Archive

Hi, and thanks for the compliment! Sorry about getting your hopes up, though, I honestly completely forgot I'd said I'd look at it -- that's how hectic it's been. I'll try and find sometime later this week, maybe tomorrow night, but no guarantees. :( It looks like an interesting topic, too, it's a shame I have so little time right now. -Bbik^★ 09:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems Nikola beat me to assessing it, but I've left (a lot of) notes on the talk page anyhow. (And those notes are why I pretty much never have time for rating longer articles -- ratings tend to come with copyedits and reviews, lucky you!) Have fun with it! -Bbik^★ 21:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now I've learned that there are schools which have a break in September; I always thought that all schools begin in September. Well, if you read this before you get offline: have a merry holiday! VVVladimir 21:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heh, yeah, I think most schools, whatever level or country, start around the end of August or beginning of September, I'm just on a really strange schedule right now. Silly study abroad people, don't they know how to time things? :P In any case, I'll try and give a few more responses tomorrow night before I start packing; after that, the "not online" bit applies for real. And (demon) works for me, the double name was just bizarre. Thanks for the well-wishing, have a good week+ yourself! -Bbik^★ 16:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Just sticking with the same section, since there's so little after it anyhow.) I most definitely plan to work on it some more! I actually opened it for editting a couple days ago, then remembered I had a bunch of homework to do, and that, unfortunately, had to come first. :( If all goes according to plan for the rest of this week, though, I should have some time to work on it in the next few days, so we'll see what happens. -Bbik^★ 17:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, all obviously didn't go according to plan, but I haven't forgotten! I have been working on it a bit, actually, I just haven't saved it yet -- it's reached a point where either I need to finish it all in one edit, or any smaller changes I make will be changed repeatedly until I actually do finish, which is a bit silly. So far, this weekend's looking pretty open, so hopefully I'll (finally) be able to sit down and get it done, or at least get to a save-worthy point. -Bbik^★ 22:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. I'd been leaning towards articles myself, but that would've been the most likely spot for "ala" to be appropriate as a name, so better to be on the safe side. Responses to the last batch of answers are coming, too. -Bbik^★ 18:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congrats to you too, you're the one who wrote it, after all! :) I still plan to finish what I started though, so there's still more copyeditting coming up at some point... though it shouldn't require nearly as much clarification anymore. -Bbik^★ 12:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't accept images under a noncommercial license, so we can't use that image. Sorry. Calliopejen1 12:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ooo, I just saw this while going through my watchlist (Talk page changes get a message, but user page changes don't? That's silly.), thanks! A scouting one, too, sure wasn't expecting one of them. And hopefully in a month or two I can help you with it a bit more, once all the papers and things coming up are done. :) -Bbik^★ 19:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hehe, quick learners are fun :) We haven't made it to aspect or aorist yet, thank god, I'm not sure I can cope with that in German, when I don't have a clue what it is in English... Though I think it's coming in the next few weeks, so we'll see just how confused I am then. So far, everything makes sense, but when all we've covered is ending changes in accusative and genitive, basic present, and a ton of vocab, I should hope it would be understandable. I do need to sit down and actually learn a lot of the vocab still, though... That's the part I've always been bad at. The number of flashcards I've made so far kind of scares me.

As for ala, I just never had a chance to finish copyeditting, there was a bit more I was going to do, then a final run through to make sure it all still worked as a whole article, but I ran out of time before school started again. So... sometime. It's on the to-do list, I just don't know when I'll have enough time all at once to sit down and look at it that closely. (Oh, and that typo comment a while ago... the only reason they can't generally be found is because I re-read stuff at least once before saving. Otherwise, I can no longer keep yoghurt/joghurt/jogurt straight [or at least, not in any way the rest of the world will understand -- in my mind, yoghurt is what we have at home, jogurt is the stuff you drink, which I don't think exists at home, and joghurt... is just German. Can you tell where I first ate/drink each version? :-p], dialect comes out as dialekt at least the first two tries, and several other now-common ones.) -Bbik^★ 22:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a notification - you've made a mistake. That is not Petrislav's seal. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is the seal of Archon Peter, Predimir's predecessor from the late 9th and early 10th century. But I'll dig more to determine this, OK. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should have the article's peers reviewed or even, nominate it for a Good Article. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can assure you that I never make any sort of original research whatsoever.

