My goal is to put up an image, in the form of a map, of every Croatian municipality by the end of 2007. (LAz17 23:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Goal failed. Too lazy to upload 'em all. Oh well. I got a several dozen anyways. :P (LAz17 (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Donji Kukuruzari Municipality.PNG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Glina Municipality.PNG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello. There's a discussion going on Talk:List of countries as to whether or not Kosovo should be included in that list. You have an interest in Serbia-related articles and I thought you might be interested. The articles List of countries and Annex to the list of countries (where the inclusion criteria reside) are both relevant. Cheers. DSuser 13:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Eh, I am not too interested in arguing about Kosovo's status. -LAz17 - July 28, 2007.

if you keep vandalizing Croatian city pages with the absolutely absurd category of RSK cities. I cannot believe you are capable of such a thing. --Jesuislafete 20:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It is a totally legitimate category. It is towns that were in the RSK. What is wrong with that? The RSK does not exist and the category is towns that were in it. -LAz17 - July 28, 2007

it is NOT a legitmate category at all. It is so absurd, I guarantee you that any administrator will agree with me. RSK was a so called "state" that was NOT RECOGNIZED by any other country besides Yugoslavia, and was founded on the ethnic cleansing of Croats, and I will ask you to read Wikipedia:Categorization before you make such a gross error again. How anyone can put up a category based on the unrecognized state carved out of the internationally recognized borders of Croatia?!--Jesuislafete 20:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category is perfectly fine. RSK was a region, and an important one. The fact that it was a region and that these towns were in it is of great historical importance for history. This is not supporting RSK, it is just giving information about it. - LAz17 - July 28, 2007

I contacted a number of users to stop Jesuislafete's vandalism. Keep up the good work LAz17.

Thanks. :) (LAz17 23:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

I just want to let you know, user:No.13 is accussing you of being a sockpuppet. [1]

PS: I have my suspicions on the user 217.68.80.50 Just check Knin history.

Hmm, yes, I found this out recently. He was complain to some guy... PANOMIAN or something like that is his username. Anyways, he may say whatever he wants, for the fact remains - I am not a sockpuppet and i do not have sockpuppets. (LAz17 20:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

The user No.13 now thinks i'm a sockpuppet. As I stated in the other discusion, this is getting out of hand. No.13 said i was your sockpuppet on a users discussion. Do you know anyone that can help with this situation? Benkovac 06:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I wish I did. (LAz17 14:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Hi! Based on your interest in the Balkans, you may be interested in the currently ongoing debate on whether we should be using Kosovo or Kosovar/Kosovan as the adjective for Kosovo. —Nightstallion 15:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea LAz17 :)

Pozdrav Benkovac 03:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about we put the following in artcles.

--See also--

• Towns in the Former RSK

Benkovac 05:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a notification however when I returned back home the vote had already been closed (( Alæxis_¿question? 08:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[2]] Is the source for the most of those maps Ceha 18:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:No.13 has been banned, as per being a sock-puppet of a community-banned user. --PaxEquilibrium 10:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the problem is....does the fellow wants to remove the category because he believes it's irrelevant today? I don't see too much discussion on the talk pages, so I can't tell. From what I can see, he doesn't believe the "current situation" section should be there because the C.R. of Herceg-Bosna ceased to exist over ten years ago and therefore that chapter is closed. But if there is proof and good sources that the idea or situation is still being dealt with (which obviously, there is), I don't see what the problem of putting a small section explaining the situation in the page...It's not like it's a huge paragraph under the politics section of the Bosnia and Hercegovina page. Pozdrav. --Jesuislafete 16:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on More than Hagnesta Hill, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Phgao 00:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself, as you did with More than Hagnesta Hill. If you do not believe the article should be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Cheers, Jonathan ^{t - c} 00:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please AGF, what you need to realise is that tagging New Pages occurs right after they are created, so of course I tagged it a few mins after you made the article. You can add a tag, saying the article is in the process of being written and that usually prevents any tagging. Furthermore, if you wish to avoid this happening again, you can do draft versions in your sandbox and submit a more complete version. Phgao 00:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example you can create pages like [3] which you can add whatever you like (up to a point), and create "draft" articles there. Phgao 00:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also as you were told, please don't just remove tags as they are there for a reason, instead hang on is a good way to go about things. Phgao 00:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, calm down. The reason you shouldn't delete a speedy tag is because if you want the article to stay, add {{hangon}} to the page. The reason the article was put up for a speedy was because it had very little context. There's your answer, and I ask you to please remail civil. Thanks! Cheers, Jonathan ^{t - c} 00:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even realize the singles were intended to be grouped, I assumed the line breaks were coincidental. The grouping isn't very clear, and doesn't work well with smaller window sizes. IMO grouping the singles is not necessary, as few other artist navboxes do so. Still, I have restored the sectioning for now, as you apparently feel they were important enough to warrant your reversal of all of my changes. --PEJL 16:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giving readers direction like " Therefore the book should be read carefully, as it portrays only part of the story" is something you don't see in an encyclopedia. It shouldn't be up on the Safe Area Gorazde article.

Whether or not the story is biased (for all I can see, it isn't) is not something that wikipedia should be the judge of. It does show "one side", but that is not the same as bias - bias is when one side is misrepresented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.192.211.24 (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Povljane Municipality.PNG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tillbakatillsamtiden.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where? --Bolonium (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking to the wrong guy ;) --Bolonium (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that must have been an accident, I didn't mean to remove credible information... The mistake was reverting to an earlier version of the article without the same data. Regards, --Bolonium (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking for your help since from observation, I see that you have added population data to to a number of articles including Jajce. Can you check the jajce population data for 2003 and 2004. I added the source. I want to know is this a good source? Is this source acceptable on wikipedia?

Spread tha word (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Kent-GenerationEx.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uradio sam ono što si tražio! Samo ako kojim slučajem mi Hrvati u BiH dobijemo svoj entitet i ove tri općine idu u taj entitet. To je sam Dodik rekao jer kako on kaže Republika Srpska ne želi raditi ništa suprotno Daytonskom sporazumu! --77.221.10.200 (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC) hr:Suradnik:Mostarac[reply]

Mislim da su u Novom Travniku Hrvati i sad većina. A što se tiče BiH, meni ne bi smetalo da to ostane jedna država, nego da svatko ima svoje. Srbi svoj, Bošnjaci svoj i Hrvati svoj entitet. Tako bi bilo najpoštenije. Po meni su Srbi narod koji je najviše profitirao nakon rata. Ljudi imaju svoj entitet, a za ostalo ih boli neka stvar. Pa Federacija BiH je '98., '99. imala trostruko jaču ekonomiju i sve. A danas RS je stigao FBiH, mislim da će je u dogledno vrijeme i prestići. Zašto? Vrlo jednostavno. Zato jer su u RS-u samo općine i ljudi imaju 16 ministara (znači samo vlada RS-a), dok u Federaciji osim općina tu je 10 županija, pa tako FBiH ima 108 ministara (vlada FBiH + 10 županijske vlada). Zapravo te županije su rak Federacije jer mi Hrvati nedamo da se ukinu jer tu jedino imamo vlast (u Hercegbosanskoj, Zapadnohercegovačkoj, Hercegovačko-neretvanskoj, Posavskoj županiji Hrvati imaju vlast), a balije (Bošnjaci) žele ukidanje županija. Eto toliko, a ako bude rata u budućnosti, mislim da će Srbi i Hrvati u tom ratu biti saveznici (ne baš veliki, ali ja mislim da se neće napadati) jer se Bošnjaci razmnožavaju više i od Hrvata i Srba zajedno. Povezat će nas to što smo kršćani, a zatim ćemo pobijediti balije i stjerati ih sve u Sarajevo i onaj dio Bosne. Ja tako mislim. Pozdrav! hr:Suradnik:Mostarac —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.221.10.200 (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on 2007 Eurobasket Division B Results, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Pip (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Proposed Deletion policy. I have restored the article, as the policy permits. It could still be deleted via another method such as Articles for Deletion, if an editor feels it does not meet our inclusion guidelines. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centre Sheraton look at that guy's talk page under the same heading. (quote) We don't keep pages because they have links to them. I deleted it after its Proposed deletion was uncontested. What exactly is the problem? - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they were proposed for deletion, I would have. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are so right, this guy, Rjd, is disruptive and opinionated to boot (as well). Peter Horn 01:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's a pretty nice guy. I guess when people come to his talk page and leave inappropriate remarks and accusations of disruption and "mess creating", he has less patience than normal. Cheers! - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Privet. You are receiving this message as you were listed on the membership list of WP:RUSSIA at Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Members. Recent times has seen minimal activity within WikiProject Russia, and there is an attempt to re-invigorate the project and have it become more organised into a fully-fledge functioning project, with the aim of increasing the quality of Russia-related articles across English wikipedia.

As we don't know which listed members are active within the project and Russia-related article, all listed members are receiving this message, and are requested to re-affirm their active status on Russia-related article by re-adding their username to Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Members by adding:

# {{User|YOURUSERNAME}}

to the membership list. You may also like to place {{User Russian Project}} on your userpage, as this will also place you in Category:WikiProject Russia members.

