archives¹ archives² archives³ discussion^{to incorporate}

Lets look at the facts here. First please be civil, I never expressed or implied that I am "deciding" what ethnicity someone is or going against the wishes of his father (which seems a weird thing to say since you have presented no source saying what his "will" actually is). In fact when I disagreed with the original removal of Weird Al from the article I answered with a source. You have alleged this source is wrong but haven't given a reason except pointing toward an article which says he is American and the Weird Al website which says he is Yugoslavian. We know that being Yugoslavian doesn't mean you are always Serbian, but that doesn't mean being Yugoslavian means you are never Serbian. We know Yankovic is a Serbian name and, thought this is a weak argument, the editors of Serbs and List of Serbs have listed Weird Al as Serbian. As for Weird Al's website, and I admit this is speculation, there is no evidence about when it was last updated and in fact it could date before the dissolution of Yugoslavia and was written in an effort to make it easier for the average American to understand his ethnicity. As for the article, saying someone has an American ethnicity is deceptive because most Americans have different ethnic heritages, though there are some who claim it such as in the south. A Yugoslavian ethnicity is also deceptive considering the nation once contained several different ethnic groups and the name for the country itself just meant "South Slavia" or "Land of South Slavs."

I'm willing to compromise but the only way I could see it happening is if we get a neutral third party to look into our dispute. Until then I will continue to do research as I hope you will also. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please accept my apologies for my changes to the Yugoslavia at the Olympics article. I did not understand the complexity of the situation. For the past couple of days, I've been attempting to reconcile the differences between the All-time Olympic Games medal table article and the individual <country> at the Olympics articles, mostly fixing missing and incomplete Beijing medal counts. Not counting Germany and a slight inconsistency in the Russia vs Russian Empire distinction, the Yugoslavia medal counts were the sole remaining discrepancy, which I was attempting to correct. As I now see, I should have done more research before acting (such as actually reading and following the Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics link at the top of the article).

However, I did locate the Yugoslavia at the 1996 Summer Olympics article (and the 1998 Winter, and 2000 Summer, and 2002 Winter articles) whose "summary" links refer back to the Yugoslavia at Olympics article. Perhaps the links should be updated refer to the Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics article. And as you already noted, the All-time Olympic Games medal table should probably also be updated to show the distinction.

I'd be happy to make some of these changes to improve cross-article consistency – subject to discussion and review of course.

By the way, I did drop a note on the WikiProject Olympics talk page, so I don't think I was totally out of control, just a bit too WP:BOLD. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I keep the word "erased", but please you can't erase part of the voice. Also note that their original surname is "DElupis" so, please, stop to erase it. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.81.229.33 (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

a bulgarian user implies propaganda into thje article! Korpas (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Bulgarian user implies objective explainatoins and scientific studies. The Macedonists, blind reverts and nonsences. Regards! Jingby (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I forget to use the "Show preview" button too. - 4.240.165.138 (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Imbris! Please don't unilaterally change things on Wikipedia without discussing first. I left a comment on the talk page almost a week ago and you haven't replied, so I am left to assume that you do not object to what I said (see also WP:BRD). Unilateral moves without discussion or proper argument may result in a block from editing Wikipedia. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kindly stop introducing false information into the article; refer to the history section. No classical sources mention any Croatian origin; pushing your national bias is not acceptable. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will not accept your current agenda of pushing a national perspective, and attempting to deflect that founded accusation on me. Look below: you have another editor's opinion already. Perhaps consensus can be found on the talk page, but certainly not if you keep reverting edits. I am not introducing unestablished information, you are. A spirit of cooperation is of paramount importance. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are you so aggressive at the suggestion that working together is the best way forward? Please reconsider this pov pushing agenda of yours, it will do the project no favours. You have removed important, interesting information from the article: it shall be fixed. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I've said, your pro-Eastern pov pushing won't be tolerated. Pax^^ the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Issa' is the name of the dog, not the Roman Governor. The Governor's name was Publius, who is shown by historical record (archeological and documented fact) to have resided and governed the Mediterranean island of Malta. He is also mentioned in that context within the New Testament. I just thought you should be told there was no Governor Issa :) the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I quote, from your little encyclical on my talkpage: "Issa -the name of the Roman Governor should not be translated to the modern Maltese language". A few more hours at night school may be in order. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Maltese (dog), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Tool2Die4 (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I second that: you have done this several times now. Stop pushing your nationalistic agenda and kindly stick to the facts. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems that you are unable to hold back from making nationally motivated edits. Very disappointing; I suggest we take this into arbitration, since you seen unable to understand my position and I find yours, quite frankly, to be untenable. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've started an AN/I thread here regarding your edit-warring. Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I understand that just fine, saw it already. I just wanted to revert back to the time when both of you didn't exist. Elm-39 - T/C 12:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While "Bosnian and Herzegnovinan American" would be more technically correct than "Bosnian American", the latter is the commonly used term. WP:COMMONNAME PRODUCER ^(TALK) 21:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Talk:Republika_Srpska#Using_modern_terms_to_describe_the_nations_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina by your logic Bosnian Muslims, Croats, Serbs should be referred to as Bosnian and Herzegovinian Muslims, Croats, Serbs. It's technically more correct, but wiki insists on WP:COMMONNAME. Google brings up 27,100 for Bosnian American while Bosnian and Herzegovnian brings up only 363 PRODUCER ^(TALK) 21:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure which part of 'I'm washing my hands of this' you fail to understand, nor what precisely it is you're jabbering about. I have distanced myself from your work on the project entirely, I suggest you get on with whatever it is you are here to do. Cheers, את אמא כל כך שמנה, היא יושבת ליד כולם (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So...you didn't do the user conduct RFC right so I reverted some of the related edits.[1][2]

If you're going to pursue a user conduct RFC against Pietru il-Boqli (talk · contribs), you need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct and Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users. I may be willing to certify such an RFC, but only if Pietru il-Boqli is actually still active in the relevant disputes.

If you're just trying to get wider opinions on the content issue, Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on articles, templates, or categories has the relevant information and doesn't require any certification. — Scientizzle 19:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest we call admin/s in again, I'm afraid I really have had enough of you and your attitude. The article does not benefit from constant back-and-forth reverting and pernicious tampering.

I apologise for pointing out your various grammatical/syntactical mistakes, I hope you'll find the means to correct them in your own time. Regarding your presumptions of my ancestry, it's English and Maltese. I think I have a fair idea about yours already. Cheers, 汚い危険きつい (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I only return to that article to fix pernicious edits. In the interim (while the article was protected) and since, I have been mostly active on articles dealing with Maltese prehistory. As a matter of fact, I'm not as passionate about the Maltese dog as you are. I'm not sure why you keep saying sources have been removed; they haven't. Are you simply lying, or is there something you see which I don't? I dislike these chats you keep forcing me into Imbris. I have restored the article placement, if you disagree please ask for comment on the talkpage where myself and other editors can dispute your claims. Otherwise, goodbye. 汚い危険きつい (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Maltese (dog). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Maltese (dog). Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text ((unblock|Your reason here)) below. Kevin (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bribery? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where did you read that?

I am restoring the correct data. Yes, do not move to the 19th century or such misinterpretations, but let's leave it at the 13th or 14th.

Masking? Sorry, that was fixed.

Cheers, --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text ((unblock|Your reason here)) below. Tan | 39 05:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have blocked you because you made no attempt at resolving the edit war at Maltese Dog - while the page was protected, you did not post to the talk page at all. Directly after the protection expired, you made the same reversion you had been making before. I saw your post at RFPP, and while odd, does not excuse your edit warring. Please stop. Tan | 39 05:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Most of the discussion at the Talk:Maltese (dog) was my attempts to state reasons, list sources, find compromise and also list other wikipedia's articles which use the exact same Other names pattern as should the article on Maltese Dog. Also I have attempted to discuss the matter on User talk:Tanthalas39#Maltese (dog) while the protection was in place. Pietru was blocked during this time and also blocked was his talk page. I knew that RFPP is the right thing to do but also knew that admins could not see eye to eye with me and not revert to a version before the edit-war. In fact I reverted to Pietru's own edit (before the edit-war). I do not see how this could be misinterpreted as edit-waring because I did talk, I did make my intention clear (reverting to the last version before the edit-war). I made my reasons clear - bringing Pietru to the discussion table. I did not shut down and revert just as it was an ordinary edit. I talked and talked but Pietru "washed his hands of me" and ceased talking; but he did not "wash his hands of the article he is not interested in" and of my edits to the article. Why am I getting blocked? I did nothing wrong but Pietru's sock is doing it just now. Also I would like to mention that Tanthalas39 wants you to look at the my talk page and doesn't mention that Pietru is on wikipedia longer than I, has a few more edits than I but his (Pietru's) talk page is virtualy blank because he deletes his talk page allmost after every new section of that talk page. I mention this because it seems that the Tanthalas39 wants my block to be in force because of my talk page omitting the fact that I have not been blocked previous my incounter with Pietru. -- Imbris (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

As you say, you "knew that RFPP is the right thing to do". That's where that should have stopped. There is no qualifier for that, and your attempt to provide one for it by using the ever-popular "wrong version" argument is one of the least convincing I've ever read. You also fail to assume good faith. Daniel Case (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

At RFPP I requested protection before the edit-war and fail to see this move as an attempt to protect the right version. Also you have denied my unblock because of what exactly? Reverting to a version before the edit-war started couldn't be seen as wrong doing because I have talked about it at Tan's talk page and at RFPP. I think that another admin should look to see if there is any chance to review my doing about the article. Did I delete something or insert sourced material. Why Daniel Case sees it his way is beyond me but I have assumed good faith even the other editor used provocations, faul language and accusations instead of arguments. I have tryed to RfC but was stopped because apparently Pietru ceased disrupting, but did he stop his trolling. No he did not, he continued. Nevertheless of my current block I will try RfC once more. -- Imbris (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

revert warring is nto allowed even if you have attempted to start discussions. Discussions are to be carried on instead of reverting the article, and merely because you left notifications of your intents on talk pages does not then excuse edit warring at the article. Since I see no indication that you intend to stop the behavior that led to this block, I see no reason as yet to unblock. Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

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.

