Please post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. I will respond at your talk page unless you request otherwise. Thank you. Design copied from User:Duja.

Archives 21 February 2005 – 31 May 2007 1 June 2007 – 31 Jully 2007 1 August 2007 – 2 January 2008

I have seen article but I do not see point in fact that prime minister has been for "union".

I don't understand what you wanted to say. ?

P.S. Actually, just like you said, everyone was for "union", it was just question of how. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's discuss some of your changes:

• The first one notes that "Prime Minister of Montenegro Andrija Radovic was the strongest supporter of unification". However, during the negotiations for a union, he wasn't PM. Military Commander Janko Vukotic was, and later the pro-regime Milo Matanovic. Second of all, although he was one of the strongest ones, he was just one of many, so it's incorrect to note "the strongest". And lastly, Serbia has been for unification with Montenegro since its creation in the Uprising, in 1804, and not 1866 (when there was just an anti-Ottoman Alliance of Serbia and Montenegro and just that).
• And now the second one. That is already in the article, so there is no need for repetition. Second of all, the Committee wasn't created by the Serbian government, but by the "Montenegrin Committee for National Unification", which was a product of the Government of the Kingdom of Montenegro in Exile. Second of all, there was no parliament whatsoever to be dismissed in the first place. ;)
• Your third edit is essentially useful, but it needs much more work in it. The last two sentences do not seem to correspond there. Second of all, there were over 9,500 detainees and exiles. Out of those, a little more than 10 couldn't return to Montenenegro. Among those who returned, it was perfectly enough to form up and organize the "Green List" and then not only that, but raise a rebellion and continue opposition for another 8 years. And most importantly, most of those prevented to return were collaborators with the Central Powers and for all of them there were darn good reasons. Here's an example: Radomir Vesovic has disobeyed his superiors and has acted alone during WWI, benefiting to the fall of Montenegro; and in 1917-1918 he was the leading collaborator with the Austrians. Radomir Vesovic became Austria-Hungary's governor of Montenegro, and his own *comitas* (over 300 members of The Resistance) rebelled against him, refusing to collaborate and openly declaring that they want to free Montenegro and make it a part of Serbia IMHO (see this for example if you need reference). After the Central Powers were beaten, he fled together with them northwestwards. Taking all this to granted, it makes absolutely sensible to prevent the enemy from returning. After the unification they were pardoned (lol, not anything like that which the Partisans did after winning WWII ;). Sincerely, I see nothing wrong in there. Do you? P.S. And how about this Jovan Becir? He abandoned and was excluded in a dishonored for opposing the merger of the Montenegrin Army with the Serbian in 1914. :) I've had no idea about Jakov Jovanovic, but after searching around a little, I found out that he it appears that he died in 1917. ;D Hilarious, no? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for referring to martial law and the legal interpretations of the term "occupation", the Montenegrin Army merged into the Serbian at the start of the war in late 1914. This decision was never formally abolished, so that makes the Serbian Army not foreign but domestic. Nevertheless it should be noted that this was not used by Serbia at all during the liberation, and a common military occupation of the Entente (British, American, French and Italian units next to Serbian) was applied for Montenegro. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I forgot one more thing. You should stop referring to the former parliament, because the power was not vested in it, but in the King. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the main point in the "background" part is to show that the desire to unite with Serbia was a historical tenacity. It should not go deeper into it, because the original plans were a slow, peaceful and graduate integration into Serbia, that was made impossible after the fall of Montenegro and all the events from the Nish to the Corfu Declaration, with the desire to create a common state of all "remaining" South Slavs, rather than a Greater Serbia. The People's Party just stood for unification (of any kind, just that it happens). The True People's Party originally did not want unification with Serbia, which was the cause of its downfall and NS's dominance on the political scene. Only in the end (1914) PNS also accepted to unite with Serbia, with slowly political opinions emerging on the scene in which NS was more radical for that and PNS just had a form of personal union on its mind. Nevertheless, the majority of the people stood by NS, while PNS was only supported by the Court and by people close to it (the Army, higher position-holders,...). The no-continuation "crystalization" of the opinion can be seen in The Clubists' reemergence on the scene as The Whites, and The Rightists' as The Greens.

Well, it bears no mention of Italian agents (up to 1924, not just '19), I just mentioned them here, on your talk page. ;) Also, the Serbian agents appeared in the 20th and not the 19th century. The comparison is also inapplicable, as one was supported by both official Montenegro as well as the Montenegrin people, while the latter wasn't. Would you compare the EU agents in Croatia working for Croatia's European integrations in a similar manner? ;)

That is not quite true. All 5 key members were there. Mijat Sukovic isn't quite sure white the Board is. Some of the lower management (not members of the Committee themselves) were brought from Serbia, for the sake of at least some sort of balance, not to make them all Montenegrins.

And where are those data? He writes about Radomir Vesovic, who was an Austro-Hungarian collaborator. He writes about Sekula Drljevic, even though he was the leader of the unification of Serbia and Montenegro movement amongst the Montenegrin detainees in Central Powers' camps, a man who was after the Great War released from prison and allowed to return as well as recognized the Podgorica Assembly (it was one of his root ideas), and even then joined the Serbian People's Radical Party (an extremely unionist one). He writes about Djuro Petrovic, who was back then seriously ill in a hospital in Vienna. Then his alleged sources write about people who are already bygone dead. And most of all, we know that most of the over 9,500 the Montenegrin detainees in A-H internment camps returned, including the fact that most of them were (under the leadership of Sekule Drljevic) for unconditional unification with Serbia.

