Jump to content

Talk:Požarevac/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Opštinska uprava

UKOLIKO NEKO IZ OPSTINSKE UPRAVE POGLEDA OVAJ PRILOG O POZAREVCU MOLIM DA SE DOPUNI ZVANICNIM STATISTICKIM PODACIMA. TAKODJE, NEKO OD ISTORICARA I GEOGRAFA MOZE DA DODA MNOGO PODATAKA.

postovana gospodo,

obican sam gradjanin Pozarevca koji bi vas rado uputio na zvanicni sajt grada Pozarevca,na kojem ce te pronaci sve najnovije podatke o gradu. Nemojte uzeti samo podatke koji ticu gradske uprave,jer nisu tacno uneti podaci o gradonacelniku i clanovima gradskog veca ,zbog neazurnosti ljudi koji su zaduzeni za unosenje podataka. 

                                 S postovanjem  Z.Djordevic  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.181.139 (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ancient peoples

"it was inhabited by Thracians, Dacians and Celtics" What are the "Celtics" - I wonder ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.97.144.195 (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Požarevac. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Požarevac. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Puporače

An online Serbia travel guide is hardly a reliable source for 14th century toponymics. Unless a scholarly ref is provided, I am inclined to delete this statement. Logofat de Chichirez (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC).

You removing the statement because of which reason? If you do not have any source that contradicts to travel guide then I see no valid reason because of which you can dispute the accuracy of that data. PANONIAN 18:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, your logic is faulty. You cannot request me to find a source that says "Požarevac was not called in 14th century". What I was writing is that a travel guide of unkniown authorship cannot be a single source for historical data. I failed to find any other references for this fact therefore I am expressing doubts in the correctness of the fact. For example, it is perfectly plausible the site may mistyped the actual ancient name. This external article is rather sloppy; for example the section "Remnants of the Roman Empire" (where the name Puporače is used) says nothing about any remnants of any empire. And this is a valid reason per wikipedia policies WP:SOURCES, WP:IRS. Lothar Klaic (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not see that data about 14th century name of the town is controversial or unbelievable to be disputed like this. You certainly must have a reason because of which you disputing the data. Lack of multiple Internet sources certainly cannot be a reason that we dispute an barely known info. PANONIAN 19:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
We can dispute anything we want as long as we do this within the limits of civility. I explained my reason. Please don't search for Balkan wars here. My whole point is that a "barely known info" requires references from experts. Otherwise there is no way to distinguish it from a barely known nonsense. Lothar Klaic (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
By the way, mister Lothar Klaic are you perhaps a sock of User:Logofat de Chichirez since you said that "I cannot request you to find a source"? I said that to User:Logofat de Chichirez and I do not see where exactly you fit here? PANONIAN 19:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
No I am not. We both are socks of someone else. But we don't engage in revert wars, votes, POV pushing, political wrangling, name calling, etc. Usually we strictly separate the areas of interest. By accident they overlapped here, for obvious reasons. Lothar Klaic (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
WTF? You admitt that you are sock??? And who is your sockmaster (if I am free to ask)? PANONIAN 20:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, some people say "face" other people say "snout". I would prefer to use the term "WP:Alternate account". ... ... I've just reviewed the "new and improved" policy, but still prefer to carry on with my scizophreny. I don't think our paths crossed in any noticeable way. I don't have a "sockmaster" in the sense of the main account. All my accounts are equally occasionally busy with editing. In an unlikely event I decide to ramp up my wikipedia activities, I will make a full and open disclosure. If you have a suspicion of abuse, please let me know, and I will try to clarify any misunderstanding. Lothar Klaic (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject scope

—From my talk page:

Please do not revert my edits there. You cannot post an geographical article into historical category. It is simply wrong and chaotic approach. PANONIAN 08:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I was speaking about this diff: [1]. Požarevac is purely geographical article and has no place in historical categories or historical Wiki projects. PANONIAN 18:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have two objections here:

