User talk:Duja/Archive 8

; Archives
Jun '04 – Mar 2006; Mar – May 2006; May – Oct 2006; Oct – Nov 2006;	Nov – Dec 2006; Jan – Mar 2007; Mar – Jul 2007; Jul – Aug 2007; Sep – Nov 2007;

srbosjek article

I notice you deleted srbosjek article. Your explanation was that references were not good enough. If you look at the original deletion page, which deleted article that was there for years, you will notice that it was proposed for deletion by someone who translated the article to german, and then it was deleted on german wiki, after which he proposed the removal here due to lack of sources.

However, even he later find sources in spiegel, and a strong majority of people were against deletion. The article was deleted nevertheless. The problem seems to be in lack of supposed sources. I have added sources from ICTY, in which the knife is referred to as srbosjek, and under this name the knife is well known in Yugoslavia, in the 90s it was mentioned quite often, as you might know.

So the only issue seems to be the references. After doing some research, I have found that there is extensive coverage of the issue in books by dr Nikola Nikolic, holocaust survivor from Jasenovac, a Croat and medical doctor - his book is from 1948, in book by respected historian dr Mladen Colic (his full name is Mladenko Colic, he is one of the foremost authorities about ustasha military, a titoist, works at Belgrade Vojnoistorijski institut, and his book is often used in academic teaching at Zagreb university) from 1973, and in book by Vladimir Dedijer from 1986 or so. There are also some mentions in the english books by foreign (out of ex-yu) authors in the 80s. In the books I mentioned, the curved knife is described, as well as its origin, Vladimir Dedijer mentiones one being captured by the partisans. He also includes the account of 50 killing methods by Nikola Nikolic in his book. The knife was an exponate at Zagreb city museum, and the photo of the knife was one of the most memorable museum exibits in the Jasenovac museum in 80s and Titoist era. So, that should be enough of reliable information to the existence and use of such a knife, widely known as srbosjek as you are probably aware (the name is used at ICTY, in press in 90s, it was translated to english as cutthroat or something like that).

I understand that your concern is weather existence of such a knife is product of Milosevic era propaganda, however, it should be clear to any honest person that the references given prove beyond doubt that the knife was described well before he was in power, that respected people, survivors and such described the knife and its use, and although ustasha cruelty is certainly hard to believe, it is nevertheless true and as you can see, well sourced.

For your convenience, I here list the books: Jasenovački logor smrti - dr Nikola Nikolić, 1948 TAKOZVANA NEZAVISNA DRŽAVA HRVATSKA, dr Mladen Colic, Deltapres, Beograd 1973, Vatikan i Jasenovac, Vladimir Dedijer, Dokumenti (Beograd: “Rad”, 1987) the last book is also translated to english

Here is the part of the last book, which mentions the knife, and is in the part of the book scanned by google, so you can easily look it up: [[1]] In English, there is a book by Howard Blum, Published in 1977 by Quadrangle/New York Times Book Co. ISBN 0812906071, which also mentiones the knife, and the part that mentiones it is also available from google books [[2]]

Part of book by Nikola Nikolic are available online at jasenovac-info site. For instance http://www.jasenovac-info.com/cd/biblioteka/vecni_pomen/atanasije_en.html Notice the word "cutthroats" there. More parts of the book might be available online in Serbo-Croatian if you google it.

Finaly, the photo and the sketch are available online from archive of Republika Srpska official site (most exibits from the old jasenovac museum were removed to Republika Srpska during the 90s wars)

http://www.arhivrs.org/jasenovac6.asp

the last two pictures of the srbosjek (exibit at Jasenovac museum, which I remember personally seing some 20 years ago, and also the sketch of the srbosjek knife).

You can notice that on the sketch, there is a writting "Grawiso" on the knife. The knife was produced by Solingen factory, which exist even today [[3]], and produces various knives.

Here is a more extensive part of the book by Howard Blum:

http://www.jasenovac-info.com/cd/biblioteka/pavelicpapers/artukovic/aa0006.html

Also check out this discussion from the Serbian wikipedia: [[4]]

Thus, please do not remove the page, undelete it and do not censor this article which was obviously deleted by mistake (article was there for several years until deletion in January). Hvarako 20:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbosjek (and WP:CSD#G4). In short: existence of the knife is fairly undeniable, as the photos demonstrate; how much it was used, how it was really called, and pretty much everything else surrounding it cannot be verified using reliable sources. The sources you just provided say pretty much the same: two photos from arhivrs.org, and a mention in Dedijer's book which describes how it looked like (which is already provided by the photo); the ICTY witnessing stories you referred to earlier aren't reliable sources. The knife's photo is in the Jasenovac concentration camp article, it already depicts it and provides the information to the reader on the horrible killing in the camp. I doubt that sources exist which would prove anything beyond that, which would make it worthy of expansion: mere existence of something does not warrant a separate article. Discussion on Serbian wiki pretty much revolves around the same: yes, it existed, and it was fairly obvious what it was used for. Its existence is also mentioned by Bulajić [5], and Blum. And that's it.