I didn't know about that, and I included that into the article. As for the old parliament, it was not merely dismissed by the occupier, but it also collapsed and dismissed itself. And in the end, it's term would've expired anyway by then. The expectation was that MNE together with Serbia and forms a Yugoslavian state, by all, but the problematic thing was that MNE was recognized on 13 July 1878 as a sovereign nation, so as the Allied commander of British forces for Montenegro pointed, there must've been at least some formal proclamation of a legislative body, no matter how symbolical it would be. Since there was no parliament. The Montenegrin Committee went forth to organize elections for one. However, the decision was that everything in MNE is conducted neutrally: the forces that occupied it were an Allied expedition of the Entente, and the elections for this national assembly were supposed to fall neither under Montenegrin nor under Serbian laws, thus as you see bound to be "illegal" from the very start. :) I see no paranoid act from the Serbian government. Problematic as it may be, it still was better pulled off that the one in Banat-Backa-Baranja, don't you think? And as far as I understood, there were no elections in the Hungarian/Croatian-Slavonian County Syrmia, it's MPs just decided to join a common state of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, but to enter as a part of the Serbian national corpus. It's pretty much like assemblies of all clans in MNE or of all municipal assemblies, however the Podgorica Assembly had to be organized to actually formalize these acts and put a final word for it, and because of Nicholas' screams from abroad. Numerous other similar were held across former Yugoslavia, it's just that the ones in Syrmia and the Bay of Kotor were recognized by the Serbian government, for honor towards Zagreb.

In my thinking Nicholas' acts remind me much of modern Serbian political acts. "No, no, no" and then "yes" when it's too late, saying "no" to other upgraded events. Wouldn't you say? ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read what I wrote to the up? :) There indeed was a division in the population (unitarian and federal Yugoslavia), but the Greens lost to the Whites, and a perfect evidence that that opinion indeed represented the true opinion of the people were the 1920 elections (that were free and correct without problems like the Podgorica Assembly). And read what I wrote about the "Italian agents" to the up. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The Resolution of the Serbian National Assembly of the Kingdom of Montenegro from 1914 calls for unification with Serbia (it has never been dismissed). Also, the Constitution of Montenegro, proclaimed by Nicholas in 1905, calls for gravitation and unification of all Serbian lands into one state. However this is all relative, because unlike in Serbia, in Montenegro the King was above the Constitution, so at the same time we must differently observe the situation in Montenegro. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your most recent edit: Montenegro had a population of over two hundred and fifty thousand people. There were a total of 9,500 detainees. Most of them returned, including their leader and proponent of unconditional Serb unification Sekule Drljevic. And in the first place, the members of the military have had no voting rights. :) The Royal Family also had no voting rights, and there was also a rift amongst them - the Queen of Montenegro supported unconditional unification with Serbia. Her brother was the supreme commander of the Montenegrin Youth that fought the Greens in 1919. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the question of unitarian/federal state was never really "opened" before the Greens started, opened far too late, to present that as a possibility during the elections for the Podgorica Assembly in November of 1918. It would later across 1919 shift into a Greens' desire to separate Montenegro from the newly-created Kingdom, when all of it's support received a final drop to the bottom. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. What 10,000 are you referring to? The King and his men acted through the Greens and organized well enough; there was no independence-campaign at all (nor did they think about independence until they lost the election). Yes, a neutral compromise is that if you write about the people who were prevented to return, that the majority was allowed to return.

OK, but you will then also have to add the Greens' political propaganda too. ;)

As for your most recent edits, why do you insist on "under serbian protection"? This isn't Kosovo in 1990, you know. Also I can't understand how you consider the Italian attempt to seize Montenegro (which by the way, in braking the Allies' semi-international agreement, can be freely classified under aggression) an attempt to liberate Montenegro from Serbian control? Do you also think that Italy was also trying to liberate Gorizia, Istria, Fiume, the Bay of Kotor and the Adriatic islands? Or that the 1941 was a liberation? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The reason why the world was vastly in support of such an event was precisely this - self-determination. The self-determination was primarily applied by the allies after the Central Powers were defeated (mostly in A-H Dual Monarchy I guess), and that solely bent itself on the right of peoples to choose on their own and form up nation-states. Considering that (in then's understanding) in Montenegro and Serbia the same ethnic group lived, King Nicholas' and others' pleas for a subsequent self-determination of the Montenegrin People were not taken seriously - the Podgorica Assembly was treated just like numerous Serb assemblies in the Bosnian Frontier for example ("Serbs wanted it"). This is the prime reason of Nicholas Petanovich's aims that there are foundations for the Serbs in Montenegro to be proclaimed as a distinct ethnic group, in an effort to apply this national self-determination to them. Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I'm afraid I didn't understand you. Are you asking a RfC? I think we can work this out together easier and quicker. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I replied. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, why do you think this falls under nationalistic editing? ;( --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. By the way, don't get insulted, but you are really becoming furious, angry and aggressive in a way. Don't let the Wikipedia stress you. My advice to you: Take a cup of coffee and ease down. ;) All the best. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I advice you not to "back off" - Wikipedia's articles are a result of common agreements.

I don't see why there are so many disagreements on this issue. I have explained to you the situation of division: from 1907 to 1914 it was "For the People" and "For the King". The first one was far stronger. Source: the 1914 freely held election in which NS beat the so far ruling PNS. The first one wanted to make Montenegro a part of Serbia and the latter wanted to maintain sovereignty. From 1914 PNS agrees for a slow peaceful unification with Serbia, aligning towards some sort of a personal union, while NS radicalizes showing demand for direct union into Serbia. During WWI the pro-regime current almost completely disappears and emerged as "The Greens", is completely beaten by the overwhelming majority of "The Whites". The minor Greens first wanted some form of Montenegrin sovereignty within a Yugoslavia at first, but then decided to raise an armed rebellion against the state, after they lost, even demanding independence of Montenegro. The majority Whites wanted unconditional union. The Greens staged in 1919 the Italian-sponsored Christmas rebellion, which they lost to the Allies, and then in 1920 called for a boycott of the elections, failed too. The Greens limit their training to Italy and scatter around Belgium and Argentina. Since 1923, they have an ambitious political party that recognizes Yugoslavia. In 1926 they stop all forms of armed resistance. Waining and entirely losing support until the beginning of WWII, some of the "Montenegrin Federalists/Peasants" (the political Greens) in 1941 under Italian occupation declared an "Independent State of Montenegro", and became known as "The Black Latins". The battle-weary Greens form up the Lovcen Brigade that collaborates with the Fascists. The Whites, only a single day later, raise a massive resistance and totally expel the enemy, the very first uprising against Hitler's forces in Europe. The Montenegrin Federalists back off and join the Ustashas and other Nazis, taking part in putting tens of thousands of people to their deaths. The Greens on the battlefield mostly join Draza's Chetniks, who after the Whites' defeat decide to collaborate with the Italians in order to control Montenegro, but after 1942 collaboration stops and the bloody civil war between Partisans and Chetniks begins. The Whites split mostly on two currents: Partisans and Chetniks. In 1944 the Partisans push out the Chetniks from Montenegro and execute the remaining Greens, prosecuting the Montenegrin Federalists that didn't join them. And then there were Tito. End of story.