((unblock|I belive that it was not edit-waring, because I have reverted to a position that was before the last edit-war. When I say the last edit-war I mean the last time before Pietru's trolling. I promise that I will not under no circumstances revert the article again. I will seak administrative help in resolving the crisis of demands made by certain admins that I should: withdrew, take a wikibreak, seek dispute resolutions, protect the article at its version before the last edit-war. The only thing I am asking for, is to be unblocked so that I might seek help on the issues. -- Imbris (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)))Reply[reply]

Would you agree to refrain from editing the article in question and immediately start a detailed RfC if you were unblocked? I will unblock with this stipulation. Tan | 39 19:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I will refrain from editing the article in question and immediately start a detailed RfC. -- Imbris (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope that the article would be protected in full, at the version before the edit-war, or at any version you see fit. -- Imbris (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basically, the way it works is this. You need to develop a consensus for one version or another. It's not about recruiting people to support you, exactly, it's about getting uninvolved people to comment and come to some kind of solution. I'm not familiar enough with the guts of the dispute to say, but it's possible that some kind of compromise might be the best solution. But in the end, if a consensus does develop and a single editor disagrees with it, there are policies under which they can be blocked if they won't accept it. The best thing about a firm consensus, though, is that any edit war will quickly become lopsided, with substantially more people on one side than the other, given time for enough people to notice it. This leads to a circumstance where the "griefer" must realize that they either have to break WP:3RR or accept the other version. So, there are ways.. but the way it always has to work is through building a consensus first: otherwise, it's unrealistic to expect admins to be able to choose the right side in a substantive dispute.. admins have extra functions they can use but they don't have elevated authority over article content. Mangojuice^talk 21:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I demand you apologise for characterising my edits on the Maltese dog article as 'trolling'. The issues are being dealt with in a suitable fashion at last, as you will remember, I called for admins too. However slander will not be tolerated, especially in light of my approach to your work. 汚い危険きつい (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have every right to describe what I felt like when dealt with you. Please stop communicating with me, as you have requested that I do not contact you any more. I will stand no more your abusive language and talks of your linguistic supremacy. Also your presumptions on my character, nationality and my editing are not welcome. You need to curb your emotions and stop griefing other editors. Feel free to discuss wherever you want but not here. EOD. -- Imbris (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This lack of decency is the true grievance. You have not simply presumed upon but denigrated my character, nationality, edits and identity. This is all. 汚い危険きつい (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have I asked you not to address me any more, your listing of what you have done to me is what is undecent. Nobody touched your character, nationality and identity. Your harsh and abusive language, denialism of sources and nationalistic editing is what scared our contributive relations on this Wikipedia. Please stop vandalising my talk page. -- Imbris (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Then all of history sections in all of dog breed articles should be renamed Disputed history, except from the part from when standardization started?"

Yes, why not, except that for many breeds, there is an "accepted" version of breed history - it's not "disputed" unless someone starts an argument. Can I try to interpret what you mean by " except from the part from when standardization started"? Do you mean before the breeds had written documentation and record keeping of their ancestry? A breed is defined by its ancestry. Dogs in ancient times in various places may have had a similar appearance, but that does not prove they were related; only knowing their ancestry proves a relationship. Today we can find some of that information about dogs with DNA testing, but formerly the only way was through written or oral records of breeding and ancestry. Before record keeping, all we have are listings of dog types that looked similar or the same but may or may not have bred true, or even been related in any way. Those types were throughout history sometimes documented -- as with the oral records of the Bedouin about their sighthounds' ancestry or records of Pekinese breeding in Imperial China. Many ancient records like that are lost through time. Unless there is proof, through DNA tests or written records, that specific old types of dogs are related to a specific modern breed, all the ancient history before record keeping is guesswork. --Hafwyn (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Stjepan Vukčić Kosača a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C) 18:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please refrain from comments like this in which you call an editor a "known pranskter" who "makes fun of Wikipedia." That's a personal attack and behavior like that can get you blocked. Comments like that are going to make the discussion degenerate into a war; they have already led to the article being protected. Mangojuice^talk 15:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A summary look at Imbris' archives shows just how often this user has resorted to this type of personal attack. While this might seem like 'pot calling the kettle black' territory, I'm resolved to steer clear of such attitudes in future and, after distancing myself from Imbris, still received plenty of bile for it. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just taken a good look at your work. Imbris, PLEASE review your edits before making them public or hand them over to somebody for proof reading/correction. Where you've re-worked/excluded information, I've had to get it to work in again. And you should consider taking Mangojuice's advice when it comes to the comments you send me. If the tone does not improve I shan't reply. Pietru (talk) 04:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, first I'd advice you not to be so stressed. You still seem at least a bit angry with every comment you write. Second of all, it's quite the opposite of most certainly not - it is most certainly. The Church was abolished in 1532. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whats your question exactly? I'm a bit puzzled PRODUCER (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support Dzole's judgment, the editors who oppose him openly admitted not knowing the history of Yugoslavia and failed to provide good arguments. PRODUCER (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Out of question that this women is Frankopan.

In article we are having statement: "his family split from the Frankopans in the 14th century". Funny thing about this is that family is taking Frankopan name only in 15 century. First time they are called Frankopan in document from 1422 ! [3]

Vjekoslav Klaić croatian historian has writen that only Swedish line of Frankopan dynasty has survived until 20 century. This line has become separated during Kalmar Union when son of "first" Frankopan has become Eric of Pomerania governor.--Rjecina (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not understand why you refuse to discuss this, and just resort to reverting?

Your claim about SOC first introduced in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1905 is simply false. That is why I am reverting - it is simple as that.

Where is the precise dispute? I invite you once more to give up on the edit war and approach a calm discussion on the issue. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Imbris, do NOT start this again. Read the talkpage, maybe twice, internalize what it's trying to tell you and stop with the agenda. Are you serious about your 'island of Malta' distinction? Raise it on the talkpage. Pietru (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, your input is requested at Template talk:PD-Yugoslavia. Thank you, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I never wrote the song titles like that? The countries were not entered under written like that so only the English shall remain. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is your final warning for edit warring on Maltese (dog). Any further reverts/warring - especially with Pietru - and you will be blocked, this time for a longer period. Tan | 39 21:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finally. Imbris should be thoroughly investigated. Pietru (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tanthalas39: I will not reply in my defence on the talk page of Tanthalas39. I have warned Pietru not to contact me in any way known at wikipedia. He has not complied and continues to sometimes pop in order to provocate, glouting his opinion, showing off with his silky language and otherwise distort my editing. You may not know this, but Pietru turns his offences portraying as if someone (in this case me) offended him. He is very skillful in listing his offences and lay blame upon the object of his methodology. I reported him to ANI (this is my first reporting someone there) because I simply could not stand his defamation of my character. I could write, and write how much he has offended me knowing that nothing will be done, that he cannot be stoped because of his methods of shared blame (lay blame upon the object). -- Imbris (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Imbris, is the above intended antisemitically? Or am I inferring too much? In any case, I have never contacted you without there being reasonable need (related to issues of current importance) and if you remember, asked that you not contact me first. Pietru (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

His methods of trying to upset people, saying they are racist, antisemitic. It is his way of saying that sources are depleeted, and the issues must be clouded by fog. I will not write on Tan's talk page because Mangojuice sadly enough painted a picture as if I am the first and foremost responsible party, highlighting my name and even wikilinking it. On the other hand nothing about Pietru's transgressions.

When Pietru said he wished me not to contact him, I complied. There was even a time period in which he contacted me, but naturally I couldnot contact him. Then, after a series of his offending me and even demanding appologies from me, I said EOD and belived he would comply.

He has often addressed my talk page to threat ANI, falsely invoke AGF, and drop lines such as Finally. Imbris should be thoroughly investigated. (direct quote)

Imbris (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I prefixed my reservation by saying it was to some degree paranoid. I have never said you are antisemitic, in fact, I have never given you the opportunity to before. Your comments were directed at my Maltese ethnicity (and that odd "spick" comment). I have said over and over that I want the article to be accurate and honest. Even if that means backing off. But suggesting correction is nothing to be afraid of! Pietru (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, why act like a martyr? If you feel you've been portrayed unfairly, take issue. Pietru (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop editing my talk page. Ok. I will not defend myself from your attack here, there are places you and I can discuss, this not being one of those places.

And finally stop lay blame upon me, stop commenting on me (paranoid, Ha?!), stop your defamation (racist, Ha?), stop writing on my talk page because if you do write on my talk page I will report you for vandalism.

You have gave me plenty of oportunity to go to ANI. I have had it enough. Stop writing on my talk page. Understand.

I have made no such comments but commented on your blatant wikilinking everything to Malta and overestimating Publius/Martial. The article before I came along was a pure Malta POV, no Italy, no history, no Sicilia and Meleda.

You have spicked the edit with that comment spiced, spiked whatever.

I write this for Tan's benefit, and not for yours. Stop writing on my talk page.

You want honesty, I cannot belive this, not in a million years.

Back off from my talk page.

You have not corrected anything but you have editwared, and expected me to do the same.

I do not act like a martyr no more than you are penitent.

Back off from my talk page. Indefinitely.

Imbris (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm warning you, Imbris, that you need to drop this Botolo nonsense. Editors are two (myself and the IP) to one against you on it; I already gave my last word about it and you've brought it up twice again since that. My good faith is wearing thin -- you tried to use the inclusion of "botolo" to bootstrap in your Croatian name, an argument I wouldn't go for in the first place, and now you are vigorously arguing to keep this irrelevant piece of trivia; I can clearly see your motivation. Your latest comments are trying to push nationalistic original research into the article. Your latest accusations against the English is particularly vexing, but not nearly so much as your opposition to every and all mention of Malta. There are some ways in which I feel like you are being helpful, but your editing overall seems very agenda driven, and it's getting to the point where I can't work with you. I can't fight you tooth and nail over every mention of a country or a nationality or a language, it is just too exhausting. Mangojuice^talk 06:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I'm warning you" WHAT A COMPLETE ARSEHOLE !!!!! Ignore Mangojuice. He, she or it can assert itself in the real world and so tries to do it here. Can't even give it's real name. Too frightened. What a wimp. Out in the real world, Mangojuice would get the shit kicked out of him if he acted like this.

