User talk:Методије

Welcome!

Hello, Методије, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! // laughing man 00:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gajevica

It's not only what I think, there may be others too. Give me time to read the Gaj article and we'll see if it covers everything. If not I am sure we can make additions to it. Shall we leave it for 24 hours before redirecting? Evlekis 04:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much in favour of the revert. Obviously, the Gaj page doesn't give the Macedonian description but then another page does. I am in favour, is it worth contacting anyone else? Evlekis 19:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are, no objection this time. Thanks for being patient. Evlekis 19:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serbs

Ovo ti je za tvoju Iransku teoriju u articlu o Srbima. Nigde uopste nema naucnog dokaza o poticanju Srba od ikakvog Iranskog naroda. Ta iranska teorija nije zasnovata na nikakvim cinjenicama. Vecinom pocinje sa Hrvatskim nacionalistima iz proslog vjeka, koji su tvrdili da su Hrvati Iranski Arieni, a sa tim i Srbi. Zato Srpska istorija pocinje u 7 vjeku, a prije toga prazno. Samo kad provjeris Genetski sastav Srpskog naroda, nikakve razlike nema izmedju nas ili Cheha, Engleza, Skandinavaca ili drugih Evropskih naroda.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ls1983lsls (talk • contribs)

It's not "my" theory, it's bullshit, but please don't delete whole sections without saying anything or giving a reason.--Methodius 15:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re; Map

Your first request shall be fulfilled.

The latter reason will not because:
a) I do not see the point in it
b) not quite in a position to draw it now

Cheers! --PaxEquilibrium 16:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: History

Of course, DPS only needed it to gain independence. While they were fighting for independence, anything that's bad for Serbia or the Serbs was good for Montenegro.

But the fact that they're now standing for themselves in front of Milo also contributes to this.

Milo Djukanovic is and was always the greatest problem of Montenegro ever, however. --PaxEquilibrium 13:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better list them. I believe there were around 150,000 Serbs back then. Today there are 130,000 or as low as 120,000 today (but the census was conducted in 2002). It wouldn't be proper to simple exclude them all. --PaxEquilibrium 20:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just put "ca 150,000", which is the UN estimate. :) --PaxEquilibrium 22:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princedom of Montenegro

Methodus, AFAIK "Princedom" is more used than "Principality" in English.

But the most important thing is that it's more accurate. I'm planning to make an article "Principality of Montenegro", or just keep it as a part of the Principality of Zeta, but "Princedom" does not refer to the Medieval realm (like "Principality"), but to the 1852-1910 Montenegrin secular state. --PaxEquilibrium 08:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWII infobox

See the WWII talk page, some people decided to use the top paragraphs of the Axis and Allies articles to determine who to include in the infobox. The Ally article briefly mentions Romania, Italy and Bulgaria to demonstrate the shifting alliances of WWII (those nations joined the Allies in 1945, near the end of the war). Your input is welcome. Oberiko 12:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Principality of Montenegro" is not the same thing as "Princedom of Montenegro"... --PaxEquilibrium 20:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox City Serbia4

If you are against it's deletion, then why don't you have your say here ?

DPS

Do not generalize. For example, I would gladly support Milo Djukanovic's DPS over Momir Bulatovic's branch in 1998. And despite the fact that I think Milo won the 1997-1998 election not fairly, I'm very glad he was elected. However it is after 2001 that SNP became unarguably the better choice.

Always pick the lesser evil. --PaxEquilibrium 13:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's lesser evil after 2001. Despite the fact that I remember Predrag Bulatovic said in an interview in 1998 how "Momir Bulatovic was a good man", I think he's much better than Milo Djukanovic.

Regardless, now no Montenegrin politician whatsoever can match up with Nebojsa Medojevic, who is the future - and not the past. --PaxEquilibrium 14:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Momir Bulatovic might've seemed a better man. E.g. Momir condemned the hand-over of 200 Bosnian Moslem refugees to the Bosnian Serb Army, that was illegally conducted by Milo Djukanovic without the Party's (or the Parliament's) approval (including the closure of the Tivat prison and massacre of 350 Croatian soldiers in there) and in the fact that Momir Bulatovic led the moderate line, while Milo Djukanovic contributed to the extremist branch - but one thing remains: Milo Djukanovic publicly and officially distanced from Slobodan Milosevic in every single imaginable way. Momir Bulatovic remains to recognize Milosevic, evend in Slobodan's death.

What are you referring to by "Serbian issue"?

The next census in Montenegro will not be conducted before 2013, as per the Law.

The Sarajevo authorities don't want to conduct a census because they do not recognize the 1990s ethnic cleansing, and thus they don't recognize that, for example, Serbs form the majority of the population of eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina. It's very controversial when will they do it (law required them to do in 2001, and latest to 2006; look which year is this).