The venue I recommend is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Go ahead there and present your sources, and it will be debated whether to allow recreation. If you wish, I can fulfill the deletion review nomination for you. Duja► 07:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rivers

Thank you for your message. There is however a misunderstanding, at least as far as the river template is concerned. I am not new to Wikipedia. What is wrong is the way the instructions are written. Any template should have instructions on how the template should be used. This is not the case for the river template. It is even unclear on how to include the various options on the template. There are general instructions for the Wikiriver project. Nothing of the sort is written there. I agree with your comments but something must be done to make things clear. I was not able to find anything in the two articles you send me to indicating that the tag is intended for the talk page.

I am not saying that you are not right. But if you look at these issues, please make the appropriate mentions in the page of the template. With the present instructions, anybody can understand that the template should be included in the main article. This type of errors may reoccur.Afil 14:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article

See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bunjeva%C4%8Dke_novine&action=edit I do not think that this article was deleted with good reason. Can you undelete it? PANONIAN 15:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but please spare a few sentences there: in talk:Bunjevačke novine, few good reasons are raised. Otherwise, a case could be made for merging (i.e. redirecting) it into Bunjevac language. Duja► 06:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources:

http://www.bunjevci.org.yu/site/bunjevacke-novine/

http://influenca.neobee.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7351

http://www.suboticke.net/arhiva/broj%206/strane/od%20petka%20do%20petka.htm

http://www.nuns.org.yu/edukacija/view.jsp?articleId=3958

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/rs-nm.html#bun

"Final" touches

Now that I've actually managed to get the fortress article mostly done, Firefox crashing in the middle of several fairly major edits and all, I still have a few quick questions before I stick it in mainspace and be done with it, at least until I get the urge to do more researching.

In the article itself, there are 4 or 5 questions left, any ideas about any of them?
Should "crkva" be capitalized in "Blagoveštenjska crkva", or is it not considered part of the name/a proper noun?
Did I get the citation right for the page you've been translating on the talk page (ljubomir)? (Any chance of more of that being translated, or is the rest too full of fluff to be terribly useful?)
For the fortress map, since I don't think I have anything that can save as .svg if I edit it myself, could you add an "A" somewhere in the big town, and a "B" in the small town? (Yeah, it's a bit backwards, but the thumbnail text ends up looking bad the other way around, and it's not like it's that big a deal anyhow.) Any chance of a slightly bluer Jezava and darker pale grey, too? For all I know, it's just my screen, but right now, the Jezava looks more like a pale grey with a pinch of blue, than a pale blue, and the pale grey's nearly impossible to tell apart from the white.

Thanks Duja! -Bbik^★ 20:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do.
"crkva" isn't capitalized according to Serbian rules anyway, so if you plan to leave it untranslated, lowercase will be better.
Will do.
Inkscape is a fine SVG editor. I've used it to edit the existing picture (the original is in CorelDraw) and I'll re-upload it. Maybe you'll need a Ctrl+R to purge the cache. Duja► 07:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.
The Turks took 50,000 men, women and children during that raid, but Smederevo was well-lead by Thomas Kantakouzenos. Despite having only 6,000 men, compared to the Ottomans 20,000, the city withstood.
- These numbers seem insanely high to me, is it just me, or is it another case of embellishment?
  - Why "insanely high"? Looks perfectly plausible to me.
    - Perhaps calling them high wasn't quite what I meant. I suppose each number on its own is ok, but all three in a single paragraph just seems like a huge difference. From 50,000 down to only 6,000? Commoners versus fighters, I guess it's possible, but still drastic. But then, I'm totally out of my league when it comes to numbers.
- Actually, have you ever heard the cannonades :-)? I have.
  - Heh, nope, that I haven't, unless movies count. :p I imagine that's a good thing, too, though I've heard it left some impressive-looking building skeletons.
Ok. Between someone else mentioning that only the first word of song titles is capitalized, and you not capitalizing it when you explained -e vs -ska, that's what I was guessing anyhow, but confirmation is a nice thing.
I assume no comment/complaint = yes?
Thanks again. And another fun toy! I think I'll have to hold off on getting/playing with that one until I take care of some other stuff, though, silly paperwork and deadlines. -Bbik^★ 04:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re 1): it seems perfectly sensible that Turks took 50,000 prisoners across entire Serbia, and that 20,000:6,000 was the ratio only in siege of Smederevo. Duja► 06:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it's updated now, though you just saw it with minor differences anyhow. And I was already thinking that was long... -Bbik^★ 16:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not revert without discussion Duja

