User talk:WikiEditor2004

Old talks

• User talk:PANONIAN/Archive
• User talk:PANONIAN/Archive02
• User talk:PANONIAN/Archive03
• User talk:PANONIAN/Archive04
• User talk:PANONIAN/Archive05
• User talk:PANONIAN/Archive06

Post new comments and questions here

You won. Cestitam. The narrow-mindedness I experienced here during the last 2 days convinced me, that I'd just waste my time if I stay here. I am going to leave Wikipedia for ever. This is my last post. Have a nice day! --Koppany 16:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You will come back (as you always do...) PANONIAN If you want peace and prosperity for your country then you are a patriot, but if your patriotism is bigger than the borders of your country then you are a serious threat to World peace. 16:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Benyovszky, Syrmia

Hello!

You have reverted my edits, but you had no reason for it. 1) It is not a good thing to say, that he was slovak, while you can find in the article, that three peoples claim him as their own. As you can see, I also removed that sentence, which said that he was hungarian. 2) Syrmia was part of Hungary for a few years, I am sure that you know this. In the present-days, there are hungarian minorities, which they live there. The article should include the hungarian name in the opening too. Lets try to keep the articles neutrality Ok? Thanks.Pannonia 21:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Answer:

• 1. Beňovský is a Slovak surname, therefore he was Slovak.
• 2. Syrmia article speak about present-day geographical region that is not part of Hungary and therefore Hungarian name is of much lower importance than Serbian and Croatian one. There is large "Name" section in the Syrmia article where all names used for the region are mentioned, and the first sentence of the article should contain more important information than to post there all names (German, Hungarian, Slovak, Rusyn, etc) that are ever used in history. PANONIAN If you want peace and prosperity for your country then you are a patriot, but if your patriotism is bigger than the borders of your country then you are a serious threat to World peace. 14:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr "most serbs have Illyrian genetical link"

Can you explain to me, as I was 3 year old, how did you comme upp with the idea that serbs by genetics are related to Illyrians? have a look at this resarch wich places your brother Croats along side with Polish people;

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol290/issue5494/images/large/se4308962003.jpeg

Unless Ploish, Ukranians people have Genetic link with Illyrians than serbs do 2 eheheheheheheh, Notice that Albanians and Greeks share common genetical pool, dosent that say enough to you serbs?????? Regards Trojani 12:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oprostaj

Ako mozes citati (ja mislim da ne mozes) mogao da vidis ja sam pisao: Ja cu upotrebiti template Zelle → http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zello Ja te pisam na srpskom jer na zalost ne razumis na engleskom. I write you in Serbian because it seems you dont undestand English. I used Zello's template. But truely, this is my last message here. If someone want, can find me on Hungarian Wiki. --Koppany 16:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Respond from Trojani

The racial composition in the Ballkans (except the most southern parts) is Dinaric, wich according to dr Carleton Steven Coon, correspondents with Illyrian one. The genetic composition however is a different matter, the genetical code dosent necesseraly reply to physical appearance. Greeks and Albanians share rather strong genetical resemblance while the racial composition differ greatly.Trojani 08:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

Im ready to compromise with the following conditions: I delete all box that you consider provocative: Vojvodina, even Sandzak, Kosovo etc. and I am ready to help you improving Vojvodina related articles. On the other hand you dont try clean away the memories of Hungarian past. I can mention Hungarian personal and place names together with Serbian or other equivalents. For exemple the Sztratimirovics de Kölpény family really was from Serbian origin but they was ennobled as Hungarians (and all genealogy sources mention them so), and was mixed with Hungarian noble families, I think it is not wrong to label them as Hungarian-Serbian or Serbian-Hungarian family and we can use both forms of surname: Sztratimirovics de Kölpény and Stratimirovic-Kulpinski or whatever. I neither understand why offends you to mention Csáktornya and Cakovec together, since until 1918 Csáktorny was its official name and was used worldwide in a lot of books also referring to the Zrínyi-Zrinski family. I honestly want peace and want to enrich Wiki not make it poorer. Pozdrav. --Koppany 19:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

The Brioni video taken 4 days before Operation Storm was viewable on nearly every TV station a while ago (the whole 18-minute thing).

On the video he speaks of planned organization for an attack that could expel all Serbs from Croatia. He also explains an organized propaganda campaign in detail to make sure they'll all leave, precisely mentions that the civilians are one of his prime targets, and explains how they'll falsely the guarantee the Serbs' rights (presenting how they "left on themselves", and weren't expelled), and how to evade international reaction and hide the truth. The video is one of the most recent controversies. The ICTY has been discussing whether accusation for Genocide should be added to the 3 Croatian generals' indictment.

Franjo's son Miroslav and the Croatian defenders at the Hague claim that the video was forged, because when Tudjman talks about propaganda against the Serbs and false guaranteeing to basic human rights, the insects heard in the background can no longer be heard. --PaxEquilibrium 22:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Principalities02.png

Nameravaju da ti obrisu tu sliku. [[1]] --Medule 11:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest map

File:BH1991.jpg

Blue = Serbs
Green = Muslims
Red = Croats
Yellow = mixed

I drew a map according to the 1991 census. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PaxEquilibrium (talk • contribs) 23:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Latest map

File:BH1991.jpg

Blue = Serbs
Green = Muslims
Red = Croats
Yellow = mixed

I drew a map according to the 1991 census. --PaxEquilibrium 23:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo

I just thought about a possible solution to the ongoing Kosovo issue. What if the Albanian-dominated Metohija region were ceded to Albania and then the rest of Kosovo would be administered as an autonomous province of Serbia? This would lessen the Albanian majority significantly, both within Kosovo and Serbia as a whole (Kosovo included). I don't know a lot about the conflict, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts. What do you think? -- Aivazovsky 01:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that we do not need new wars in the Balkans - the best solution for the problem is a total separation of Serbia and Kosovo (Serbia will in fact become independent from Kosovo not otherwise), and we also should build separation wall between Serbia and Kosovo like the one that exist between Israel and Palestine. That would solve a problem for ever. PANONIAN 07:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

?

Hej, bojkotujes me li ti? :0) --PaxEquilibrium 09:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Pa koliko vidim nisi me ništa ni pitao, zar ne? PANONIAN 20:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You did not watch the Brioni video? --PaxEquilibrium 16:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No. :) PANONIAN 22:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Serbian Orthodox Church

...is something I've started recently. Maybe you'd like to join?--Hadžija 02:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Romanian and Hungarian localities in Vojvodina