I will try to add something on the things that you're complaining about within months then...Cheers! --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, I am fascinated by this irony. The liberal Whites were promoters of pan-Slavic civic Yugoslavian nationalism, civicness and national nihilism, while The conservative Greens advocated Montenegrin regionalism, localism, manly chauvinism, religious fanaticism and most extreme Serbian ultra-nationalism.

I've never expected to see you actually defending Serb nationalists. :D --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several facts about the Greens you should know:

• The Greens were armed and prepared in bases in Italy and Italian-held Bay of Kotor.
• The Greens were the ones who started the fighting, killings and the mini-civil war.
• According to the 1920 Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes governmental report, and the report of their Italian HQ in Geata, they were strong at nearly 1,500 armed men.
• The HQ of the Montenegrin Army in Exile at Gaeta has kept a register of its members. I'll try harder to get a hold of it, but some of the names I've seen so far may speak a lot about it. To demonstrate to you an example: Xhemal Bit of Tirana, Albania. :)
• The supreme martial leader of the Greens on the battlefield during the Christmas Uprising was commander Krsto Zrnov Popović, a former war hero from the Balkan wars and the Great War. After the Christmas Uprising he was pardoned, claimed that he supported the unification of the Kingdom and that he was only bound by his oath. With Nicholas' death, he is now sworn to Alexander.
• The Chief organizer of the rebellion was Jovan S. Plamenac, who became Prime Minister of the Government in Exile. After, he swore an oath to Alexander, and claimed that he was only bound to Nicholas by his oath, also claiming that Nicholas spread lies and propaganda to him and others how Alexander, Peter and Nikola Pasic are "traitors of Serbdom" and "enemies of Serbian national interests". He then joined the Serbian Radical People's Party and became a minister in Pasic's government.
• The Greens have never ever questioned the election of the Podgorica Assembly.
• The Greens have never ever complained/reported about any slaughter or terror in post-WWI Montenegro.
• After the Fascist Italy of Benito Moussolini stopped making claims of the Yugoslavian Adriatic, the Greens too disappear. Coincidence?
• All Green leaders survived the all these events and were integrated into the society.
• The Greens' acts were condemned by the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Montenegro in Exile, as well as later indirectly criticized by King Nicholas

Doesn't this tell you something? ;) Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've just discovered a new thing. In late 1918 Nicholas and the Government has accepted the French proposals. Nicholas won't return to Montenegro, his rule as legal shall be respected, but the Montenegrin people shall be given the right of self-determination.

This means that he accepted that which will inevitably lead to the Podgorica Assembly after all, he just called upon the Constitution (which was in act no where) after because he didn't like it - just like he agreed that the 1920 election would be a final self-determination act, and then also refused to put his word of approval. That's why I connoted him to the modern Serbian politics. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on which part(s) of the population, and sure. But that does not correspond to the Podgorica Assembly or Creation of Yugoslavia articles. That should be over at the Kingdom of Yugoslavia article. I share the opinion of Vladimir Corovic who thinks that every attempt to solve Yugoslavia's many problems have only led to delaying the existing problems, as well as opening new ones. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rjecina, the article at Croatian wiki is very good, although it could be greatly expanded. About 50,000 Croats and Bosniaks died at Bleiburg, at least 12,000 Bosniaks and Croats died in Jasenovac. Serbs claim that 700,000 of them died in Jasenovac, numbers challeged even by the Holocaust Museum in Washington: "The most reliable figures place the number of Serbs killed by the Ustasha between 330,000 and 390,000, with 45,000 to 52,000 Serbs murdered in Jasenovac." In just a few days of February 1943, the Serbian Chetniks under the leadership of Draza Mihailovich committed genocide of close to 20,000 Bosniak Muslims in the Podrinje area (around Srebrenica region) - mostly women, children and elderly. Serbian Chetniks themselves admitted killing over 9,000 people in this genocidal campaign alone. In conjunction with the war in former Yugoslavia, Serbia has undertaken a campaign to persuade the Jewish community of Serbian friendship for Jews (the Serbian Jewish Friendship Society). This same campaign portrays Bosniaks (Muslims) and Croats (Catholics) as a common threat to both Jews and Serbs, in an attempt to gain Jewish sympathy and support at a time when most nations have isolated Serbia as a Balkan pariah. However, even as Serbia courts Jewish public opinion, their propagandists conceal a history of well-ingrained antisemitism, which continues unabated in 1992. To make their case, Serbs portray themselves as victims in the Second World War, but conceal the systematic genocide that Serbs had committed against several peoples including the Jews. Thus Serbs have usurped as propaganda the Holocaust that occurred in neighbouring Croatia and Bosnia, but do not give an honest accounting of the Holocaust as it occurred in Serbia. I encourage you to learn more at Srebrenica Genocide Blog. Thank you, and if you leave a private comment with your email, I can even give you my email address. Bosniak (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might be interested to know, I remember you had compared the 1931 and 1948 population censuses. In '31 there were 44.3% Orthodox Serbs and in '48 41.6% Serbs. However, I found data about censuses, and according to it 2.9% of the Serbs were of Moslem confession (e.g. including people such as Alija Izetbegovic). So it's actually 44.3% down to 38.5%. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found an old map by western historians, from 1097, and they correspond the other map we talked about before: 1097 although it says "P. of Servia", which could mean the Serbs (people), but even so the Serb confederacies that existed are there drawn all the way to the north. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems to be referring to the entity and various Serb confederacies, I checked the 1000 AD and there was not a single strong united realm back then. And the 814 Serb confederacy it also draws as a unitary state, however back then there were stronger united hands... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Montenegrin language

Huh? There are five official languages in Montenegro:

• Montenegrin
• Serbian
• Bosnian
• Albanian
• Croatian

I don't see what's the problem? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look - Serbs are a minority in Montenegro - but hey, so are they in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

A crucial thing is that the Preamble mentions the peoples and national minorities that live in Montenegro - therefore, Serbs are recognized.