  • Article content must be discussed in article talk pages, so that other people may express their opinion. But that's not big deal.
  • A more serious issue is that I disagree that this article is "purely geographical". Articles about habitable places, especially towns, are a combination of geography, history, demography, and whats not. A "purely geographical" article would be the article Geography of Požarevac, with the corresponding "purely historical" one being History of Požarevac. While I agree that this article may not be good for category:Dacia, there is nothing formally wrong for it to be monitored by wikiProject Dacia and tagged so in the talk page. Lothar Klaic (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
That is simply not correct. This is exclusively geographical article about one town and it is certainly not an "combination of geography, history, and demography". History and demographics are usually connected to description of geographical localities, but does not change the fact that this is not an historical or demographical article. Furthermore, even if ancient settlement at this locality was connected to Dacians (and this info should be confirmed by some source), there is no continuity between ancient settlement and modern Požarevac and therefore connection between this Wiki article and Dacia Wiki project cannot be established. Furthermore, following your logic, we would place many other geographical articles into completely wrong Wiki projects: just imagine that we place Požarevac article into Wiki projects related to all countries that ruled over this region in history. That kind of approach would make these Wiki projects to be full of unrelated articles and that would certainly cause a total chaos in Wikipedia. PANONIAN 19:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I am baffled. The article has sections "History", "Demographics", etc. So it is certainly a combitation. At the same time I do agree abut absence of continuity. Therefore this particular case is closed. Still, I see no problem in placing Požarevac into many projects wherever there is a direct connection, such as who ruled what. Lothar Klaic (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC).
No it is not combination and even if it is, these are history and demographics of an geographical locality and, as such, they are related to this locality only and since this locality is in Serbia, this article is related to Wiki project Serbia only. If there is separate article about ancient Dacian or Roman locality then such article could be placed into such Wiki projects. PANONIAN 19:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I have already told you that I agreed with you here. Still, FUI, this article is in the Category:Geography of the Roman Empire, so it is also related to its wikiproject. But I am not going to fight for this. I am not that vitally engaged in wikipedia. Happy editing. Lothar Klaic (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I fully agree with Lothar Klaic. Požarevac has an extensive section on history, mentioning Dacians as well among others, hence very relevant to WP:DACIA. Since it is on our scope, our members could expand on that area of the article, using their expertise. Many projects use bots to automatically tag articles using keywords identified as primary topics of concern for the project. In this case "Dacians". If it would lack a history section or if it would not mention the topics "Dacia", "Moesia" etc. covered by WP:DACIA, we would not tag it. But since it does, the tag is more than appropriate. Panonian, I explained you on my talk page in detail the purpose of project tags. WikiProjects like Dacia, Serbia, Romania DO NOT cover only Geography, but History, Economy etc. Please stop this disruptive editing before we end up in a worse conflict. I am asking you friendly.--Codrin.B (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
It is irrelevant whether anybody agree with user who admitted that he is a sockpuppet (yet, we still did not saw who is his sockpuppet master). I suggest that you stop damaging Wikipedia by addition of various articles into completelly wrong categories and Wiki projects. Why you doing this? What is a purpose of such "business"? Also, there is no evidence that Dacians lived here or that this region was really part of Dacia. Do you have any reliable source that can confirm that? Is there any archeological evidence for such claim? PANONIAN 00:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea of who that user is. Acuse me again of such things as sockpuppet master and I promise you this will not end well. Topics like Moesia, Dacia, Dacians, Triballi, Moesi are all well within the scope of WP:DACIA. Are you trying to engage in ethnic cleansing on Wikipedia? Are you serious?! --Codrin.B (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand reasons for your hostile behavior, here. I do not see that I accused you as being a sockpupetmaster. However, User:Lothar Klaic clearly admitted that he is a sockpuppet: [2]. Also, I asked you do you have source that says that Dacians lived in this area. We have no source that supports such claim and you want to include an WP project tag here solely because of dubious "distant connection" with dubious info. Also, what "ethnic cleansing" you speak about? Old Dacians are ethnically closer to modern Serbs than to modern Romanians since both, Dacian and Slavic are Satem languages, while Romanian is Centum and modern Serbs have many Paleo-Balkanic genes (and there is no even evidence that modern Romanians are descendants of Dacians). PANONIAN 00:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

