User talk:Ancient Land of Bosoni/Archive 2

WWII

First of all, let's keep the personal attacks to a minimum, please. Also, the many different peoples that are included in the former USSR are almost universally Slavic, which IS an ethnic type. Perhaps you should do some more research before making any more broad assertions. Parsecboy 20:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read the first line in Slavic peoples. Also, I'm sure many more Chinese were butchered by the Japanese during the war. The "alleged killings"? Are you serious? Parsecboy 14:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your recent addition to World War Two. This is a general article providing a broad overview of the conflict. Specific details of specific atrocities or the effects of the war on specific ethnic groups are probably better addressed in more focussed articles. You've added this content and had it removed three or four times now. I respectfully suggest that, if you really want it in the article, you first discuss it on the talk page before adding it again. - Eron ^Talk 14:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you came to "nazi killing of slavs in china", but the Nazis did murder millions of Slavs in the USSR, and Japan (part of the Axis powers) killed millions of Chinese. Parsecboy 15:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Thanx fromt that comment on my profile yep i would love for our land to unite but the west is not allowing it i guess they have a problem with a greater Albania or maby becuase we are magjority muslim or what ever but they specificaly said Kosovo is not to be united with any other country especialy ALBANIA. Gon4z

Personal attacks

Bosoni, you probably will not assume my good faith, but I have to warn you that edit summaries like this are unacceptable. I try to stay aside of ethnic feuds, but you're trying to turn it into a battleground. I don't want to template you or report to WP:AN/I, as you're long enough here.

Regarding your POV-pushing in World War II article, may I humbly suggest starting a Foča massacre 1942 article? There are plenty of sources (and it's even acknowledged in Serbian ones) [1][2]. Duja► 12:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you don't get me. I don't have any particular opinion about the content dispute you have with the anon; I was referring to the edit summary:

Revert vandalistic, fascistic, nationalistic, radicalistic, amateuristic edits.

WP:CIVIL is relevant for both talk pages and edit summaries. I don't think that calling another editor a "fascist" is appropriate under any circumstances. As far as I can tell, his removal of your text was justified as being a content fork from War in Bosnia and Herzegovina; I didn't even check if it's true. As for the article itself, I gave up closely watching it and similar crap.

As for my IP, I'm 99.9999% of the time logged in when editing; it's this static one; only a few of those edits are mine, mostly when I had connection problems; others are from other University users. Duja► 13:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I tried to find some middle ground in Bosnian language as well. Duja► 14:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been an admin since October 2006 or so. I succeeded at the first attempt, so you possibly have mistaken me for someone else (Pax/HRE?). Generally, I prefer to try settling matters by talking, and I'm especially reluctant to use the buttons against fellow Ex-Yu editors (except when they cross every line), partly because of perceived conflict of interest of mine. When I spotted your edit that triggered this exchange, I also mistook you for another editor; while I don't necessarily agree with your POVs, your good faith and capability for compromise are far above that. Regards, Duja► 14:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi from me, the anonymous

Good evening. I am the anonymous user who has been having a mini edit war with you the past few days (my IP is dynamic, so it changes each day). I see there are now some compromised versions of the text on those articles, and I am happy to accept them. P.S, sorry about the personal attacks in my edit summaries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.186.184.160 (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bosoni

Hi brother. Things have stabilized with Srebrenica Massacre article. Let's hope they stay that way. I am proud of you for your valuable contribution to wikipedia. Thank you. Bosniak 22:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarajevo Civil war

Hi Adrien. Thanks man, I saw that you try really hard on many articles to prevent serbs' and croats' nationalism and vandalism. You are much longer here than me and I am not very familiar with policy on english wikipedia (by the way, I am administrator on bosnian), so I am asking you to look Sarajevo Civil War and nominate it for deletion (of course if you agree with me). Best regards jarane :) --Kahriman 13:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vidi ovo [3] --Kahriman 20:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ustašoidi u akciji