Please ignore the above comment, by an IP editor evading a block I upheld. Anyway. Here's the thing: Pietru, Crotchety Old Man, the IP editor on the dog article, and Tanthalas all see you as a problem editor. It may be time for you to realize that maybe there is something to all this. There are two main issues I have with you.

1. The first one is that you persist in arguments regardless of the traction you're getting. Examples of this include the Croatian name issue, the [[Malta (island)]] vs. Malta issue, the Botolo issue. Those are topics you have already beaten to death at least with me, and you know quite well I disagree with you on all of them and yet you seem to bring one or more of them up almost every time you comment. I'm trying to just ignore you and work on the issues I want to work on but you keep coming back to these things as if your persistence will eventually wear me down or drive everyone away from the article until you get your way. The Croatian name issue particularly (and now the Botolo issue too, since they're so similar and they're linked in my mind) -- your extreme persistence on this point may be that you simply have this opinion and don't realize the effect your persistence is having on other people.. but everyone's stronger impression is that you are pushing a nationalist POV. Maybe you aren't pushing something against neutrality but it's certainly the kind of thing nationalist POV-pushers do, and your persistence is without question a kind of pushing. You are actually pushing very, very hard for these things. See WP:TE and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
2. The second one is that you don't seem to understand the borderline between sourced edits and WP:SYN (Original Research by synthesis). You have frequently argued that one source or another should not be used because it is wrong, and then used a great many, overly redundant sources in support of your own points. The history section, for instance, before my latest revamp was full of this. I'll discuss specific article issues on the article talk page, though. The difference between proper encyclopedic writing and WP:OR by synthesis is that in the latter, the overall effect is to pass judgment on the truth of certain claims, relying on sourced statements. This is what one should do when one is a real researcher, but on Wikipedia we don't publish original thought, and that includes original analysis of existing sources. You are frequently arguing that we should highlight sources you like and remove sources you think are wrong (or that you argue are unreliable, mainly on the basis that they are wrong or that your sources disagree). This is the kind of thing that makes an article into a WP:SYN violation. This is kind of a tricky point... and your confusion wouldn't be so bad if you weren't constantly pushing all your arguments so much.
3. Nationalistic issues. As I said, this may simply be a false impression of you from your tendency to push on your arguments...but you need to understand that Nationalistic POV pushing and edit warring is a common and extremely disruptive issue on Wikipedia. Here are a list of WP:ARBCOM cases in which a broad nationalist issue has led to general sanctions: Armenia/Azerbaijan, Eastern Europe, Balkans, Palestine/Israel, and there are others (see WP:SANCTION for a full list) that are more specific. Now, general sanctions (basically, a markedly decreased tolerance for disruption) is a very significant step: it indicates that the entire community has lost patience with a certain kind of behavior and will deal with it harshly rather than with normal levels of Not biting the newbies and WP:AGF. Given this low level of tolerance in general for this kind of thing, you ought to be especially careful to handle nationalist conflicts gently, but if anything those areas have been the worst for you.

If you can take a step back, read these concerns, and go back and look at your own behavior, maybe you will understand where everyone is coming from when they call you a problem editor, and that may let you understand how you need to adjust your behavior. But if that adjustment is coming it really needs to happen soon, I am seriously on my last thread of patience. Mangojuice^talk 05:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are going around the issues to discuss me as an editor? Suggesting what you think are my motivation for editing is also not appropriate.

Wikipedia should be about edits and not editors, we all know that and I thank you for your contributions, all of your contributions to the article were reasonable, but you also resorted to deleting content simply because you think that they further my alleged bias.

About the editor with problems bit: Pietru is a long time edit-warior, violates AGF as much as he can, the fact that you use my problems with Pietru as a pretence for labeling me as problematic is proposterous, Crotchety Old Man (possible Pietru's sock), created recently, had not created any articles, IP-editor from Australia should be trusted and the IP-editor who attacked you should not be trusted. Tanthalas39 has expressed his concerns but under false impression that I reverted as soon as I had been deblocked (from a 24h block). Which is not true and I very well know who misinformed him, its all on his talk page (in the recent archives). Also the remark that IP-editor was full of accusations toward all other editors and has not discussed on his talk page, has discussed only with you (regarding the dog article), etc., spoke about his academic credentials, etc.

If you do not wish to read on my view of your view on Mljetski pas, Malta Island v.s. Malta and Botolo, please skip those sections. I am not trying to get you talking if you do not wish but I must explain what happened. Nevertheless it might be of your interest to read why I belive those topics matter.

About persisting in discussions:

(1) If Mljetski pas is contrary to Wikipedia:ENGLISH this would be reasonable, but dismisal of sources is what is not appropriate. I have reffered to the name issue only, and I have reffered to it because I wouldn't cite Croatian sources (from three different periods of Croatian history) in their focus - that being claims of Croatian origins. I thought that citing only the name should be enough. I haven't wanted to insert those claims because I personaly do not belive that a dog this old can have origins in a particular one place. Sadly enough I saw that you are completely against non-English sources so I decided to insist only of the viable. Even if this Croatian origins is a minority view, it has its proponents in Croatia and also in some cynologists in former Yugoslavia, we have also a book translated into Slovenian in 1975: Gondrexon, Anna ; Browne, I. Psi vsega sveta : mala enciklopedija psov (translated by Janes Gradišnik and Tone Glavan), Cankarjeva založba, Ljubljana, 1975, p 294

Conclusion regarding (1): Mljetski pas can be translated to Dog of Mljet with ((lang-hr|Mljetski pas)) besides the name. Or we should insert what the sources really focus on?

(2) [[Malta Island|Malta]] issue is relevant in those cases when we speak of the island and not of the country. It is absolutely clear. I agree that [[Malta]] can be used but not when speaking about the island of Melita (Melite) being followed by mentioning of Malta. It is completely false because in the ancient times Melita was Malta Island and not Malta. Your argument that Malta is a better article plays no part because it speaks of the history of the Maltese nation, economy, the territories now comprising the Republic of Malta and not specifically of the island. I have on one occasion agreed to a compromise to drop the Malta Island/Malta issue but then you started including Malta in the historical section, with wikilink, and it should not be wikilinked Malta in the historical section but with the Malta Island.

Conclusion regarding (2): I have been more than willing to appreciate your feelings on the matter but you pushed the limit when writing [[Malta]] after the mention of Melita in the Sicilian Sea. You have not compromised but just asserted that your word must be the last on the issue.

(3) Botolo/Botoli issue is very easy. Briggs mentions it, there are other sources to verify, like the works of Dante Alighieri, or more recent Gina Spadafori and the source for the Fisting Hound also speaks of Botoli (Thynne, Francis. Emblemes and Epigrames, BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2008 [1876], p 99). In the history section there are historical names that nobody or few use, Fisting Hound was in its place before you deleted it as being archaic. Thynne also included German language names Bracken Schosshundle and Gutschenhundle but I did not include them because their words have nothing to do with the origins of the dog, practically the entire Central Mediterranean has something to do.

Deletion of Botolo/Botoli under false impressions gave by the IP-user 122.200.166.113 that it is an Italian word for artichoke and some other commentary should have played no part in your impartiality (to which I am begining to suspect). Also your explanation on the why Botolo/Botoli shouldn't be included is proposterous. Botolo is mentioned in Briggs, a source for this article, and in the historical section and in the context of sometimes been called

Conclusion to (3): Definately part of the article.

About the second point:

I did not commit WP:SYN because I did not pull the info out of a magicians hat.

Everything you deleted has been mentioned in writters specifically talking about the dog, Briggs mentioned lots of names in his article about the dog.

Bryant did not pull the info out of a magicians hat, everything can be sourced to numerous sources, suprisingly enough you deleted all the references of Callimachus made after his death. Those are not references by some "modern" authors, to say the least, it is references by authorities on the issue, by classical Roman, Byzantine and other authors who are quoted even today by cynologists of the World.

Callimachus was undoubtedly an authority on dogs in his time, and he is mentioned as only some first author while Strabo is overplayed with mentioning of the first century, and also Martials poem about his friends pet. They obviously deserve a time frame, atributes, titles.

Also you have done your best to accomodated Pietru's wishes, and you condemn me as someone who writes OR. Did you really read each and every article on the dog to determine that those authors, whose mentioning you deleted are not mentioned in relevant sources. The fact is that you made the article into a strong Malta fortress, Malta is singled out in the lede, instead of being in the third place since FCI doesn't want to hear about Malta being connected with the dog. Then in the names subsection the "Maltese" is overplayed and in the old days it was considered a subspecies of the Spaniel species, deleting Fisting Hound, Fisting Dog, Fisting Cur (are among options) shows that you belive in some sort of balance which is contrary to the great number of sources. For God's sake, the Bichon was the name not only for the Maltese of today, and there were lap-dogs of all sorts called by some of the names you deem only for the Maltese.

In conclusion to your second point: If you belived that was SYN, you should have taged it and not deleted it, then allowed a period of time for me to collect sources which would satisfy your need to punish me for allowing those authors into the article.

About the third point:

You became the editor and I thank you for your contributions, I have nothing against adding content into the article. But, you started deleting with false pretences, calling me a nationalist and during the RfC practicaly denied everything I asked but in the same time acted like Pietru is a viable editor and like the emerging force of Crotchety Old Man who called for a complete revert before I came along which was latter executed by IP-user 122.200.166.113 even if Binary TSO saw nothing wrong with the article and you have also reverted the IP-user.

So to sum up. You have been more than happy to accomodate Pietru, but not me. You have sided with Pietru's accusations of nationalism, and insist that Caius should be in the article but those who support Callimachus should not be in the article.

On the IP-user who vandalised your talk page, your user page and now tryed to drag me into his flaming reaction to your editing on Publius. I know that his intentions are not good, you should not worry that I will let myself to be draged into this.

Oh, now you are talking, sanctions, nice. I have every right to answer on my talk page whatever I want, naturally without offending and such.