There is also an active proposal on the creation of a single WP:RUSSIA project. The proposal can be viewed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia#Proposal_for_overhaul_and_creation_of_a_single_WP:RUSSIA_project, and your comments and suggestions are welcomed and encouraged at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia/Proposal.

We all look forward to your continued support of WP:RUSSIA and any comments you may have on the proposal. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 04:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's next? Towns in former Third Reich?
LAz17, respect the decisions of voting. Kubura (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LAz, you're opening Pandora's box.
That list can be the part of the article about so-called RSK (article exists).
We shouldn't play with unrecognised states. These kind of listings are too provocative and problematic. Kubura (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man, you don't get where is this leading. Do you want to create article about towns from Serbia that were part of NDH? Or the towns from Serbia that were part of Bulgarian Empire (in First, and in Second World War), listified with their names in Bulgarian? Or the towns from Serbia that were added to Greater Albania in WW2? Or the towns from Bačka (northern Vojvodina, Serbia) that came under Hungary in WW2?
Finally, I'll repeat. Voting was on category. But, before any conclusions made, you've decided for yourself, without asking anyone. You've seen the outcome of voting. Kubura (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) How can you say such thing? Kosovo towns and municipalities are part of internationally recognised country. Previously, Kosovo was recognised federative unit of Yugoslavia. Kosovo is not like so-called RSK. Don't compare internationally recognised country with the terrorist-controlled area. In fact, so-called RSK was the mask for Serbian territorial conquest of Croatia (an attempt of violent changing of international borders) hidden behind local puppet-government.
2) Towns in Serbia that were part of NDH, don't have single article like "list of cities and towns in NDH". So, the cities and towns under rebel Serb control can stay in the article about so-called RSK. We don't give importance to terrorist ruled-areas, that someone (self-)proclaimed to be the "state".
3) About the cities that Mussolini took from Kingdom of Yugoslavia and added to its possession Albania - check the old maps.
4) "'...because of a recent shift in voters to say for it to be listified.". And whome have you left previous votes, that explicitly said: delete? Kubura (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Again the same thing.
Kosovo is not "more controversial and provocative". Kosovo was recognised federative unit in SFRY, with equal voting rights, same ones as republics had.
So-called RSK is Serbian conquest of Croatian territory, only hidden behind "independent unrecognised state". Strings were openly coming from Belgrade.
2) "Most of that land had a Serbian majority, so it was not really a conquest.". Oh, really? Here's obvious your imperialist and expansionist attitude. So-called RSK was occupied territory of another country,.
3) "The entity is merely a creation to avoid the genocide as the neonazi croat president and government outright reduced serbian people to second class citizenship". No child, he wasn't a neonazi. Where are your proves for that? Don't use defamation methods.
4) What "second class citizenship"? Maybe you expected that Serbs could have that undeserved privileged status infinitely? With military factories solely in Serb-inhabited areas? With official military language as Serbian? With most of military personnel, secret service and police being Serbs? With unproportionally higher share of Serbs in state services and key functions and sinecures? And all that funded from Croatia? And we couldn't built a single highway from Split to Zagreb, because it was "nationalistic"?
5) "... and glorified the genocide done on the serbs in world war two". Woo, wait? Who glorified? We want facts here, not Ottoman-type argumentation ("kadija te tuži, kadija te sudi"). Regarding genocide, look who's talking. AFAIK, only the number of Croats was reduced after WW2. Probably the number of Albanians also, but Serb hegemonist government always showed the number of Albanians in smaller numbers in statistics, than they really were.
6) So-called RSK is based on violent changing of ethnic structure at the expense of Croats. It begun since 1918, with colonizing of famillies of Serb volunteers in Croatia (especially in fertile valleys in NE Croatia), Serbian police and army terrorizing of Croat population (e.g., Sibinj victims, Senj victims in Gospić), that forced many Croats to leave for abroad. When that terror draw interests from abroad, Serb diplomacy told that these (Croats) were "Communists" or "restaurators of Habsburg monarchy". Same story always. At that time, best way for defamation was to call someone as "Communist", today is best way to use terms "Nazi, neonazi, fascist...".
In WW2, before proclamation of NDH, "Yugoslav army" forces, made of Serbs, killed Croat population (e.g., Bjelovar area, Donji Mosti near Bjelovar [4]).
"Serb uprising" was in fact ordinary shooting of pilgrimers in areas, since then completely ethnically cleansed from Croats (Boričevac, Udbina and neighbourhood, Srb, Cetingrad, Zrin, Španovica, Rudopolje, Prijeboj, Gvozdansko, Potkonje and Vrpolje near Knin, Palanka on Zrmanja, Joševica...), in the areas that were later part of so-called RSK. No Croat was ever allowed to return. Of course, Serbs upriser simply changed iconography and battlesigns, as need occured, so they simply switched chetnik and "partisan" signs. These chetniks were nazi collaborators, and Serbia (to make things worse) recently rehabilitated that movement.
Then in socialist Yugoslavia, Croat population was decimated, expelled or eliminated especially in areas that later became "pure Serb", and population that remained with pure Croat inhabitants significantly suffered a population loss (Slunj area), or lost majority (Banovina, Lika, Krbava). Strongest strike was in 1945-1950, but later police pressure took its toll.
Finally, with Serbian aggression on Croatian, whole Croat population was expelled or exterminated on areas the greaterserbianists managed to occupy. And Croatian minorities (especially Hungarians, Slovaks, Czechs, Rusyns and Ukrainians) suffered. E.g., in Petrovci near Vukovar, chetniks have thrown out Rusyns from their homes and settled the Serbs there. There you had your "that's not really a conquest". Shame on you. Kubura (talk) 07:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Vy från ett luftslott, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Vy från ett luftslott is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Vy från ett luftslott, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Answers to your questions you can find at [5] and [6]. As for possible inaccuraties in the map those are mentioned on map's page in the section between Licesing... --Čeha (razgovor) 00:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you can read in the discusion I founded it somwhere on the net. It has been long time ago, and now source can not even be googled out. If you have some credible source how can those map be enhaced(rastko.net is not one of that) please show the correct version so the errors can be removed.--Čeha (razgovor) 04:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copywrite rights on that map should be da same as 1981 map, and this 1991 map. If they are from the same source that should be that.
Map of which is talked is not a propaganda map, surely not a Croat one (most of the the 1981-1991 changes are in Bosniak benefit), although it may be possible to constain some inaccuracies.
As for update, I haven't see the map, nor you did not source it (name of the book etc). The point was, if existent 1991 map has inaccuracies, and the new map is accurate to simply change it, rather than manualy puting the new source on every page which has a link to existent map.
--Čeha (razgovor) 18:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Ok. I'm interested to see it. --Čeha (razgovor) 00:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi LAz17. I replied at my talk page. - Regards, Ev (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South of Doboj is Ozren mountain which was under serbian control most of the war (they lost most of it in final stages). I think that maps are very good sourced so you can chech it out.
--Čeha (razgovor) 21:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no. Map is correct.
You can see the same map in "Bosnia" , by Erich Rathfalder "Balkan Odyssey" by lord Owen and many others.[7] BS army wanted to "brake" another coridor at Olovo and isolate Tuzla.
--Čeha (razgovor) 21:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC) What other guy? Try to see the sources(borrow one of thouse two books in library), or google it out. Also map of mines in BiH is very usefull when discussing front lines (more things to google:)[reply]
--Čeha (razgovor) 23:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laz17, this image has very low quality. Can't you upload it in higher resolution?
--Čeha (razgovor) 01:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, If you have a copy of that map in your possesion there shouldn't be any problem to upload it in higher resolution. Intermunicipal borders are murky and not clearly visible. Also contrast on it is a little bit too high. Try to upload it in higher resolution which would be more up to wikipedia standards. As for contrast, look at 1981 map how it should look like.
As for your photoshop inclanation part, as a wikipedian user and editor I'm ablied to work in [8] and [9] and I'm not going into [10]. Which I would recommend to you also if you are planing to avoid administrator's warnings.
Also, I have an impression that you are trying to found some "belosvetske zavere" when you are speaking about that older maps. They were reported as having inaccuracies long before you've even came to wiki.
--Čeha (razgovor) 08:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Laz, it would be normal that you respond to discussion on the map you puted on the wiki [11]

Also I would call you to improve your english, and to try to read article before you give a false accusation.

--Čeha (razgovor) 15:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've been asked to comment on this map issue. Please see a few questions and comments of mine at Image talk:Bih 1991.jpg. Can I also first ask you to keep it all friendly and relaxed, there's no need for accusations. Thanks, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On ANI I am asking short block of both users [12]. User LAz17 is guilty of incivility (word fuck and others), but in trying to calm situation maybe it is best that both are blocked for short time period.