Hi Panonian. I notice that you've reverted my edits to localities in Vojvodina with sizeable Romanian populations. I don't believe that the current model, where the infobox and lead paragraph are exclusively Serbian, is satisfactory, particularly considering the official status that languages such as Romanian and Hungarian have in Vojvodina. At Romanian localities such as Odorheiu Secuiesc, we have decided that, where a locality has a "majority-minority", the name of that language should be boldened in the lead paragraph. I'm not necessarily saying that the same should automatically be done for the Vojvodinan localities, but I do believe that alternative names should be placed in the infobox if they are official. What does Serbia's minority language rights law specify? I know that Romanian is official in Vojvodina as a whole, and according to this map, Romanian also has co-official status in the municipalities shown there. Is this correct? Because, in areas where Romanian can be used officially, the Romanian name should also be mentioned in the infobox, in the same way as the Serbian name is mentioned at Svinjica/Sviniţa, Požežena/Pojejena and Sokol/Socol. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 02:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, and there are several issues at hand here. The first is to do with the infobox. The infobox should only contain officially-recognised names for a place, neither English names nor unofficial alternatives. In Romania, if a minority make up more than 20% of the population, the place name in that language becomes officially-recognised in things such as signage and public administration. For this reason, the infobox of Oradea also shows the Hungarian name, even though Hungarians are not in the majority there. In Hungary, the minority rights law is slightly different, as there is no cut-off, with bilingual signs and official status of language being determined subjectively by each local authority. What I asked was whether there is a similar provision in Serbia, regarding the official recognition of minority-language place names. If so, then there names should also be listed in the infobox. That is, when do places start having bilingual signs in Serbia and things like that? Do local authorities have power to determine official recognition of languages? I know that, for example, Vojvodina has many official languages, but I also think that, in the same way as the Finnish model, local authorities do not have to operate in all of these official languages (i.e. not every official language is official in every locality). As to the Serbian-majority localities in Romania, I applied the convention there because it was also applied to the Hungarian-majority localities in Romania. For me, this was simply a desire, in the spirit of tolerance and pluralism, to facilitate a greater use of minority languages in response to some legitimate concerns raised by Hungarian users. Finally, and I think you already know this, my motivation is in no way nationalist - I am far from a Romanian nationalist. Rather, I am concerned with adequately representing minority languages, and that includes Romanian in Vojvodina as much as it does Hungarian and Serbian in Romanian, or Sorbian in Bautzen. Ronline ✉ 12:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you're complicating the case a bit more than it should be. I'm not implying that non-Serbian variants of names have official recognition in the Serbian language. But, as long as they are officially-used in official documents in an official language of Vojvodina (RO, HU, SK, etc), this amounts to some form of official recognition. However, this is not really the issue at hand. All I asked was in which localities are bilingual signs erected, and based on what criteria? You gave me the example that Novi Sad has no bilingual signs, but this is obvious, since Novi Sad has no minorities over 6% of the population. Do any localities have bilingual signs in Serbia? If yes, which ones? I'm asking because in those localities that do have these bilingual signs, the infobox should also contain the name in that non-Serbian language (be it Romanian, Hungarian, Slovak, Rusyn, etc). As to the use of the slash, I disagree. There is no reason why the hyphen is more aesthetically-correct than the slash. In fact, I think the hyphen with spaces around it is not only unaesthetic but also gramatically-incorrect, since the hyphen should only be used when joining compound words (like-this-and-this). The slash is much more precise in denoting an alternative script as is the case here. On road signs (in both Serbia and Bulgaria), the two scripts are generally placed under each other on different rows, so the slash is not an issue. But here, placing them under each other would lead to confusion, as it would suggest that the Cyrillic and Latin scripts are in different languages. Ronline ✉ 07:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Operabgmunicip.PNG

Hello, PANONIAN. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Operabgmunicip.PNG) was found at the following location: User talk:PANONIAN/Archive05. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

POV

Panonian stop editing with your POV. Serbia is the one that unilaterally accepted Romanian as an official language. So as it is official, it is also spoken. Category:Russian-speaking countries and territories (the case of Gagauzia for example; Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania where Russian isn't official at all) and Category:German-speaking countries (the case of Belgium, where German is spoken by 70.000 people; the case of Namibia, where German isn't even official) as well as Category:Portuguese-speaking countries (the case of Macau - and Macau is a teritory - where the language is spoken even less than Romanian in Vojvodina-1,3%) also list. So stop pushing POV. ROMANIAN IS OFFICIAL IN VOJVODINA as per http://www.skupstinavojvodine.sr.gov.yu/?s=aktAPV001&mak=OpstaAkta It is your problem if you don't like it, but you must accept it. --Danutz

Danutz, first, somebody who add Serbia into category "Romanian-speaking countries and territories" have no right to accuse anybody for POV pushing. Second, what is a basis for inclusion of Serbia and Vojvodina into this category? If people in several villages in Vojvodina are ethnic Romanians that does not mean that whole Vojvodina or whole Serbia are Romanian-speaking and your category imply that they are. If you want to reflect official usage of Romanian language in these areas, then proper name of such category would be "Countries and territories where Romanian is official language", but name "Romanian-speaking countries and territories" is totally POV and totally inaccurate. Same apply to "Russian-speaking countries and territories". PANONIAN 17:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to imply that. Romanian is spoken there, as is Portuguese (1,3%) in Macau or Russian in Moldova (less than 5%). Still Macau and Moldova are both included in the categories Category:Russian-speaking countries and territories and Category:Portuguese-speaking countries. German in Belgium is in the same situation. I think Romanian language has the same right. Of course, it may be derruting, but that just because there are no categories for Serbian, Hungarian, Slovak, Rusyn or Albanian. I think is fair enough to create this categories, and include them there, because i see it was no problem to include Romanian in the category Category:Languages of Vojvodina. I'll create all this categories if necesary, and if nobody wants to contribuite to them. Especialy Serbian should have it's own category as Serbian is official in Serbia (Vojvodina and Kosovo), Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina. That's more for example than Category:Danish-speaking countries. --Danutz

Alternate names as per WP:NCGN

Hi. I'm a bit disappointed that you reverted the alternate names anchor link as Vršac and Bela Crkva (Vojvodina). I'm disappointed because it indicates a very strong reticence to implement anything else but the status quo, which I don't believe is favourable. I suppose we can keep the Name section there, and I understand that the infobox issue is still being argued, but the "alternative names" link is specified in WP:NCGN: "In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with: "(known also by several alternative names)". I find it surprising that Vojvodina seems to be the biggest problem in implementing more prominent alternative names, and yet Vojvodina has what is arguably the best language rights legislation in Central Europe. It is the only region where Romanian and Hungarian and Slovak are official, and yet it is the only region where the alternative names are tucked away in a separate section, where the infoboxes aren't bilingual and where the "alternative names" link is being deleted. What exactly are you fearing these names will do? I really hope you don't buy into the whole irredentist argument. No one here so far has advocated that these names be implemented because these cities somehow belong to neighbouring countries. In fact, no one has really brought up nationalistic arguments at all. This is not about neighbouring countries at all. I'm not interested in the Romanian minority in Vojvodina because of its links to Romania, but rather as a separate ethnic minority of Vojvodina, in the same way as I'm interested in the Roma minority in Romania and the Welsh language in Wales. Ronline ✉ 15:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm >< It seems you have ignored what the policy states in this matter: "In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with: "(known also by several alternative names)". That is, if you want to really make a separate Name section, then that name section should be directly linked from the lead paragraph, according to WP:NCGN. It's either 1) all names in the lead or 2) all names in a separate section, in which case "the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with: "(known also by several alternative names)"." What exactly is your opposition to including this section in the lead? These names are not irrelevant and unknown, because that's why they're in the article. They are alternate names. See Iaşi. See Szeged. Seriously, look around you and see what the rest of Wikipedia does! Ronline ✉ 16:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Panonian, I'd like to ask you to refrain from using personal attacks and to assume good faith. Seriously. You paint me out as if I'm some edit warrior with an agenda, and you're making this absolutely huge fuss over the inclusion of one extra link to the Names section. This is not about bilingual infoboxes, this is not about boldening of names, it is simply about adding an extra link. And you blame me for not adhering to NCGN, but the difference is that while you've deleted information, I'm adding information that goes beyond NCGN. It is ironic that you're opposed to the inclusion of Serbian bolded names in the Romanian articles and you're using that against me as an argument as to why you shouldn't put the "alternate names" anchor link at Vrsac and the like. I hope we can work out an agreement in this regard, but I fail to see how when you're so unwilling to engage in any form of discussion or compromise other than to make loaded comments about other users. Finally, drop the talk about irredentism and stop using that as a straw man. When someone will come along and advance an irredentist argument, then you can address it. At the moment, as I have repeatedly stated before, I am not making edits in order to "defend the Romanian interest". In fact, I was the one who supported a greater use of Hungarian and Serbian names in Romanian locality articles. Rather, I am making edits as someone who is concerned that alternate names are not being represented adequately in the Vojvodinian articles and not in the general spirit of Wikipedia. Ronline ✉ 08:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And now, to answer your question: I am in favour of adding in the brackets a phrase that says "known also by alternate names". The reason I'm implementing this is because you so stubbornly do not want to have any non-Serbian names in the infobox. I believe that the general convention at Wikipedia is to be liberal in the inclusion of alternate names - this should be no big deal. You will find that at articles such as Iaşi or Szeged, there are many alternate names in the lead, in languages even more obscure or less used than in the Vrsac case. The fact is that 10% of the population of Vrsac use the Romanian name - that's pretty sizeable. Consequently, it should ideally go in the lead. Because you don't want this, then the compromise is that we provide a link to the Name section in the lead. What exactly is the problem with this? How does it impair readability? The reason the link should be provided is because, at Wikipedia, alternate names, or links to them, are traditionally provided in the lead. Ronline ✉ 08:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Serbia

You removed this from the Serbia article:

"Furthermore in 2007, the [[United Nations]] [[International Court of Justice]] in the [[Hague]], [[Netherlands]], "ruled that Serbia and Montenegro had violated the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide by not preventing or punishing the perpetrators of the genocide" of Bosnian-Muslims in [[Srebrenica]],[[Bosnia-Herzegovina]]--the worst act of genocide and "ethnic cleansing" in Europe since World War II <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6395791.stm Court clears Serbia of genocide, BBC news]</ref>."

