User talk:Rjecina/Archive 2

Turkey

Hey;Turkey Dont have any criss ok?Some stupit(islamic) humans wanna use Headcraft in School and in Office,Its all criss accordingly 19 milion Turks joined to boycot in Istanbul,Izmir,Ankara,Sivas etc...So Turkey isnt Islamic state,We will secular and in 2007 we dont have any political criss,In 22 july 2007 we have parlamento selection,Thinking its criss?Be faire Turkey dont have militry regime,and dont add 2007 date in EU enlargment thanx 4 read.AegeanFighter

ıts enaugh,u dont understeng anythink excuse me but u must learn news first.Look we will reject to eu in 2010 we have selection and only %42 of turkish population back to EU,%54 dont wanna join.Only islamist or foolish Turks wanna join,But secular turks(like us) dont wanna join anymore

do u have more words for Turkey?Go and learn news and this link is realy unfaire Turkish womens arnt use headcraft only %6,5 use,This link(number 9 in enlergement EU) must be isnt there!!! And NATO is Best in world,Turkey in Nato since 1952 and we didnt lose anythink,Strong army=democrasi=high HD

Serbian involvement in wars in Croatia and Bosnia

Hi! I'm writing to you here to try to avoid an edit war on the issue of Serbia's involvement in the wars in Croatia and Bosnia in the Serbia article. It is certainly and issue that should be covered by the article and I don't agree with user:PANONIAN in that it was SFRY which was involved and therefore it should not be mentioned in the article. I believe that as the inheritor of SFRY (which the recent ICJ case is an example of, since there the case was originally brought by Bosnia against SFRY and then transferred to Serbia) the involvement of SFRY in these wars should be covered in the article. However, I do feel that in doing this it is crucial to maintain NPOV, avoid OR and use reputable and good references for all statements. Anything below these standards will inevitably result in an edit war. I don't think that the text you have proposed lives up to these standards. That being said, I'd be more than willing to work with you in improving the current text. Cheers Osli73 22:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Serbia

I have a feeling the issue is more in perspective and phrasing than in understanding. The version you wrote in the article makes it sound like Serbia, and only Serbia, was responsible for the problems. And while they were part (perhaps even a large part), they were not all. Panonian sounds like he doesn't want to include specifics mostly because then it starts seriously overlapping with the article on the history of Yugoslavia, rather than sticking to the history of Serbia. Whether it is also an attempt to cover up Serbia's responsibility, or not, I don't know. I can see the good points (and bad) for both of your sides.

It also sounds like both of you are very stubborn, which is causing problems with reaching any sort of compromise. Though, hopefully it's getting somewhere now -- if nothing else, it looks like there's some discussion starting, rather than calling each other wrong and repeatedly reverting the article.

For my part, I do think there should be more specifics about what actually happened (which is, essentially, what you're advocating), but I also think it needs to be made clear that Serbia was not the only country involved, even if Serbians were the majority in the JNA (which, I think, is what Panonian is advocating). However, I do not want to get involved into too many details; I simply don't know enough about it all. I'm more than willing to help with phrasing or other grammatical things like that, but I don't have the time to do that for every suggestion one of you makes. So, until you two reach some sort of consensus on what should or shouldn't be included, I'm going to stay more or less out of it.

Hopefully that helps clear things up a bit, and my apologies if I've totally misunderstood either of your intentions or opinions. -Bbik 20:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During break-up of Yugoslavia the position of the Serbian government was that any region of the other republics in which Serbs were a majority had to be be annexed to Serbia (or new Yugoslavia). On the other hand, in regions region of Serbia where another nation was in the majority, those regions had to stay inside Serbia on the grounds that they were part of Serbia's historical territory (Kosovo). This Serbia position has created 7 war years.

During Croatian War of Independence Serb forces which has wanted to create border on line Virovitica - Karlobag [1]has been first stoped and then defeated in 1995. War in Bosnia and Herzegovina has finished much better for Serbia because Serb soldiers which has recieved wages and other help from home country has taken half of state. During this conquest Serb forces has make genocide and other similar crimes for which Republika Srpska (name of territory taken by Serbs during war) has been declared guilty[2]. Serbia on other side has been declared guilty on International Court of Justice for not stoping this crimes [3]. Serbia home territory has been peacefull in time of this wars although population has been living in poorer and poorer situation. Reasons for that we can find in UN sanctions from 1992 because of Serbia war of agression against Bosnia and Herzegovina [[4]]. Second reason for Serbia poor economy situation has been need to finance soldiers in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Do you actually believe that text is neutral and belongs, as such, at the History of Serbia article? --PaxEquilibrium 15:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that doesn't have much to do with it. It wasn't self-determination dual standards, but standard legal practice. Belgrade (I use that, because Serbia is just one of the many Yugoslavian republics) always sticked that the Constitution and various Laws must be respected. Such is the reason they applied for the wars in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia - and Kosovo. It was no dual standard. There is no doubt Serbian nationalism had an important part in it to utilize the possibilities to better the Serbs generally in Yugoslavia, but it was also not as POVly as you presented.