How should I react when you said that you will merge history section of the IP and history section made by yours, mine and Pietru's contribution to see all the deletions you made and a few days ago defended my editing from being deleted by IP-user 122.200.166.113

I hope that no SANCTION is necessary since I do not edit disruptively and also I would like to mention that I have no part in recent reverting, you can ask checking admin to check from where I edit.

Thanks for reading, I hope that we might reach some agreement, some sort of a compromise that would satisfy all parties.

The only thing I am not sure is why Pietru is so interested in Saint Publius being in the article.

With kind regards and greatest respect but the article is not Articles on probation, nor is related to nationalism.

Imbris (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You missed my first point entirely. It's not those particular issues. I am well aware of what you think about them. It's that you cannot ever let them go, any of them, they keep coming up again and again. Even now, you use the opportunity to make your case again. I do acknowledge you tried to let me know to skip them if I don't want to hear it. But I'll believe progress on this when you stop referring back to those points over and over on the article discussion page. (Don't worry, I know it's not you reverting, it's this guy. If it continues I may have to ask that the page be semi-protected for a while... sigh.) Mangojuice^talk 03:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've created a move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves per your suggestion at the article's talk page. GregorB (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Austria has a more central-western European culture related to the culture in (southern) Germany, Hungary has a very unique central European culture. That these countries once ruled over parts of the Mediterranean does not make them Mediterranean cultures. They neither have a Mediterranean flora, fauna or climate. Their languages, except for the few ethnically Austrian and Hungarian people who stayed on after the Habsburg empire disintegrated, do not feature in the Mediterranean area. Traditional Austrian and Hungarian cuisine have very little to do with the Mediterranean either as they do not use olive oil (fairly typical for all Mediterranean cultures) nor salt-water fish. It is for these reasons that I have deleted the countries from the list of countries which border the Mediterranean.Takeaway (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the 1930's and '40s, an estimated 100,000 "White Croatians" or known as Byelo-Harvats and somewhat 50,000 "White Sorbians" or Lusitic Serbians lived in present-day Poland, the majority around the Krakow region. The peoples were descendants of a small influx of transplanted Serbo-Croatians whom arrived in the 16th to late 18th centuries, when eastern Silesia and southern Slovincia was under Austrian rule (the Austro-Hungarian Empire). But then came the Nazis German invasion of Poland in 1939, followed by the Soviet invasion of Nazi-occupied Poland in May 1945 and finally, the Communist takeover of the Polish government in 1947 has forcibly pressured the entire White Croat/Serbian population out of the Krakow region of Poland. Almost all the Byelo-Harvats and Lusitic Serbians emigrated to the United States, though Polish-Canadian and Croatian-Canadian organizations mentioned Canada was another major destination for them, and the rest in other neutral host nations like Sweden, Spain and Argentina. To make matters complicated is the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under communism as well wasn't the land of choice for ethnic Croats or Serbs from Poland. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_Croats" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.2.206 (talk)

Hello, I reverted the edit you made to Neven Jurica as his having been the Ambassador to the U.S. was already mentioned in the first sentence of the career section. Just wanted to let you knowwhy I reverted it. JavierMC 08:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I provided a WP:3O at Talk:Bosnian_American#Third_Opinion. I hope—but cannot guarantee!—that it will be useful to you and the project. I will keep the talk page on my watchlist for a short time in case my response to any follow-up comments/concerns would be helpful to achieving consensus. Best wishes! GreenGourd (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've responded on the article talk page and reverted to his version. Long story short, I think WP policy specifically prohibits controversial categorization such as this; we can discuss that on the article talk page. As for COM's use of Twinkle, please don't take it as if he thinks you are vandalizing. There is some bad blood between you two, but Twinkle is just a tool and its use does not imply one position or another. The only time I would call use of Twinkle abusive is if used in a content dispute in order to aggressively revert without discussion. In other words, I think it's okay for anyone to revert anything with Twinkle so long as they provide an edit summary explaining themselves and don't revert-war with it.

Finally as to Caius, I wouldn't disapprove of calling him "personal physician to the English royal family in the 16th century" or "in the Elizabethan era" but it certainly seems much clunkier and it certainly wouldn't be my first choice. I don't like just calling him an English physician, it makes it sound as if we are denigrating his expertise; I would prefer no label or just calling him English to that solution, but on balance I don't like either of those ideas either: it's a history section and mentioning Queen Elizabeth I both identifies the time and place of Caius -- it's elegant writing and I see no reason to change it.

Just FYI, I haven't abandoned this article, but I have real-life concerns that are pressing right now. Next month I plan to start looking at this article some more, with an eye to expanding the history section to discuss more than just the origins issue (including adding the Clement of Alexandria bit back... I just couldn't see how to integrate that text without a general expansion of the section). Mangojuice^talk 20:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is one thing to implement the proper term (synonym) for Serbo-Croatian used in SR Croatia, it is an entirely different thing to start pushing it in as some sort of supposedly "separate" language. I suggest you bring this theory of yours to Talk:Serbo-Croatian language before making any more absurd undiscussed edits. "Serbo-Croatian language" is the most common term in English, far more common than "Croato-Serbian language", "Croatian or Serbian language", "Serbian, Croatian, or Slovene language" or any other alternative name used throughout the past century. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Imbris, you're inventing a new language. "Serbo-Croatian" and "Croato-Serbian" are not two "separate" languages in the diasystem, these are two names for the same diasystem. Like I said, stop until you've reached some kind of agreement on Talk:Serbo-Croatian language. This is not a matter of "compromise" between the two of us. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The changes may be small, but the issue is certainly not petty. Imbris, you are wrong here. Please discuss the matter properly on Talk:Serbo-Croatian language before proceeding. Croato-Serbian = Serbo-Croatian. Its just another name that may or may not be used when the Croatian idiom is in use. You are listing synonyms for the same language diasystem in article leads. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ahh.. the paranoia kicks in. I'm a unitarianist, a communist, I have evil plots and everything... hey, maybe I'm an ex-UDBA agent working on Wikipedia? All I'm saying is that Croato-Serbian is another term for Serbo-Croatian, which is kindergarten stuff. You're inventing a new "language". My opinion is "null and void"? Fine, take this to talk and prove me wrong (I already started a discussion). I remind you that so far I've only heard your opinion as well. Your gazette just means they printed the Serbo-Croatian language in both idioms, and entitled them by their usual names. Its still the same language (as far as they were concerned, at least). The Croato-Serbian language is absolutely not a different language than Serbo-Croatian. It is an alternative name, for the same language, usually used to name its Croatian idiom. I repeat: this is not just between you and me. Take this to talk and have a proper discussion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I presume your trademark lack of response is to be interpreted as agreement? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I love asking questions? Like an UDBA interrogator, Imbris... Especially if these questions are specifically related to the subject of discussion, I simply adore those questions. In fact, I adore them so much I'll ask you again: do we have an agreement? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh LoL... what are you talking about? The issue was that you insisted on the existence of seperate "Serbo-Croatian" and "Croato-Serbian" languages, which is the "theory" you were implementing on more than one article. Turns out you were quite wrong. You see when I'm obviously wrong, I admit it (and apologize sometimes) [4], you just phase out of the conversation (presumably embittered).

"Croatian or Serbian language" = "Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian" = "Croato-Serbian language" = "Serbo-Croatian language".

They're all valid synonymous (or nearly-synonymous) names for the same language. However, this is the English Wikipedia. The name of that particular language in English is BY FAR "Serbo-Croatian". The other synonyms are virtually unknown outside Croatia, and maybe Serbia. Its ok by me to use the most appropriate term in the context of the SR Croatia article, but to start adding "Croato-Serbian" to article leads, or to start replacing "Serbo-Croatian" with various synonyms you personally find more "Croatian" is absurd. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Na kojem jeziku je napisano ovo pitanje? Je li to:

1. srpskohrvatski
2. hrvatskosrpski
3. bosanski/bošnjački
4. crnogorski?

Mislim, možemo se mi praviti blesavi do mile volje, no dokle god se radi o jednom te istom dijalektu (praktički identično stilizirana novoštokavština), nema se tu što puno filozofirati. Puno više smisla ima pričati o nekakovom "američkom jeziku" (koji već dugo i ima vlastite rječnike, gramatike, izgovor) nego o "standardnom hrvatskom" za vrijeme SFRJ. Evo jedan filmić za tebe: [5], vjerojatno si već vidio ali malo humora ne škodi za otrežnjenje ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The core of this farcical debate is that User:Imbris is unable to shake his delusion that "Serbo-Croatian" = Serbian and "Croato-Serbian" = Croatian. We are talking about Yugoslavia, not today, keep that in mind. And while you may think the Croatian language is immortal, supreme, hallowed, and blessed, the historical reality of SFR Yugoslavia is slightly different.

Let me guess: the constitution you love to quote does not state that the language you mistakenly consider Croatian is Croatian, or that the language you mistakenly consider to be Serbian is in fact Serbian, does it? Here's an illuminating beam of light, from me to you: the Serbo-Croatian language had two idioms.

In other words:

• the language you mistakenly consider to be "Croatian" is the Croatian idiom of Serbo-Croatian, the language you mistakenly consider to be Serbian is the Serbian idiom of Serbo-Croatian.
• the language you mistakenly consider to be "Croatian" is the Serbo-Croatian language, the language you mistakenly consider to be "Serbian" is the Serbo-Croatian language.

This idiocy has been in my face for far too long, and I can sense myself losing my patience. There was no official standardized Serbian or Croatian language in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Period. That is, I say again, kindergarten-level stuff. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am writing this answer not to Mr. I. R. but to Ivan Štambuk

Mr. DIREKTOR is delusional, he belives that Croats and Serbs are one singular nation and likewise the Croatian language and the Serbian language are one singular language, without any regard towards the discrepancies. (Ivan Štambuk recognizes those differencies of languages)

Mr. DIREKTOR continuously portrays me as some sort of a danger to the Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language. I leave that language to the linguist to discuss, and limit myself (Conciously) to minor improvements only. I am of no threat to Ivan Štambuk (whom I pressume is or was a student of linguistics at the Faculty of Phylosophy of the University of Zagreb, -not related- is Tihana Pupovac also a student there, at the Department of linguistics? ).

