User talk:User1389/Archive 2008

Flag of Serbia

Stop your edit-war. It is meaningless to push for your own POV when there has been an agreement which solved the issue. Nikola Smolenski, Duje and others at Talk:Flag of Serbia and commons:Image talk:Flag of Serbia.svg agreed to uphold the Constitution of Serbia on this. I repeat. Stop and do not revert any more. The flag in front the UN building is placed at its proper place. commons:Image:Flags of Serbia.jpg should be in the place at which I placed it. -- Imbris (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with having two of Serbia's flag instead of just one. This "high" in the article we discuss both of flags. Lower in the article under the portion of State flag we can discuss particularities and particular flag images which are according to the text which the image describes. -- Imbris (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have I not been apsolutelly clear about this. The Constitution of Serbia describes the Flag of Serbia as existing in two forms. In the opening sentences of the article we describe both of those National and State Flag. This is why the image Flags of Serbia.jpg is used. In the part of the article where only one (State) is described, only that one is hence used. Stop your revertments because they are needless and damaging the article. Not mentioning our coleagual relationship. -- Imbris (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's this with you and flags Imbris? :-) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know. Look at Talk:List of flags of Montenegro. There are several unsourced flags which he's pushing, one sourced by 2 websites who falsely source their own source (and obviously wrong) (Image talk:Princely Standard of Danilo I of Montenegro.png) and another which he invented himself (Image talk:PrincedomMNEdi.PNG). He also doesn't allow new data inserted into the articles; he quickly resorts to criticism of other users and sources, but sadly doesn't pay much attention to his own - himself's standing far weaker than that; which would imply that he thinks he's somehow superior to ol' inferior me. He also doesn't honor previously-achieved compromises. I think that there are some personal motivations in his acts, and I have no idea how we'll be able to transgress this.

P.S. Please use English only. Thanks. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About not responding - well yeah, that's what he did to me, and "claim" some of the articles I were editing as his personal own. The tactic you should use is - avoid edit wars at all costs, they're inconstructive. Put up a message at the corresponding talk pages and his own personal. If it continues, put up a tag on the article if you need it be. If it remains that way - head over to the administrators' board and report this matter. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military institution in Serbia

Prijatelju garda i recna flotila nisu vidovi i rodovi vojske,vec su formacijski u rangu bataljona,nemaju veze sa osnovamsa vojske vec su deo njihovih jedinica sama flotila poseduje samo 6 patrolnih camaca pa ti sad vidi koliko je velika. --boki 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Pa jel ima veze kolika je jedinica, a dali si znao da Zandarmerija ne pripada vojsci neko Policiji?--User1389 (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Znao sam ali Zandarmerija je Vojnopolicijska formacija,i zato sam je ubrojao u vojnobezbedonosne strukture sa Vojnom Policijom i Vojnoobavestajnim sluzbama. --boki 11:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Flags and motto

You need to stop adding the wrong flags to the articles in question. Your own source, that you've provided, clearly states it as the Civil flag, not as the National flag listed at the top of that very page. Either you have a poor understanding of the English language or you wilfully choose to ignore the facts that you yourself provided. Further, Serbia does not have an official motto, if you have a valid government source that states otherwise, please provide it. Until then, it will be removed from the article. Buttons (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to ignore the points above and vandalise articles, will result in an admin getting involved to settle the matter. Buttons (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at List of national mottos. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Jaron Lanier#Philosophical and technological ideas--User1389 (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.