So Serbs are a recognized people and their language official, it's exactly how it should be in the text. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preamble on Language: Službeni jezik je crnogorski; oba pisma, ćirilica i latinica, su ravnorpavni. U službenoj upotrebi su još i srpski, bosanski, hrvatski i albanski jezik. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely why I don't understand what's wrong...? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Službeno in Serbo-Croat - translation to English: Official.

We've been through this...Serbian "screams" were not a rare thing in the 1980s and 1990s, I though you should've known that. :)

One of the many problems is/was in the fact that Serbian is no longer the sole language official, and thus further separating the Montenegrin nation from the Serbian corpus.

But of course, that's just background. The prime problem is, as we've discussed before, the discriminatory (towards the Serbs) Constitutional Act that proclaimed the new Constitution. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well a tag can't stay there forever, and if I recall, you have withdrawn your argument? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Milan S. Pirocanac did not spend a day in Montenegro in 1866. He was in Belgrade that year. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, this is what's important. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And next to the presidential election, there is the (terribly) long-expected greatest spectacle Serbia and former Yugoslavia in general, had ever seen. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seen the trailer? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Still - you should restrain yourself in using derogatory terms when talking about others - especially in the case when you do not have a rational reason for it. I inspected that user's contributions - didn't see them your way.--Smerdyakoff (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is Smerdyakoff talking about? May I help? Kubura (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I see, Special:Contributions/Pederkovic_Ante and Special:Contributions/Ante Pederkovic have one contribution each? Kubura (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct, edits of banned users (after they're banned) are to be deleted - but as I see you didn't do that, and you delete even your own and some other people's too. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That map, AFAIK, is (except for Pannonia's borders and so-called "Red Croatia"), fairly correct (when it comes to just Dalmatia).

Why do you evade youtube? OK, have the official website then.

I'm not following the new and I'm not sure what you're talking about. What's the matter? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pannonia, maybe. But the Dalmatia (as already depicted in your article on the Croatian-Bulgarian wars?) was very big, by the end of the 8th century the ethnogenesis of the "greater" Croat and Serb tribes was complete, Lika and the region of western Bosnia was very quickly integrated into the state (according to Serbian historians' unfounded claims, the territory annexed from Serbia, similar to the Croatian historians' unfounded claims that Prince Ceslav in 948 took the territory between Bosna and Vrbas from Croatia). Indeed Trpimir's and other defensive operation in the face of Bulgarian invasions did expand the Croatian border, from Bosnia to Drina, at least (either from Serb vassals to Bulgaria or direct Bulgars). The area would not be there for long, as Tomislav lost it in 926 to the Bulgarians.

Yep, but what's wrong with youtube?

Well, first of all, that's not Tadic's words, but some journalist "transporting" them from Serbian to Croatian. What Tadic really did is sent a plea to all countries bordering Serbia (Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina) to be neutral at the moment of Kosovo's declaration of independence, so that the general image is recuperated altogether, rather than recognize it at once (which, if I'm not mistaken, HDZ responded that it's its policy).

And that about Kostunica is a rumor. :)

P.S. I've been researching Pirocanac's biography and I found out several things. He was indeed dispatched to Cetinje by Prince Michael Obrenovic III, to work on further at the plans for liberation from the Ottoman Empire. Milan S. Pirocanac became the very first Serbia's consul to Montenegro. One of the main plans was to make a Federation of Nations, that is Serbs, Roumanians, Bulgarians, Albanians and Greeks. The agreement was that nation-states would be formed in the spirit of the 19th century, and Pirocanac brought the plans to discussion with Prince Nicholas Petrovic-Njegos. In an signed agreement, Nikola had agreed to form up a military alliance with Serbia against the Ottoman Empire and to abdicate in favor of Mihailo. And so thus, in 'some' books, a consul becomes an "agent", the agent further becomes a "secret" agent and an official diplomat becomes some sort of an "agitator". Misinterpretation in truly bad faith. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rjecina. You have new messages at Voyagerfan5761's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 19:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ding! Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 20:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our favourite cyrllic-addicts are at it again, once again with Vrlika, a 92% inhabited Croatian town. Any help maintaining the dignity of the page will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are in a tough fight on the Starcevic page. It has been vandalized and POV-forced beyond belief. If you look back into the history, I tried at least to reinsert some things about his legacy, but even that was to much for the haters (including banned user Giovanni). Do you need any help with it? --Jesuislafete (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you need help with English, just notify me, and I can write it, or edit your work.--Jesuislafete (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, and good to hear that.--Jesuislafete (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but what are you trying to say here [1]???--Smerdyakoff (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Morea Despot requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information you put on my talk page. You are doing a great job monitoring the behaviour of these people. Even more so because English is not easy for you. (But easier than Croatian/Serbian is for me!)Kirker (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for even more good work chasing the sockpuppets. Kirker (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AP1929 is not unique in his views, so unless something different is proved I must assume Brkic is a separate guy. I don't know what to do about the Pavelić article, by the way. What AP1929 has written is far too uncritical, but the other version was pretty messed up too. It really needs to be started again. Why don't you have a go? Kirker (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info Hobartimus (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just discovered that over 60% of your edits are about Serbia and remembered your proposal about "splitting" the articles to people from corresponding countries. :D --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not threaten me, and if you do, do it in a language we both understand because your English is very poor and I have no idea what you are saying.