With this edit summary: wrong place for this crap...

Though I agree this section has questionable wording (for instance, the word "worst" should probably be replaced with "deadliest"), why remove it altogether? Furthermore, why remove a cited claim by calling it "crap?" Could you please let me know why you think this section is not worthy of admission, and could you please be more civil in the future? Thanks, JHMM13 16:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why remove it? Perhaps because it speak about Serbia and Montenegro and it was posted into article named Serbia (Can you see the difference?). Therefore, it is indeed wrong place for such thing and I called it crap because it was clear bad faith edit added by Greater Bosnian nationalist with purpose to create bad image about Serbia. PANONIAN 21:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Romanian

What sockpuppet? Hehehehe:))) I use this conto since the beginning. You really have some communist views. Romanian is official. That's the fact. --Danutz

Yes, Romanian is official, but Vojvodina is not a "Romanian speaking territory" with 1.45% of its population speaking Romanian. Change the category, and it will be accepted.--Hadžija 20:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Response regarding alternative names

Panonian, I'd like to ask you to refrain from using personal attacks and to assume good faith. Seriously. You paint me out as if I'm some edit warrior with an agenda, and you're making this absolutely huge fuss over the inclusion of one extra link to the Names section. This is not about bilingual infoboxes, this is not about boldening of names, it is simply about adding an extra link. And you blame me for not adhering to NCGN, but the difference is that while you've deleted information, I'm adding information that goes beyond NCGN. It is ironic that you're opposed to the inclusion of Serbian bolded names in the Romanian articles and you're using that against me as an argument as to why you shouldn't put the "alternate names" anchor link at Vrsac and the like. I hope we can work out an agreement in this regard, but I fail to see how when you're so unwilling to engage in any form of discussion or compromise other than to make loaded comments about other users. Finally, drop the talk about irredentism and stop using that as a straw man. When someone will come along and advance an irredentist argument, then you can address it. At the moment, as I have repeatedly stated before, I am not making edits in order to "defend the Romanian interest". In fact, I was the one who supported a greater use of Hungarian and Serbian names in Romanian locality articles. Rather, I am making edits as someone who is concerned that alternate names are not being represented adequately in the Vojvodinian articles and not in the general spirit of Wikipedia. Ronline ✉ 08:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And now, to answer your question: I am in favour of adding in the brackets a phrase that says "known also by alternate names". The reason I'm implementing this is because you so stubbornly do not want to have any non-Serbian names in the infobox. I believe that the general convention at Wikipedia is to be liberal in the inclusion of alternate names - this should be no big deal. You will find that at articles such as Iaşi or Szeged, there are many alternate names in the lead, in languages even more obscure or less used than in the Vrsac case. The fact is that 10% of the population of Vrsac use the Romanian name - that's pretty sizeable. Consequently, it should ideally go in the lead. Because you don't want this, then the compromise is that we provide a link to the Name section in the lead. What exactly is the problem with this? How does it impair readability? The reason the link should be provided is because, at Wikipedia, alternate names, or links to them, are traditionally provided in the lead. Ronline ✉ 08:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Mislim da sad već teraš inat [2], [3]... 'Ajd otkuliraj malo... Odo' kući, pozdrav. Duja► 15:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Pa i Ronline tera inat, a usijanim glavama kao on nikad ne popuštam pa makar on bio u pravu (što ne kažem da jeste). PANONIAN 15:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Panonian. It seems you're the only one who has something against the alternate names link, and it's you who is propagating revert wars. You tell me to "stop this game", but you're the one who is reverting on sight and not seeking to compromise. You reverted Alibunar, for example. There are absolutely no rational grounds for opposing the inclusion of this link other than a desire to downplay alternative names. Additionally, for localities where a minority makes up more than 15% of the population, the name used by that minority should be provided in the infobox, because according to Serbia's minority rights law, that place name becomes official:

§2. The unit of local self-government is obliged to enter the language and alphabet of a national minority in official use always if the percentage of that national minority in the total population on their territory reaches 15% according to the latest census... On the territories from paragraph 2, names of public authorities, names of units of local self-government, of settlements, squares and streets and other toponyms shall also be displayed in the language of the respective national minority according to respective orthography and grammar rules and tradition.