What "ethic cleasing"? Removing tags and categories related to Dacians, the Swabians, WP:ROMANIA etc. All this. Just Serbians everywhere and no one else, be it project, category, unsourced statement whatever. Attack them all. "Clean them up"! Serbian here, make way! And precisely this brand new statement of yours about genetic bullshit theories. This is ethnic cleansing. We are all the same in the Balkans, genetically at least. Who cares if there is a connection between Romanians and Dacians or not? As long as the article mentioned Dacians, sourced or not, it is in the scope of WP:DACIA. Yes, a source has to be added or the unsourced statement could be removed (something I won't advocate, I would rather source it or ask the user who put it there to source it). But like I said, "Triballi", "Moesia" are also in the scope of the project, and those statements are sourced! And above all, the whole article is focused on HISTORY and ARCHAEOLOGY, very little about geography. Just gives us break.--Codrin.B (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I removed large number of articles about places in Hungary and Romania from category "Serbian communities", so perhaps you want to accuse me that I want to ethnically cleanse Serbs? I am removing only those tags and categories that are posted into wrong articles and I will continue to do so wherever I saw them and no matter to which country or ethnic group are they related. Regarding this specific issue, which Wiki rule or policy says that "as long as the article mentioned Dacians, it is in the scope of WP:DACIA"? Can you quote such policy or not? Also, if WP:DACIA claims to cover the "history of Dacians, Getae and Moesi" then, by all means, correct name of that WP should be "Thracians". Furthermore, there is no logic or Wiki rule that say that an article about town in Serbia should be part of every Wiki project related to every country or ethnic group that historically ruled over this region. If we should include this article into Wiki projects only because its text mentions names of some former countries and peoples, then by all means, proper action would be inclusion of this article into some 20 or more Wiki projects related to various former countries such are Ottoman Empire, Habsburg Monarchy, Celts, various Serbian states, etc. Following same logic and same approach, we should also include articles about all settlements in all Balkan countries into all these Wiki projects as well, so if you really advocating this, why you do not categorize articles about all places in Romania under Wiki projects related to Kingdom of Hungary, Habsburg Monarchy, Ottoman Empire, Bulgarian Empire, Avar Khaganate, etc? Can you explain why your interest lies in this article only, and why, among various former states and peoples that ruled/inhabited this area you want to include this article into Wiki project Dacia? PANONIAN 12:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I strongly protest against the idea that having multiple accounst is a stigma. Are you accusing me of edit wars or POV pushing or vote stacking? If not, then I would consider your ostinate calling me "sockpuppet" as a personal insult and kindly ask to cease. Please discuss arguments, not persons. Lothar Klaic (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, you edited this article with two accounts and due to the existing issue of POV dispute over certain things, usage of two accounts might be seen as a disruption, in which you tried to make impression that multiple users are supporting your views. I am quite sure that it is not allowed by Wiki policies. PANONIAN 15:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Point taken. I will discontinue all my "sockpuppets". At the beginning it looked like a good idea to separate my areas of interest. Now that they begin to overlap, I see that troubles are possible. Lothar Klaic (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

As for wikiproject inclusion, only members of a wikiproject may decide what's its scope. You cannot push you opinion down their throat. This is article talk page, to coordinate editing of wikipedia. Anything what helps this efforts is welcome here. I can put here the tag WikiProject:Firefighting, if I can reasonably argue that withing the scope of the project. Once again, the scope of a wikiproject is decided by its members. I see nothing scary or disrupting or ridiculous in putting this page in WP for Kingdom of Hungary, Habsburg Monarchy, Ottoman Empire, Bulgarian Empire, Avar Khaganate, etc, if anyone finds this useful. Lothar Klaic (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

So, you want to say that members of that Wiki project have more right than other users to decide what is in a scope of Wiki projects? I do not think that Wikipedia works in that way (otherwise, please quote Wiki policy that supports your claim). As for inclusion of tags of other Wiki projests, I did not spoke about inclusion of these tags into this article only, but into all articles about all places in all Balkan countries (which does not mean that non-Balkan countries are to be excluded). I am still waiting for reasonable argument why someone would insist that such tag(s) are included in this article only? PANONIAN 15:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I want to say that members of a wikiproject probably have some reasons to do something within ther intended scope, unlike a drive-by editor, because they probably gave it some thought. Precisely for this reason the first I did when our disagreement showed up, I notified the members of the project to join the discussion. (I don't see they are flocking over here, though, so I guess this page of little interest for the project or the project activity is down.) And wikipedia works that way: if there is some consensus and you want to change it, you have to discuss this first. Of course, you have rights to be bold and edit how you like, but be prepared to be objected. All that said, I firmly stand at my opinion: only members of a wikiproject may decide its scope. Wikipedia is not democracy. A Wikiproject is a voluntary union of some people to do some job. Wikiproject tools (banners, etc.) are used by these people to coordinate their work. You may help them, but you may not obstruct their communication within the project. In addition, you cannot tell them "go away from this page: it is not your freaking business to watch it." Lothar Klaic (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
As for your last question ("why...are included in this article only?"), it is of Why did you stop beating your wife kind, i.e., you are making a false presumption, so the question is moot. Please check the facts and narrow down your question. Lothar Klaic (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
As for your issue with "all articles about all places ", I believe it is already answered by our third colleague: It seems that some bot tagged thusly all articles which already have some info about Dacia/Dacians. If you don't like this, please discuss the usage of this bot. Lothar Klaic (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, let cut discussion about distantly related subjects. I am attempting to make compromise here: I created new article named Margus (city) and moved disputed tag there. I believe it is a fair compromise. PANONIAN 21:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
An reasonable solution. The next step would be to link the page from some related articles, so that more people find it and possibly expand. I linked it from Moesia. Any other pages? Such as List of ancient cities in Thrace and Dacia? Lothar Klaic (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Požarevac/Archive_1&oldid=1137095249"