LAz you are 100 % guilty of incivility, but I want to calm you both. On monday I will look census data in question.--Rjecina (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove and add a load of sections as you did here? D.M.N. (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the same subject as D.M.N.'s post, I've put your comment in the existing section at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bosnian maps dispute - I guess you inadvertently edited an older version of the page? PhilKnight (talk) 14:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I don't get it... I just posted one short paragraph... I don't know where that other stuff is from? Some error? (LAz17 (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

Maybe I am making mistake but this is now dispute aboute census data. Because of that I have created page User:Rjecina/Bosnian census in my user space. Can we please continue discussion in my user space. After consensus page will be deleted.--Rjecina (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Čeha is on wiki vaccation around 7 days and very soon I will be out 3 days.--Rjecina (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might go away a bit during the thanksgiving break too. (LAz17 (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

You were mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#BiH_ethnic_maps_and_data. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LAz17, if you have a problem with Image:BiHSimplifiedEthnic1991.gif, go list commons:Image:BiHSimplifiedEthnic1991.gif or deletion. Simple as that. Now, read the Wikipedia:ARBMAC rules. One more complaint about that image, one more whine about it's all a lie, one more calling someone a fascist or any other name-calling and you are blocked (if I find out that you are calling people names in foreign languages like this supposedly is, it's going to be a LOONG block. I've had enough of this complaining and bickering. And before you start, do not complain about other people. Two wrongs do not make a right and I will block you double for it. I will work with everyone I can and warn everyone who deserves it. Now, do you want to respond to the simple question at User:Rjecina/Bosnian_census#Clean_slate? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laz, those two maps are about lines of fronts and do not show anything about ethnic situation in Posavina. If you have any information about any possible inacuracies, please show your sources.
Also, it is trablesome to speak with someone who calls your work a fraud in every second word. Try to act acording to wikipedia policies ot else, I'm afraid there is not going to be much of cooperation on this issue. --Čeha (razgovor) 21:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the image clearly has no source, try nsd (which gives it seven days). If the source is "bad" in your mind, or even somewhat controversial, I would suggest listing it at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Also, if I'm guessing right, the images themselves may be contentious so be minimal and specific as to the issues. If the discussion goes into personal attacks, the images are likely to stay (and the users warned). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that's only for English wikipedia. At Commons, since the whole thing is a image depository and nothing more, just the delete template works there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I would like to thank you for the article Geography of the Former Republic of Serbian Krajina. I thank you because I enjoyed reading it and for its well-developed content. Secondly, a link on your user page to a book called Liar's Poker: The Great Powers, Yugoslavia and the Wars of the Future was also appreciated. The book describes The Great Game which was is an interesting idea in itself.Mike Babic (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reported on WP:AN/I [13]. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CIVIL. This sort of language goes nowhere fast on Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments on Yugoslav Partisans: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need sources like this. I am sure that you will agree that this is very good source for nationality of partisans during battle ?--Rjecina (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but we do not need more western style democracy where people are voting and only american side can win. I do not know your thinking about democracy but my thinking is that democracy is like communism ideal and nothing else. If I am wrong please explain me how is possible to abolish democracy when election results are "not OK" Algerian legislative election, 1991, Palestinian Legislative Council, start street coup when results are not OK Ukrainian presidential election, 2004, Rose Revolution. No need to speak about killings made by new democratic government of Ukraine and Georgia. Small mistake right word is not killing, but carbon monoxide poisoning of prime minister (Zurab Zhvania) and suicide with 2 bullets in the head of Viktor Yushchenko minister of police (Yuriy Kravchenko). All in all democratic president can kill, or arrange accidents, but for non democratic (which is not liked in USA) this is not OK ?--Rjecina (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe in democracy.

In my thinking democracy is giving me possibility to vote for person or party which will protect my interest. This sort of democracy has died in Europe with Cold War. Examples:

In Croatia greatest questions last 2 years are entry to EU and NATO. All political parties are support entry. Who represent thinking of user:Kubura ? Nobody !

Let us leave Balkan.. Maybe I am making mistake but all states (and all important parties) are having policy of lowering taxes of richman and then screaming about need to lower social rights. Maybe I am making mistake but this policy is bad for majority of voters ?

Then we are "honest" elections. Do you know if winner of last Germany elections are left or right parties ? Answer is left with 51.8 % of votes and 327 parliament members out of 614 ! What has happened ? Greatest left party (worker and poor) has declared that she is closer with right wing party (capitalist) of other left parties ????

Last election in Czech Republic have ended with stalemate. Capitalist 100 Socialist 100. Prime minister is capitalist.

There is no need to say anything about United Kingdom. There is no difference between Capitalist and Socialist party economic or foreign policy.

For the end we are having democratic Japan where 1 party is ruling from WWII.

My thinking about democracy is that this is dictatorship + very good propaganda--Rjecina (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be contributing a lot of good work in the Kosovo article. I hope you keep it up. After reading your comment and some text, i found your comment to be true. Kosovo was part of the Kingdom of Montenegro. I have read that a lot of monasteries were build by the king of Montenegro in the region. This added more proof.Serbian Defense Forces (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are mentioned at WP:ANI#User:LAz17. As a side note, commentary such as this is never acceptable per personal attack policies and civility guidelines. I ask that you refactor the comments, given your history; any such outbursts in the future will result in a block. seicer | talk | contribs 16:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the name of that box must be renamed!! I will ask that!! Tadija (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate!

I used to snoop around and find members who deserve the award. Not any more sadly, because I have been off Wikipedia for a while. Other members of the project can award the barnstar, and my best advice to you is to continue your hard work and contributions, to participate actively in discussions about Kosovo, and to get involved in every way possible!

For your work on the municipalities of Kosovo articles, you are eligible for a Barnstar. It would be, however, immoral on my part to award it in such circumstances and I don't think you will accept it either.

Cheers mate!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 23:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make it sound like I care, I already made a Prud Agreement article regarding that, liking the prejudice.PRODUCER ^(TALK) 16:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems so, but unfortunately there is a lot of contradictory dato on that issue...
Potpisivanje još jednog u nizu sporazuma dijela šestorke na vlasti pokazuje da se SDA, SNSD i HDZBiH još uvijek nisu u stanju dogovoriti ni o tome o čemu su se dogovorili, smatra SDPBiH. Zato nas ne bi začudilo da, u skladu sa njihovom dosadašnjom praksom, svaki od potpisnika sporazuma isti različito tumači: Dodik da tvrdi kako je RS opstala, Čović da je dobio treći entitet, a Tihić kako će BiH imati četiri regije koje će prelaziti entitetske linije sa sjedištima u Sarajevu, Banjoj Luci, Mostaru i Tuzli, navodi se u priopćenju. [14], basicly everyone of the signature parties claims that it signed something else... Third entity would be good because it would basicly gave every nation it constitutial rights. Hower it is a question how it would be done and on what territories... --Čeha (razgovor) 08:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is totaly unclear :/ As for Mostar it seems that in any variant it is going to be unified and in the croatian entity... (Even in Tihić's story Mostar is a center of an entity, that's one of the reasons why Silajdžić is so mad on him:) As for middle bosnia, I'm not certain what will happen. Croats had majority in Jajce, Dobretići, N.Travnik, Vitez, Busovača, Kiseljak and Kreševo in 2005, as a local major in Uskoplje. In last elections Bosniaks became majors in Jajce, N.Travnik, Busovača and Uskoplje and that does not looks good when talking about the borders of future cro entity. You had one offer from SDA in previous year that talked about unifing the županije with croatian majority in one... That proposition included cro territories from Drvar to Ravno with Konjic and Jablanica, but without Central bosnia... So I think that theirs prepositions will go in that dirrection... Which is something to which I doubt any of Croatian leaders will agree to that... We'll see. I think that Croatian territories now goes onto 21 % and that no Croatian leader will go bellow that. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bosna je nazalost skrpljena na vrat na nos. Rat se hvala Bogu zaustavio ali previse je patnji i krvi proliveno na sve strane. Jebiga treci entitet ima smisla, a kad se setite bilo je fino svezivati zastave protiv srba, a sada se nemoze zajedno u federaciji. RS isto stoji u limbu i samo gleda sta Silajdzic provaljuje okolo. Hoce srpsku u bosni, a svaka druga rec u federaciji je cetnik. Kakav je to paradox? Jebiga, ako hrvati naprave entitet u federaciji, pa da se sve jednom za svagda raskrsti mozda bi i bilo bolje. Bosnu kao drzavu izgleda ceka sudbina Jugoslavije, ako se sve to bude guralo zajedno, svi pod istu kapu. Pozdrav! Onyxig (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bosna je kakva je. Ne vidim kako bi se Srbi iz Bosanskog Novog mogli odvojiti od Sarajeva uz koridor od 2km bez rata. A slično vrijedi i za ostale. BiH se treba srediti kao normalna država po švicarskom modelu (entiteti, kantoni ili što već) gdje će svatko znati svoje i biti će mir. Inače BiH zbilja čeka sudbina bivše Jugoslavije. A zastave se ne bi vezale da nas niste zajedno klali.--Čeha (razgovor) 00:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pa, vidite, srbi i hrvati su bili vrlo bliski bas neko dugo vreme u ratu. Herceg Bosna i Republika Srpska su imali vrlo dobre odnose. Mate Boban, vodja hrvata u bosni izgleda da je imao dobru saradnju. Dakle ja nevidim sto nebi bilo moguce opet neka saradnja. Stvar je da su stranci smaknuli bobana, tako da su stranci problem. Uklonimo strance i opet ce srbi i hrvati biti saradjivati u vezi svi stvari u vezi bih.