So, if Bač, Serbia has two official languages, Serbian and Slovak, then the Slovak name should also be listed in the infobox, since the infobox lists names in all official languages. Also, could I please get a translation of the above two passages, as per WP:TALK? Thanks, Ronline ✉ 07:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Me: "I think you're doing it out of spite now; c'mon get cool. I go home.". Panonian: "Well he's doing it out of spite too, and I don't give in to hotheads like him, even if he's right (not that I say he is)." Duja► 07:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Ronline, it is not only me who reverted your edits, but various other users as well. And again: Serbia's minority rights law DOES NOT SAY that names used by minorities should be provided in the infobox in Wikipedia (Please quote part of Serbian law that mention Wikipedia). And I already proposed to you a compromise that we can writte "Language" section in these articles where we can describe which languages are officially used by local authorities - that would be of much greater meaning to English language readers than usage of these names in the infoboxes without explanation of their legal status. Seems to me that it is you who do not want to accept this compromise. PANONIAN 10:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Um. Again, I do agree that Serbia's Law does not dictate which names should be in Wikipedia infoboxes, but you do have to draw a line somewhere. Why is it drawn now at 50%, like in Senta? The suggested 15% boundary looks like a sensible choice, as it's a legal line where the minority gets the right to have the nameplates in their language. And it doesn't compromise the articles in any way. But I'm not sure if I'm adding oil to the fire in the midst of heated discussion and WP:ABFing... Should we revise this with a cool head later? Duja► 12:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Line is not drawn at 50%, but at absolute or relative majority (See: Subotica for example). I believe it is fair compromise. For example, in Slovakia-related articles there are no minority names even in the infoboxes of the places where minorities are in majority. Of course, from the scientific point of view there is really no reason to post such names in any of the articles - this is Wikipedia in English language and this is not a place where rights of minorities should be protected. English speaking readers of Wikipedia would find that "Language" section that describe official usage of languages is much more useful for them than names in the infobox that do not provide description of official language policies. Therefore, it is obvious that user Ronline presented only political reasons for inclusion of such names and I really do not see a point of writting such names into infoboxes of places with Serb majority in Serbia - problem is that such names also reflect irredentist policies of neighbouring countries and their territorial pretensions towards parts of Serbia and therefore they should not be used (we should not use here in Wikipedia anything that could insult somebody). PANONIAN 14:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Panonian, I'm finding it extremely difficult to reach any sort of agreement with you when you keep on bringing up arguments such as irredentism. Wikipedia should be a reflection of reality, and in places such as Bač, Serbia, the reality is that both Slovak and Serbian are in official use. It doesn't matter that Serbs are a majority, what matters is that, because Slovaks make up more than 15% of the population, their language is in official use, in public administration and on public signage. The inclusion of the Slovak name should not be seen as a political act - in fact, you're the one blaming me for meddling politics into all this, but you're the one who's ascribing political motives to everything (i.e. irredentism, etc). My intention is not to include the Slovak name in order to make a statement for minority rights, but rather to reflect "scientific" reality as you call it. And that reality is that, in Bač, there are two official languages, in a region where both of those official languages have equal status, and thus the Slovak place name is also recognised officially, both by the local and Vojvodinian authorities. Secondly, you talk about Wikipedia not being used to insult somebody. I disagree in this regard: Wikipedia is not censored, and thus it should reflect a neutral point of view. If the inclusion of a Slovak name insults Serbs, this is not a reason for removing the Slovak name, particularly since there is no rational reason why Serbs should be insulted in the first place, when their own laws specify that this name should be officially-recognised. Once again, you're interpreting the inclusion of these names as a political act - as a territorial claim - and I think that is not only of bad faith but also rationally incorrect. Additionally, you have to understand that this ability to "insult" runs both ways. In the same way as you allegedly claim that Serbs are insulted by the Slovak name, I can also claim that Slovaks are insulted by the omission of the Slovak name, insulted because their status is not reflected adequately. So, I think as long as we'll continue talking about insults and political acts, we'll get nowhere. My point is that including the official names in the infoboxes reflects reality, and also Wikipedia practice. This model has been applied to Romanian articles, for example, for many months. If you really believe that the infoboxes should be monolingually-Serbian, we can take this to RfC, where we will get a wider range of comments, perhaps. Finally, I agree that a Language section should be set up where the situation is explained. This is nothing special, however. The issue here is the infobox, and I believe that not including the minority language name in the infobox constitutes a breach of Wikipedia policy (both WP:NPOV and general infobox procedures). Ronline ✉ 01:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have opened up a discussion on this matter at Talk:Bač, Serbia. Ronline ✉ 01:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ronline, first: we both know that we here in fact do not discuss about Bač, but about Vršac, Bela Crkva, etc, etc. And no, Slovak name used for Bač would not insult Serbs, but Romanian names used for Vršac and Bela Crkva would insult Serbs (the difference is in the fact that Slovaks and their country do not have territorial pretensions towards Serbia) - by the way, someone would say that it is very sneaky to move the whole discussion to Bač article so that the whole nature of the dispute would be hidden. Also, please tell me how exactly names used in the infobox "reflect the reality" when usage of these names without explanation of their status is not of any use to readers of Wikipedia. Also, the claim that "the inclusion of the minority names should not be seen as a political act" is ridiculous because official usage of any language in any state is a political act. I already said that best way to reflect scientific reality is to provide description to readers about usage of any language (official or unofficial). PANONIAN 10:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I consciously raised the point at Bač in order to strip the case of all of its political overtones. You know as well as I do that your "irrendentism" argument is not valid at Wikipedia, which you yourself state should be "scientific" rather than political. My intention is that, by focussing on Bač, where neither Romanian nor Hungarian is in question, a more neutral solution can be reached. As to where this should be applied to Vršac and Bela Crkva - it depends if non-Serbian languages are official there. Duja told me that languages only become official once the 15% level is reached, and no group makes up 15% in those localities, so if Serbian is the only official language, then only Serbian should be listed. If, however, Vršac also recognises other official languages, then it is normal that the name in these official languages is also listed in the infobox, as is the overwhelming practice throughout the rest of Wikipedia.

Now, I don't know where you've gotten this whole thing about Romanian territorial pretensions towards Serbia... relations between the two countries are not tense (in fact, they are very good) and even extremist parties like the Greater Romania Party have never advocated an incorporation of Vojvodina into a "Greater Romania". To put it simply, your argument that Romania has territorial claims on Serbia is a straw man that detracts from the case at hand. It is a means of diffusing the argument and taking it down a nationalist slippery-slope, so I would suggest that you stop bringing up this argument. Now, the usage of the Slovak name in the infobox reflects reality because it reflects the fact that Bač has two official languages, rather than one official language (Serbian). We can tag both the Serbian and the Slovak names so that readers can know in what language they are. Finally, I don't think you understand my point about political acts. The declaration that Slovak is an official language in Bač is a political act made by the Serbian state. However, the fact that Wikipedia reflects that situation is not in itself a political act; rather, it is a "scientific" presentation of reality, in the same way as it's not a politically-loaded act to write the Serbian name of Serbia in the country's infobox. You, on the other hand, still seem to believe that by putting the Slovak name there, we are breaking NPOV and are engaging in a political/ideological act that either supports irredentism or minority rights. As I have told you repeatedly, this is not the case. By putting the Slovak name there, we are not constructing reality (this would be a political act), we are rather reflecting it. Ronline ✉ 11:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The reasons why you moved this discussion to the Bač article are very controversial - we both know that we do not discuss there about Bač, but about Vršac and some other places. Regarding irredentism argument, what is a base for your claim that it is not valid? The purpose of Wikipedia is indeed scientific one, but many Wikipedia users do not use it for science, but rather to present their own irredentist political views. Regarding 15% limit, I will repeat some of my previous points: Laws in serbia are very confusing and contradict one to another and therefore I will again mention the example of Novi Sad where 3 minority languages are official (no matter that their speakers do not reach 15% limit), while road tables in Novi Sad do not contain minority names (no matter that these languages are official). In another words, we really do not know does Bač (or some other municipality) have minority languages in official use and how many languages it have (I already told you that 15% limit mentioned in one law of the former Federal Republic of yugoslavia is really not implemented in practice). Regarding Romanian territorial pretensions, please do not act here like "non-informed person", just read some history book about 1919 peace conference or see contributions of Wikipedia user Danutz. And the basic fact that you said that you focusing on Bač because neutral and non-political solution could be reached there imply that you are very much aware of the fact that usage of Romanian names is an political question connected to territorial pretensions. And also: I will not discuss about "usage of Slovak language in the Bač article" because you in fact speak about "usage of Romanian language in municipalities of South Banat", so wherever you writte "Slovak" I will read as "Romanian" and wherever you writte "Bač" I will read as "municipalities of South Banat". So, I will also repeat this: usage of names into infoboxes is not the best way for Wikipedia to reflect reality of usage of these languages, it is not enough to inform readers that these names are Romanian or Hungarian, but you also have to inform them about reasons why these are names are used in the infobox, i.e. to clearly state that these are not used because of irredentism, but because of minority rights. PANONIAN 12:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we do not "both know that". I would really advise you to read WP:AGF, because you have made lots and lots of assumptions of bad faith and of ulterior motives so far. If you feel that the discussion is better placed at Vršac, then move it there. I was simply making the point at Bač because 1) it is more neutral and 2) it conforms to the 15% rule. Now, if laws are conflicting, then the whole point of the discussion would be to find out which guidelines we should be using for official names. It should be up to you Serbian users to agree on what the law actually says. If you like, I will investigate more into this matter. If individual municipalities set official languages, then maybe we can ask the municipality.

With regard to territorial pretensions: I fail to see the point of this in the discussion. Frankly, I didn't initiate the discussion at a locality involving Romanians so that you couldn't then accuse me of irrendentism or "defending POV interests" or something like that, not because I acknowledge a territorial claim! I think you're misinterpreting Danutz's stance as well. His intention is not to show that Vojvodina is a Romanian province, but rather that it is a Romanian-speaking province by virtue of Romanian being an official language there. He sees the Roumanophone world as including Vojvodina as well. I'm not saying I agree with his stance, but it is closer to "Vojvodinian regionalism and multiethnicism" rather than "Romanian irredentism".