In the book "Genealogies of Serbian dynasties from Zenta and Montenegro", there is on 8th page a genealogy of the House of Saint Vladimir.Here is a scanned page from the book. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And for the other is the Foundation of Medieval Genealogy - Montenegro. Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, yes; you're right. However, byzantine rule is indeed correct as the Bulgarian empire though not destroyed, has already crumbled greatly. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For an unbelievably rarely huge amount of attention paid to make the Jovan Vladimir article near absolute perfection, I award VVVladimir the Tireless Contributor Barnstar, PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're doing a wonderful job with the article. Keep up the work. All the best wishes and Happy New Year! --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, did you see this? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have also something on him from Nikolaj Velimirovic. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh and if you're interested in Petrislav, there's a bunch of info over at the Duklja article 'bout him. Cheers! --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a downloadable version of both of Scylitzes' works, but I don't suppose you understand Old Greek, do you? :( --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Skilitzes and Cecaumenos both say this: Trymalya kai archotato Serbias mere, which means that he ruled Tribalia (the Byzantines used the 10th and 11th centuries old names for peoples, hence they call the Serbs "Dalmatians", "Tribals" and "Illyrians" - just like they call Bulgarians "Moesians") and nearby edges of Serbia (Tribalije i obližnjih krajeva Srbije). There. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose Serbia here is identical to Raška. If Tribalia includes or can be identified with Duklja than this bit about his reign over nearby edges of Serbia can be incorporated into the artical without making contradictions. VVVladimir (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Serbia" could also refer to the whole region, meaning that (Greek translation..) beside Tribalia, he also reigned some other parts of Serbia.

Here is from Georgios Kedrenos' Compendium historiarum from the 12th century: Trymalya kai archotato Serbias mere. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please quote Ostrogorsky? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Василије II (...) је ступио у везу са зетским кнезом Јованом Владимиром (p. 292). Самуило га је вратио на зетски престо као вазала (p. 293). VVVladimir (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, I was referring to the "Serbian emissaries"... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ostrogorsky's footnote about them is exactly what I just used in the article: (...) Đ. Sp. Radojičić (...) pretpostavlja da je to poslanstvo došlo iz Raške, jer lavrska povelja naziva poslanike Srbima. Međutim, i Zetu Vizantinci nazivaju Srbijom a njene stanovnike Srbima. Za ovo vreme v. naročito Skylitzes-Cedr... VVVladimir (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. It's impossible that it's from Rascia because neither is it recorded anywhere, nor is Rascia recorded anywhere as separate from the Byzantine Theme of Servia. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VVVladimir, why don't you something about money Vladimir minted, or in precise his Golden Coin? As the very oldest domestic coin from our lands, I think it's pretty relevant. Cheers, --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an excerpt of John Skylitzes work. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I started the article User:Nikola Smolenski/Serbian folk astronomy, but I don't feel confident in referencing it only from the SMR. Could you fill in the blanks and expand it with the help of Zečević or other literature? Then we could move it to the main namespace. Nikola (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Nikola! This is a very interesting subject, but unfortunately I don't have that book with me anymore, and those that I have do not cover the subject. But if I get such a literature, I will gladly expand the article. By the way, I just started working on User:VVVladimir/Serbian Christmas traditions, and would appreciate your suggestions, if you have any. It would be also good to have some images related to this subject. I hope I didn't disappoint you too much :) VVVladimir (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that there is also article about badnjak (which I believe should remain separate article) - perhaps you could shorten section about badnjak in this article and move the material to badnjak as the main article. I have an illustration in mind. Nikola (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it's good to have a separate article about badnjak, even if it is essential to describe Serbian Christmas traditions. Talking about badnjak, this image on this page would be quite nice. If you are familiar with ways to get images from copyright holders, with a suitable permission... VVVladimir (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I just saw your message concerning the translated article now. I did what you suggested, simply because you were right and that I remarked it now :)