Conclude for yourself. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 14:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if the 1991 census is so old, we can always refer to the UN 1996 population census as earliest to-date. ;)

No I didn't. Just conclude that for yourself. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 15:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not understand why did you make that controversial note on Nebojsa Medojevic, though. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 18:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian language

I just took that info from Encyclopedia Britannica. --PaxEquilibrium 20:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that it's right on this one. --PaxEquilibrium 20:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Montenegro the word "Uvodnicar" is used, and it's in no way a part of the Serbian standard today (but is in Croatian). "Uvodnik" is in literary Serbian. --PaxEquilibrium 12:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ijekavica is a standard component of the Serbian language - however those words are not included in the standard Serbian form. One other good example is the word "Povijest", used in Podrinje and Old Montenegro (used for "History") - which in Serbian means solely "Short story". --PaxEquilibrium 15:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did mention Podrinje. :) BTW hisorically, the Croatian months were used by the Serbs - but now those months have become explicitly "Croatian". --PaxEquilibrium 15:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I define "Serbian" the language which is litterary (knizevni jezik); and yeah; 40% of Serbs and Montenegrins do not speak the litterary Serbian language, and fact is that many of them speak a language closer to litterary Croatian. --PaxEquilibrium 16:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How come? 40% of Serbs and Montenegrins say that they speak the Serbian language - but their language is AFAIK closer to the Croatian standard, rather than Serbian.

How did you misunderstand me? --PaxEquilibrium 20:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, but 135,000-144,000 Montenegrins do not consider their language Serbian, but Montenegrin rather.

Anyway, I am solely referring to written standards. 100,000,000 Montenegrins can write that they speak "Montenegrin language", however it will not change that their language is much closer to Serbian, or Croatian for that matter - because without a written, encoded, formed and recognized standard - a language doesn't exist. It is such that I think that the Bosnian language exists because it, unlike Montenegro, does have a written standard. So how people call their language isn't really relative in this case... the majority of Serbia might decide to call their language "Shington language" - but without a written standard the language they speak will be much closer, or identical, to Serbian. --PaxEquilibrium 22:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, mate; you're taking Wikipedia far too hearted.

Serbian, I guess... then again it depends (could call it "Serbo-Croatian"). ;) --PaxEquilibrium 22:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republika Srpska

It was an oversized portion of humble pie :P

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 22:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bosilegrad

Why do you change the source? Why do you add unsourced information and remove sourced one? Any reasons? --Laveol 09:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC) sorry, forgot to sign --Laveol 09:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC) I summarised the previous edits as well. The primary thing was that you changed the source and you have Panonian now confirming this. The article is on the Bulgarian UN domain, so why do you state it is Bulgarian? Do you see it written anywhere. It says: " UNITED NATIONS[reply]

 Distr. GENERAL
   A/49/455
29 September 1994
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Forty-ninth session
Agenda item 100 (c)"

"HUMAN RIGHTS QUESTIONS: HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATIONS AND REPORTS

   OF SPECIAL RAPPORTEURS AND REPRESENTATIVES"

--Laveol 10:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concern about your username

Hello, Методије, and welcome to Wikipedia.

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as asking for a "third opinion", or requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the guidelines there.

Let me reassure you that my writing here means I don't think your username is grossly, blatantly, or obviously inappropriate; such names get reported straight to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or blocked on sight. This is more a case where opinions might differ, and it would be good to reach some consensus — either here or at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. So I look forward to a friendly discussion, and to enjoying your continued participation on Wikipedia. Thank you again! --Nlu (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 23:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I got that feeling.--Methodius 23:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I'm not an administrator. --PaxEquilibrium 12:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All problems you should report to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. --PaxEquilibrium 20:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gligan (talk · contribs)

About this - I don't think he was trolling or stirring anything up - just a Good Faith edit as he is Bulgarian.

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 23:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I know, just I don't think it's fair accusing him of trying to make a point. yes, it needed to be removed on balance, but it was still good faith. As for the Bosilegrad discussion, he is clearly the rational one. But that rarely counts for anything in life. :P

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 23:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:DrazamWW2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DrazamWW2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Iceflow

(note: this message was originally posted in error on your userpage. Apologies for the mistake. Thor Malmjursson 18:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Re: Serbia (Possible duplicate) Thanks Methodius. The cursory glance got me where Serbia calls itself the Republic of Serbia, and Republika Ssrpska, calls in English "The Serb Republic". Thats what confused me. Thanks for the help and cheers for getting in touch. Thor Malmjursson 23:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia in Serbia article