Želim te upozoriti, da korisnik Ivan Kricancic, pogledaj njegovu korisničku stranicu u svom suludom fanatizmu ide od slike do slike koja si tiče Bosne i predlaže je za brisanje. Često to radi nepotpisan: 58.165.115.192. Znam da je sa šupcima teško, ali degen je bolestan i pobrisao nam je na taj način sve skoro sve slike npr. u članku o genocidu u srebrenici, a sada stavlja šablone na slike koje si ti postavio, Markale. Emir Arven 08:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Retortion and Admonition of a Wholly Impertinent Comment

Alas, 'fellow editor', your rather impertinent and outwardly sardonic comment has seemingly failed to amuse me. I shall confess; the 'Sarajevo Civil War' was, indeed, a considerably inaccurate article, though, nonetheless, was my premiere article and is, therefore, relatively excusable insomuch as it was contrived solely as an autodidactic tutorial. I had no intention of offending any Balkans during the procreation of such an article and, as I shall earnestly confess, the content of the article had merely been gleaned from several online sources entitled, 'The Sarajevo Civil War'. In conclusion, I must request you confer your eloquent witticisms and stark indignation upon other individuals. -- Nalco 02:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:84 l-1-AdrienBosoni.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:84 l-1-AdrienBosoni.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Friend

There is an arbitration for Osli73 case (he was disrupting Srebrenica Genocide article). I think you should vote "oppose" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Osli73 Thank you. Bosniak 02:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Thanks

Np. Could you cite the source in the article so that further confusion is evaded (if it is you who placed that info in the first place)? Thanks. --PaxEquilibrium 20:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zelim te napomenuti samo da je Ivan Kricancic anonimni korisnik pod adresom 124.x.x.x koji mijenja clanke Bosnjaci i Sedma brigada, jer je to vec radio ranije, ali je dosao u sukob sa zakonom pa se sada ne potpisuje.

Marija Serifovic

Except her father's surname is not Šerifovic. :))))) --PaxEquilibrium 22:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think she took her mother's last name (with '-ic' ending), rather than her father's non-Slavic-sounding Turkish surname (naturalized)... as frequent happens.

As for her grandfather, I've no idea if he was Bosniak. :) --PaxEquilibrium 23:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well she said that she's Serb with origins from Turkey. Isn't that what's worth for enough? She was attacked by some Serbian nationalists and then she said that "if origins of all of us Serbs are inspected, we would see that absolutely no one is 'ethnically pure' and that these people are forgotten in nationalist disillusions that plague this world". --PaxEquilibrium 23:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashamed? Why? --PaxEquilibrium 23:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is she bosniak?? there is no mention anywhere that she is bosniak? She has turkish blood on her fathers side and serbian and roma blood on her mothers sidePaulcicero 23:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her father wasnt born in turkey ^[1]

Lol man, a tiny little trickle of patriotism can't hurt. ;0) Don't you love Bosnia? --PaxEquilibrium 23:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://ww1.rts.co.yu/euro/jedna_vest.asp?IDNews=575 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulcicero (talk • contribs) 23:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

So we shall judge peoples ethnicites only by their surnames? Paulcicero 23:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that sign has come to represent the country of Serbia today. ;) Three-finger salute (Serbian). I know see why do you see it as offensive, but - did Marija think anything bad by it? In the end, the point was that she wasn't acting anythin' like you said... --PaxEquilibrium 23:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During the campaign for the Serbian referendum, one the List for Sanjak's meeting in Novi Pazar the crowd with SDA, Lillian, Moslem and Serbian flags had that "three-finger" greeting, when President of SDA said that the Bosniacs have saved Serbia's destiny and are the key factor in the Serbian state's bringing to Europe. --PaxEquilibrium 23:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What an traitor to Bosniaks, eh? </sarcasm>--Hadžija 02:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means that it's offensive just to 90% of Kosovo's population and no one else in Serbia. ;0) --PaxEquilibrium 09:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is that problem. Though many of those come from jealousy, I think that most actually misunderstood the act (especially if she herself is of that origin), to claim that she deliberately planned on insulting Bosnia.