Nebi se slozio da je svajcarska dobar model. Ako pogledamo svajcarsku vidimo da su tamo nemci najveca grupa... oko 70% mislim, nisam proverio u zadnje vreme. To toliko govori da je ta grupa dominanta... a u bosni je malo razlicito, tako da je drukcije. Plus, u svajcarskoj ima mnogo para... ubaci mnogo para u bilosta i moci ce neko vreme ostati na neki nacin. Vidimo da imaju problemi u belgiji trenutno... ova nova vremena ce zaista biti interesantna.(LAz17 (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Dobro, švicarska je loš primjer. Ali ne radi ovoga što si rekao nego zato što su previše lokalizirani. Njemački Švicaraci ti čak i podrugljivo gledaju na Njemce iz Njemačke. Njemački švicarac je prvo stanovnik tog grada (kantona) u kojem živi, pa tek onda ostalo. Što nema veze s BiH. Ono što sam htio naglasiti je da ljudima iz Zuericha ili Berna (koji su njemački govornici) ne bi palo napamet nametati pravila ljudima u Genevi i Juri (koji su francuski govornici). Svako ima svoje. Bez obzira koliko nekog ima. To je poanta švicarske kao uzora. Npr. ako su Šekovići u srpskom dijelu tamo vrijede srpska pravila (moraju se poštivati pravila manjina i osnovna ljudska, ali zna se čije je što).

Trenutno najbliža usporedba s BiH ti je Libanon (tri strane, Šiiti, Suniti i Kršćani, s time da postoji dosta podfrakcija i Druzi kao 4ta, susjedne države koje imaju utjecaja na područje Libanona (Šiiti su saveznici Sirije, itd)). A i tamo je bio višegodišnji rat. Nije isto ali ima masa sličnosti. Samo iz tog primjera ne možeš zaključiti apsolutno ništa.

U Belgiji ti je problem u novcu. Imaš 2 strane; valonce na jugu i flamance na sjeveru. Nekoć su vladali Valonci kojih je bilo više, sada su se Flamanci namnožili pa oni vladaju. Valonija je novčano u komi, a Flamanci ih ne žele više financirati. Da su im granice čiste (postoji Bruxelles koji je u središtu Flandrije, a ima valonsku većinu) davno bi se to riješilo kao čehoslovačka.

Većina višenacionalnih država do sad se raspala. Vidjet ćemo što će biti s bih--Čeha (razgovor) 02:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Svajcarska je sigurno malo neuporediv model, jeli nikad svajcarski nemac italijan francuz nisu udarili jedno na drugo niti krv sebi prolivali. Ali Lebanon ima smisla. Bas sam pricao sa jednim Libancem koji kaze da su oni kao Bosna samo puno gore hehe (umesto 3 imaju mnogo vise strana). Svi zajedno a niko ni sa kim. Nazalost sto se tice Bosne, fino je da su entiteti razdvojeni i da Bosna radi kao drzava, ali nemoze se od Bosne ocekivati utopija. Emotivan smo narod sa mnogo istorije i patnji. Srbi se ne osecaju pozeljni od drugih strana sa opravdanim ili naopravdanim razlozima... svejedno. Slicno i na drugoj strani. Ali ko zna kako ce se sve to odigrati, samo vratiti se na istu stvar koda nista nije bilo ce biti nemoguce. Onyxig (talk) 05:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sta mislite o podeli na dva entita? (LAz17 (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)). Da bude srpsko-muslimanski entitet i hrvatski entitet u kome ce biti travnik i uskoplje? (LAz17 (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Misliš nešto kao podjela iz doba Banovine? Što se mene tiče, ideja bi bila ok, ali nije realistična. Srbima nije u interesu odreći se entiteta da bi ga podjelili sa muslimanima (koji bi ih za par godina dosta prestigli natalitetom), muslimanima bi to bio preveliki zalogaj, dok bi za Hrvate postojala mogućnost od preglasavanja (hrv. entitet bi imao oko 20%, a drugi 80% pučanstva). Kada su zamišljeni Washingtonski i Daytonski sporazumi, cijela federacija je trebala ući u konf. s Hrvatskom (isto kao i rs sa Srbijom), a Hrvati su tamo imali pola vlasti po fed. zakonima. Onda je došlo par upravitelja, zakoni su promijenjeni, i sada se o većini stvari odlučuje bez Hrvata. A i natalitet (uz iseljavanje) nije na našoj strani. Potrebno je dole urediti BiH, tako da svatko ima svoje, zna što je njegovo i kako se može razvijati. Iznimno je moguće dogovoriti i neke zajedničke stvari, ako postoji obostrani interes. Ne znam, koliko sam shvatio dole je (osim rata i svih zvjerstava koja su se događala tijekom njega) trenutno glavni problem loši i korumpirani političari (na nekim stranama više, na nekima manje). Imaš par knjiga od Vesne Starešine koje vrijedi pročitati (Laboratorij Balkan i Haška formula). Dosta dobra karakterizacija nekih sudionika za vrijeme rata. Najcrnji čas i hrvatsko-bošnjački rat u srednjoj bosni (ne znam autore, ali lagano se zgoogla) su dobri pokazatelji nekih međunarodnih politika tu. Jer tu ne postoje samo 3 interesa. Ima ih prilično više. Pa BiH, koja je trenutno međunarodni protektorat, zbrinjava ne znam koliko europske diplomacije :D. Mislim da više od 2/3 "pomoći za razvitak" koje dolaze tu ode na njihove plaće... Tako da...
A i glavno ti je pitanje koliko se oko nekih stvari možeš dogovoriti.--Čeha (razgovor) 10:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey LAz17. Just FYI, PRODUCER is now trying to queue a random Reuters Photo of Tadic/Dodik for deletion. Ridiculous. I am getting sick and tired of him following me around reversing my contributions and just plainly messing around. Do you know a section where one can report biased actions of one user on another? Its not about the articles anymore, now he's just plainly doing stuff out of spite. At least with Ceha you can talk/argue/come to conclusions but this guy is getting on my nerves. BTW if you ever want to queue a file for removal, here's the place: [[15]] Pozdrav! Onyxig (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, well, it's not difficult to set something for deletion if it is just on the english wikipedia. What makes it hard is if it is on commons, 'cause then you gotta work through commons, and well, that's more complicated and I am lazy to learn how. :P

As for dodik and tadic... I quite frankly am not fond of either of them. I really dislike tadic... I mean dude, he had less than 50% of the vote of the serbs... probably 40% of the serbian vote, and then he won thanks to the 15% minority population in serbia. Therefore he is not supported by serbs. I find the EU to be a bad thing, and find all people who want to lead serbia to the EU as traitors. The west bombed us, did it not? The only reason why the pro-west candidates ever came to power was because the ones who bombed us gave them tens of millions of dollars come elections time. Pretty rotten, don't you think? Not democratic. As for dodik... he's a very very fishy person. First of all, he was in biljana plavisic, a person who purged republika srpska of many serbs who were socialist and communist. This is anti-democratic. On je covek sa tri lica... pazi se njega. Ja licno volim partije SDS i HDZ u bosni. (LAz17 (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Pozdrav Laz17 razumem te potpuno :). Stavio sam sliku da ima malo visual representation njihovih sastanaka. Ja licno mislim da DS u Srbiji su jedna obicna izdajnicka bagra. Gospodin Tadic nikome normalnom nije seo :) Gori od njega su Cedo i Canak. Vise sam bio opredeljen za SRS (malo razocaran primitivizmom i huskanjem)/SNS(malo zbunjen pravljenjem ove stranke i iskrenosti koju obecavaju)/DSS (malo nepoverljiv njihovim stavovima jer su bili prvo za zapad a sada???)... iako mi je sve to nesto prozirno. U Bosni sam i ja za SDS, samo sam za njih i znao. Ove socijaldemokrate neznam odakle dodjose. Dodik mi isto ne lezi, jel kolko sam razumeo uz njega i njegovu partiju izgubismo sve od vojske do obiljezja, himni zastava, pasosa, sve se rasprodade. Onyxig (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hej, dal si video interview sa dodikom na hrvatskom tvu? (LAz17 (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Nisam jel to sad nesto novo ili onaj stari? Znam da je jednom bio na HRT-u. Onyxig (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serija se zove nedeljom u dva... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThLXte0vo3I (LAz17 (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Hvala puno bas cu pogledati.Onyxig (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go look at that template again. I think you'll be pleased. DS (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Kosovar Barnstar of National Merit
		It seems you've been doing a good job around Kosovo-related articles, cheers. -- CD 13:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yay. :) (LAz17 (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Zasto crni Lazo prihvati tu medalju kvazi "drzave"... sta bi? Mozda nisam dobor upucen :) Onyxig (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vsyo haraso ko sto bi rusili kazali... stvar je da medalja nema veze sa icim... ima samo veze sa tim da sam mnogo uredjivo na temama u vezi sa kosmetom. To je tako neka vrsta priznanja da sam uradijo neku dobru ulogu na vikipediji. Mislim hej, nesmeta a da bude stvar gora, ovi neznaju ni sta rade mozda... ja sam samo popravljo srpske stvari tamo(nije bas srpsko, nego samo generalna informacija, i to jebiga nesmeta nikome, osim sto se po populaciji vidi veliki porastaj albanaca u municipalitetima)... ali i ujedno oni to uvazavaju i ako ce da mi daju nesto sto se ceni na vikipediji, onda sto da ne. Nadam se da je sad teze da se neki zale na mene. Nesmeta, a mozda ce da zezne nekog. (LAz17 (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Ma razumem jebiga sta ces malo sma zezo :) Znam vredi dobiti edit nagradu neku dobijes veci respect. Mozda onda nekad i izadjes na kraj sa zajebantima. Evo bas sam producera report za 3rr, pa videcemo sta bude. Kad se sve smiri oko toga malo cemo reconstruct article. Pokusacu da dodam neke sekcije o gradovima, nosnji, obicajima itd. Onyxig (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sta se radi. Video sam onaj Dodik video. Davno sam ga gleadao kad je gostovao u tom dnevniku. Jebiga mogo se malo vise braniti. Evo ban su me nedelju dana zbog mog dobrog prijatelja PRODUCERA. Ali cova je vec nazad i sere po RS stranici ko po obicaju. Tesko se lece kompleksi, ne damu se dalje od srba. Cujemo se. Onyxig (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ma malo sam zauzet ovi dana. Mnogo moram da citam za ispite. Jebiga. (LAz17 (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Srecno na ispitima, zajebano je sad ali isplatice ti se kasnije. :) Onyxig (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hej, ima novosti... gledam avaz ponekad, da vidim sta se prica tamo. Ipak, vidi ovo... http://www.dnevniavaz.ba/dogadjaji/aktuelno/na-ivici-gladi-oko-40-posto-gradjana - [quote]Prosječan budžet četveročlane porodice u BiH trebao bi biti 1.651 KM, ali u FBiH iznosi 771, u RS 819...[/quote] (LAz17 (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Looks like we gotta talk in English. Interesting info. Thanks for adding it to RS article. Doesn't look too good over there in general. People are barely getting by. Onyxig (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mozemo da govorimo srpski na nasim talk pageovima, al ne na talk pageovima od clankova vikipedije. :) (LAz17 (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