I'll translate the rest of the article later, when I have the time, because I love our history :) --Armin Ibrisimovic (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zdravo (može srpski :) Hvala na podršci za projekat Serbian Orthodox Church. Ako predlog prođe mogli bismo zajendički da radimo. Na primer da unapredimo Jovana Vladimira na nivo sjajnog članka za početak :) Mada ima još mnogo tema koje treba obraditi u vezi sa SPC. nadam se da ću pronaći još nekog saradnika Još jednom hvla i nadam se saradnji. Pozdrav, --Vojvodaeist 16:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC) >Nominovao sam clanak Jovan Vladimir za sjajni pa ako stignes da pogledas nominaciju bilo bi dobro. Pozdrav,--Vojvodaeist 15:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've had another run through the article and I think it should stand a reasonable chance at FAC now, if that's where you want to take it. As I said at the peer review, there will always be some objections raised at FAC to something or other, but I'd be very surprised if anything serious crops up. Let me know if you nominate and I'll keep an eye on it and try to help with any prose issues that come up. Don't forget to close the peer review before you nominate at FAC—don't want to get off on the wrong foot with SandyGeorgia.

Good luck! --Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, thanks :-) VVVladimir (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Odlično je da nešto o nama (bez obzira da li je u pitanju Crna Gora ili Srbija) bude promovisano i stavljeno na naslovnicu ovako velikog projekta. S te strane svaka čast i srećno na izboru. Što se Jovana Vladimira tiče on bi mogao malo da se dopuni i preradi ali je generalno to to i članak je jako dobar i verujem da će biti izabran za sjajan u nekom doglednom vremenu. Što se tiče ostalih tema ja sam na svom sajtu (http://istorijska-biblioteka.wikidot.com/start) pisao o nekim istaknutijim ličnostiam srpske istorije pa bi možda taj materijal mogao da se iskoristi. Pozdrav,--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 08:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Čestitam za sjajan članak!--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 11:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations indeed! --Malleus Fatuorum 11:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hvala! Thanks! :-) VVVladimir (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On October 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zapis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had no idea you'd nominated badnjak for the mainpage when I mentioned it on my talk page earlier. I really hope the article makes it. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Malleus. Vladimir (talk)

I hope so too; judging from how excellent and informative the article is, you guys have clearly given it your all. And what better article for the holidays than this one? =) Cheers!--Twilight Helryx 02:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. The same compliments to your article, too (except the holiday-related ones, of course). Vladimir (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... to see your Badnjak article on the main page. Very well done! --Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's your article too, Malleus. Without your share, it wouldn't be so beautiful... Vladimir (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In general I wouldn't like that, but if no compromise could be made, why not. Let's wait a bit and see if another solution could be found. Note that there are similar cases already, f.e. Pysanka, Pisanica (Croatian) and Pisanka (Polish).

On a lighter note, Serbian Mythological Dictionary states that zapis could also be a rock or just a cross but I'm not sure if I should add it to the article. Also unsure if "zapis" means "inscription" - today yes, but I guess it actually means something like "incision" or "a drawing". Nikola (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On June 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zduhać, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VVVladimir, do you have any data about Croat returnees in rs? To my knowledge, that number is less than 5% of prewar population (basicaly nonexistent). Čeha (razgovor) 22:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. [1], so please change rs page back.Čeha (razgovor) 07:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to the official statistics (page 20), published at the end of 2008 by the Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees of B&H, 8.5% of the pre-war Croat population returned to Republika Srpska, so by no means could that be called "basically non-existent". And this is hardly an encyclopedic expression, at least in this context. Since 2008 that number could only get bigger, though I'm aware of the fact that many who have established themselves in economically more developed countries don't intend to come back permanently. BTW, that section should be edited using more reliable sources, and not political pamphlets of some NGO's.

