna? šta smatraš spornim na mapi? (odgovori mi ovde, molim te) PANONIAN 13:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Translation:

Why have you removed my map from the article on Ugrin Csak with the definition that it is questionable? What do you consider questionable on the map (please respond to me in here).

That was a long time ago, I don't really remeber. If I recall, the borders were far too OR to be acceptable to the wikipedia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)