I have done nothing wrong, and there are no grounds for me to be blocked on, I have obeyed every wikipedia rule as outlined by wikipedia, and you will have a very hard time blocking me if that is what you are implying with your horrible use of the English language. AP1929 (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely accept Ustasa crimes, I do not accepts inflated Ustasa crimes and not all Ustase were bloodthirsty monsters. Crimes are committed by individuals and not entire groups unless the foundation of the movement of which they belong imply so, and in this case they do not. I can not be banned, and don't plan on being banned any time soon. AP1929 (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an English major and a historian, I'm sure when it comes down to it, I know what I'm talking about and I understand the language we are using right now very well. Ako vam je tesko drzati razgovor na eng. slobodno pisi te na hrvatskom jeziku.AP1929 (talk) 09:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rjecina, you accuse me of acting like Velebit. First of all Velebit is stubborn and fixed on his idea that Serbia was just occupied with no Serbian imput. I am not stubborn to the idea that Serbia was a puppet state or that it was a German administration of some sorts. I believed that Serbia was a puppet state but over time, I have found German-run entities such as "Military Administration of Serbia" as well as "Military Administration of France", and Reichskommissariats. These entities had collaborationist forces within them and even governments, but according to the German occupying forces, the creation of states was forbidden, i.e. the Netherlands had a Dutch fascist government which wanted to be an independent state, but was rejected, more famously Norway wanted to be an independent state under Quisling, but was rejected as well. Let me make it clear unlike Velebit, that I believe that Milan Nedic wanted Serbia to be an independent state by creating a currency, etc. to do so, but so did the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. The German authorities were the rulers of the territory and Germany recognized the military governors as supreme. Believe me Rjecina, for me I think it would be a lot simpler to say that Nedic ran a state, but with the huge amount of criticism and some valid claims against the idea that it was a state, makes me have to take that into consideration. To summarize, unlike Velebit, I agree that Nedic wanted Serbia to be a state and an equal partner in the Axis powers and he made significant efforts to do so, however, most likely due to the unstable situation there and to avoid upseting Germany's key Balkan ally, the Ustashe regime of Croatia, Germany denied Serbia statehood and only allowed a civil administration.--R-41 (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, because of keeping of previous edits, to merge the content from fascist Italianization to Italianization, and to put on the article fascist Italianization a redirect to Italianization?
Personally, I think that that article, "fascist Italianization" is ordinary content forking. Like, "bad kind of Italianization happened only during fascist times, in other times it was nice and romantic".
All other -izations have one article. What do you say? Kubura (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this [2]!?! This is becoming total insanity... I've reverted some of these... It should be done with all of it... Zenanarh (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well others got there before me, but I decided to do some more reworking anyway. I wasn't trying to change the balance of the text, which seemed pretty much NPOV to me. But you will notice I took out your reference to "terror." I'm not trying to play down what happened, but just thought "terror" seemed a bit too strong?

If you plan to add significant amounts of text to this article or others that are related (Pavelić, Ustaša etc) you could, if you wish, send it to me first and I will copy-edit it and send it back to you. You could then decide if it still said what you intended it to say, and use it, edit it or discard it as you like. If I was away from home or too busy I would let you know. Of course, once you put it into an article, I would feel free to edit, delete, etc, as with anything else! For the best way to contact, see note I put for you on my page. Kirker (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been busy with work and exams, so I've been away. Do you still need help with this article? --Jesuislafete (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it was you who had put in those words once before, but maybe I should not have changed them without discussion. My problems with your version are:

1) A statement that Pavelić directly ordered everything would need be sourced. I changed it because AP1929 challenged it in one of the discussions. I hardly need add that I hope there is a source!

2) Genocide is a much more specifically defined term than terror, and the Ustaša policy certainly qualifies.

3) I don't know whether you are arguing for every word of your editing or whether you have just brought back someone else's words, so.... Are you really insisting on Gypsies? I changed it because for English speakers this term is sometimes derogatory. Kirker (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure is it worth it explaining to you. But I will try. Reason is, that is unnecessary, and tends to provoke EDIT wars, which Balkan boys are famous of it. Old text is enough. --HarisM (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I excepted, you didn't get it. There is all the names, Stefan, Stevan, Stjepan... so what's the problem? Oh, yes... --HarisM (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are blind then. So long. --HarisM (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was rather surprised by your edits, and have been discussing them with an admin User:Tyrenius, who, like me, is not very happy wih them (see our talk pages). I would suggest you would refactor them as archiving the old stuff. No one ever looks at archives. Johnbod (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not for you alone to say if the edits will stay deleted. I don't think you have contibuted to these pages much, if at all. You will see there are two admins on my talk page who disagree with your deletions. Apart from anything else, if all the talk pages are deleted, it may lead other Croatian editors to think these issues have never been raised, instead of discussed ad nauseam, and to reopen debates that have now been largely over for many months. Johnbod (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand why you put it there - this is about Imbris and not me.

Also, I've got the "Karageorgevic's bloody legacy" book published by the Greens' Montenegrin Army in Exile in Gaeta. I've been going through the sources of the Fascist Party's publishing and there's interesting data. According to it, the number of deaths are hundreds. I think I could e-mail it to you if you're interested? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I understand that the Podgorica Assembly question is still open - ready to return to it? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing you need to keep in mind that in political conflicts (like in Serbia between the Karageorgevics and Obrenovics, almost escalated to a civil war on one occasion) and civil conflicts crimes are committed. It isn't just that the Whites instilled by the French, British, Americans and Serbians committed crimes. The Greens instilled by the Italians committed too. Let me give you an example: On 6 August 1919 the home of Andrija Radovic was broken, pillaged and burned to the ground. His father was killed and his corps incinerated in the flame. His mother and sister were kidnapped; they were sent to be used as "rape-girls" for the Greens and no one has heard of them before. I am only now discovering the hideous crimes committed during the 1919 and 1920 struggles. It seems that over a hundred people were murdered on most brutal ways imaginable. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open subjects won't let me retire. :P

When two people come to the table and discuss - everything is possible, trust me. :) I am not interested just in legal argument (btw, just out of curiosity, are you a lawyer?), I want to gladly inspect the situation as a whole.

"Your comments on my talk page are another example of Greater Serbia propaganda. Are you really believe in statement:, "Greens has taken 65+ years old Andrija Radaković mother to be rape-girl", "You need to start reading serious stuff. Not even 10-11 year old child can believe that Greater Serbia bullshit.".