There are also some problematic statements in the link you provided, such as this one: Sva zajamčena "hrvatska" mjesta u Narodnoj skupštini RS-a popunile su srpske stranke, pa je i potpredsjednica Skupštine iz hrvatskog naroda članica SNSD-a. Slično je i u Klubu Hrvata u Vijeću naroda RS-a gdje većinu glasova ima SNSD. Does this mean that the Croats who are members of the SNSD party are somehow ethnically impaired, that they are lesser Croats, or what? Are the true ones only those that belong to HDZ? And though most of the members of SNSD are Serbs, that party is not inherently ethnical like some others, so could not be called a "Serb party". Vladimir (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SNSD is primarly a serbian party (as it's names shows for itself). If Croatian seats in Assembly are taken by a part which in it's name explcitly sais that it is a party of some other people (not Croatians), how would you call it?

For your information, SNSD is abbreviation for Savez nezavisnih socijaldemokrata ("Alliance of Independent Social Democrats"), so not even in its name there is any ethnical designation. You should really try to inform yourself about some basic facts. Vladimir (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I changed article about rs with the data you gave me, is this ok [2]? Čeha (razgovor) 22:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC) .Reply[reply]

I'll see to that later. Vladimir (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eastern shtokavian is the basis for standard Serbian. That is the language of Vojvodina-Šumadija. That accent is ekavian, and not ijekavian (which belongs to western shtokavian group). See for [3] and western and eastern standard of "Croato-Serbian". So change it back.
You also made some vandalism in recent changes [4], in Croatian plural of ban is banovi. So change that also back. Best regards Čeha (razgovor) 22:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Čeha, I must note that only ill-intentioned edits are vandalism. Any good-faith edit, even if wrong or disruptive, is not vandalism. Accusing someone of vandalism this lightly is very inappropriate. --JorisvS (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry. What is the propper wording when somebody deletes propper gramatical form and replaces it with unpropper (unintentionally)? Čeha (razgovor) 12:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have obviously confused eastern and western variants of standard Serbocroation (which corresponds to the Ijekavian and Ekavian variants), with eastern and western Shtokavian dialects, which is something quite different. Both Ijekavian and Ekavian variants of standard Serbocroation are based on western Shtokavian (east Herzegovina variety), and this is retained in the current standard Serbian. So your edits might be a result of basic ignorance or intentional vandalism, I won't speculate on that. As for that plural, I really didn't pay any attention to that, my edit was only concerned with your falsification of facts about Serbian language (which you made in the same edit with that plural thing, for which I couldn't care less). Vladimir (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have source wich correspods to your claimes of two standards in Standard Serbian? Standard serbian was/is always based on ekavian standards (at least in Serbia). [5]