Also, I watched an interview of her father, Rajko (it's his name after all).

If you have some source that her father is a descendant of a Bosniak emigrant from Turkey, that's fine - just put it and cite it. So far I've seen that her father is of somewhat-distant Roma origins (from Turkey, yeah), but as per Unreliable sources, I'm not gonna put it. --PaxEquilibrium 21:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brother!

Hi Adrian,

how are you doing man? I haven't talked to you in a long time. I am glad you are still active with Wikipedia. Bosniak 05:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marija Serifovic

Lol, I don't *want* her. :) And no, I do not see how she being Serb could be of any relevance to this article. ;0)

BTW her mother is Roma, and her father has 3rd (or 4th) generation Turkish origin. --PaxEquilibrium 14:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike her because she said that she is proud to be Serb, etc, she was evoking nationalistic sentiment and rhetoric instead of celebrating purely cultural/entertainment based contest. I don't think she has gipsy genes, as gipsy women are very beautiful, and she is obviously not what would average joe consider "hot" or even "warm". Bosniak 02:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote your user page: This user is a proud Bosniak Should now you be disliked? Are you evoking nationalistic sentiment and rhetoric?

Lol, her mother is Roma (Verica Šerifović) believe you me. ;) Genes have nothing to do with that, go to Eugenics if you're interested in that. ;X --PaxEquilibrium 17:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brother Adrien

I posted response to your comment here. Cheers! Bosniak 02:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adrien

Hi, I added 1 more userbox to your profile, are you okay with it?

This user condemns and opposes Srebrenica Genocide denial.

Hey

No, I'm not "Ivan K". I live in the United States. I do like your user page, however. I need to design myself one, so I hope you don't mind if I borrow some templates. --Ivan Ilir 01:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: HRE

Lol, I pointed that out numerous times.

Does that change anything? ;) --PaxEquilibrium 12:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Hey Adrian, how are you doing bro? Can you do me a favor? I would like you to post your opinion in "Comments" section of my blog @ U.N. & Dutch Cowards on Trial. (you don't have to register, just sign your name). Bosniak 01:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo

Looks like only two of us support the independance of Kossovo :)))Taprobanus 22:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been around over a year but thanks for the welcome Taprobanus 12:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Markale.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Markale.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Good Question - here is an answer (sort of)

Hi Adrian, you asked me about Anti-Bosniak Sentiment article and had you not pointed to the non-existence of this article, I would probably have never noticed its deletion. In the past, Bosniaks were prevented from having Bosniakophobia article within Wikipedia; now they are prevented from having Anti-Bosniak sentiment article. This is absolutely not fair. User Duja even called our article "crap" when deleting it, he clearly acted without good faith. Serbs and Croats are allowed to have their articles on the topic, and we are not. This is nothing more but a censorship. Read my comment to Duja and my thoughts on this here and also here. Other admins could help us restore the article(s) and stop this popularity voting contest from censoring documenting relevant articles in this open encyclopedia. Bosniak 22:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:StrankaZABiH.jpg

Image:StrankaZABiH.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pozdrav prijatelju

Ma suocen sam i ja sa nacionalistickim prljavim idejama i verzijama historije, no trudim se... Nisam vise mogao gledati da je tu npr. bila slika Alije Izetbegovina, a nema ni Katarine ni Tvrtka... Hvala na lijepim zeljama, sretno i tebi!!! Veliki pozdrav!