Do not revert without discussion Duja, these "argumentative statements" are pure fact: the Chetniks were genocidal and they killed more than the partisans, etc... I did not state exact numbers, they ARE in dispute, but these naked facts are not! DIREKTOR 16:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Talk:Bleiburg massacre. Duja► 07:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belgrade

Hi Duja. This page has been under review for some time. At this point people feel it should be removed FA because there are significant issues with the prose. But I don't like doing that if people are working on an article, as you are. What are your plans with the article? Would you be upset if it was removed, to be worked on later and brought back through FAC? Marskell 06:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Some time ago you helped in putting order into the list of rivers in Romania. I had originally made separate lists for the various letters of the alphabet. You graciously put them all together. Most of the list is tranlated. However the file is over 220 kilobytes and keeps growing. It becomes difficult to handle. Do you have any suggestions on what should be done. I have no idea except reverting to partial alphabetic lists. Thanks in advance for your help. Afil 02:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My contributions to English Bridge Union

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to English Bridge Union. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. . Thank you. Duja► 15:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I am the Communications Officer for this website, and I am passing the information onto Wikipedia for everybody to view. I have changed it back to what I created, with editing. Please let me know if you disagree or you want me to email the copyright people? Matt - London 15:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied at User_talk:Matt-rex) Duja► 15:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Mihaljevic

This article is about an unsolved murder that is currently getting a lot of attention in Ohio. New leads are coming up every day and should be posted for others to view in hopes that it can be solved. If it remains protected, this information cannot be added to the page in a timely manner. I understand you are uncomfortable with naming suspects, although it has already been reported in the media, can be found doing a simple google search, and has precident on wiki. But by keeping others from adding new information you may be impeding the solution to this cold case.

AfD for Amy Mihaljevic

Duva, could you please add {{subst:afd1}} to the top of the page? The article has been nominated for deletion. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the AFD tag. I hope you do not see a problem with this, but I felt that it needed to be properly AFD tagged despite the current protection. - TexasAndroid 16:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belgrade review

Any more opinions on anything? And what should be done about the COAs which Avala readded? The ones I randomly clicked say PD and specify Serbian copyright law this time, but I'm confused how some can be PD (most or all for this article) while others are fair use (the ones removed from Serbia). And there's still the issue of the sister cities ones, too, which are a mishmash. -Bbik^★ 02:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

featured lists

Ne vidim u cemu je problem sa listom na strani Beograda. Opstine kao drzavni organi prema zakonu ne mogu da zadrzavaju autorska prava na opstinske simbole kao ni na bilo koji materijal.

A sto se tice dekoracije. Mnoge slicne liste koje su do sada izabrane poseduju i grbove ili zastave u jos manjem formatu.

Ili lokaciju sto se moze videti na mapi koja se srecom jos uvek nalazi u clanku o Beogradu.

...

Samim tim mislim da Beograd kao izabran clanak mora imati i ceo sadrzaj dostojan tog statusa sto znaci i listu u klasi izabranih. Avala 14:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL, ali i dalje nisam siguran za grbove:

Vrlo je verovatno da je Heraldičko društvo "Beli Orao" ili neki umetnik(ci) autor tih grbova, a ne opština.
Nisam siguran da "Opstine kao drzavni organi prema zakonu ne mogu da zadrzavaju autorska prava na opstinske simbole". Možda ne autorska prava, ali PD bi značio da svako ima pravo da sa tim simbolima radi šta mu je volja, što ne verujem da je slučaj. Vidi {{insignia}}
Što se tiče WP:WIAFL, članak Belgrade ipak nije lista. Ne bih se toliko bunio da grbovi stoje u zasebnom List of Belgrade municipalities; u glavnom članku, em se ne vidi ni šta predstavljaju, em i takvi vizuelno smetaju.
Sad sam pogledao 10-tak sličnih FA i nisam našao nijednu sličnu listu; to ne dokazuje ništa samo po sebi.

Što nisi tu diskusiju nastavio na Talk:Belgrade? Nisam ja jedini kojem je to smetalo. [6]. Duja► 14:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Can I be a nuisance and ask for a summary? Obviously a debate about whether to include COAs, and looks like some discussion about whether the article's a list or an article, but what's that have to do with my original question on the review page? (Ok, so I'm mostly just curious about that link, so it goes. And about why US state flag descriptions are in English and Serbian, of all things, but that's very beside the point.) -Bbik^★ 17:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apart from the stuff already pointed out at Talk:Belgrade Avala argued that featured lists (WP:WIAFL) do have images, while I said that the article is not a list, and repeated my opinion that they pose a visual clutter. As for the legal issues you raised in the FAR, we don't know. Avala argued that they're PD (as in {{PD-SerbiaGov}}) which I'm suspiciuos about, as they're created by artists other than municipalities, and their usage is likely restricted as in {{insignia}}.Duja► 07:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing brings up two questions in my mind, though they're only partially related to the COA debate. I'm not so sure that this is really the place for it, but maybe you know an answer I don't, to save me from asking really silly questions somewhere else.