Mr. DIREKTOR deliberately misuse the word standard, and Ivan Štambuk knows that the English language is not fully standardized, at least that was his conclusion somewhere in the archives of Talk:Serbo-Croatian language.

My misconceptions (that would be characterized as such by Ivan Štambuk) have no bearing on the fact that all those names lead to the SC article and Ivan said that this is good. So what is then wrong?

I say that what is wrong is:

• The fact that DIREKTOR is pushing for a less descriptive solution, which has nothing to do with the English speaker, who is deleting Serbo-Croatian language (the name of that language and the wikilink to that language).
• Answer : NOBODY
• The language (or diasystem) had many equivalent names, and using one of those names along with the predominant Serbo-Croatian language and after that predominant name - this comply - to any possible standard, just not the standard of Mr. DIREKTOR.

I would respectfully ask Mr. DIREKTOR not to write on my talk-page anymore, not in the context of the Serbo-Croatian, Serbian or Croatian, Croato-Serbian, Croatian or Serbian, Serbo-Croato-Slovene, Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian, Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian, Croatian/Bosnian/Serbian, Croatian/Serbian/Bosnian, Serbian/Bosnian/Croatian, Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian or any other name for the diasystem concerning Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian (or Montenegrin).

Imbris (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And no, it is not ok to use whichever name you like for the Serbo-Croatian language. It is only "ok" to use the common English name. Certainly not the one you feel is the most "Croatian" you can get away with. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since when is writing the full name not "ok"

I have only written:

Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian which is in the lede of the article to which both wikilinks go to:

Serbo-Croatian, Croato-Serbian, Serbo-Croatian language, Croato-Serbian language

Stop patronising.

Stop writting here anymore

Imbris (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weird, you ask me questions but (respectfully?) tell me not to write here anymore. Lucky I don't have to listen to you, huh? Just delete then :)

• That is not the "full name", that's an alternative name. The full name is the full name in English. "Serbo-Croatian language" is not short in English for "Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language", it is in itself the full correct and most common name for this language. It is the name Wikipedia uses EVERYWHERE.
• What I believe about the present is completely irrelevant. What matters, though, is that I do indeed "believe" (know!) that Serbian and Croatian were never official languages of the SFRY. I notice how you didn't really address the fact that I stated you misunderstood something. That must mean I'm right? I mean, usually when I imply you may be wrong you start a long rant on how I'm rewriting history and that Croatian is "immortal" or whatnot. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My talk page is not the place for your outbursts, stop vandalising. -- Imbris (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But it is a place for your outbursts, apparently. This is not vandalization, look it up. Regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One interesting quote [6]

For those not affected by nationalisistic passions, it is reasonable to date the birth of the modern Croatian language as June 25, 1991, the date on which Croatia (and Slovenia) declared its indepdence from Yugoslavia.

This is generally how foreign-language linguists perceive the issue, believe it or not :) I also recommend reading Wayles Browne's chapter on Serbo-Croatian in the big Slavic languagea monograph by Routledge, as well as reading literature older than 220 years (i.e. in pre-nationalist times), on the ex-SFRJ territory, and comparing the frequency of appearance of Croatian ethnicon as opposed to general non-ethnical appelations like Slavic, Dalmatian, Slavonian or Ilyrian. Cheers :) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dobar dan, Imbris!

Thanks for bringing the deletion of my citation tag to my attention. That quote glaringly needs a source and I will re-add the tag. As for the various names of the various kingdoms, I really don't want to get involved there... I don't know much about the history of Croatia-Slavonia but I will look at the article and see if there is a clearer way to specify that it was autonomous within the KoH....

Best, K. Lásztocska^talk 18:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Imbris, the reference you added here does not support the specific claim made in the article, that Lazar Popovski was the only Macedonian independent Olympic participant in 1992. The reference you added doesn't even say he competed in 1992, let alone the fact that he was the only Macedonian. You need a source to precisely confirm the statement you added to the article. The closest source I can find is to look at each of the 58 biographies linked from here to check the birthplaces, but that may be original research to do so. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. My edit-warring restriction, hardly a "severe penalty", lasted one year: it is over. and the other guy that got it ended up banned: proving that he was a fanatic who could not stop revert-warring to push his edit. Besides, I didn't see you reverting him trying to depict half of Croatia as Italian in all but name. Where were you when half of the articles on Croatian cities and history were sporting Italian instead of the "beloved" Croatian language?

As for the current situation: we'll likely both bet blocked for a significant period, probably an equal period. You introduced the recent changes and are now edit-warring to keep them in, even though they were plainly contested by more than one User. These are the simple facts obvious to anyone viewing the history page, but then they likely won't matter to the Admins... I'd call them in to mediate but I don't want to get blocked before the edit-war you started gets spotted on its own (which should be any day now).
Oh, and the page might get protected too. Those poor guys probably think you'll actually discuss while the article is blocked LoL... Knowing you, if the article happens to get protected with your version on you'll be all happy and cease discussions. You'll probably think you "won", too... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"We can edit and talk?" No you see, its useless to talk while you're pushing through contested edits. Why? Well, simply because we'll both get blocked anyway if this continues, so there's no point. I don't know about you, but I don't like getting blocked. This presents a considerable problem, as I have two equally undesirable options:

• 1 I keep revering you (and you keep reverting me). Discussion is pointless in such a situation, since the outcome will simply be the aforementioned block.
• 2 I stop reverting you, and the new edits you're trying to push stay on. Discussion is pointless again, for two reasons: a) since you've already proven that you can keep your new edits in simply by "playing chicken" (or the "Who-wants-not-to-get-blocked-more-than-the-other" game), and b) because you're likely to phase out of the discussion anyway with your edits in the article (based on previous experience).

That's why I'm trying to get you to stop for a while and reset the discussion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop playing cat and mouse games, you stopped discussing alltogether. Stop reverting content that is sourced. You have started to delete content that was in the article for ages (like Montenegrin), you are not capable to understand that Serbo-Croatian belongs to Other languages, per that template. You kept adding the Serbo-Croatian under the South Slavic languages list even if that "content" was listed in the Yugoslav anthem section. -- Imbris (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Cat and mouse games"?? I just told you, in detail, why there's no point in discussing: we will get blocked if we don't stop reverting. Just imagine I'm an "admin" and I'm telling you this, because its that certain. I'm willing to start a proper discussion, and reset everything. We'll get the issues related to Serbo-Croatian to Talk:Serbo-Croatian and issues related to the article itself right there, in seperate sections so we don't have to run a segmented discussion. Just please stop for now. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry Imbris, but I'm no longer on an edit-restriction. You got it wrong. Re: "You are the one edit-waring..." No, Imbris, I can assure you we're both edit-warring. The only difference is you are the one trying to get new edits in. Me? I'm willing to revert to back before you started all this a while back, while discussions are on that is. Of course, you probably find that unacceptable... because you're the one pushing new contested edits. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's what I propose: we revert all the way back to the point before you first introduced your changes. We then wait a few days and we both don't touch the article. We completely stay away. That way we 1) cool off, and 2) we let the edit-warring blow-over and hopefully avoid a block. We then file for Admin mediation and get an RfC going. The way I see it, its either that or we both eventually get blocked. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I reverted all the way to before you introduced the edits we were revert-warring over. Per your demand, but against my better judgment, I didn't full-revert but left the edits that are undisputed. Do you have any issues with the revert? For the love of Mike, do not revert anymore or we'll have to wait a longer period for this thing to become history. Just tell me and discuss it first. Its time to have a reasonable discussion on this. Now we have to wait a few days and show that this whole thing is history. Do whatever you want, but please don't re-introduce any disputed matter. Its important to enable us to say that we've stopped edit-warring.

Re: "Why cannot we agree, why we must allow editors that do not give a damn, and that will only say their opinion without sources, without any real interest in contributing to the article decide and on what."

Because it would appear that we can't agree on anything whatsoever. I'm just trying to avoid getting us banned because of this. Its obvious you won't want this version on, so we need to resolve this somehow. However, I am willing to "compromise" if you are. Do you have any proposal on meeting me half-way?

Re: "You are very spitfull, you know. All this because Croato-Serbian offends you on some level, or what. Cannot you say what you think, and stop hiding under phrases."

I'm no more spiteful than you are. Every "epithet" you came up for me can very easily be applied to you as well. I'm amazed you don't see that. I do not hide under phrases. I'm being as frank as possible with you. The idea that the term "Croato-Serbian" offends me is preposterous. Why would it offend me? It is virtually synonymous with "Serbo-Croatian". I already told you why I revert. Its because you're using an alternative name just because you want to "defend" the Croatian language. In other words, nationalism is clouding objectivity in your judgment, and I dislike that intensely. Just think: if you weren't Croatian, would you ever dream of using a little known alternative name ("Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language") instead of a common one?

Now, concerning the RfC. I must demand that the issue of naming for the Serbo-Croatian language be placed on Talk:Serbo-Croatian language since it has little to do with Hey, Slavs. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're edit-warring again. Ok, look: I simply reverted back to the last version of the article prior to the introduction of the edits we are edit warring over. I then added the non-controversial edits.
I said: "we revert all the way back to the point before you first introduced your changes" and you stated you agree to that, and listed the exceptions you wanted. Why are you re-introducing the very thing we were edit-warring over!? I'm telling you, man, we need to stop this now...
(The Tiso's Slovakia thing is ok, I didn't see that.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's the main disputed edit in this whole affair, [7]. I reverted there: that's virtually the main issue ("we revert all the way back to the point before you first introduced your changes"). Now please leave it this way it won't matter anyway since everything will be changed after a consensus is reached. Lets leave this for a few days, to show that we really have stopped edit-warring. If we're going to file for Admin mediation, we have to stop first.

(You should know I'm not going to edit-war either way. If we can't agree on a "ceasefire", I'm going to report us both to the Admins. Even if I don't someone's bound to notice. This stops either way.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's not discuss the issues now. First concentrate on stopping the edit-war. I thought we agreed to revert to "before you first introduced your changes"?! What edits did I introduce? What are you talking about? Just leave the article in the state it was in before the problem started. Look, just wait before you edit. Tell me what you want changed, discuss it here first.