I really think you're seeing ghosts with this whole irredentism issue. It's 21st century united Europe nowadays, and I honestly think it's time to move on from the troubles and insecurities of the past. I don't appreciate that you're reading "Romanian" where I write "Slovak" because that is not my intention. Again, please assume good faith. My particular focus in not on Romanian at all - in fact, I have involved myself much more inserting the names of other languages in infoboxes throughout Wikipedia rather than Romanian names. Ronline ✉ 13:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Romanian-speaking Vojvodina

PANNONIAN, the article only reffers to the use of the Romanian language in Vojvodina (official use, use in media, use in the religious service), but not at all on Romanians). It is NPOV for you to move this article.--Danutz

No, it refer to Romanians as well - read it again (you wrote it anyway). But I will copyedit it later, so it will speak more about Romanians. PANONIAN 11:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Suggestion

Thanks for your suggestion. Please send me an e-mail (on my user page, at the left see toolbox and email this user). --Roamataa 11:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Panonian, I have so far refrained from being involved in the naming of settlements in Vojvodina, because I am basically interested in Transylvanian topics. Also, I try to avoid conflicts with you, although I think that the naming in the case of Hu majority places (like Zenta) should follow the practice of South Tyrol and Finnland-Swedish communities. The situation here is more favourable to non-Serbian ethnic groups than in Romania for non-Romanians because their languages are official (like in South Tyrol or Finnland).

In the case of Transylvanian settlements, there is a group of users, who are able to agree with each other and make compromises, however different their opinions are. I see Roamataa suggests you to have private discussions by e-mail. There is no problem about it, I simply would like to kindly ask you and Roamataa not to start any coordinated actions in Transylvanian topics without respecting the peaceful majority. Thanks, --KIDB 10:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no time to speak with anybody by email (and I also said that to user Roamataa). Regarding naming policies in Wikipedia, I said for 1000 times already that purpose of Wikipedia is not to follow any official state policies, but to present scientific facts to readers. But, if you have any suggestions about names used in Vojvodina-related articles, you can join the current discussion about that on this talk page: Talk:Bač, Serbia. PANONIAN 17:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Panonian, thank you for inviting me to that talk page. Reading the conversation there, however, I am even more convinced that there is no point in trying to discuss anything with you. In your point of view, all Hungarians are irredentists. You obviously don't know many Hungarians and you are not aware of the fact that most Hungarians simply don't care what happens to minority Hungarians in Voivodina or in Romania. Even those who care, are not extremist militants, simply would like to prevent their native culture and traditions. And yes, there are about 2-3% irredetists, but who cares about them? Only the Slovakian and Serbian press. About a year ago, I included an external link in the Voivodina article to a video of Rúzsa Magdi. In this video she was singing in Serbian in one of the Hungarian national TV channels. You deleted this link. I don't know, why, I hope not because it is about a Hungarian person from Voivodina. --KIDB 05:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was not you, indeed, it was my mistake that I didn't check whether I remembered correctly. Sorry again. --KIDB 10:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I also read that talk page and all I see is a very consistent POV push. Let's not forget that even the accepted situation on places in Romania, which is a very permissive one, is not enough. --R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  07:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing image Image:GONDOR PROVINCES location map in middle earth.PNG

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:GONDOR PROVINCES location map in middle earth.PNG, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:GONDOR PROVINCES location map in middle earth.PNG is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:GONDOR PROVINCES location map in middle earth.PNG, 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. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing image Image:GONDOR location map in middle earth.PNG

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:GONDOR location map in middle earth.PNG, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:GONDOR location map in middle earth.PNG is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:GONDOR location map in middle earth.PNG, 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. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing image Image:ISENGARD location map in middle earth.PNG

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:ISENGARD location map in middle earth.PNG, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:ISENGARD location map in middle earth.PNG is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:ISENGARD location map in middle earth.PNG, 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. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing image Image:ROHAN location map in middle earth.PNG

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:ROHAN location map in middle earth.PNG, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:ROHAN location map in middle earth.PNG is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:ROHAN location map in middle earth.PNG, 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. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing image Image:MORIA location map in middle earth.PNG

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:MORIA location map in middle earth.PNG, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:MORIA location map in middle earth.PNG is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:MORIA location map in middle earth.PNG, 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. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing image Image:Map of the Shire from lord of the rings.PNG

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Map of the Shire from lord of the rings.PNG, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Map of the Shire from lord of the rings.PNG is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Map of the Shire from lord of the rings.PNG, 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. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I've read the discussion on Bac and before starting the discussion about the infoboxes, can you please tell me what is the situation there? What are the disputed points? I would like to understand the situation to see in which way is similar to mine. Thanks, --R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  18:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing image Image:MORDOR location map in middle earth.PNG

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:MORDOR location map in middle earth.PNG, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:MORDOR location map in middle earth.PNG is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:MORDOR location map in middle earth.PNG, 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. --Android Mouse Bot 2 21:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing image Image:Earthsea map prominent locations.PNG

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Earthsea map prominent locations.PNG, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Earthsea map prominent locations.PNG is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Earthsea map prominent locations.PNG, 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. --Android Mouse Bot 2 21:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

O, but you are, your 91.120 ip is similar to another ip numbers of suspected sockpuppets of VinceB

??? If you dispute the content, than drop a message, I can't do anything with this line above --91.120.113.31 21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

How can you accuse me of being a "sock puppet"

I had to look that word up because I did not even know what that meant. Look at my history of edits and articles I have created, if you really want to look at my IP addresses too. In regards to the Novi Sad article I would like to bring some impartial editors into the fold.

Vince, stop with these games, just check your own contributions and you will know why you area a sockpuppet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lazio_gio PANONIAN 13:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Caucasian Albania

Please join the discuss on the Caucasian Albania talk page regarding your map. -- Aivazovsky 12:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

We need your input. -- Aivazovsky 10:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is Vince?

My name is Peter. Furthermore, I do not think this guy named Vince was actively involved in editing the biographies of U.S athletes and Hungarian history, or creating pages for his friends. If you are still convinced whatever.

Indefblocked. Definitely quacks. Duja► 15:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Novi Sad

Hello Wiki user from Novi Sad! :) Čuj, ja bi da mi konačno završimo NS. Šta ti misliš da treba još od texta da se doda? Znam da nam treba nekoliko high quality slika, ali važnije je sada da imamo dobar text, za to ćemo se snaći. Ja još planiram da napišem poseban text za suburbs i mislim da bi bilo super da se iz popisa izvuče broj stanovnika NSa po republici/pokrajni, po rođenju, možeš li to da iskopaš, pošto sam to tražio na netu i sajtu, ali jako se teško snalazim tamo, + što je super statistika, s obzirom da se kuka koliko ima ljudi iz Bosne. :) I ako bi mogao reference da trpaš u History deo texta, pošto mislim da nam treba još :) --Göran Smith 15:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Pa treba nam referenci, pošto sam gledao ostale dobre textove koji imaju zilion po tekstovima, a posebno oni delovi od istorije koje je onaj lik prepravljao, od drugog s.r, pa do bombardovanja. Slažem se da imamo Cetvrti i predgradja NSa, takođe za te četvrti nam trebaju reference. Pošto nigde na zvaničnih sajtovima se oni ne spominju, pa kapiram da trebamo imati odakle nam te četvrti, ovako može ispasti da ih iz glave vadimo :) Iskreno, nemam ni ja nešto puno vremena, od junskog roka koji se približava, kao što pišem o Roland Garosu na wikipediji. Ma kapiram sada imamo kada napolju bude 35+, da napišem to :) Ajd samo ako možeš naći info iz popisa stanovništva.

Što se tiče tih imena opština, meni je svejedno, ovo koreansko mi deluje baš minimalistički, predloži Duji :) --Göran Smith 10:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ajd napiši izvor odakle smo izvadili nazive naselja i četvrti NSa. Pošto na zvaničnim sajtovima toga nema, a valjda nam treba reference odakle smo izvadili sve te nazive pregradja i četvrti NSa. :) --Göran Smith 10:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Za nazive po Vojvodini

Našao sam ovo za Koreju, pa mislim da bi bilo zanimljivije ovakav box staviti ispod Municipality of Serbia šablona, umesto trpati sve na vrh šablona --Göran Smith 15:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC) :)

Missing image Image:DTD bridge.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:DTD bridge.jpg, by Strangerer, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:DTD bridge.jpg is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:DTD bridge.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:DTD bridge.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 11:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Caucasus03333.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Caucasus03333.jpg. 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. 12:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

that was rude...