I'm sorry, but this did occur. The Greens themselves claim this (though they try to justify it). :)

Uh...I beg your pardon? (I'm having my second thoughts on sending you the Bloody Memoirs) Could you please elaborate your sentence to the bottom? Are you actually aware of that which you said? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrija Radovic didn't even live in Montenegro. He lived in Paris and the Greens new. The decision was to punish his family (blood feud, banned by Montenegrin law years before and criticized by international laws) by killing his father, destroying his birthplace and raping and brutally murdering his wife and sister. Are you saying that that's OK? Also this had occurred after 1918. You mustn't be interested solely in legal arguments - that's baseless here on Wikipedia. In the same manner it would be insane to put at the Kosovo article that it's declaration of independence is illegal. Except the High Judge of Montenegro was with him. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. No chance he would've been sentenced to death. There was no opposition in his work, just some critics in the way he did it. Oh and if you are really ready to just overview legal arguments - let's do it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One side-question. Do you think the Ovcara massacre was justified, good and OK? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the Ovcara massacre, the Federal Courts issued warrants for arrest of Franjo Tudjman, Vladimir Seks and numerous other people, as well as sentenced them for treason, and military intervention of the Yugoslav People's Army in the self-declared Republic of Croatia was legal. Please explain to me what's the difference between that which happened in Ovcara & that which occurred in Radovic's home. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I do not want to see misleading edits with false statements about me on my talk page I will answer here ! Your our accusing me that I have writen how has been OK kill father, rape sister and wife of Andrija Radovic ?? Please be good and look again my writing on your talk page which is:

"In legal term Andrija Radaković has been traitor during wartime. There is no need to say what is penalty for that.

"In 1918 penalty for high treason has been death. Let say for example that Andrija Radaković has been taken by rebels and that he has come before Montenegrin court. Any judge of that time will declare him guilty and ..."

Can you please show where I am saying that it is OK to kill his father, rape his sister and wife.

Because of wikipedia rule I must think that your comments have been good faith mistakes but in reality for me is hard to understand what point of my writing has not been clear ?--Rjecina (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What false accusation? I didn't accuse you for anything. :)

This has nothing to do with Andrija. I made it clear that the Greens conspired and planned to commit a plain atrocity, to kill everyone in his family and destroy his home (leaving him alive to cope wit it). And then you responded: Your comments on my talk page are another example of Greater Serbia propaganda. Are you really believe in statement: "Greens has taken 65+ years old Andrija Radaković mother to be rape-girl" You need to start reading serious stuff. Not even 10-11 year old child can believe that Greater Serbia bullshit. In legal term Andrija Radaković has been traitor during wartime. There is no need to say what is penalty for that."

So, from these words, what can be concluded? That atrocities are legal? And that "Greater Serbian bullshit", parallel with disrespect of victims, didn't really help me understand what you wanted to say. So...what do you want to say? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV accusations

Now we are having all text of our discussion on my talk page:

On 6 August 1919 the home of Andrija Radovic was broken, pillaged and burned to the ground. His father was killed and his corps incinerated in the flame. His mother and sister were kidnapped; they were sent to be used as "rape-girls" for the Greens and no one has heard of them before. I am only now discovering the hideous crimes committed during the 1919 and 1920 struggles. It seems that over a hundred people were murdered on most brutal ways imaginable. ( PaxEquilibrium)

Discussion about Podgorica Assembly is not possible. You are interested in feelings and personal thinking I am interested only in legal argument.Your comments on my talk page are another example of Greater Serbia propaganda. Are you really believe in statement: "Greens has taken 65+ years old Andrija Radaković mother to be rape-girl" You need to start reading serious stuff. Not even 10-11 year old child can believe that Greater Serbia bullshit.In legal term Andrija Radaković has been traitor during wartime. There is no need to say what is penalty for that.Rjecina

Uh...I beg your pardon? (I'm having my second thoughts on sending you the Bloody Memoirs) Could you please elaborate your sentence to the bottom? Are you actually aware of that which you said? --PaxEquilibrium

In 1918 penalty for high treason has been death. Let say for example that Andrija Radaković has been taken by rebels and that he has come before Montenegrin court. Any judge of that time will declare him guilty and ...You really do not understand that I am only interested in legal arguments ? I am not interested in emotions.Rjecina

One side-question. Do you think the Ovcara massacre was justified, good and OK? --PaxEquilibrium

For me there is no difference between Ovčara, Gospić or Srebrenica. This has been killing against any moral or legal rule. Maybe I am mistaking but you know that first we must have court decision which will say if somebody is guilty and they decide penalty ?? Penalty can be death because of high treason during time of war, but without court decision this is massacre Rjecina

By the Ovcara massacre, the Federal Courts issued warrants for arrest of Franjo Tudjman, Vladimir Seks and numerous other people, as well as sentenced them for treason, and military intervention of the Yugoslav People's Army in the self-declared Republic of Croatia was legal. Please explain to me what's the difference between that which happened in Ovcara & that which occurred in Radovic's home. --PaxEquilibrium

I am still waiting to see where I have writen that it is OK to rape or kill family of Andrija Radaković ? --Rjecina (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if that's not what you meant, I am still waiting to read your clarification regarding what truly you wanted to say when you wrote that. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It misses the term "Bosnian", and I hoped that by evading all national-romantic-style-linguistic denominations, I'd evade these controversies (as you see, a Bosniak user has stood up immediately). Back then there were neither Croatian nor Serbian, and Tvrtko was within a very strange melting pot of South Slavic cultures. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I just discovered that you ran into a slight problem with Template:Cfd-notify due to not "substituting" the template -- which causes the newly created section to link to Template:Cfd-notify! (yikes) Anyhow, I've clarified the instructions for using the template, so hopefully future users won't run into that problem -- you weren't the first! :) Regards, Cgingold (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he looks pretty moderate, his edits are pretty much ok... He didn't write anything radical or expansionist. I'm aware of the large number of serb nationalists editing Wiki all the time, but I'm going to keep an open mind with this guy. The info he added was pretty much correct and he merely removed that text because of its poor quality I think... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When we speak about Pagania you are right 100 % right

Is there something else you disagree about ? Hxseek (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that by 840 the Croat duchy was no longer a Frank vassal. Did it not rebel around this time?