(I'm having serious trouble understanding your posts, please take the time to be more careful in sentence construction and more thorough in explaining your point.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are you doing now? What difference does the sequence in the list make? That's a pure POV edit. You don't like the language and you shove it to the back of the list, what's up with that?

You are now going back on our agreement. The only agreement between the two of us that I have any memory of. I reverted to "before you first introduced your changes", then you re-introduced the main controversial edits simply because you can't help yourself. Please tell me right now: are my efforts here pointless? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all: you should know your English is becoming less and less legible. ("No one said what you claim I agreed."?)

• Re: "No one said what you claim I agreed. Second, if we are to agree you need to stop pushing SC in the lede of all the other languages.
  • I need to stop "pushing SC"? I AM NOT the one "pushing" anything, I'm the one restoring the version before you started "pushing" your edits.
• Re: "SC is a macrolanguage and it will not be placed between bos and hrv. That is all."
  • Macrolanguage? That is just your view with which all other involved Users on Talk:Serbo-Croatian language disagree. "Macrolanguage" is an ISO term only. However, even if I allow you that, it is there primarily in a historic capacity because the song was an anthem in that language. It is a historic macrolanguage that is very similar to bos, cro, and ser. That's why its listed there. There is no imaginable argument in this world that can justify your moving it to the back of the list. You are doing so because you are a Croatian nationalist that dislikes the unified language and its concept intensely, not because of some rational argument. However, would you agree to the languages temporarily listed in alphabetic order?
• Re: "SC is a macrolanguage and it will not be placed between bos and hrv. That is all."
  • Sooo... if I want to "agree" I have to do what you tell me to, and completely fold on the issue? You're giving me an "ultimatum"? Think on that for a second: do you think that will work? I am asking you again to please agree to revert back to before all this started and then wait a few days. I am reminding you again that the alternative is likely a block for the both of us, and that the it will all be changed after a proper consensus anyway. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You give me "ultimatums" and order me to "forget it", and you tell me to stop "making rude demands"?? Are you even aware of your attitude? Do you possess the capacity for objectivity sufficient enough to view yourself through the eyes of others? Do you really expect me to agree with you after such posts?

Maybe you didn't read my above post, so here it is again in bold script: you should know I'm not going to edit-war either way. If we can't agree on a "ceasefire", I'm going to report us both to the Admins. Even if I don't someone's bound to notice. This insanity stops one way or another. I'm just going to leave a message on WP:AN/I saying "Someone please have a look at the Hey, Slavs article.". I won't write another word. That will be enough. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14 hours with no response. So you've now opted to completely ignore my efforts to negotiate a stop to the edit-warring? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In request to the request for informal mediation, I'm going to give you guys a hand-can you see the Hey Slavs talk page please-Talk:Hey,_Slavs#Informal_Mediation. Thanks! Dotty••|^TALK 14:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the comments-can you take another look please & reply? Thanks! Dotty••|☎ 09:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And again! Dotty••|☎ 10:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Imbris, I have left a message on the Hey Slavs talk page, but thought I'd leave one here as well. Unfortunately it seems that you do not want to budge on this issue at all & as a neutral observer, I'm leaning towards the arguments of the other guys, as more neutral & functional. I hope that by alerting you to the fact that it is your arguments that are the less neutral, you will see that by constantly opposing efforts on the talk page, you will get nowhere & may result in a change being forced through against your will. It would be much better for you if you were able to cooperate with the process, because then you could have an effect on the end solution, rather than merely being a bystander. I look forward to your reply. Dotty••|☎ 07:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Imbris, can you please see the discussion on the Hey Slavs page. Without your input, the changes you don't want will be almost definitely implemented & you then won't have a say or any input, which I'm sure you don't want. Please come & comment within a day or two. Dotty••|☎ 10:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have read all the arguments & understand both sides, however in this case I'm going to have to lean towards Direktor & Ivan's case. By all means, in the lede we will clarify the differences in names in Serbo-Croation & Croato-Serbian. With regard to the Montegrin language, once it's named as an official language, I agree that it should be implemented in the article, but not until then. So I think that Serbo-Croation(with its two variations), Slovene & Macedonian should be the only languages in the article. Although I can see where you are coming from, from what I can see, these are the most official/most federal languages from the historic period. Although I don't expect you to agree with this, this is the most neutral & least POV solution, from a neutral observer. If you have any large queries please feel free to ask, but we will try to implement it in the next few days. I therefore ask you not to try to change it again once agreed & changed, because a consensus has been reached. Thanks! Dotty••|☎ 12:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Imbris. You have new messages at Dottydotdot's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

I will explain once more why his edit does not make any sense. This is not a matter of national pride.

1. The character of Triumph began in 1997.
2. In that year, Yugoslavia was still an entity and Montenegro was not an independent country.
3. Also, the dog breed in question was called "Yugoslavian Mountain Hound." Therefore, the term "Montenegrin Mountain Hound" did not exist at all.
4. It was in that year when Triumph made the self reference as a Yugoslavian Mountain Hound, before the term "Montenegrin Mountain Hound" was coined.

In a nutshell – it will be a logical fallacy to alter the quote of the character itself. Had he called himself a "Croatian Mountain Hound," we would still be obligated to quote him correctly instead of trying to be smartasses. This is comedy we're speaking of. Let me propose a compromise:

Triumph was identified in early appearances as a Yugoslavian Mountain Hound (a dog breed which is now known as Montenegrin Mountain Hound)...

My concern is that it would appear somewhat "clumsy," while the sheer reference to "Montenegrin" obscures the reader. Again, I am reminding you all that Wikipedia exists for the readers, therefore we as editors must do everything to ease on the reader as much as possible instead of bickering over the correctness of dog breed names. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Imbris. You have new messages at Rave92's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

87.69.130.159 (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It can be traced to a very remote period of history. Some of the old authors speak of it as the dog which in the times of ancient mythology Diana presented to Procris. Pliny describes in enthusiastic terms the combat of one of them with a lion, and afterwards with an elephant. A dog very much resembling the ancient stories is yet found in Albania, and most of the districts of Greece. He is almost as large as a mastiff, with long and silky hair, the legs being shorter and stronger than those of the greyhound. He is gentle and tractable with those whom he knows, and when there is no point of duty at stake; but no bribe can seduce him from his post when any trust is committed to him.

[This dog, it is very probable, was highly impregnated with molossian blood, and like that animal, was trained both for war and the chase. It is rather doubtful, whether the dogs presented to Alexander the Great by the king of Albania, were those of his own country or some that he had obtained from other parts. We are inclined to believe that they were imported dogs, for Pliny distinctly states, that these two were all that the generous monarch possessed, and if destroyed could not be replaced. From this circumstance it is natural to suppose, that, if these dogs had been native Albanians, the king would have been able to supply any reasonable quantity of them, and, therefore, not necessitated to send this message to Alexander. On the other hand, if these dogs had been of the pure molossian type, such as were raised in Epirus, it is probable that their huge dimensions would not have surprised this monarch so much, as it is reasonable to believe that Alexander would certainly have seen, if not heard, of dogs so remarkable, belonging to a kingdom in immediate contiguity with his own. We are, therefore, forced to look to some other source, from whence came these proud dogs, who alone deigned to contend with the lion and elephant, and must yield to Strabo, who states that these animals were of the Indian breed.--Taulant23 (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you might be interested in this: http://montenegro.wikkii.com . Looks like Crnogorska Enciklopedija has been unofficially reincarnated. --Prevalis (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jos mi nisi odgovorio na mk-wikipediji. Cekam odgovor. Pozdrav

PS. taj "79.103.200.19" nisam ja, ako si slucajno to pomislio.Contributions/93.219.254.68 (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject Montenegro. We work on creating, expanding and making general changes to Montenegro related articles. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Participants Page! Thank You.

I though you would like to join as you edit Montenegrin articles. Rave92^(talk) 11:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not on anyone's side here, but since I have a poor knowlege of Croatian history at that point, could you possibly elaborate at all? I'm somewhat confused. Just so I'm clear, and because you are not limited here in the amount of characters. I'm hazarding a guess that you believe it was not official, and that the arms shown on Socialist Republic of Croatia was in use from 1943, the foundation of the state, I believe. Is this correct? Could I ask you to stop editing on this issue, as I have done with User:DIREKTOR until we resolve this factual content dispute please? - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've suggested it is discussed here as a central location. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Edit conflict (written preceeding DIREKTOR, below). Pending your comment, here is the issue of contention: whether this image (right) was adopted in 1945, and was proceeded 1943-1945 by this one; or whether it was adopted in 1943. Am I correct in outlining what is is exactly you disagree upon? - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all, the Federal State of Croatia (name used 1943-1945), and the Socialist/People's Republic of Croatia (names used 1945-1990) are essentially the same state that underwent name changes. The coat of Arms of the Socialist Republic of Croatia was used from 1945 to 1990. Now, prior to the introduction of the "main" coat of arms that held in use from 1945 to 1990, a WWII coat of arms was used as well from 1943 to 1945.

Imbris suggests that the coat of arms I used was not used is "made-up" and was not used as insignia of the Federal State of Yugoslavia. He is contradicted by sources that state this CoA was used on official documents and state seals. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have a source other than here? It is fairly reliable, but obvoiusly more sources may help explain. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, this is an obscure subject within an obscure subject. We are talking about a WWII CoA, I doubt we'll find more conclusive evidence. I seriously doubt that article was made-up. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Edit conflict). The argument made by Imbris, I believe, is that the icon in question constituted an emblem of the government, but not a coat of arms. If this is Imbris' viewpoint, then I consider that it should be included in the article, but in a way that makes it clear that it was never declared a legal coat of arms (lacking any evidence to the contrary). Such articles do cover items similar to coats of arms, irrespective of their exact nature, in my experience. I'd like to here Imbris' exact view first. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've no problem with that solution... Although if I have no problem with it, that'll probably cause Imbris to "have a problem" with it (based on experience :). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the other points, the date of legal adoption the main coat of arms should be found and used where the flag needs to be dated. Terms do not need to fill all of the time. Using a legal, rather than de facto adoption date is perfectly acceptable, and is not controversial, providing it can be found. On a last point, I am dubious of the copyright licensing of this one, since it comes from that site. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The commons:File:SR Croatia coa.png was used from 1945, officialy adopted by the Constitution of the People's Republic of Croatia in 1947. It was protected at WIPO at 1967-07-11. Those years are in connection with the "Coat of arms" (in heraldry: Emblem). The Federal State of Croatia was a provisional name adopted on 1944-05-09. ZAVNOH as a provisional government started in 1943. This is why the article on the Socialist Republic of Croatia stated 1943-1990.