The first, should the Serbian government be contacted to clarify what is or isn't included under that clause? Would they respond if they were, or is it not worth it?

The second, what's the point of {{insignia}} anyhow? Sure, to say that an image's use is restricted in some fashion, but how? Does it make it fair use only? Only in certain situations? Not even fair use? "Restricted" could mean so many different things. Not to mention, how is the restriction independent of copyright status? If anything, I'd think it would be in addition to the copyright status -- should the image be used based on the copyright status, or the restricted status? That template seems to me to be so non-specific as to be useless anyhow. Or am I just missing something? -Bbik^★ 10:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first: the Serbian government should probably be contacted for clarification; however, we have reason to believe it's pretty hopeless. You might want to check Talk:Flag of Serbia#Flag of the People and Flag of the State; to quote Nikola from there "I am afraid that if we do that, we would either a) not get an answer, b) get an answer from a secretary who looked up one of websites we already discuss, or c) get four different answers from three institutions we talk to." :-(. Even so, the municipality insignia aren't the government's business, but of local authorities.

The second, I agree that {{insignia}} has little value; basically, use of the country and subdivision symbols are often restricted in the sense that 1) they must be treated with respect and not defaced 2) must not be used so as to misrepresent the CoA owner's endorsement of the product or process, etc. IOW, even if the image is public-domain, it must not be tampered with. That has little to do with the current debate, though; I still maintain that, while using CoAs in the list would likely not pose any copyright issues, their aesthetic value is low. Duja► 08:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo: country vote

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

It's a minor, minor point, but I'd fed up to back teeth of arguing the point that we use Kosovo instead of Kosovan or Kosovar in Wikipedia as NPOV: this discussion is about 'Kosovo Elections' as opposed to 'Kosovar elections' or 'Kosovan elections' Template talk:Serbian local elections and a vote at Talk:Kosovo#Kosovo:_terminology. Perhaps you have no interest, in which case sorry to bother you! DSuser 14:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oooops

jesam li blesav, bio sam SIGURAN da sam to negdje procitao!

nadam se da nisi izgubio good faith u mene. :) --VKokielov 21:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

На какому-то форуме, можно :-) ? Этимология здесь несомнительня (?): слово босна старшее как славянская миграция, и вероятно от илирского bosona [7]. Здесь, стр. 330 можно найти что-то о "bare foot" сравнению, но это начает из английскых жолтых газет.

(I know my Russian is bad, and I had to lean on online dictionaries, but I had to try to show some courtesy :-) ). Duja► 08:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read it anywhere; it came from my diseased imagination, after the same manner as everything that stands in my way in this life. --VKokielov 23:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection on Amy Mihaljevic

Are you OK with removing the protection? The AFD appears to me to be headed towards a No Consensous or Keep verdict, so we need to decdide what to do going forward. The article has the attention of multiple admins now, so my opinion is to unprotect it, and to keep a close eye on it. If the suspect list is returned, remove it, and start handing out BLP violation blocks. User:JamesRenner is now well aware that multiple admins consider this list to be a violation, and so really has no excuse for restoring the list. Does that sound reasonable? One way or another, the article cannot remain protected forever. - TexasAndroid 15:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly yes; I got involved in the matter only as a passer-by, trying to enforce the BLP (and arguably started the entire wikidrama). I watched the AfD but didn't feel inclined to comment on it, as I know little about the case notability. Glad to see it out of my hands :-). Duja► 15:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I've unprotected it. Now we get to see what happens next. Hopefully User:JamesRenner realizes that the list is simply not welcome. We shall see. - TexasAndroid 15:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zašto ste izbrisali sliku sa River_Lim članka ?

Ja sam ostavio na tom članku jednu moju sliku reke Lima kako protiče kroz Prijepolje,i vi ste je yamenili drugom,ne razumem...Tražim objašnjenje. Bx228 11:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zato što su obe slike bile iz Prijepolja, i prikazivale sličan pejsaž, samo u drugo doba godine. Našao sam drugu, na kojoj je prikazano ušće, i stavio umjesto prve. Pa nećemo valjda za rijeku od 220 km staviti sve slike s jednog mjesta? Duja► 11:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]