To sam i mislio ali pogledaj sta je AGreen napisao ispod. Nebi trebalo da ima veze :) Onyxig (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well darn. This sucks man. Linguistic persecution. Still, I'll look into personal talk pages. Meh. (LAz17 (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

You can look into whatever you like. This is the English Wikipedia and you should communicate in English at all times here. As for linguistic persecution, well, if that is your attitude, maybe Serbian Wikipedia is a better place for you. If you use Serbian or any other language on your talk pages or anywhere else again, I'll be very happy to refer the matter to AN/I. The issue has come up several times, and the result has always been the same. Your call. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked them to warn you regarding your threats about personal discussion on my page. Some things that we talk about have nothing to do with wikipedia. Regards, (LAz17 (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

If you carry on in this vein, your career at en:wiki will be short but turbulent. I'll be watching with great interest ;-)AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi LAz17, per Wikipedia:TALK#Good_practice, please refrain from using other languages in talk page posts. Remember that this is the English Wikipedia. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry amigo mio. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=272656120&oldid=272655926 (LAz17 (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)). Now then, whatever we do, be it intimate homosexual love making or a casual hi, it's not your business. (LAz17 (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:BlocPartyUS12VinylHelicopter.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like your hopes of a third entity are down the drain, not mention dodiks may be slapped with corruption charges. Sorry to disappoint you but what can you do when you have such an incompetent idiot for a leader. [16] PRODUCER (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The HDZ wants a third entity, as do most croat people. Don't worry, soon Komsic, a bosniak, will be removed from power. Come new elections, the muslim votes won't count for croat candidates, and the HDZ will be united next time, not divided. It is a shame that you support the quiet cultural genocide on the croats. Oh, and btw, R.S. is not going away. Cheers. (LAz17 (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Yes its somehow a shame that I don't support ethnic segregation. Even the bosnian croats are criticizing their own for this nonsense. [17] As for the RS its just going to go down hill from here. PRODUCER (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that is some guy from Posavina, and croats from there would criticize any agreement which leaves them as losers- but they're losers in any case, the ones from posavina.

I do not see what you mean by R.S. going downhill. Is this one of your fantasies? People have been saying this for years. R.S. is here to stay, and it's not going away. Now, we know that you are biased and would like to see it go, but things that we want to do not always happen. Sorry. (LAz17 (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

If you ever come onto my talk page or that of any other user with threats of that nature, your account will be blocked under WP:CIVIL. The article was a single sentence and an infobox. These kinds of things get deleted all the time. If you're looking to add content, I will gladly revert the deletion. Next time, ask nicely. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There. It's done. Like I said, please ask nicely next time. Works much better for all involved and it only takes a moment to replace content. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on HK Beostar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -Axmann8 (Talk) 01:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be a fairly fruitful ex-yu map creator. Could you please create a map of the Neum dispute for the article Bosnia and Herzegovina–Croatia relations? —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 20:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sori, dugo nisam bio za kompjuterom. Treba mi karta koja bi prikazala područje Neuma i Pelješkog mosta s državnim granicama i naznačenim polutokom Klekom i otočićima Mali i Veliki Škoj (fakat su maleni, nemaš ih na svim kartama). Ukratko, treba mi nešto tipa [18], ali tako da se vidi čitava bh. obala. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 16:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vidio sam da si ti na Wikipediju na engleskom jeziku postavio sliku Senj.PNG. Zanima me dali bi mogao tu sliku staviti i na Wikimedia Commons, te nakon toga i u Category:Senj??????????????

Bio bih ti jako zahvalan na tome!

Pozz!

--The Nerd from Earth (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2009 (CET)

Pa, neznam dali na Wikipediji na engleskom zasada ima barnstarova na hrvatskom, ali ću se svakako raspitat! A ako ih nema, ona ih se možda može prebacit s Wikipedije na hrvatskom! Svakako ću se raspitat! Nadam se da ćemo se još čut!

Pozz!

--The Nerd from Earth (talk) 11:35, 26 April 2009 (CET)

Why are you putting back those old false figures that allude that there is 170,000 people in the pec municipality??? Go to page eight here, http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDACL544.pdf ,and we see the other estimates on the wiki page, it is totally ridiculous to say that their population in the municipality doubled in a couple years. Wtf?????? Just ask yourself where the logic is, it most certainly is not with the numbers there. (LAz17 (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)).

Hi LAz17. I restored the ca. 170,000 figure because it is the one mentioned in the reference used (the OSCE Mission in Kosovo's Municipal profile of Peć, of March 2009). I added that figure in November 2008, using as reference the April 2008 municipal profile, which gave the same figure.

You provide above a Catholic Relief Services' report of the Youth Securing the Future project (. pdf document), from ca. February 2008, which gives a different figure of 91,112 inhabitants, based on an OSCE municipal profile of 2005. – I don't know what this difference means, but I note two points:

• The Catholic Relief Services' report & our article on Peć rely on numbers from the same organization: the OSCE Mission in Kosovo (more specifically, both rely on the OSCE's municipal profiles).
• The Catholic Relief Services' report uses OSCE data from 2005, while our article uses OSCE data from April 2008 & March 2009.

I can imagine four different explanations for this significative discrepancy of 91,000 vs. 170,000:

• The municipality's population almost doubled in three years.
• The OSCE made a mistake either in their 2005 municipal profile, or in both their April 2008 & March 2009 ones.
• The Catholic Relief Services misinterpreted the OSCE's 2005 data.
• Perhaps the OSCE's municipal reports from 2005 gave numbers for both the whole municipality (the town of Peć and the 95 villages) and for the town of Peć alone; the CRS used the number for the town alone, but listed it as "municipality".

To me, the last option looks like the most rational explanation, but I simply don't know the facts. Do you ?

On the other hand, both in the comments above and in your edits to the article you appear to affirm that the CRS's 2005 data is correct, while the OSCE's April 2008 & March 2009 data provide "false figures". Do you know for a fact that this is the case ? If so, do you have any sources with which to back that claim ?

Note that the USAID's Local Government Initiative entry for Peć municipality mentions that "[t]he current population is estimated at 113,500 inhabitants", while their infobox mentions: "Population: 114,000" (these figures would represent a more reasonable growth from a possible 91,000 in 2005.).

The USAID's Local Government Initiative entry for Peć municipality links to a Profile of Peć (.pdf) from December 2004, prepared by a certain Kosovar Institute for Policy Research and Developement (KIPRED - www.kipred.net). In page 3, it gives the following populations figures: "1953: 53,280 – 1961: 66,656 – 1971: 90,124 – 1981: 111,071 – 1999: 113,000 – 2003: 115,000 – 2004: 125,000".

I'm still looking for other sources. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible for such drastic expansion of populations. It means that one of the estimates is wrong. I am sure that the latest data is wrong, as it is impossible for such big increases. Pec was the area that suffered the most in the 1999 war, the city was the most destroyed city, there simply is not enough infrastructure to sustain such a huge population. 115,000 is a good estimate. Now we wonder why would there be higher estimates... the reason is because the people who estimate use projections, so they take into account the drastic growth of the past, so they assume that this drastic growth continues. The conditions that these projections ignore is the war and emigration that has affected most municipalities in Kosovo. Here's something, link. This report is longer and more detailed. More effort was put into it. (LAz17 (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)).