Don't be rude. If you made mistake it's your job to fix it (and for vandalism remark see User JorisvS recomendation). Čeha (razgovor) 13:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are no two standards of Serbian language. I'm a little surprised that you got that wrong impression, but maybe I wasn't so careful about the terminology I used. There is only one standard of Serbian language, which recognizes two variants: ekavian and ijekavian. It was always like that. Pravopis srpskoga jezika have always been published in two variants: ekavian and ijekavian. I don't believe that there is an online edition of the Pravopis, but you can view the official catalog of secondary-school textbooks for the next academic year, published by the Serbian Zavod za udžbenike. On page 5 you can see Pravopis srpskoga jezika: ekavsko školsko izdanje and Pravopis srpskoga jezika: ijekavsko školsko izdanje. While the official language in Serbia was still named Serbo-Croatian, the Law on the Official Use of Language and Script stated the following: U Republici Srbiji u službenoj upotrebi je srpskohrvatski jezik, koji se, kada predstavlja srpski jezički izraz, ekavski ili ijekavski, naziva i srpskim jezikom (Article 1, §1). OK? Vladimir (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well it is a little bit of a mess. Sc/Cs had two variansts, and to my knowledge standard Serbian (at least in Serbia) was always ekavian (that was eastern variant of SC/CS). Ok, thanks for info. Čeha (razgovor) 14:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem, I'm glad to help where I can. Serbian standard is intended for use by all the speakers of Serbian language. As some speakers use the Ijekavin and others the Ekavian variant, the standard deals with both of them. Ekavian and Ijekavian are equal in Serbia, and one can use either of them in any formal or legal situation, though Ekavian is used predominantly. Just as Ijekavian is the variant predominantly used by Serbs in Republika Srpska and Montenegro. But it is all the same standard, with two equal variants. Vladimir (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The entire history section is ridiculous and a cop out. It only discusses it's foundation and conveniently simplifies an entire war into a sentence.

Why did you insert Dodik into the history section when he is more relevant in the government section. Karadzic was instrumental in its creation and the first to lead it. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First you complained that the section is too long as compared to the main article ([6]), and now you complain that it should be expanded. The war is copiously covered in "Bosnian War" (for which there is the link in the section), and much of that material is repeated in the main article (which I bet is one of your favorites ;)). As there is the link to the main article right on the top of the section, there's no need to repeat the same stuff for the third time. I think the section gives a nice short overview of its subject, and is certainly no "cop out". Though there is a place for improvement, of course.

The fact that Dodik is the current prime minister of Republika Srpska is not the only reason why he is appropriate for "History". He is an active participant of all those events starting with 1990, and he is the most prominent political figure in RS since 1997 until today. So, if there is Karadzic's photo in that section, it's quite appropriate that there is also Dodik's photo there. Vladimir (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I misspoke, I meant the four paragraph "Prior to the Bosnian War" section compared to the five paragraphs in the "History" section that deal with events before the war. Congrats on finding a year old post though.

The section says this about the war: "The political controversy escalated into the Bosnian War, which would last until the autumn of 1995." Nothing else. 5 paragraphs devoted to RS' culmination. One sentence for the war it was involved in. Effectively whitewashing anything bad that may have happened in the territory of the self-proclaimed Republika Srspka during the war and the role of its leadership.

Yes, the government section discusses the current government, therefore shouldn't Dodik be in it?

Yes, I have an interest in the Bosnian War (gasp). I apologize for not finding the burning of trees fascinating lol.-- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 19:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De gustibus non est disputandum. For some it's burning of trees, while for others it's a beautiful celebration and tradition ;). And for some it's "genocidal", while for others it's essential for long-term preservation on a specific territory. Historical developments, external and internal influences have pushed collectivities (that would otherwise live peacefully side by side) into a situation of irreconcilable confrontation (I suppose you understand what I mean, but if you don't, never mind, I won't expand on that). As I said, the war is profusely covered in those linked articles, so the events leading to it, which were essential for the creation of Republika Srpska, are given some more focus in that section.

In my opinion, the section could well do without any images. But if there is Karadzic's picture in it, it should be accompanied by the picture of Dodik. If Karadzic was the most prominent person in the war-time RS, Dodik is the most prominent person in the post-war RS. As of today, the historical prominence or notability of those two men (as far as Republika Srpska is concerned) is about equal.

Well, I don't see what else could I say about this... Vladimir (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I forgot the greatness that comes from tradition: "That's the way we've always done it". For some? Try an international tribunal. A bit appalling to hear you suggest massacres and ethnic cleansing is justified for "long-term preservation".