We could also claim that Croatia was using double standards, because it called for self-determination to secede from Yugoslavia in 1991 - but it itself didn't allow secession of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, calling upon territorial integrity. Or what about Bosnia and Herzegovina when the Serbs and Croats respectively decided to leave the state (or the Muslims in West Bosnia)? Macedonia also wanted and gained independence - but wouldn't let the Illiridan Albanians in the northwest go (although this is a very bad example, because Macedonia seceded perfectly peacefully and in every way legally).

I do not - but it is the Serbian Republic that committed the Srebrenica genocide (its armies), and not the Republic of Serbia.

The thing might be different for Croatia - Croatia was an independent and internationally recognized state. In 1993 Bosnia and Herzegovina was too an independent country. However Serbia was just a republic in SFRY. In a way, yes. Serbia and Montenegro conducted an inter-boundary aggression on their fellow-republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina through supporting the Federal attempt to stop BH from seceding in 1999. But even some reservists came from Macedonia, so Macedonia also attacked it in a way.

Also I refuse to admit that Croatia "attacked" Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1993, because there was no outright invasion - it just influenced the already existing Croatian Community of Herzeg-Bosnia.

So I guess you should bring up your data to Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia articles. However, the involvement of Serbia in all that should be mentioned in the corresponding article, naturally. Cheers! --PaxEquilibrium 22:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they had. The Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1974) granted self-determination rights to nations. Inner republics (that were based solely as administrative borders, it had nothing to do with the multi-national compactness of the whole Yugoslav country) never had the rights of self-determination themselves (no, it wasn't written in the constitution). Ergo, hypothetically speaking, a "rightly sized" Croatian state seceding in 1991 had to have the borders of Croatia (-Krajina and east to Serbia Serb-populated lands) + Croat-populated Herzeg-Bosnia.

The only plausible way for a (Socialist) Republic (or Autonomous Province) to secede was a common agreement of all of it eight political entities to commonly agree on one's secession (as a marriage, it wasn't a loose Confederation - but a very closely linked Federation). On the other "dimension" it was a state of peoples which had the right for self-determination (Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, Montenegrins, Macedonians). It is thus that, only Macedonia and Montenegro conducted the process the good and proper legal way (with Macedonia seceding and Montenegro remaining).

Oh and it could also be said with Slovenia (but most definitely not in the cases of Croatia and Bosnia). --PaxEquilibrium 14:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was if the Hague proposal for reforming the Yugoslav state union was accepted. Serbia and Croatia stubbornly refused, and in the end Montenegro too withdrew support. The plan drew SFRY as a democratized "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia", very loose, decentralized and de-nationalized, where republics received the rights of secession through referendums after a three-year period (unilaterally). It was basically the same thing with the 2002 Belgrade Agreement that formed the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. It however, never ever came to power, because not all political entities of the Yugoslavian federation accepted it.

And yes, at the end the international community succumbed to the violent ad acta (present already solved issues) policies pursued by (mainly) Slobodan Milosevic and Franjo Tudjman.

You know the ol' trick. "If I build an army, declare independence and martially seize control over one part of the state quick enough no one will be able to stop me" or "If I prepare camps and ethnically cleanse 40% of the population of my country which belongs to 'hostile' national minorities in complete, I will do the long-term goodness for my state" and all other "storm-quick plans" (one such was Operation Storm). --PaxEquilibrium 23:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there was a way for a Republic (or Province) to secede - and that's through consensus from all republics (securing that no "part of the chain" is jeopardized or hurt by one's braking). --PaxEquilibrium 23:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that which you just mentioned is precisely what Belgrade was proposing for the reordering of SFRY.

For it is just how the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1992-2003) was. The "Council of Citizens" with 138 seats, of which 108 is from Serbia and 30 from Montenegro that is directly elected by popular vote and the "Council of Republics" with 40 seats with 20 from Serbia and 20 from Montenegro. The latter was elected by the respective republics' parliaments (by parliamentary majority). --PaxEquilibrium 07:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 state with 2 economic policy !