Thanks for your comments. I will take them on board. Hxseek (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so interested in Serbs of Croatia? What is your motivation?

I do appreciate people who add the Croatian views to the article since it keep the article fair and unbiased, but i do not like people who keep the progress down by constantly undoing progress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Babic (talk • contribs) 20:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you perhaps never thought of the idea that this user is from Croatia? Maybe that will answer your question.--Jesuislafete (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work man :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on catching that...I was just about to message you to ask if you noticed anything suspicious about these new users editing/vandalizing Croatia-related articles. No doubt they will be blocked soon enough. It's a shame that we have to keep policing these articles. --Jesuislafete (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked User:Mike Babic again after your complaint. However, I noticed that you yourself have very extensively revert-warred on the same page (Serbs in Croatia) too, and your edits are by no means purely removal of vandalism. Edits such as this strike me as pretty obviously tendentious (don't tell me that changing "Most of the Serbs from Bilogora and northwestern Slavonia fled those areas as they were under Croatian military control" to "Most of the Serbs from Bilogora and northwestern Slavonia put themselves on the side of Serbian aggressor, making the weak odds-conditions of Croatian defense even worse" is an improvement towards NPOV?).

I am certain you know of the rules of WP:ARBMAC, since you have been quite active in this field for a long time. I am therefore placing you under a revert parole of max. 1rv/48h, for the next three months, on all Yugoslavia-related articles. Together with this limitation, you are required to explain every content revert you make with an informative edit summary and reasoning on the talkpage. As usual, reverts of blatant vandalism (but only that!) are exempt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To tell the truth my greatest problem with that is question of my honesty and NPOV. Now even Fut.Perf. is accepting that my actions has been fast revert and not POV [3]

I do not see any reason for this ban when I have only protected article together with 3 other editors (user:DIREKTOR, user:Aradic-en and user:Kubura) against POV account [4]

Because of all this reasons ban need to be moved--Rjecina (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you lend a hand with the Independent State of Croatia article? A couple of IPs are getting to work on quote: "correcting historical errors", such as trying to prove that the NDH was not controlled by Germany. I could certainly use your know-how in dealing with these weekend-editors. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to keep the article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Serb_propaganda_in_the_Yugoslav_wars_%282nd_nomination%29#Serb_propaganda_in_the_Yugoslav_wars —Preceding unsigned comment added by GriffinSB (talk • contribs) 19:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Can you help me with this discussion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Franjo_Tu%C4%91man#Discussion

--Anto (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this Croatian historical map. See the bottom Dragutin's realm? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see it? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was no concensus about the move, remember the Britannica reference? I wouldn't mind moving it, but someone pointed out that Magnatenverschwörung doesn't have many Google results. No need for deletions until we don't know what to do.

Would you add the WikiProject Croatia template? I'm not a member. Squash Racket (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue on the article's talk page. Squash Racket (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed my comment. If everything useful is saved from the article, then no problem. Squash Racket (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment on my talk page about the Independent_State_of_Croatia#Racial_legislation section: it would be a lot better if someone who was fluent in both languages — and is very familiar with the subject — re-writes the section. As it stands, it is barely even in English, had almost every sentence has language mistakes. Spylab (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am mistaking but user:Kirker job has been to rewrite the section but he is not interested in writing article (??). I am sure that you can rewrite this section ?--Rjecina (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rjecina. See my comment on Spylab's talk page under "NDH." Kirker (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what I have changed from your edit except for improving grammar and removing redundant information already on the Azra page. There was no album mentioned in the article as he was talking about all his albums in general, which he claims were only "leased" to Jugoton (Croatia Records) for a couple of months. So I fail to understand what you are trying to say...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.2.216 (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about now? I have to clean it up, as the wording didn't make sense. No need to re-write stuff from the Azra page, as people can look there for details. --64.46.2.216 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I have noticed that yourself and 64.46.2.216 (talk · contribs) have been involved in a content dispute over several items in the Croatia Records‎ article. On this particular edit, you reverted this editor's good faith contribution and you called him a vandal in your edit summary.
According to WP:Vandalism, vandalism is a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The above edit that you reverted was made in good faith, even if it was incorrect and even if the user refuses to discuss the issue with you. I will ask you to please take a look at what vandalism is not and pay particular attention to NPOV violations and Stubbornness and you will see that the editor above is not a vandal. A part of your edit summary stated Writing POV statements without neutral sources of statements is against Wikipedia NPOV policy which is 100% true but that does not make it vandalism if the other person believes he is improving Wikipedia.
All in all, it is very poor practice to accuse others of vandalism because you're involved in a content dispute with them. Please be more careful with such accusations.
Thanks! SWik78 (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that passage again. The whole of it was poorly sourced; the notability of that whole issue was never demonstrated (a single interview where some newspaper gave the guy the opportunity to express his claims? It's not even gone before a court?), and even if it was borderline notable, there'd be hardly grounds for more than a single sentence. Moreover, the passage was poorly written. If people must have the issue covered, a simple, single sentence is sufficient: "Croatia Records has been the object of a controversy raised by singer X over royalty rights to songs by band Y from the 1980s. X has named a sum of Z Euros which he claims the company owes him." Why treat this more deeply at all? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STALK describes stalking as following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.

Let me make a few points here:

• 1. My intent is not to annoy or distress you.
• 2. I am not following you around nor do I edit all the same articles as you. My edit history, as you claim, actually proves you incorrect. If you want, you can take a look at my contributions or a summary of my edits to see that I actually spread my contributions all over this project, not concentrating on any particular user or topic.
• 3. As can also be seen in the two links provided above about my contributions, I spend a lot of time figthing vandalism on Wikipedia. In trying to assume WP:Good Faith and trying not to WP:BITE newcomers, I've reverted vandalism warnings by other editors who inapropriately accused others of vandalism, hence I notified you about your inapropriate action. I'm not trying to get you blocked but, the same way as I fend off vandals, I will protect the non-vandals from being accused as such. There are a lot of anonymous IP editors out there who contribute very well to Wikipedia and who are WP:BOLD in their edits. They should be welcomed, not scared away.
• 4. I don't have a favourite administrator, as you claim, nor am I setting up any kind of a trap on SAO Western Slavonia.
• 5. You're taking this too personally. I'm not attacking you. I am commenting on your edits, not you as an editor.
• 6. I will continue to monitor certain Balkan related articles, especially ones relating to the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s, in order to help keep them neutral and non-disrupted.