Well, you were that one that wrote it after all. The point is that there is undue weight given solely to its culmination. The section should give an equal summary of all aspects covered in the "History of Republika Srpska" article. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I know, Republika Srpska is not on trial at the International Tribunal, and is not treated as "genocidal" by it, as you obviously treat it. That is your POV, as it called here on Wikipedia. And your trying to distort what I wrote to look that I justify crimes is actually appalling (though not surprising in your case). Republika Srpska is seen by the majority of its people as essential for their long-term preservation. Some other (obviously including you) see it as "genocidal". My statement was as simple as that. The weight given to the war in those linked articles means that less weight can be given to that in the section. Your inability to treat the subject of Republika Srpska with neutrality actually disqualifies you from discussing anything related to it. Vladimir (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, but the various people who led Republika Srspska are. Just as you wouldn't remove the Nuremberg trials from this section, you shouldn't remove information about Republika Srpska's leadership ICTY trials.

I will be expanding the history section. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 00:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now comparing Republika Srpska with Nazi Germany? Vladimir (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Predictable. War crimes are war crimes regardless of who their done by. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 18:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have finished Serbian folk astronomy to the best of my ability, so I invite you to improve it, if you can. Nikola (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very interesting subject... Vladimir (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings VVVladimir!

I saw you writing some great articles about Serbia - people, tradition etc. I have one question - could you please organise few people from Serbian Wikipedia to translate the section about Stefan Lazarević. That would be great, don't you think ?

mm.srb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm.srb (talk • contribs) 14:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the Balkans. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part, merely to warn you of the Arbitration Committee's decision. Thank you. Courcelles 04:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, just to inform you that PRODUCER has been blocked for one week for his disruptive behaviour at Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina article. In future, instead of infinitelly discussing and receving abusive verbal provocations, it is better to report such behaviour. I did it here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:PRODUCER_reported_by_User:FkpCascais_.28Result:_.29. You patience and civility have been exemplar, and I congratulate you. Keep up the good work! FkpCascais (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, FkpCascais. You too keep up the good work! Vladimir (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! May i ask why you reverted the edit i made? --Zoupan (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• posthumous name = Saint Jovan Vladimir

The name is the same, adding "saint" doesn't change it.

• predecessor2 = (vacant) Časlav

J.V. wass not a successor of Časlav

• house = [ancestor of] Vojislavljević

Houses cannot be assigned retroactively. It is nonsense. Also, J.V. was not an ancestor (at least not direct) of the House of Vojislavljević.

• "See also" section is not needed here (actually, it is generally discouraged in GAs and FAs, and the links should be incorporated in the main body of articles, if possible, rather than placed in "See also" sections). The S-boxes you made in this section repeat mistakes from the Infobox royalty. In any case, I think those boxes are redundant.
• You seem to have a very strange habit of adding the template "refbegin" in the "References" sections of articles, just before the template "reflist". This is exactly where "refbegin" should not be used (see the page on the template), as it renders references in small, hardly readable font. Why is it? A kind of signature of yours, to mark that you have edited an article? Like, "Zoupan edited here"? Vladimir (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Haha, fair enough. Great expansion on the article btw, keep up.--Zoupan (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. It's more or less completed (at least until something new comes up). Vladimir (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fixed the bug and retained the new style. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I noticed you've made edits or that you are in some way connected to Albania or Albanians related articles. We are a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Albania and Albanians related topics and are organized within WikiProject Albania. I thought that you may be interested in viewing the current tasks of our WikiProject or its talk page and get involved. Furthermore, if you are interested in joining the wikiproject, please feel free to add your name in the Participants' page!. Thank you and, again, welcome among us!