Did you really have to write your edit summary like that? It was really gratuitously rude. Couldn't you have just said "clarified sentence" or something, instead of "very bad English, KIDB"? K. Lásztocska 20:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Pan was right. And let's not exagerate, I just remember somebody also use rude words. So why it is not acceptable at Pan but it is for other people? --R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  06:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes Roamataa, you can get a bit nervous if another "somebody" (like Roamataa) continously deletes your contributions without discussion, just because he "thinks" he is right. --KIDB 10:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, K. Lásztocska, it all depends if I am in good or bad mode. Besides that, it was not so rude comment. What you think about some of my previous comments like "no, the source does not say that - can you read?" or "come on, please learn English before editing here", etc? Or...you cannot read Serbian, but you do not want to know the meaning of the comments that I sometimes writte to users that can read it - I am joking of course. PANONIAN 08:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually know some Serbian swear words (though I try never to use them), so be careful. ;-) Roamataa, I am not more "accepting" of rude comments from KIDB or anyone else, I just didn't see KIDB's comment. Panonian, well, those other summaries are rude too and it's something I've been noticing lately. I know how easy it can be to say something mean if you're in a bad mood, I've certainly made my share of snarky remarks on bad days. (Ooops...) I just want to encourage you to try and think a bit before you say something rude, just because it never helps anything and only serves to put *more* people in bad moods. :-) Anyway, it's no big deal, just please try to be a little more considerate in the future. (WP:Wikiquette and all...it sounds silly, but without "good manners", a project like Wikipedia would just fall apart.)K. Lásztocska 22:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Page moves

Oh, okay. Thanks for the insight. --Bolonium 04:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

user Gon4z

Hi, I just want to let you know, that there has been trouble with user:Gon4z all over wikipedia for nationalistic editing- he usually pushes all numbers regarding Albania up and tries all the time to reduce the strength and power of Serbia and Greece. He showed a really nasty behaviour (insults, 3rr, edit war, unsourced material, user page vandalism, lies, and so on) at the Albanian Military articles ( i.e. Albanian Land Forces Command). Here you can see his talkpage before he blanked it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gon4z&oldid=128556210#Incorrect_Info.2F3RR_warning He got banned three times in a week for his actions and insults, but hasn’t learned his lesson, as his rude behaviour at the article “Serbian Air Force” and his increasing of all Muslim and Albanian numbers in all kind of articles of the Balkans show. If he insists to edit war with you on Islam in Serbia or begins to insult you let me know and I will dig up the endless complaints about him in the administrator’s board to help you in case you wish to report him on the "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". Best Regards noclador 02:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I reported Gon4z today to administrator Prodego as he had to deal with Gon4z more than once too. As Gon4z is currently editing unsourced material into articles and accuses anyone that does not agree with of “vandalism” or “racism” I think a longer ban is required. You can find my report about Gon4z (and a list of “deeds”) to administrator Prodego here. If you have any negative experiences with Gon4z or an opinion to add I would welcome your contributions. Thanks and best regards noclador 01:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jaša Tomić (place)

"A topographic names of Slavic origin founded in the area, such as the Grešara, Mlaka, Margitica, Kamenica, Livade, Selište, Rasove, Vagan, Bavanište, etc, testifying that the area was in the past inhabited by Slavs."

This is unclear and is not correct English, for four reasons (1) "A" is singular, "names" is plural"; (2) the sentence is incomplete; it consists of a subject and a subsidiary clause but no main clause; (3) if Grešara is the name of a village, it should not be preceded by "the"; (4) only places can be "founded", not names. My change was intended (unsuccessfully) to clarify, not to change the meaning. I think what is intended is: (changes bolded)

A number of topographic names of Slavic origin founded in the area, such as Grešara, Mlaka, Margitica, Kamenica, Livade, Selište, Rasove, Vagan, Bavanište, etc, testifying that the area was in the past inhabited by Slavs.

Colonies Chris 13:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Transylvania

Thanks for the work you are doing in categorising the articles related to Transylvania. --R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  17:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I just saw that categorization is in chaos there and tried to help. PANONIAN 18:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Samo na brzina da ti prašam, dali si ti administrator ovde so snaga da blokiraš dosadni koristnici? Ili sum pogrešil malku? Evlekis 09:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fala mnogu. Za nekoja pričina veruvav deka si bil admin, ako ne si, nema problem. Inače, ne si prv da puštiš pismo na mojata stranica! Onaka izgleda namerno ko da e komediska verzija zasebna stranica! Pozdrav. Evlekis 14:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Crtanje mapa

Možeš li da nacrtaš novu mapu podele Crne Gore po nahijama, pošto je ova nesrećan scan i ne znamo status AP? Ili možda znaš neku koja već postoji? Poydrav. --BokicaK 12:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, kad nađeš vremena. Pozdrav. --BokicaK 13:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Map

What happened to your map of the upper Dalmatian Slavic duchies??? --PaxEquilibrium 15:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

About last serbian wars

This is article from New York Times:

International Court of Justice for first time calls 1995 massacres of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica genocide, but determines that Serbia itself was not guilty of crime; nonetheless, it says Serbia should have prevented genocide and punished Bosnian Serbs who killed close to 8,000 men and boys; ruling gives some satisfaction and some frustration to both sides; it frees Serbia of stigma of being genocidal nation and absolves it from having to pay war reparations as demanded by Bosnia; Bosnia obtains recognition of Serbia's guilty; court also says that failing to arrest and hand over Bosnian Serb military commander Ratko Mladic was further violation; says ruling is final and without appeal; court says that other offenses committed against Bosnians might amount to war crimes, but that it has no jurisdiction over those issues; ruling is close to political wishes of Western countries that want to pull Serbia into wider community

Now you know about Serbia guilt in Bosnian war, but I do not belive that you will change romantic believe in how good, how not guilty is your nation. I know how good and how bad is my nation !--Rjecina 22:57, 2 June 2007 (CET)

To say it simple I am tired of speech how Serbs are good people which have never done anything bad to others, but on other side what have to Serbs done Croatians or Muslims (Turks) .... Another points is that you have missed my nationality :)) --Rjecina 1:27, 3 June 2007 (CET)

Who knows ? I do not know your years ? Maybe you have been with Arkan in Croatia or Bosnia ? Our problem is that you speak how Serbia has not attacked Croatia and Bosnia and I say that she has attacked. This and nothing else is our problem. I can give you how much you want evidence that Serbia has attacked but you refuse everything saying that Serbia is not guilty because 15 years ago there has been "Yugoslavia". Point that then Yugoslavia is today Serbia without little Montenegro you will never accept. Why Western Germany between 1950 - 1990 has not come to that conclusion saying that this is new state which is not having anything with Hitler Germany ? Simple saying you are having genius solution for every state which has started war and lost. About Wikipedia and my "bad faith" my only saying is look article on Serbia wiki about Jasenovac. If victims number which is there is not writen in bad faith I do not know what is bad faith.  !--Rjecina 2:11, 3 June 2007 (CET)

Keres

Zdravo. Na zalost ne mogu da pronadjem clanak iz koga sam izvadio podatke za Keres (jer u enciklopedijama o njemu nema nista) kao i o zalbi Kanjize protiv Subotice (to je bio vrlo detaljan clanak). Jedino sto mogu da ti kazem je da na sajtu Voda Vojvodine pise da je Keres u Srbiji (znaci, i unutar teritorije i kao granicna reka) dug 42.7 km. Na zalost ne mogu da ti potvrdim da je ukupno dug TACNO 70 km. Sto se tice imena konkretno, to je mozda i najveci nedostatak Vikipedije, autoriteti. Trebalo bi da postoji neko ko je ENGLESKI autoritet za geografiju i da prepravlja na imena koja se u engleskom vec koriste i gotovo. Najcesce to nisu ni nasa ni madjarska/albanska/itd imena vec neka treca, modifikovani nemacki, italijanski ili cak latinski nazivi. Pozdrav. PajaBG 15:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Kovin.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Kovin.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 05:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Sajlovo

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, PANONIAN! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule proboards\d{1,3}\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 18:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Romania 1600 02.gif

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Romania 1600 02.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 07:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Lipovac

I was wondering if you had quick access to Serbian statistical data. There are two villages called Lipovac, in the Kruševac and Vranje municipalities, but we don't have their size on record. I've created an article for the Lipovac village in Croatia, so I'm wondering if I have to disambiguate it early (if the other villages are of comparable or larger size and/or importance). --Joy [shallot] 13:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Pise mu na user talku da je na wikibreaku. Nema veze, nema zurbe. --Joy [shallot] 21:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/History of Serbia. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC).