What you provide now is the OSCE Mission in Kosovo's Municipal profile of Peć of May 2006 – we're mostly dealing with the same documents by the same organization: the OSCE's municipal profiles. :-) As you note, these older OSCE profles were more detailed; I always wonder why they switched to the current format.

That May 2006 municipal profile mentions that the "municipality is divided into 28 territorial communities, comprising a total of 95 villages, with an approximate population of 125,000." — However, the "Table 1.1: Ethnic Composition, Including IDPs" give an estimate figure of 91,112 inhabitants (noting that in early 2005 the actual number of people registered in the municipality was of 81,026, but that it was believed that many people had not officially registered).

So, in short, so far we have the following:

KIPRED's municipal profile (December 2004): 125,000.

USAID's Local Government Initiative (date unclear, but mentioning outdated local government members -the current "official" mayor is Ali Berisha- and linking to KIPRED's profile of December 2004): 113,500 in text and 114,000 in infobox.

OSCE Mission in Kosovo's Municipal profile (May 2006): ca. 125,000 in text and 91,112 in table.

OSCE Mission in Kosovo's Municipal profile (April 2008): ca. 170,000

OSCE Mission in Kosovo's Municipal profile (March 2009): ca. 170,000

The European Centre for Minority Issues - Kosovo (ECMI Kosovo), which is both a non-governmental organisation registered and located in Kosovo and a branch office of the European Centre for Minority Issues (ECMI - www.ecmi.de), does not provide any figures in their entry for Peć (after May 2008). Instead, they limit themselves to mention that "[a]ccurate population statistics are not available for Kosovo. The numbers presented here are approximate estimates by the Local Community Office, cross checked with OSCE Municipal Profiles and Civil Society", and link to a comment on statistical data.

I guess that in our entries we should add a clear mention of this situation to the demographics sections of all municipalities of Kosovo. I will be thinking of a proper wording (and adequate sources).

For the specific case of Peć, we still need a more recent source giving different numbers from the OSCE's 170,000. I'm still looking. - Best, Ev (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comment on WP:Kosovo. Do you think the name "Albania-Kosovo Highway" is the most suitable name for this proposed article? I will give you a hand in creating this article if you like. Please write back. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you could participate in the talk section of this article. Hvala Balkanskiredneck (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Pavelictriprsta.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are under discussion at WP:WQA#User:LAz17. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you make improper posts, such as you did recently here and earlier this year here, you will be blocked from editing. Nja²⁴⁷ 22:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the entire geography of republika srpska krajina. Why then has the content of the page not been put into the page of republika srpska krajina? You seem to ignore the population geography and political geography which have absolutely NOTHING to do with modern day croatia. This was a VERY distinct region, and the geography page talked about this. Therefore that warrants keeping this where it was, not eliminating it, it's content, census data, population estimates, settlements, etc... (LAz17 (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

I can't find a page by that name that has ever existed. Can you please specify the exact name (capitalization is important), or link to the deletion log or discussion? Stifle (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towns_in_the_Former_RSK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Geography_of_the_Former_Republic_of_Serbian_Krajina (LAz17 (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Thank you. That article was not deleted, but redirected. You can find the content here if you wish to merge it to Republic of Serbian Krajina or any other article. Note also that it was Fritzpoll, not me, who carried this out. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are, actually, the one who "tampers" with the article, because I just reverted it to a long-stable version. Also, I was the one who discussed it on the talk page first. No such user (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, where are you on that talk page? No such user (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ide se vanka :) Jesi li ti pogledao za imena tih naselja? Kao što sam rekao čini mi se da je previše naselja označeno plavom. Kada ulovim vremena dat ću ti još par konkretnih primjera (kao za Kakanj i Kupres).
I'm going out:) Have you asked for the names of those settlments? As I said it seems to me that to much of settlments are colored blue. When I get some time I'll give you a few more concreate examples (as I did for Kakanj and Kupres).
C'ya :) --Čeha (razgovor) 20:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Da znam, radio sam dosta tih karata sam pa sam svjestan koliko to vremena oduzima. Gle i meni se čini da nema nekih velikih grešaka, nego samo sitnijih tipa naselje, dva, tri. Trebao bih malo bolje pogledati kartu usporediti je s onom kartom naseljenih mjesta (koja nažalost nije službena već je djelo nekog entuzijasta s weba) kao i popisima na wikipedijama. Zato bi gotova karta položaja naselja bila zgodna a ne da se mora provjeravati po google mapsu položaje pojedinih sela :) A i nije da sam nešto u zadnje vrijeme na wikipediji, masa drugih obaveza...[reply]
Ja sam ti inače iz Zagreba. Lijep gradić :)
Ovi likovi bi trebali malo proći kroz te karte otkloniti greške (idealno bi bilo da i stave popise naselja, ako su to već stavljali na wikipediju, dali besplatno na gledanje i ostavili mail za kontakt, mislim da oko toga ne bi smjelo biti problema) i po mogućnosti staviti neke od popisa i na latinici :) Super ćirilica i sve, ali s obzirom da je ovo engleska wiki :) A i lakše je drugim ljudima za gledati i čitati (počevši od mene pa nadalje:).... Ti si iz Srbije ili ? --Čeha (razgovor) 21:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mali ti je ovo svijet :) A slovenci ko slovenci. Mi sada s njima imamo priličnih problema oko eu i izbijanja maka na konac. A, ide to sve u krug... Frka oko tih karata što ih je premalo službenih, previše amaterskih, a tako se uvijek potkradne neka greška. Nisam vidio karte Hrvatske. Imaš link?
Prva karta je ok(1991), a drugu nisam stigao pogledati. Doma me jučer nešto zezao laptop a u uredu nemam firefox (a ME nažalost ne prikazuje iste kako spada). Budem pogledao večeras, trebala bi biti ok.
EU ti nije loša, ukoliko se ne zaboravlja zašto služi. A to je ispunjavanje nacionalnih interesa:) Pretpristupni i pristupni fondovi su zbilja moćni (Španjolsku su podigli dok si rekao keks). Naši problemi ti leže u tkz. "elitama" (i tome što pravosuđe ne funkcionira baš kako bi trebalo, barem u Hrvatskoj). Mislim da u Češkoj i Poljskoj nisu izvršili skoro sveopću prodaju nacionalnih poduzeća kao što je to u Hrvatskoj ili Mađarskoj (oni su još gori od nas). Dok god se na EU gleda kao na sredstvo (jači razvitak države, veći prihodi pučanstva) sve 5. Kada se počinje tupiti o tome kao cilju tada stupa na scenu ovaj kolonijalizam o kojem pričaš... Pa pogledaj Bugarsku (koja je u EU). Sva lova je otišla lokalnoj mafiji, a polovina pučanstva im se iselila (mislim da ih sada ima oko 7 milijuna?, 81 ih je bilo 10 milijuna). Ako si ne pomogneš sam zalud ti sve ostalo :/ --Čeha (razgovor) 11:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Karta 2001 je loša (i to čini mi se jako). [19] ovo ti je karta hrvatsje po općinama. Nekako mi se ne čini da se previše razlikuje od karte po naseljima (s obzirom na veličinu općina). --Čeha (razgovor) 21:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Može biti, tamo naselje doslovce može biti seoce od 2 kuće :) Karta je u svakom slučaju zanimljiva. Po njoj bi se reklo da su se Srbi vratili u skoro sva mala seoca istočne Like, sj. Dalmacije, Korduna i Banovine. Dok u zap. Slavoniji to baš i nije bio slučaj. Ne znam, kako stvari stoje uskoro će i novi popis:)
Ne bi se složio dokraja s tobom oko EU. Iako djelomično imaš pravo. To je napravljeno da bi se određeni ljudi i države obogatile. Pogotovo one velike. Ali to ne znači da je napravljeno konkretno protiv nekog. Ako je državna stabilna i složna otkantat će ih sve i napraviti na svoju korist.
Evo ti primjer našeg ZERPa. To ti je razgraničeno još između Jugoslavije i Italije. Hrvatska je imala pravo po svjetskom pravu tu proglasiti svoj gospodarski pojas. I onda ti neki glasnogovornik eu izvali, da da to je sve u redu, ali oni preferiraju "politiku kompromisa". Kakvih kompromisa kad je jasno po nekakvom međunarodnom zakonu tko ima pravo na što??
I onda ti se na kraju naša vlada savila i popustila talijanskom interesu. Da smo bili normalniji, rekli kvragu sve neće nitko od nas raditi budale, ovi bi se frnjili kojih par mjeseci a poslije bi bilo ok. Ne može nitko (bez obzira koliko velik) protiv nekakvog međunarodnog prava (to se dosta tiče i vas na jugu). Treba izdržat pritiske i biti svoj. A jbg :/ A ovo za free trade u principu imaš pravo. Pa već imaš akcije u Americi "kupujmo američansko :)". Laganini ti se mijenja slika svjeta. E sad na bolje ili na gore to ostaje tek da se vidi... --Čeha (razgovor) 12:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jesi se čuo s ljudima ?--Čeha (razgovor) 22:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Daj pošalji ljudima poruku, da se to sve može provjeriti. Ne znam u čemu je problem? --Čeha (razgovor) 11:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vidim da ti je zbilja problem, pa zato [20] baš me zanima što će reći. Nažalost s obzirom da baš i ne razumijem ćirilicu, ako odgovor ne bude na latinici :/
Da ponovim još jednom, hoću da podaci budu provjereni. --Čeha (razgovor) 16:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC) In short they are talking about this map [21] --Čeha (razgovor) 20:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zbilja is realy. Well if you don't speak Croatian it is no wonder :) The map is theirs map just with other colors. Traditional Serb colors in BiH are red, and Croatian are blue. In this way that map is more easily comparable with my maps. Relative majority areas are colored as same as absolute and not inhabitet or minority areas are colored as majority of neighourhoud.... --Čeha (razgovor) 15:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Let me repeat once more. If the Serbs call themselves "heavenly people" that does not mean that blue represents Serbs. All the peace plans for BiH colored Serbs as red, and I just continued with that practice. If you wish you can paint your maps in pink with yellow dots for all of what I care.
Varijačić map was not deleted (at least not by me), nor I did anything to it. That copy which is currently active is just a copy of it with changed colors. If you would take your precios time and check, you would see that Varijačić original map is listed as source. If I take any of this maps onto the wiki they will have original sourced also. Even if I'm not obliged to do so (maps are withouth copywrite and with no attachments, they are just showing internal borders of BiH which those guys somehow get). Let me repeat once more. As my maps on which we are discussing are blue for Croats, red for Serbs and green for Muslims. I changed and put this on imageshack so you can better compare them. And see that they have only minior differnces. Capisci? --Čeha (razgovor) 21:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused, are you the same individual as the IP? Cirt (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LAz, the WP:Deletion policy obviously has an AfD take precedence over past take page discussions. If sourced, it would be an improvement for the main article. Spellcast (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The CfD is separate from the AfD and consensus can change. I understand you wanted the page kept, but restoring it under a different name is really out of process. Yes, the 2007 CfD result was to delete the category and listify, but that doesn't take priority over a direct AfD discussion of an article. A sourced list would enhance the main article and it's not like any information would be lost if that's done. Feel free to bring any of this up at WP:AN or WP:ANI, but I doubt it would result in anything different. Spellcast (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect and the result of the AfD is to redirect. Only content that complies with policies such as WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS etc. can be merged. I didn't see much evidence of reliable sources to make a comprehensive independent article for a small list, which is why I nominated it. I hope you don't think it's because of nationalistic nonsense (Balkan articles unfortunately attract such users). About the older thread at Talk:Towns in the Former RSK#merger suggestion?, 5 favoured keeping and 8 favoured merging or deleting. Obviously, consensus isn't a vote, so if you determine the consensus based on the strength of the arguments, I still see it leaning towards merging or deleting (and that's even if you include your canvassed "votes"). But regardless of that thread, an AfD ultimately determines an article's fate. Repeatedly restoring an article against an AfD result (under any name) is disruptive and tendentious, so there won't be another warning on this. The last thing anyone wants is a block and I really don't like applying them over this. WP:ARBMAC may also be of interest. Spellcast (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I'm sorry it had to come to this, but you've been blocked for 48 hours. Towns in the Former RSK is a duplicate of Geography of the Former Republic of Serbian Krajina which was redirected per AfD. You restored the page despite being told AfD results apply to any article which duplicates the same content no matter what name. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may appeal it by adding {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Spellcast (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello We are working on creating a workgroup for wikimedia kosovo http://sfk2009.ning.com/group/wikimediakosova and have an event on august 29/30 in Prishtina. We would like to invite you to come. http://www.kosovasoftwarefreedom.org/index.php/sfk09/call-for-papers.html