This one was not used in the heading of documents. By the "opinion" of Janko Ehrlich - Zdvorak (26 August 2001)

Those two are the only appearances of that decorative motiff. It was never used as a "Coat of arms" nor as an Emblem. The decorative motiff might have been used by only one faculty of the University of Zagreb, this doesn't make it an official emblem of the Government despite what DIREKTOR might belive.

Imbris (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DIREKTOR's file, I believe, should not be used, because it's not certain, and Wikipedia shouldn't publish uncertain material. It's not like you can say, "This may have been used", unless it has been the subject of a debate in other media. I'm also changing the date for the later one to 1947 (legal assumption) because this is uncontentios, and more importantly, perfectly acceptable. I'll make the changes. Bring it up with me if you wish to change something. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 20:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like the file deleted because it is not a totally free media. Wikipedia do not host media that is not completely and totally free. FotW files are free but only for educational and non-profit purposes. And Wikipedia is totally free, including making profit from the information and media hosted on it.

Also File:Flag of FS Croatia.gif should be deleted for the same reasons. DIREKTOR should be informed, maybe even warned not to upload FotW media anymore. -- Imbris (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, if both you guys agree... but its a mistake in my view. If the image wasn't a CoA, then it should be presented and its correct usage explained. Its not made-up, its a "real seal" :)
Imbris, I actually made that flag myself (quite easily, I might add) by closely following the dimensions on that page. Its mine. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is why you used the measurement (tailorment) of the FotW 384 × 192 pixels? :) I do not belive you since you took File:Hr)45a.gif (but that time you did not even change the name of the file. -- Imbris (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Irellevant of teh copyright status of the file, there is a burden of proof that is not (yet, at least) fulfilled for including the file anywhere. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 21:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Imbris, I'm hurt. You don't trust me? And after all we've been through together... :) Like I said, I used the exact pixel ratio so as not to make a mistake with the flag proportions. If that's your objective 3O Jarry, I respect it. Thanks for your time. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In short: we should write "Serbo-Croatian" because that's the predominant usage in English. Dual forms (srpskohrvatski/hrvatskosrpski) existed solely for the reasons of "balance" or "parity" in the former Yugoslav federation, because pushing srpskohrvatski at the expense of hrvatskosrpski could have been perceived as favorizing Serbian at the expense of Croatian. Such considerations, however, did not apply outside the SFRY, and they hardly apply anywhere now: at any rate, it is unclear to me what there is to gain - given the realities of the year 2009 - by substituting "Serbo-Croatian" with "Croato-Serbian" in the SR Croatia article.

I did not have the time to look at the other issues you raised, I'll get back later today or perhaps tomorrow. GregorB (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd say Ivan Štambuk's edit you provided is a bit problematic: granted, in 99% of the cases it makes little sense to list all the languages that are subsumed in "Serbo-Croatian" (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin) because in 99% of the cases the phrase in question is the same in all of these languages. But this is not such a case: there's Hej Slaveni and Hej Sloveni, the difference that eventually has to be sorted out anyway.

Incidentally, linguistics is one of my interest areas (Croatian language in particular), but this "Serbo-Croatian" dilemma appears so 1990s to me; it is old-hat, it is boring, and I'm afraid I can't bring myself to reading the entire discussion at Talk:Hey, Slavs (although I've read some parts of it). My position is probably somewhere between yours and Direktor's, and I'm really not sure if my involvement would really make a difference.

What could help is a centralized discussion. All related WikiProjects should be notified (Croatia, Serbia, B&H, Montenegro, Languages, Linguistics).

I'm sorry for not being able to help more. That doesn't mean I will stay out of all future discussions, especially if they are well-structured (i.e. subject of discussion is precisely defined) and civil. We'll see... GregorB (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prestani vandalizirat članak Hej Slaveni, sljedeći put ćeš biti prijavljen adminima. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You will see that I posted here large list of sources where name "Voivodeship of Serbia" is used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Voivodeship_of_Serbia_and_Banat_of_Temeschwar#Article_title If you read that page and see these sources, you will not have any base to claim that "the title of this entity was never Voivodeship of Serbia". it is clear that it was, and not only that, but it is used in large majorits of sources that I saw. If you want to move article title again, then, please try to prove that majority of sources use name that you proposing. By the way, the most important reference in this field would be a title of habsburg emperor, and, as you can see, it is "Grand Voivode of the Voivodina of Serbia" ("Großwojwode der Wojwodschaft Serbien"): http://www.thomasgraz.net/glass/fj1titel.htm PANONIAN 21:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Imbris, I've responded to you post on Talk:Hey, Slavs. (If you feel these notes are unnecessary, please make a note of that) Regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Imbris, I've responded to you post on Talk:Hey, Slavs. (If you feel these notes are unnecessary, please make a note of that) Regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Naturally that it is not necessary, and harmful since I forbade you to contact me regarding Hey, Slavs and the Croato-Serbian and Serbo-Croatian language(s). -- Imbris (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you're having trouble noticing Talk:Hey, Slavs#Serbo-Croatian version, I thought I'd link it on your talkpage and ask you directly: would you like to avoid my question of agreeing to a mediator? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There does seem to be an ongoing conflict between yourself and User:DIREKTOR. Perhaps mediation would help the two of you work through it and make editing less confrontational and more productive. AniMate^draw 16:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sadly enough Mr. DIREKTOR is uncapable of making compromises, and his editing seems very biased. We shall see how the sittuation will go, and try WP:DR, step by step, mediation is not an option at this moment. If it is informal mediation, that can be discussed after some time. What article do you exactly speak of? -- Imbris (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've opened an ANI discussion about my interactions with User:Notpietru, it can be found here: WP:ANI#User:Pietru / User:Notpietru and Maltese (dog). It's not really about you, but since it does discuss you, you should be made aware of it. Mangojuice^talk 16:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Imbris. This message is to inform you that a discussion regarding your conduct has been started at ANI. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Imbris. Thank you. Ale_Jrb^talk 10:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to add that, pending further input from various other editors, I may pursue ANI (or other means of discipline) myself, concerning your behaviour. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I explicitly forbade you using my talk page as means of making pressure against me. I am not obliged to endure such harassment. Please stop addressing any more comments on my talk page. -- Imbris (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That may well be, but nothing in that addresses the point: the name being in unilateral circulation does not validate a special article, the control exercised by a military leader during a political hiatus does not mean a new political entity was created, and the internal borders of Austria-Hungary, beyond various documented or imagined claims, stand as the de facto and de jure reality. So there were those Croats who did not recognize the borders and preferred another name for the same entity; using your logic, one would have to start detaching or incorporating various parts of Cisleithania whose representative political groups wanted the United States of Greater Austria, or unite Austria with Germany (these analogies just to stay in the lines of political alternatives offered within Austria-Hungary, and not throughout the world). That kind of jump to conclusions is fiction, not researched historical reality.

I assure you I have read your post, only it's frankly irrelevant to the subject, and relies on a fallacy. Dahn (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look, there's absolutely no reason for me to compliment that speculative argument, nor address your flawed analogies. Is it an imaginary and partisan construct? Yes it is, regardless of how validated you think the use was. All the "proof" you cite, the bulk of which is your own original research, will not replace that simple, self-evident reality. Eastern and Central Europe are riddled with retrospective claims and fiction aiming to replace fact (like, to cite a related example, those Romanians who claim that Transylvania was not a Hungarian fief, based on a supposed technicality). Wikipedia is not here to condone that agenda, and will not be hijacked to serve that agenda. Dahn (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• As far as I know in Croatia-Slavonia (19th century) the language was referred to as "Croatian" or "Croatian and Serbian", but in everyday life only Croatian was used. Official language was changing status. For example, according to Nagodba of 1868, the state had its own diet and Croatian was language of local administration. There was an idea of unifying both languages, but it didn't work. --Kebeta (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• In Dalmatia official language was Italian, and after 1883 "Croatian and Serbian" or "Serbo-Croatian". --Kebeta (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The language was refered to as Illyrian at some point, but this is not a matter for the infobox to address. Some notes are perhaps needed. The only official languages was the Croatian language, from 1868 on.

As for the Kingdom of Dalmatia, I do not know from where you read such information, what are your sources exactly? Beuc, Ivan, in his work, History of Institutions of the Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia mentions only Croatian language, from 1883. It is entirely separate question that as for the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia, the Parliament of that entity allowed Serbian in schooling of Serbs (or something like that). -- Imbris (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please cool it. You are DIREKTOR are having a series of seriously silly fights over Eurovision and flags. Either this is nationalism taken to ridiculously lame extremes or one, or both of you, is revert-warring just because you don't get along. Which would be fine, we're it not for the rules against such things. I'd be slightly more sympathetic if this was all over important stuff, but flags? Eurovision? Please.

This is a gently worded warning before I start laying on the sanctions. Please take note of it. Thank you. Moreschi (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not see where do you get your information from, namely Mr. DIREKTOR never disputed my editing in the field of Eurovision. I cannot remember that Mr. DIREKTOR ever edited that field of en.Wiki. The dispute on Republika Srpska Krajina article is related to whether or not that entity was formed out of Croatian territory or out of the SFR Yugoslavian territory, for the part of the predecessors. And for the part of sucessors whether it was incorporated into Croatia and the United Nations administered eastern Slavonia and western Syrmia.

So you should investigate more, before you start noting that something is ridiculous or lame.

Also, I would hope that if you get involved with editing in the field(s)/topic(s)/issue(s) that concern the disputed between Mr. DIREKTOR and me, that in such case you would act as an editor and not as an administrator. If you believe that it is OK for Mr. DIREKTOR to push POV and stand in his defence then you act as an editor (despite your administrative status).