Rjecina

Have you reported him?

He made a very severe and serious violation of Wikipedia's rules at Kubura's talk page on June 2. --PaxEquilibrium 15:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

On the Prefecture of Illyricum

Hello PANONIAN! While the sources you have provided support the fact that Sirmium was the first capital of the Praetorian prefecture of Illyricum until ca. 379, they do not corroborate the date of its establishment. My source, the "History of the Hellenic Nation" of the Athens Academy, clearly states that the Prefecture of Illyricum was established in 356 by the emperor Constantius, abolished by Julian and reestablished by Gratian. It is a very reliable source, and considerably more up-to-date than the Catholic Encyclopedia... It is well known that the Illyricum was not established along with the other three prefectures, but initially belonged to Italy (cf. "Pr. Pr. Italiae, Illyrici et Africae") I am therefore reverting the relevant changes back to their previous form. Regards, Cplakidas 21:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but my source is a major scholarly work on history carried out by the National Academy of Greece. It is as reliable and accurate as it gets, certainly more focused than a general atlas, where of necessity things may be presented simplified, and considerably more up-to-date than the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia, which may be excellent on ecclesiastic matters, but is not focused on administrative and secular history (BTW, only one of your sources actually implies the foundation at a specific date, the one about Illyria, and then it is 324, not 318, so that at least should be changed). However, I have no inclination to start a revert war, and since I am not going to run through the entire corpus of 4th century Roman law just to prove a point, I am leaving it be for the time, until I come upon another source. Regards, Cplakidas 15:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think that its best. Maye some other user can add the info. BTW, the per WP:LAYOUT, if the "See also" section includes only links already mentioned in the article, it is redundant, which is why I again delete it, after incorporating those missing into the main body. And generally, as far as I have seen, "See also" sections are discouraged, unless absolutely necessary. Regards, Cplakidas 23:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your tone

I don't like your tone on South Slavs article. On what do you base your slander "revert vandal"? I removed the lsit because it is incorrect. It lists Sarajevo having population of 777,761 when the official estinmate from December 2006 is 418,891. This is just one example. Most numbers listed there show great discrepancies with the official census' data and official estimates. --No.13 11:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How can removing of false info be considered vandalism? If I correct the numbers then it would no longer be "according to World Gazetteer" wouldn't it? What is this "World Gazetteer" anyway? How can they be more realiable than official census and infromation? It doesn't even have the correct information from the census'. That was the reason why I deleted it. Anyway it can stay as far as I care, if you want to have incorrect information about population so be it, I just didn't like your tone. It was inappropropriate and rude. --No.13 16:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The list of the towns itself is not wrong, they are populated by South Slavs, but the numbers are wrong. I would like to see some of these reliable sources "World Gazetteer" used, especially so since these sources go against official census' (like the one in Croatia). Anyway this is the official estimate of the people in Sarajevo, this is IMO far more reliable source than some "World Gazetteer" which by all accounts makes it's own estimations (http://www.fzs.ba/Dem/ProcPrist/stalno.zip) Again the numbers are not the problem, they can be wrong as far as I am concerned, it is your tone that bothers me. Since you obviously don't think you need to apologize I have nothing else to say to you. --No.13 18:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Odgovor na diskusiju clanka - Grad Nis - 30 March 2007

"Šta si dosad uradio, uradio si, ali sa tim je sada gotovo...). PANONIAN (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)"

- Ajde! Slusaj Mićo, optuzbe kojima nekoga optuzujes za kloniranje korisnickih naloga ces morati da dokazes. Ti proizvoljno interpretiras podatake, sto si dokazao kada si u slucaju NS cifru od priblizno 190 000 zamenio pribliznom cifrom od 215 000, a fraze ovakovog tipa "Šta si dosad uradio, uradio si, ali sa tim je sada gotovo..." rezervisi za krug tvoje porodice. Tamo ce te neko mozda i shvatiti ozbiljno. - Gaston28 14 June 2007

21. Century isnt it???

Panonian you are admin on en.wiki, ok that is right. You have admin privileges and you are using them on unfair way. You support chetnicko-serbian politcs and you put upon your opinion about "velika srbija". Panonian you live in 21. century and you must catch on that "Draža Mihajlović" isnt live no more and idea of velika serbia is rejected in normal community. Rejected forever -- Croat 22:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And now a little bit on Croatian:

Panonian ti jako dobro znaš da što piše na wikipediji postaje istina. Pa dobro srbin si, srbin si nema problema, ali što onda pišeš neistine i gluposti po engleskoj wikipediji. Jel je tebi jasno tko je bio krivac u domovinskom ratu, jel ti shvaćaš da ideja o velikoj srbiji nije normalna u 21.stoljeću da ljudi više nisu zaluđeni četnicima, da ljudi postaju normalniji. Što ne možeš prihvatiti da smo se odvojili i da su hrvati slobodni. Ne možeš brate moj to promjenit nikako i to te boli. Ne trebam biti psiholog da to uvidim. I na kraju hočeš li i napisati da su Hrvati sami uništili Vukovar i Dubrovnik. Pa ako te je volja napiši. -- Croat 22:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S Sad slobodno prevodi svojim drugovima na engleski šta sam ti napisao. -- Croat 22:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Bulgarian language

Greetings! Please understand me well: Salan, Ahtum and Sermon wer Bulgarian nobles (which does not neccessarily mean that they are pure ethnic Bulgarians) and as such, their names must be written in Bulgarian language. Cyrillic means nothing, one without knowledge of history would think that they have something to do with Serbia... I think you should agree that the officials and nobles of any state should have their names written in their state's language. Regards, --Gligan 09:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It is the same as the rulers, Simeon I ruled both over Bulgaria and Serbia, they why not write his names in Cyrillic. You know that borders change, Voivodina is now in Serbia, but once it was not, it had nothing to do with Serbia in 10th century and that is the time we are talking about. In your logic, we should add Cyrillic for the Roman Emperors and the Ottoman Sultans who ruled over the present day territories of our countries. The problem is that they were not only Slav officials but Bulgarian ones, and Slav is too wide concept. --Gligan 09:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree but I have to go now and will continue later. --Gligan 09:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The literature ofter tells things that are not truth. For instance in Bulgarian literature King Marco is called a Bulgarian although he was most probably Serb. The names Ahtum, Salan and Sermon are not of Slavic but of Turkic origin and it is certain that they were of Bulgar descent. According to the reforms made by Krum and Omurtag, the governors of the provinces were directly appointed by the ruler and were among his closest advisors. So the governors are not of local origin => they should have their names in Bulgarian.

Also, how much kilogrammes, litters or per cent are they more important for Serbian history than for Bulgarian. Yes, they are more imporatant for the history of the Serbian lands, as Voivodina in now in Serbia; but not for the history of Serbia, as when they lived there was no Serbia but Bulgaria. The names of the Thracian Kings are not written in Bulgarian although they ruled over the Bulgarian lands and are important for our nation; and I agree with that because they were not Bulgarians. The same here.