Thanks,

mike Mdupont (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had more than my fair share of headaches from that topic so if you don't mind, I hope you all can settle it amongst yourselves. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikimedia is a big topic, we call it open knowedge for trademark issues. Travel expenses will be covered for speakers. the wikimedia kosovo group is to help bring people together and train them for wikipedia. alot of people are just msn.facebook users and need a place outside of wikipedia to meet. we are working on forming a kosovo chapter.... mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdupont (talk • contribs) 07:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LAz17, i need your opinion. Please, we have problem with one article, and your voice will be useful.

Adem Jashari, and Talk:Adem Jashari.

Thank you, and i wait for your words.

Tadija (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too late... sorry. (LAz17 (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Laz, those maps are good. I offered you to make them more precise, but if I'm not mistaken you refused that. Map precision could be better but it is in tolerable limits. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC) And we did not check them. That guys did not contact me, and we do not know where is wich village.--Čeha (razgovor) 20:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Ethnic maps of Bosnia and Herzegovina for deletion. As a recent editor of the article I thought you should be informed. Polargeo (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bushtriprsta.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 06:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is important because it shows that Tadic got the direct support for the reelection from the Russian President. Your personal thought that it is irrelevant and that it is not related to reelection is just that, your personal though and has no significance for Wikipedia.

It is still just your opinion. The content is valid, referenced and long established. Removing it for the reasons of personal animosity is not welcome, it is the violation of many policies and you can receive the official warning for valid content blanking and going against consensus.--Avala (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure I inserted lies with sources to Wikipedia and that got him reelected. Your theory is so interesting, you could make a movie out of it. However this is the reality not fiction so please act correspondingly.--Avala (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Boris Tadić. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC) 10:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been fully protected in its current version for 48 hours. This is not an endorsement of the text in its current version; the purpose of the protection is to permit resolution of the dispute. Please discuss the problems with the material on the article's talk page. If the two of you cannot reach consensus among yourself, you would be well advised to seek additional input from one of the fora listed in dispute resolution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't cloud the conversation with incivility. It won't help resolve anything if you wind up blocked for personal attacks. This kind of language is not in keeping with Wikipedia's behavioral policies. Personally, I'd really prefer to see it resolved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that I am sockpuppet of Fairchild-Republic and others?--Ex13 (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. (LAz17 (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)). I also think that Producer might be a puppet of Direktor, though I do not bother to look up more into that. (LAz17 (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Predložio bih dogovor. Budući da imam namjeru u narednom periodu pisati o svemu povezanom s tramvajima u Hrvatskoj, materijala imam dovoljno kao i foto, ostavio bih svoj template, a neću dirati tvoj. Može tako? A ako će netko treći, tko će pisat te članke, ima drugu ideju, opet ćemo diskutirati--Ex13 (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nudim ja tebi drugi dogovor, da ti pises o tramvajima i da bude samo jedan template. Nema nista drugo da mogu da nudim u ikakvim diskusijama. (LAz17 (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Ne tu se stvarno slažem. Koji je smisao imati šest bezveznih template-a kad ih pola i onako nema dovoljno linkova. ("Former trams" su po mom skromnom mišljenu below Wikipedia notability.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is to be done? First get a checkuser. Learn how to do it, its not complicated (read all about it step by step, here). I honestly don't know if the guy's a sock, but find out before wasting more energy. After that you've got two options: 1) Start the WP:DR dispute resolution process. Take it by the book. OR 2) you could simply nominate the Croatian template for deletion WP:AfD. However, bare in mind that there's a lobby of people who will vote down anything they perceive as "anti-Croatian", no matter how ridiculous. Inform neutral people about the deletion (if you go that way). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I notice that you are interested in Bloc Party. I have nominated Intimacy at FAC here and would appreciate some input from you and possibly a verdict. RB88 (T) 19:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Avala (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your personal attack. If you do it again, I will block you. Please see my note above and confine yourself to the issues. Calling another contributor a disgrace to Wikipedia is unacceptable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watch it LAz, don't do anything stupid... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm pretty busy "dethroning an Ustaše king" :P so I won't be able to really get involved (have a look, contribute :). He may have been rude, but you're the one posting on his talkpage against his wishes (always a bad idea, believe me I know :). The map looks excellent, and I can see no harm in uploading it (if your guys at srWiki can get past copyright). In any case my opinions are irrelevant, I again recommend you bring the (presumably) faulty maps to the attentions of admins. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laz, again don't lie. The last sentance on that talk page was mine from 26 of June 2009, and I said; Laz, what's wrong with you? That qoute goes for 1991 map of Croatia. Damn it man, how can we talk if you twist my words. For bih map I said that I need further validation. E-mail those guys already. I don't know it is from your bad english or do you have problems in cognition, but there is something seriously wrong with you man. YOU did not give any validation of that maps, any link to place names or anything else which would be of any use. Just a map which is similar to mine.