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I would like to join these discussions about Request for Move: Talk:Natasa Janics, Talk:Christina Vukicevic, Talk:Milos Raonic, Talk:Kristina Mladenovic, Talk:Alex Bogdanovic, Talk:Irena Pavlovic, Talk:Andrea Petkovic. Greetings and thanks! :) --Aca Srbin (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2011 (CEST)

And here is a short one, but I believe still deserving of a mention: Spilling water for luck. Nikola (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, how about nominating Prince Marko for a featured article? Nikola (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which section, perhaps it could be fixed (or removed)? Nikola (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ever heard of WP:BOLD? I supported your article in FAC, and largerly discussed it there. This is a blind revert, please take the time to review fully my edits and also my discussion at FAC with Dank. Futbollisti (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your support, I appreciate it. I read that discussion, and I explained why some of your changes should be fixed. Thanks again. Vladimir (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem, I really think you have done a great work there. And I don't want to take any glory because the article is your own piece. I just wanted to fix a couple of things. See my comment after yours at FAC, and please reflect on them. Futbollisti (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Vladimir. I remember participating in the FAC review of one of your articles on medieval Serb history, and was wondering if you could provide any comments on this article for an upcoming Good Article review. Thanks, DCItalk 21:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I've made the edits. I will further expand with Živković soon. Thank you for your observations! --Zoupan (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, both of you! DCItalk 22:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excellent expansion!--Zoupan (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I created Genetic studies on Serbs; the "Genetics"-section from Serbs needs to be summarized - all studies and reports will be added to the new article.--Zoupan 18:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Genetic studies on Serbs, Created/Expanded by Zoupan and VVVladimir.--Zoupan 16:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 15 April 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Genetic studies on Serbs, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that genetic studies on Serbs show that they are closely related to the neighbouring peoples, regardless of language and religion? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Genetic studies on Serbs.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of Jovan Vladimir know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 29, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 29, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Jovan Vladimir (died 1016) was ruler of Duklja, the most powerful Serbian principality of the time, from around 1000 to 1016. He ruled during the protracted war between the Byzantine Empire and the First Bulgarian Empire. His close relationship with Byzantium did not save Duklja from the expansionist Tsar Samuel of Bulgaria, who conquered the principality in around 1010 and took Jovan Vladimir prisoner. A medieval chronicle asserts that Samuel's daughter, Theodora Kosara, fell in love with Vladimir and begged her father for his hand. The tsar allowed the marriage and returned Duklja to Vladimir, who ruled as his vassal. Vladimir was acknowledged as a pious, just, and peaceful ruler. He took no part in his father-in-law's war efforts. The warfare culminated with Samuel's defeat by the Byzantines in 1014; the tsar died soon afterward. In 1016 Vladimir fell victim to a plot by Ivan Vladislav, the last ruler of the First Bulgarian Empire. He was beheaded in front of a church in Prespa, the empire's capital, and was buried there. He was soon recognized as a martyr and saint; his feast day is celebrated on 22 May. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Serbian topics
	Thank you for sharing your knowledge about Serbia's people and culture, especially ruler and Saint Jovan Vladimir, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

What do you think about trying to revive WP Serbia? Starting with assessing huge backlog of unassessed articles?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lazar of Serbia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Copperplate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Поздрав земљаче имам једну молбу. Да ли би могао да преведеш чланак sr:Врањски обичаји и веровања са српског на енглски језик када га завршим. Наравно ако те интересује и ако имаш времена. Ја поседујем одређено знање из енглеског језика, али очајно преводим са српског на енглески језик. Много би ми значило. Свако добро и поздрав!--VuXman ^talk 02:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbianboy (talk • contribs)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zduhać, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Old Greek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hard to say which form of Old Greek is meant in the source, so it might be best to retain that link. Vladimir (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

• • Then go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
  • Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  • Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  • You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (Your account is now active for 1 year!).
• If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelpcengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing ((User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox)) on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the disruption but apparently the email bot failed. We'll resend the codes this week. (note: If you were notified directly that your email preferences were not enabled, you still need to contact Ocaasi). Cheers, User:Ocaasi 21:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check your email. Enjoy! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

I could use a hand at Jelena Balšić article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gladly would I help you if I found some more time... Vladimir (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You removed Popovic's very interesting account. Why?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC).Reply[reply]

As compared to the copious study by Redjep, that bit seems rather insignificant. He suggests something... looks like a fringe theory hardly worth mentioning... Vladimir (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]