I'm sorry, what are you referring to? --PaxEquilibrium 20:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's only in the very end, Montenegro fully replaced the Dinar in 2000 with the Euro, and the FRY was restructured only a year afterwards (so it's 1992-2000, as opposed to 2000-2003, when the New Yugoslav Dinar was transformed to the Serbian Dinar). --PaxEquilibrium 14:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last Emperor

Most Historians agree Romulus Augustus was the last Roman Emperor in the West. Mrld 16:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baron, etc.

It's "almost" not "ulmost". And beyond that, it looks to me like Panonian is allowing the baron to stay (I have no idea one way or the other about that, so if you two want to fight out whether he had the title or not, keep it between yourselves and both of you should find some sources.), and whether various titles are hereditary or not, I have no idea, so I am not getting involved in that. Since the year he was made baron is not known, then just don't add one until it is, the sentence still reads fine without a date.

As for all the rest of this whole mess, and who had what sort of schooling... I'm not getting involved in the "he said-she said" there, either. Perhaps his was based on war propoganda, perhaps not, I don't know, I don't really care, and even war propoganda is probably better than what I had in school (aka nothing at all. Yugoslavia and all the resulting countries all but don't exist if my formal education is anything to go by.). So since I know so little about any of it, the very few times I have any real opinion, rather than just fixing grammar or the like, it's based on what sources there are, what sounds logical, what facts various people agree on or not, and what version is closest to NPOV/least inflammatory. It's not foolproof, but it's a start. -Bbik 02:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see 5 involved users, I see you and him edit warring. Again. And no, I will not be sticking myself into the middle of your edit wars when neither of you can do more than said warring or fight on talk pages. Find someone else with more time/patience/interest/opinion on the subject if you wish, but do not ask me to pick a side, because I won't. I've already explained why, several times. -Bbik 04:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be kidding me. You're using a bot edit as a sign of support?

Discussions in Serbo-Croatian mean nothing to me, you two could be talking about the weather and I wouldn't know the difference. And CrnaGora's very minor and incomplete edits don't mean much either. Perhaps he supports the article, perhaps he was just doing a good deed and fixing some mistakes because the article was there. Have you asked him before assuming one way or the other?

And since you're so insistent to get an opinion out of me, here you go: Based entirely on policy, nothing to do with accusations of Greater Serbia-pushing or trolling, Panonian is right. Perhaps his logic is not perfect, but the end result is just fine. First off, I imagine "Literature History maps of Yugoslavia" means you looked at old and new maps and compared the differences. Whether or not the changes you've written are accurate and complete, that is still entirely original research, and not allowed. Second, territorial changes are mentioned in the articles of the respective countries/kingdoms/provinces/whatevers and the articles about the various battles and treaties that caused the changes. If they're not, they should be. That's what those pages are for. Perhaps it would be worth mentioning if there were any major changes, though I doubt that deserves a page of its own, and I'm not sure how it would be worked into the list Panonian created. Perhaps it should be added into Breakup of Yugoslavia somewhere. It certainly is not worth having a page just to list off a few towns that shifted around, even if it is written as prose. If it can be redone somehow to say more than just that, maybe it'd be worth keeping, but I'm not sure what it would say. Go find someone else to bother about it. Maybe they'll have some ideas. Constant edit warring isn't going to gain you any friends, though.

Oh, and while you're at it, read WP:BATTLE. Panonian probably should, too. And don't expect any more responses from me, when the only reason you want them in the first place is so you can continue all these stupid arguments. I have better things to do with my time than monitor the petty bickering of two overly obstinate people. -Bbik 11:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

Thanks for your proposal. I am always ready to talk about problems and their peaceful solutions. I simply dont understand what exactly you want, and why can not we talk here. Hvala. --Koppany 12:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re. your question Rjecina, as I have edited mostly articles about Transylvania, I know about 10 Romanian and Hungarian users who are willing to cooperate on the common ground of respecting each other and honest scientific approach to debated issues (at least most of these people try to behave like this in most cases :-). --KIDB 20:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rjecina, as I said earlier, I am glad to participate in votes or tell my opinion about issues, but I have no energy to manage this initiative. Here are some of the users you will be able to cooperate with:

User:Ronline User:Dahn User:Dc76 User:Zello User:Fz22 User:Biruitorul User:K. Lastochka User:KissL User:Olessi User:Maartenvdbent

Sorry, these are only the people who quickly came into my mind from recent events, for more interested people please have a look at the Hungarian and Romanian notice boards. Cheers, --KIDB 10:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Rjecina, you could notify me that there's an RfC related to Croatian history; I might help you.
Maybe not this second, but soon.
Let's talk on Croatian wiki. Explain me there the problems. Four sentences in Croatian explain more than four pages in English. Kubura 07:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrvatska

Some users and admins'll get angry if we don't use English.
Oni zemljovidi možedu imat zašćitu autorskih prava. A kod Edgija moraš pazit kad spominješ slije.
Dalje, Panonian ti oto (tekst o susidstvu i međami pri i potlan) ne smi pokušavat spričit. On smi samo osporavat, ali samo na stranicami za razgovor.
Što se tiče neutralneg posridovanja. Ako iman vrimena u to vrime, i ako iman dobro pokriće u literaturi, onda ja ostavin svoju poruku o podatcima koje ja iman, a ekipa neka se raspravlja. Ako je to "moje" područje, di san zagriza, onda ostanen u raspravi. Kubura 06:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your disagreement with Panonian

Hi, I will try not to get involved with this too much, but since I have been asked by both of you to look into matters, here is my opinion. Unfortunately it is not very favourable to you. I will not evaluate how many cases each of you was – factually speaking – right versus the other (I would be unable to do so even if I wanted to and had the necessary time) but by looking at your contribution lists for the last month, I can safely say that the tone of the discussion has often been inconstructive on your part (ranging from the relatively mild "one user thinks he knows better than everyone else" to the outright insulting and unjustifiable "you are full of nationalistic hatred"), while Panonian has remained civil even despite his previous record of using the tone he's addressed in. Comments like this are inconstructive, therefore not allowed, and they may get you blocked in the future. Do read the policy page and remember to never direct your comment towards the contributor (in this case, Panonian) but instead focus on the matter at hand only. Regarding the subject of your (current) controversy, you will find my opinion on the relevant talk pages. Regards, K issL 14:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the NPA policy, it is not allowed to comment on the contributor at all, so anything like "he is this or that" is out of the question. Please consider that such comments do not improve things, but they do create a hostile atmosphere that deters many users, not necessarily only those who are treated in this way. (BTW, I am Hungarian, and I have had several edit wars involving Panonian in the past – one as recently as this June – but content disputes and the requirement to remain civil are two entirely separate issues.) K issL 15:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rjecina. You have left recently a message on my talk page. I was unable to understand in 15 seconds the problem. Unfortunately, now I am very busy in real life. I will get back to you, but please, don't count on me for at least a few weeks. :Dc76\^talk 16:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Borders before and after Yugoslavia AfD

Pozdrav Rjecina,

Recently there have been some concerns raised on the AfD for Borders before and after Yugoslavia over the fact that you have apparently copied the whole article into your userspace. Some have speculated that you did this to bypass the article's (probably imminent) deletion and keep it anyway; I prefer not to speculate but I would appreciate it if you would explain (on the AfD page) your reasons for keeping the article. Thanks, K. Lásztocska ^{Review me?} 23:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia1918.png

This ismage is not a candidate for speedy deletion; if you think that the borders are wrong or the map is misleading, take the matter to WP:IFD, which you had initially tagged the image to do. You may be 100% correct, but the process is to have WP:IFD look at it. Carlossuarez46 03:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checked, left a comment and voted. Cheers. --No.13 19:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category "Former Towns of RSK 1991-95"

Can you please check this matter out and cast a vote. The link for the actual category is here and the discussion and voting is taking place here. Thanks. --No.13 06:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WilyD on Commons

Aye, she be me. To be blunt, when a large number of posters make the same patently silly argument - it seems transparent. I don't care enough about the image to pursue the issue, but sometimes I think it's worth giving a heads-up to votecounting admins. But since you ask:

No. 13 has zero uploads to commons, and has just commented in two IFDs - likely sock.
Hamada2 has zero uploads to commons, and has commented in just the one IFD - likely sock.
Parsecboy has zero uploads and five edits - unlikely sock, but possible.
Kingstone93 has zero uploads and just a single comment - likely sock.
Additionally, there are 3 ips editing

Your mileage may very. Of course, with nationalist POV pushing, it may be easy enough to round up meatpuppets, not sockpuppets - but I'm not sure the distinction is worth making. Wily D 21:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a problem with an image, you can fix it yourself, typically. When a lot of users agree with a sensible argument, it's normal. When a lot of users agree with a nonsensical argument, though, I find it fishy. "Unrecognised" borders are still encyclopaedic - heck, see Transnitia for instance. Anyways, I was just leaving a headsup - in the end, I'm not too concerned. Wily D 22:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my editor review

Pozdrav Rjecina,

Thank you very much for your kind comments on my editor review! I was quite flattered to hear that you think I would make a good admin, and especially that you consider my knowledge of central and southeast Europe to be so good. :) If you have any criticisms or if you think there are things I need to improve at, I'd like to hear those too. K. Lásztocska ^{Review me?} 00:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]