I'm not gonna argue. You have problems. And I realy don't care. Do not post on my pages any more. Thanks in advance. --Čeha (razgovor) 20:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laz, don't scrable on my pages. I lost you, and I don't have a clue what are you trying to say? And, I realy don't care. If you don't have anything verifible, don't trublle me no more. --Čeha (razgovor) 15:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a clue? You seem to, on the map discussion page. Stop lying. Your stuff is less verifiable. (LAz17 (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Laz I realy don't know is your english so much bad or something else, but :) Please stop. Your claims are a bit ridicilous. --Čeha (razgovor) 15:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop insulting. Claims are not ridiculous - people have had problems with your maps ever since you posted. You know very well what I am talking about - you seemed to know for months, and now all of a sudden you don't. Don't play dumb. My english is better than yours, both verbally and grammatically. (LAz17 (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Obviously it is not. I ask for just one thing. Valid and verifible. That's all. --Čeha (razgovor) 01:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valid? Oh ho, then your maps are bullshit by default. Those maps are verifiable, unlike yours. (LAz17 (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Your language describes you better than I ever could.--Čeha (razgovor) 14:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not author of these maps of Bosnia on Serbian Wikipedia and I have no idea on which data these maps are based. It would be best that you contact author of these maps to ask him about sources that he used. PANONIAN 20:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hej. Posatvio sam ti neke mape koje si trazijo. Mozda cu da postavim neku svoju. (Lilici (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

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

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

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but you should look at what I wrote there. I asked for it to be deleted. Jeeze. (LAz17 (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Nice from you that you've admitted that it was you [22].
But, words like "zajebavaš" are not allowed to be used on this encyclopedia. It degrades the level of discussion, insults and belittles your collocutor.
Unsourced? Man, do you understand Croatian? If you don't, I can translate some parts for you. That's the page of ice hockey club Mladost. The history of club. Kubura (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, it seems that you don't understand Croatian fully, so I'll help you.
The block expired after 7 days [23] Blokiran je ...na rok 1 tjedan. "Tjedan" in Croatian means "a week".
Maybe in Serbian language "zajebavaš" isn't insult. In Croatian it is. In Croatian, using that word in discussion means disrespecting of your collocutor. Kubura (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z9

Why do you unblock ceha without unblocking me? You are clearly biased. (LAz17 (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

LAz17 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

other edit warer, ceha, was unblocked several days early. Why does he get unblocked earlier and I do not? That is not fair. For more info see here.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  • understand what you have been blocked for,
  • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

LAz17 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

76.29.100.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "LAz17". The reason given for LAz17's block is: "Edit warring: on Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina".

• Blocking administrator: Toddst1 (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: You were blocked directly. That your ip is also blocked is an intended side effect of that block— Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LAz17, this is not fully correct [24] (19:14, 5 November 2009 LAz17 moved Talk:Croatian Ice Hockey Championship to Talk:Croatian Hockey League).
There's also Field Hockey League in Croatia. How do you think that one'll distinguish those leagues? Kubura (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I merely changed the formatting, I didn't add any figures. PRODUCER (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, no problem (LAz17 (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Hi, LAz17! This is a kind note to gently remind you that when you open an WP:ANI thread about another editor you need to inform them of it. No worries! I've gone ahead and let them know. This is just a gentle FYI. Basket of Puppies 18:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" policy if thats what your aiming for. In hopes of resolving the dispute I attempted to find an official map and came across this little gem [25] hosted by OHR. I also came across this [26], a discussion that can only be described as a cesspool of ethnocentrist stupidity. PRODUCER (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any user created map is prone to POV, my aim is for the most official map, be it by municipality or settlement level. I've also come across from maps from the CIA. [27] [28] [29] PRODUCER (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing template - speedy was declined. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to remove sourced information please discuss on talkpage and reach consensus. Polargeo (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not attack me as you did here and here. I will not tollerate it. That may be what you do when arguing with Ceha or PRODUCER but I will not play that game. I will remind you of Balkans sanctions In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you. Polargeo (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laz because of your rude behavior you were reported to ANI [30]. --Čeha (razgovor) 02:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For trying to start another edit war [31] --Čeha (razgovor) 19:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Nationalistic POV is not welcome on wikipedia. (LAz17 (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

I included in this map all municipal centres and urban settlements and Gradac is an urban settlement according to Montenegrin bureau for statistics, so yes, this settlement should be there. PANONIAN 08:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laz. I have left a comment on PRODUCER's talkpage. You will notice that the 100,000 number is not in the lede. The two sources for the 20,000-50,000 are from the last 3 years. Also it is very clear in the lede that the 20,000-50,000 is an estimate of the total number of women raped on all sides in the Bosnian War (not just by serbs). If you strongly think the number of women raped by all sides is significantly less than 20,000 or significantly more than 50,000 then this needs discussing. Otherwise if you would like a section on the debate surrounding the numbers raped then please propose this on the talkpage. I dislike the idea of having a section on the numbers debate because I feel it will be very unconstructive, but if you can do a balanced job of it then I would support it. Polargeo (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you describing the problem you have, that Wikipedia's 'remember me' is only good for 30 days. To avoid editing when logged out, go to "My Watchlist" and bookmark that page. Then use that as the page you always use when you go to Wikipedia at the start of an editing session. If you are logged out, Wikipedia will display the 'please log in' page. This is the only page it will do it for, everywhere else, it will display pages normally. This way, you will always see immediately if you are logged out. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LAz17, with this edit, you have continued your feud with User:Ceha with yet more personal attacks and accusations ("nationalist bigotry"), against my very clear and repeated warning to cease all such personalising of your dispute and concentrate exclusively on discussing factual correctness of the maps in question ([32], [33]). You are therefore now blocked, for 48 hours. During this time, I will try to work with Ceha as an informal mediator and try to figure out if his data can be verified, taking your objections into account. When you come back, you will have one more chance to join the discussion and make constructive contributions to it. However, the next time I see such attacks, you will be permanently topic-banned from all these cartography discussions under the rules of WP:ARBMAC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can Ceha use words POV in every other sentence and not get banned, yet I may not?

Here is the map btw.

(LAz17 (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Observe this map closely, you will see that Bugojno is on the very border, and so obviously Donji Vakuf is not part of BH, as it is north of the border, [34]. (LAz17 (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

LAz17 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I feel that I have been unjustly blocked. What we have is that user Ceha calls anything that he disagrees with "nationalist POV". He said that to Direktor, because direktor had a different opinion - if someone's opinion is different, it is automatically nationalist POV, and he just says "I disagree" and then the discussion goes nowhere, just in circles. This is what made me use the words nationalist bigotry, what got me blocked. I think it is unfair to allow such a user to continually obstruct wikipedia, to provoke other and whatnot. I do however conclude that it is best to not have any discussions with the problematic guy, to just have messages that are as short as possible ,and as close to the point as can possibly be, without any unnecessary language or discussion whatsoever. The only thing that I do not get is if he insults what I say or ignores what I say - what can I do then? H would say sorry nationalist POV, and order me around like a dog - he has been doing that lately. It's frustrating, please understand.

Decline reason:

Per comments below. — Daniel Case (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your request addresses the proximal cause of your block, but the contents of your request do not show a willingness to engage in productive discussion with other editors. Thus, this unblock request is unlikely to go through as currently formulated. I suggest that you rework the latter half of it. Dekimasuよ! 00:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it better now? (LAz17 (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Perhaps. I'll leave the actual review to someone else; I have to be away from the computer now. Dekimasuよ! 06:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking admin's comment: LAz17, your remarks here don't fill me with confidence you are willing to extend the necessary assumption of good faith to Ceha, which will be crucial if you are to engage in a constructive dialog with him. Maybe you can reconsider if you take into account that this episode may have been triggered by a misunderstanding on your part. You seem to be saying above that when you made your "bigotry" comment you were answering to a post where you thought Ceha had called somebody else's position "nationalistic POV"? Well, he didn't. The only passage where I see him using those words in the preceding discussion [35] is where he is defending his own position against the objection that it might imply a nationalist POV. He isn't blaming anybody else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He called my opinion nationalist POV and keeps one discussion on multiple pages. See for yourself. [36] [37] and elsewhere too. He gets away with that, and I do not. Double standards in my opinion. (LAz17 (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Next time when you block, feel free to extend the block to the same time when the IP gets unblocked. Technically I have two blocks, so it is really weird to have them not expire at the same time. (LAz17 (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Sorry about the WP:Autoblock problem, which is a technical feature that we can unfortunately not avoid easily. I can no longer find any active autoblock on your name right now, so I suppose it has expired in the meantime. If you should still have problems editing, please contact me or some other admin or post {{unblock-auto}} here, stating your IP or the autoblock #, and it will be lifted quickly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this map File:BanovinaCroatia.PNG From Krk to Brač there are lot of islands, but not a single on the map. I will try to do something in svg.--Ex13 (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can draw maps by yourself in Photoshop program. I already planned to draw more history maps related to the history of former Yugoslavia, but I do not know when I will have enough free time for that. PANONIAN 16:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another similar logo has replaced this one. Feel free to delete this one. (LAz17 (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LAz17, your continued feud with User:Ceha, which you have continued despite several warnings, leaves me no choice but to intervene. You have again met Ceha's work with rude accusations, insults and assumptions of bad faith ("What kind of joke are you?", "bullshit piece of crap"; "your on purpose switching of dates to try to confuse me" [38]). This is unacceptable, even if, as it appears, Ceha's work does in fact occasionally contain errors in need of critical review. You have demonstrated in a months-long pattern that you are not willing or not able to exercise this criticism in a constructive fashion. In the present instance, of your fight at Talk:Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina, your latest answer to my question [39] indicates you have little factual basis for your shrill accusations, because nothing of what you said actually warrants a description of the map as factually wrong.

I have little hope that this situation will improve as long as you are free to pursue your feud. As I warned you earlier, you are therefore now topic-banned from all edits relating to the historical demographics and cartography of Ex-Yugoslavia. This sanction will be logged under WP:ARBMAC and can be appealed through the means described there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]