What I have said is the normal practice on en.Wiki

Imbris (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please explain your grievances with the article at the talk and try to establish consensus over the changes your propose. It's rather hard to understand your position from the edit summaries only. And it's your responsibility to provide sources for your changes (surely as well you could request sources for any unsourced statement in the article at the talk or by adding fact template). Regards. Alæxis_¿question? 14:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you.

I've had enough of your comments. One more comment like this or edit summaries like this, this or this and I will issue severe discretionary sanctions against you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope that you would allow me to answer on the latest crusade against me, before you take actions against me. Also I hope that Mr. DIREKTOR's approach, of going to User:AniMate for advice on how to get somebody blocked, and then being referenced to you for extraordinary implementation of such actions, instead of going to WP:ANI or simillar and appropriate place, should not lead to any penalties. I am preparing a response, and then you decide if Mr. DIREKTOR has a point there, or perhaps I have a point (against his defamation campaign). Hey, Slavs is a Pan-Slavic topic, not Macedonia or Balkans specifically. -- Imbris (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Part of response, pending to be finished

Dear Ricky,

I have done my best at WP:AGF on the edits and other contributions (e.g. discussions) of Mr. DIREKTOR. On the other hand he continually calls me a nationalist, ultra-nationalist, and even worse name calling. He believes my editing is a disruption, vandalism, biased, etc. He has launched several attempts of discrediting my character, none of those attempts proved successful.

I see that Mr. DIREKTOR considers the Hey, Slavs article worthy of getting himself blocked for WP:3RR, we could have both be included in that offence of the rules, but I have always tried to stay cool and discuss, latest of my attempts was contacting Eleassar, who protected the article (even if I did not ask him to do so). Eleassar as an administrator and editor of that article can say something about Mr. DIREKTOR's conduct. User:Zocky also expressed his opinion, but Mr. DIREKTOR could not care less.

Mr. DIREKTOR also canvassed Mr. Ivan Štambuk to the Hey, Slavs article, to intervene in his behalf. Knowing for the POV of Mr. Ivan Štambuk, that only Serbo-Croatian language exist and all other Central South Slavic languages do not, plus his belief that Croatian language is a neo-Ustashi construct, the calling for his POV was a canvassing and nothing less.

((work))

• WP:STALK [8] Mr. DIREKTOR admitt to STALKing, and in the same time continues his accusations of me doing the same on a dozen occasions.
  • Accusations are void, since I edited in all those articles and topics before trolling (by DIREKTOR begun) DIREKTOR never edited on Maltese (dog), but carried his methods of defamation there (in order to gain support, but did he achieve support, no he did not)

• incivility
  • Lesser kind: DIREKTOR often laughs at users, and is particularly keen on "victory" instead of "progres"
  • Greater kind: In the second paragraph of his edit Mr. DIREKTOR said: "If I brought you a dead Serbian zomby with no ears saying "the Ustaše cut-off my ears", you'd say he's lying and that I can't include it in the article." (direct quote, the sentence is not touched).
    • The previous is also a: harassment, and made me sick, to be forced to listen his expressive and gruesome stormfront like material.

• • Latest examples of incivility, expressed in edit summaries:
    • At Coats of arms of the Yugoslav Socialist Republics – Reverting malicious nationalist edit.
    • At Hey, Slavs – Rv disruptive nationalist edits.

• WP:Compromise and Wikipedia:Consensus: DIREKTOR broke compromises over the language and the flag and the CoA (now under Seal) of the Federal State of Croatia in Socialist Republic of Croatia. And started pushing for making entities into states. The Talk:Socialist Republic of Croatia is full of proofs.

Popular defenders of Mr. DIREKTOR

• If User:Ivan Štambuk comes to defend Mr. DIREKTOR, you should know that Ivan Štambuk believes: (ne postoji "hrvatski jezik" - to je neoustaški fabrikat iz 90ih). Translation: (Croatian language doesn't exist - it is a neo-Ustashian fabrication from 1990s).

Two choices: either file your silly Checkuser or stop accusing me of being a sockpuppet. For the record, I'm not quite that stupid to make myself different accounts for different talkpage discussions. If I want to oppose your POV-pushing on all the other talkpages where you wage your many edit-wars, I'd just go there and do it. Please file a Checkuser asap and educate yourself as to just how many different users are outraged at your behavior. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can't say you weren't warned. You are blocked for 72 hours for revert-warring and per WP:ARBMAC you are limited to one revert per page per day for the next 6 weeks. Violation of this sanction will be met with further blocks and escalation of the sanction. Thank you. Moreschi (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(1) And I have not ignored the admin. See: User_talk:Moreschi#Has_the_administrator_warned_Mr._DIREKTOR. -- Imbris (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(2) The blocking administrator has not given me a chance to defend myself at ANI, but blocked me as if, the only thing I do is changing Serbo-Croatian to Croato-Serbian. Which shows that my editing has beed demoted to a vandalism and in the same time did not block Mr. DIREKTOR who is engaged in the same edit-warring.

(3) I believe this is very unfair.

Imbris (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moreschi should look at the archives of Talk:Hey, Slavs to see that more was at stake, DIREKTOR and Ivan Štambuk wanted to delete Bosnian, Croatian, and also, Serbian and replace it with only Serbo-Croatian, that was the bigger picture. (concerning defamation that the only thing was Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian -- Imbris (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Edit-warring, I have provided a source at Coats of arms of the Yugoslav Socialist Republics. I have downsized the number of reverts, and expected Mr. DIREKTOR to do the same. ARBMAC is intended for Macedonia, Dalmatia and Kosovo, or? -- Imbris (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

I've reviewed the discussion at WP:ANI, and you don't appear to be addressing the reason for your block, which is persistent pushing of a nationalistic point of view. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I, a nationalist? I edit with sources and that is it. This block is against any policy. Because if it were under the policy, then the other editor would be blocked as well. The requestor of the action (Mr. DIREKTOR) failed to mention that he declined answering on the talk pages, that Mr. DIREKTOR used edit-war method on a massive scale, and the blocking administrator failed to see that I have not used the edit-war on all the subjects where Mr. DIREKTOR and I were included. On the other hand Mr. DIREKTOR continued flamatory acts of incivility and revert-warring (without even filling the edit summary properly.) The blocking administrator should have a look on attempts by DIREKTOR to defame my character at User talk:Ricky81682, User talk:AniMate. The request of Mr. DIREKTOR contains wording to imply POV but fail to produce any reliable diff of such offence. He has provided diffs that portray a perpetual edit-war by Mr. DIREKTOR on all the articles and templates listed at his friend AniMate (friend because they have almost equall opinions. The block is unjust, nobody called me to that ANI, and the blocking admin did not warn DIREKTOR and did not block DIREKTOR and did not notify me of an ANI (on two separate occasions). And the fact that the blocking admin thinks I deserve the indef block because I edited on Eurovision and Flags is particular. -- Imbris (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

Please read WP:NOTTHEM and try again.  Sandstein  05:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

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.

User:DIREKTOR is a notorious POV warrior and you can request Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations against him because he is suspected sock of user:No.13 and user:AlasdairGreen27. His negationism of ethnic cleansing against Italians in Istria and Dalmatia is political agenda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.97.40.14 (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had considered opening a proposal to move that article title, but was advised not to. Why was the current title chosen? it's confusing. Either the guy was 'King of Croatia' or he wasn't (he claims he wasn't). GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Croatia was a part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, 1929 to 1945. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For you, my dear friend we need a thorough CU. From this moment on I forbid you from contacting me again, on all matters including this one. -- Imbris (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File your comical CU, or stop with personal attacks on valid contributors. And please don't forget to include anyone else you may think is my "sockpuppet" (like Crotchety). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have forbade you from contacting me again on any and all matters. -- Imbris (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Be advised that this time you may expect a full report shall be filed on any and all violations of WP:CANVASS on your part (including hrWiki and e-mail). The report will be placed in the context of your previous behavior. I will not idly stand by this time if I notice your MEATPUPPET buddies joining in. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I forbid you from contacting me again on any and all matters. -- Imbris (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta, you will be blocked for vandalism. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What did I delete? -- Imbris (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very strange indeed, namely GoodDay strained the discussion in the path of legitimacy of Peter II, I have simply followed.

Crotchety Old Man, you are from now on forbidden to contact me on my talk page, for any and all matters until the end of time. Also you are WP:STALKing me now, is that what you are doing? You have not ever edited the article on Tomislav II of Croatia! -- Imbris (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are ya talking about the defunct monarchy of Montengro? That was abolished in 1918. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop contacting me any more. The Kingdom of Montenegro was annexed to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes on 13 July 1922 by the Conference of Ambasadors in Paris. Sadly, on the same date (13 July) of the 1878. international recognition of the Principality of Montenegro. -- Imbris (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very well I won't contact you anymore. Geez, whatever happen to the spirit of collaboration? GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright Imbris. This has become a flame war, and it needs to stop. Ignore DIREKTOR, ignore the ANI thread. If DIREKTOR attacks, he'll get blocked, and no one will respect you any less. In the mean time you are closer to a block than he is, so be careful.   Nezzadar ☎   00:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm content with allowing Tomislav II & King of Croatia being in the article content. As for the Infobox & Navobxes? I'm content aswell, as long as '(disputed)' is placed there. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not contact me again, not on my talk page. Agreed! -- Imbris (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If that's 'still' your attitude? I'll 'delete' your posting at my talkpage & hereby request that you no-longer contact me there. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fine. Why are you continuing to harass. Leave. -- Imbris (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Imbris. You have new messages at Cordless Larry's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Please, see Talk:Voivodeship of Serbia and Banat of Temeschwar. --Mladifilozof (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:John Ivan Simon.png. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add ((di-replaceable fair use disputed)), without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file File:Princely Standard of Danilo I of Montenegro.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file File:Flag of Federal State of Croatia.svg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Redundant to File:Flag of Croatia (1947–1990).svg which is hosted on Commons

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Salavat (talk) 08:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Decoration has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFX^talk 13:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]