Feel free to let me know if you have more concerns.
Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I would be glad to get a second or third opinion from a neutral party to help you and myself determine whether the edit you reverted by 64.46.2.216 (talk · contribs) can be considered vandalism as you claim or if it's a good faith edit as I claim. SWik78 (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see... If have recieved on 16 March revert ban and only 2 days latter you have given me first warning [5] ?? Yes after seeing mistake you have reverted your warning few hours latter but this has not changed fact about warning.

On other side your revert in article SAO Western Slavonia is telling many things about your editorial style !! It will be very interesting day when you write demand for becoming administrator :)

Do not worry stalking problem will be solved. --Rjecina (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The warning you bring up was, admittedly, brought up by erroneous research on my part. I was wrong to post it at that time (hence the retraction) but I still believe it was valid in all the other points it made. I retracted it because I was incorrect on the reason why I posted it in the first place and I did not want to blanket accuse you of random offences at random times. However, all the points I made in the above warning still do apply and that in no way constitutes stalking or harassment on my part. SWik78 (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rjecina, don't get disturbed.
We know about the "don't bite the newcomers" rule, but that doesn't mean that newcomers have right bully the older users.
Also, admins should take a better look. It's not OK to allow to "newcomers", in fact, SPA accounts of "famous" trolls, to disturb and annoy the old users, that proved to be creative and cooperative.
Admins should recognise the problem, and follow those disruptive "newcomers" that play dumb. These "newcomers" behave as if they don't know anything (but they know, because they are "old customers" of Wikipedia, their edit pattern and interest areas shows that), and return/draw the discussions and articleversions to points that were previously discussed.
Bye, Kubura (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please please please Rjecina. Grammar. Either present tense or past tense. Never present perfect. And no progressive aspect either. And don't use noun phrases without articles. Please practice it:

• "Protesters are asking that Kosovo become republic" => "Protesters ask that Kosovo become a republic"
• "Presidency is sending special forces to stop demonstrations and it is declaring state of emergency" => The presidency sends special forces to stop the demonstrations and declares a state of emergency"
• "Ivica Račan has become president of Croatian communists against wishes of Yugoslav Army" => "Ivica Racan becomes president of the Croatian communists against the wishes of theYugoslavian Army.

etc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding to this article : I decided to included all the events up to 2008 and independence of Kosovo. not just articles up the official declaration of Croatian,Slovenian etc independence. It will show the full context of the events . I think including the data about Kosovo events in 1999 and Croatian war for indepndence is important. Uniting the Serbia & Montenegro has been the initiation of Yugoslavia. Montenegrin independence and Kosovo independence were "the last nail in the coffin" for Yugoslavia .--Anto (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will look into it. :) Check out the proposals on the talk page, btw. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

could you explain this one for me. BanRay 22:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going from my experience, I know what a pathetic circus the russian mass media is. Don't tell me about propaganda, you should have seen their coverage of the Georgian presidential elections. And you'd think the NTV - TV6 story would teach people a lesson. But 57 to 20? Do you really buy that? I happen to know some ukrainians (my grandparents from father's side still hold ukrainian citizenship by the way) and most of those I've managed to discuss this with seem to be pro-nato. 47 - 45 seems to be on par with the 2004 presidential elections too. I don't know how reliable the numbers are, but I'm sure they are much closer to reality than those provided by Interfax. Anyway, adding the word Russian was my initial solution too, at least for now, because, in all honesty, the idea of having Interfax as source for an encyclopedia doesn't appeal to me. BanRay 22:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...have had a total of 47 elections and sessions of their parliament over the age of more than two hundred years. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

You deleted comments from the talk page of this article with the comment that they were by a banned user. Where is there evidence that the IP address in question 79.101.214.34 is banned from editing? Thanks. Edison (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You stated on my talk page that a banned user was doing IP edits from addresses starting with 71, unlike this one, which starts with 79. I question your statement "I am controling all articles for which this user has shown interest and deleting all his comments." Has this been discussed at WP:ANI or has there been an Arbcom decision or other process> Are there checkuser results to show the other IP editors are the same as the banned user? We must be wary of "ownership" of an article. I have no feeling one way or the other for Tesla's nationality or ethnicity, but I do care about the removal of talk page comments in a subject matter dispute in any article. Edison (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you recently added {{IPsock|Marechiel |confirmed}} to two pages, User:79.101.214.34‎ and User:77.46.228.11‎. I don't see the confirmation on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Velebit. Am I missing something? Toddst1 (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Followed link. never mind. Toddst1 (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you should stop attacking this guy for his Srebrenitza article - people join Wikipedia in order to add things they see that aren't there. I had this myself, and I thought it was really offputting. TylerDurden1963 (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the last experience, I've tended to steer clear of putting new things up. In this particular case, I saw the discussion and it reminded me too much of the last fiasco. Don't you people have better things to do than crush people before they have a chance to properly create their entries? TylerDurden1963 (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just to say that I'd support you if you suggested that those three editors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baronetcy of Srebrenica should be investigated. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've listed it myself. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about me on your page, behind my back. This is distasteful, and unfounded. DrHollisCollier (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be discussed somewhere. If the accusations are unfounded, then you have nothing to fear from the sockpuppet investigation. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I notified you of the investigation on your talk page, and you deleted the notice! Cordless Larry (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Regarding the discussions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Franjo_Tu%C4%91man#Requested_move

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Novak_%C4%90okovi%C4%87/Archive_1

I'd like to send this issue on WP:Arbitration. Not just about South Slavic languages , but also for other languages using diacritics (Finnish, Hungarian,Czech;Irish, Spanish...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Iricigor/diacritics

--Anto (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]