Do you think that the Bulgarian and Serbian language differred in 10-11th century? Regards, --Gligan 19:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you can't say that the language that the local people of Voivodina spoke is exactly same language as Serbs spoke today, because Old Church Slavonic is not more similar to Serbian than to Bulgarian language. It is the same with despot Uglesha: he was a local ruler in contemporary Greek territory => you should have his name in Greek in that logic and in Slavonic, not Serbian; but I agree that only his Serbian name should stay because he was a Serb noble. I repeat, the name of the Bulgarians and the officials of the Bulgarian state shall be written in Bulgarian. If you please, we might write Bulgarian; Cyrillic or Bulgarian and Old Church Slavonic, but Bulgarian should stay to show the country these people served so bravely and died for. --Gligan 09:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I will change the names of all Serbian feudal lords after the fall of Dushan's Empire to Cyrillic. Ahtum died in the war between Bulgaria and Hungary, not in a war between his province with Hungary, so he died for Bulgaria; he also organised the defence of Vidin against the Byzantines in 1003. Again, the names of the Emperors are in Bulgarian and so should be the names of the nobles. And, the local people in Voivodina did not speak a language much different with those that spoke the locals in Thrace or Preslav or Macedonia. They were all dialects of Bulgarian, because there were no Serb states in those territories up to that moment.

I want to settle down that arguement. So if these noble are to be in Cyrillic, so would be the Serb nobles I mentoned above; if the their names remain in Serbian, I will write the names of Ahtum & Co in Bulgarian. --Gligan 20:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact there are often inaccuracies in maps. For instance, in that particular map the Bulgarian lands to the north of the Danube are not not marked and if your read the article of Samuil you will find the source that he had reconquered them. Also in the same article is written that seat was in Vidin, again with sourses so his lands were expanded which means that he deserved that; also the Bulgarian prince Gavrail Radomir divorced with his wife who was Hungarian, so the war was obviously between Bulgaria and Hungary.

So we reached a conslusion; have a nice edits. --Gligan 21:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

K. Lastochka

They were not speaking to you on her talk page and did not expect you to speak to them. Can't you even have the decency to see that she's just been through a large amount of stress? Can't you at least refrain from causing her more? She really doesn't deserve this, and she certainly doesn't deserve you to give it to her. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  21:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if I were you I'd look around a little bit and you'll know just who I am. As for Hungarian nationalism—I'm not even Hungarian, and what is wrong with it? You act like being Hungarian is a bad thing. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  21:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I would believe you, but I would need diffs and such to prove it. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  22:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

human rights in vojvodina

Nice. ;-) I was actually going to suggest making a separate section myself, but you beat me to it. It appears that for once we've reached a compromise we can both support--I wish this happened more often. K. Lásztocska 14:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, my health is currently not very good, so I am not in full form to argue with you too much, but as soon as my health improve, I will be be able to argue as much as before. :)) PANONIAN 15:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh-oh. Get well soon! I'm sorry you aren't feeling well...though I have to say I like the new, friendly Panonian better than the old grumpy one...maybe try and stay this way even once you get better? ;-) Again, I have no interest in arguing, only in reaching agreements and compromises for the good of the encyclopedia. K. Lásztocska 16:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

your edits to Greater Hungary (political concept)

Hey Panonian,

Your recent improvements to the beginning of the Greater Hungary article were excellent. KIDB made a few minor changes and I cleaned up the English a little bit, and now the three of us together have succeeded in significantly improving the article. I just wanted to tell you how much I appreciate your willingness to compromise a bit and work for progress instead of just fighting on the talk page like we usually do--and really, isn't it much more satisfying this way? ;-) We should work together like this more often, not just against each other anymore. (And don't tell me your agreeable mood is just because you're not feeling well...LOL)  ;-) K. Lásztocska 02:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I will have a second surgery intervention in few days from now, so you can guess from where my "agreeable mood" came. :) A fucking life...but...what ever... PANONIAN 10:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Surgery?! Holy shit! I thought you just had a nasty cold or something, I didn't know it was anything so serious as to need surgery!! :( I wish you could get the best doctors in Serbia (at least), and I hope you will make a quick and full recovery...K. Lásztocska 13:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

get well soon

I know this spontaneous outpouring of affection might seem a little strange coming from me (it's not as if we've always been the best of friends here...)but when it comes to something as apparently serious as your illness, I couldn't care less about political opinions or past disputes. I'm sincerely sad to hear that you've been having such a bad time, and I really hope you get well soon. You add a lot of good content to the Wiki and you're one of the best mapmakers we've got on the whole project. When you get better, let's put past disputes behind us and try to work together, if not as friends, then at least as cordial colleagues. Best wishes, K. Lásztocska 13:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)}}

Hey PANONIAN, I hope you will be better soon. Good luck with your surgery! Tankred 14:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish you all the best, get well soon! --KIDB 14:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish you a speedy and complete recovery István 16:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you will recover soon : ) --Gligan 18:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you people, but it is not so serious surgery - it is the easy one (local), but it is a big stress for me anyway. PANONIAN 08:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it's not serious. (I was getting worried...but I have an overactive imagination...) I understand about the stress though, and I hope you can find some way to feel better soon. Maybe just go relax and watch a movie--have you seen "Black Cat, White Cat" directed by Emir Kusturica? KIDB were talking about it for some reason yesterday, I highly recommend it if you haven't seen it yet. Anyway, now I'm just rambling off-topic--sorry! Best wishes again, K. Lásztocska 12:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, well, I do not like much Serbian movies. I like American ones, especially some good science fiction like Star Trek. :)) PANONIAN 12:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I LOVE Star Trek!! :)))))))) I've been watching loads and loads of Deep Space Nine this summer, it's great stuff. LOL, this is pretty funny--we're both Trekkies, apparently? I knew we'd find common ground somwhere, even if it must be on the planet Bajor. :)))) K. Lásztocska 12:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:))) Well, we have also common ground in the interest for Central European history, but we see it from two different points. :)) PANONIAN 13:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi PANONIAN! Despite all disputes between us, as a Central-European fellow and wiki contributor I wish you speedy recovery, zelim ti da se brzo oporavis! --Koppany 17:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit warrning unproducively

Just what do you expect to get out of this edit war? Deny the fact that Samuil was crowned as a king of Bulgaria, and drop pov-fork in another article which according to Serbian historians he is "Macedonian", and that notwitstanding, remove "of Bulgaria" from his name? If you continue to edit war you will still be blocked, even if you do not violate 3RR. I suggest you accept the compromise version, which has a footnote that refers to alrnative theories. Interested readers will follow and read on it. If you have some doubts about the origin of Samil of Bulgaria, make them at his article, not at articles which mention him. Read Wikipedia:POV fork Mr. Neutron 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am not the one who started this revert war, so do not ask what I expect from it - my intention is just to provide useful information and good article for Wikipedia readers. Regarding blocking, do not be so sure who of us two will be blocked because I presented my arguments on the article talk page, while you still did not said your reasons why name used in Serbian literature cannot be mentioned. Anyway, I officially will ask an admin to help with this dispute. Also, "your" version is not a "compromise version" at all, but another example of one-sided POV pushing. I in fact tried to make a compromise with my last version of the article, but I see that you think that agressive reverts are more important than compromise. PANONIAN 09:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to interfere

Hi Panonian, Hope you didn't mind my little tweaks to the 'greater Hungary' introduction - just trying to help, very lightly, while 'passing through' and hoped it might help slightly. Please ignore if not! best wishes, Dr Steven Plunkett 16:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I just thought that one of your changes do not sound very good but I might be wrong about that because I am not native speaker of English so I can make some mistakes in English grammar. PANONIAN 16:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Romani settlements

You may be interested to know that Desiphral is using a Roma rights mailing list to complain about an article you created List of Romani settlements. His essay, "Romani presence on Wikipedia", alleges institutional racism on Wikipedia and targets you for producing an article about "poor Romani neighborhoods from [Serbia], with a stereotypical focus on poverty, lack of hygiene (suggesting that this is the usual lifestyle of the Romani people) without any further non-stereotypical information about who are the Roma there." —Psychonaut 18:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)