Why do you consider this rubish?It's trivia, and the name itself suggests it's a number of semi-educative and semi-interesting facts. I don't think it should be deleted, it exists in countless other articles, so please can you explain your attitude towards it? --Velimir85 22:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Football leagues of BiH

I have to object to your Template:Football leagues of BiH. All other football leagues on Wikipedia have separate templates for their top league. Your template not only includes different levels in the nation's football pyramid, but seems to make no distinction between them. Finally, it's much too large and not very useful (no point in including "village teams" in the same list as semi-pro or pro teams). --Thewanderer 17:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serbs of Dubrovnik

You reverted the article while I was adding reasons for original change. Pls look now. iruka 02:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Methodus, both you & As286 keep reverting my edits w/o explanation. Pls address each point directly. Thanks for your understanding. iruka 11:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Serbia

Hello, Metodije, I invite you to join the WikiProject Serbia. --Andrija 13:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MaGioZal

See User_talk:MaGioZal.

Evade going into conflicts with him, he is known in Wikipedia for being highly controversial, as most (read: all) of his edits deal with war crimes committed by Serbs, Greater Serbia, and the evil of Serbs. --PaxEquilibrium 15:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have to do far more to get banned. ;)

Even this guy, against all odds, isn't banned (and shouldn't've been).

BTW he might be one-sided & POV-pushing, but he hasn't made any severe violation at all (enough to justify a block). --PaxEquilibrium 21:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the links of the insults. --PaxEquilibrium 21:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that might violate WP:CIVIL - but isn't very insulting at all... --PaxEquilibrium 22:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't see any such scale insults (not that he called anyone a "Chetniks" or...). --PaxEquilibrium 23:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

! I'm sorry I didn't see that. That's asking for a 48h block (he was block for less time) immediately. Report his behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. --PaxEquilibrium 23:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use

I just wanted to point out that grounds on why I removed the image from the talk page was per Fair Use policy (See #8). I left his bullshit text this time, but just commented out the image, he has no ground whatsoever to stand on to re-add the image. I was also going to point out who you are dealing with, but it seems you have already been informed. // laughing man 19:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BiH

Of course, and I am proud, to be obsessed with Bosnia. It is my nation. I am not like many who are not even Bosnian and support a divided Bosnia. Neither am I like those who live in RS and try to divide Bosnia. Check PaxEquilibrium's discussion. RS cannot gets it independence from BiH. I'll be honest I do not support the RS. WHY would I support the RS after all that happened in BiH??? Some Serbs do not support the RS. I am for a united BiH. However, I acknowledge its existence. Vseferović 23:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you wasting time writing this to me. I do not care about what you think about BiH, RS, or your uncle Jimmy. Let's work together on articles. I think you need politics forum if you want to say RS is bad and is to be destroyed. Say to someone who cares.--Methodius 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I am trying to say is that not all the flags are not needed. The flag of Bosnia is needed since it is the wiki standard. Each country's football template has that country's flag. These few days have gotten out of hand. I don't see how you can compare (n the same level) the flag of BiH with the entity flags? That is my question. Vseferović 03:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For national league, national flag. For FBiH league, FBiH flag. For RS league, RS flag. Where is comaprison? Where is problem? Specially since it says "first tier national league" and "second tier regional league" for different competitions.--Methodius 10:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7th Muslim Brigade

Sorry, not sure what should be done :( Nikola 17:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

I'm not really making any cases, just IMHO a trivia section can stand in articles about smaller countries, and unfortunately Serbia is one of them. It gives an average reader some interesting info which could help him remember Serbia, and not just plain overview of GDP and capital city, and such. But I do agree it's not a necessity. Cheers,--Velimir85 17:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, trivia sections should be integrated with other parts of the article when they grow long enough, see how I did it. Most oftenly, they do contain some useful information. Nikola 04:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knin

[1]

Can you help. There is a person deleting a section in Knin about an important monument.

Map

File:Bosnia-ethnic-map.jpg

Map from 1981

File:BH1991.jpg

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

Since you commented my map long ago, how about this one? It's from 1991 (the census, just before the war). --PaxEquilibrium 23:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the right is the map from 1981. It's not my creation though, it was granted to me by the Archive of the state. I'm right now collecting data to draw the 1961 map... --PaxEquilibrium 00:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA nomination

I have been nominated to be an admin. If you support me, please indicate so on the RFA page. Thank you.

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 23:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Despot Djuradj lik s novca.JPG

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Despot Djuradj lik s novca.JPG

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Grb bosilegrad.png)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of File:DrazamWW2.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:DrazamWW2.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

user Циле четник claims to be the author of this photo, but it is very suspicious since the photo was taken during WWII

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:File:DrazamWW2.jpg|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grb bosilegrad.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Grb bosilegrad.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Football leagues of BiH

A tag has been placed on Template:Football leagues of BiH requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]