Deland

Fair use rationale for Image:StrankaZABiH.jpg

Image:StrankaZABiH.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Bogumili-tvrtka1.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Bogumili-tvrtka1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 23:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Umjetnicka galerija12.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Umjetnicka galerija12.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 23:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:StecakBosnjacki.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:StecakBosnjacki.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 00:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Umjetnicko djelo bogumili.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Umjetnicko djelo bogumili.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 00:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Even without the tags, they still need a source otherwise they'll just get deleted for having no fair-use rationale. Along with a tag, specify the source or copyright holder information. Provide as much detail as possible. See WP:TAG. -WarthogDemon 01:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures on Bosniaks page

Hey, I am not a "vandal". Yes, I removed the images. If you wish to see my reasoning, go to the discussion page and read it. King Tvrtko Kotromanic and the stecci tomb stones relate to the history of all three peoples in Bosnia, not just Bosniaks. This is a clear attempt by Bosniaks such as yourself to claim all culture and history in Bosnia as your own. If you wish to place the images anywhere, direct yourself to the Bosnians page. Otherwise, I will continue doing what I've done. I've provided a good reason.

I agree that the steccis and the kotromanic dynasti belong to all three peoples of Bosnia - becasue they all stem from the very same bosnian medieval state. This is covered extensively in the Bosnians article so there is no need to explain it any further. However the important thing here is that Bosniaks have equal rights of claiming these monuments of bosnia as bosnian catholics or orthodox christians do. Ancient Land of Bosoni

Ethnicity of Bosniaks

Ancient Land of Bosoni, please stop trying to "prove" they are not Slav, as you have failed before you even begin. Ethnicity is all about a shared language, culture and customs - it has nothing to do with genetics. Inserting second rate sources from obscure figures stating that Bosniaks have some "Illyrian blood" doesn't mean they aren't Slavs. Obviously any ethnic group from the balkans is going to have some Illyrian in them, since all the migrants mixed with the indigenous tribes - it's not as if newcomers just exterminated everyone already living there. You don't need to keep trying to "prove" that Bosniaks are a different people than Croats and Serbs; They are different, OK, we get it, we accept it, and we understand it. There is absolutely no need to keep stating that there is some Illyrian blood in them. Greetings from Russia. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for accepting the compromise man! Cheers! Frvernchanezzz (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even read my version, you just reverted it. Please first read it, then comment it on discussion page! The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Hi. As you are familiar with the Army of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Fikret Abdić, The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war and 7th Muslim Brigade I ask you to review tha last edits in order to get second opinion. It seems that some users just keep including anti-muslim propaganda by default. I improved those articles, so you can compare it with the version imposed by other user who was blocked because of 3RR. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Kricancic case

Please just take a look here [4] - if you know anything about that feel free to tell me. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniaks article

The re-work of the history section i think is good now, although you reverted it becuase you 'don;t beleive' that Serbs and Croats first settled Bosnia. Out of courtesy, i will make an effort to explain to you. I clearly outline, that the proto- Serbs and Croats (ie tribes) settled eastern and wetsern halves roughly, of Bosnia as part of the general Slavic migration which aslo mixed with illyrians, etc. I make the distinction of proto-Serbs, ie not the same entity as modern Serbs. Now this is a fact, its not propaganda or POV. Most books would support this. Check Shepherds historical atlas.

The subsequent short history i included about Bosnia is relevant, as the average reader doesn;t know much about the Yuigoslavs in general, so a background picture is vital to understand the current situation.

I think my summary is fair and neutral. I trust you will put aside your own personal wishes/ views about your background, and respect the sourced views, which are mainstream, rather than drawing up your own theory about some Celtic and Gothic origins. Furthermore, about the Wilkes quote, i intentionally said that it is a postulate, not a conclusion. We cannot prove such things which happened thousands of years ago, but we can certainly make informed, supported theories. Hxseek (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I reverted your reversion, but on re-consideration, i think u have a point. Yes it is about Bosniaks, and not Bosnian history. i am willing to co-operate with you, though i still affirm that something should be said about the overall background of Bosniaks. The politcal, geographic history of bosnia must be relevant since they lived there and got their name from there. Bosnia's position of independence is intimately linked with the emrgence of a Bosniak people. The reader should know what was there before Bosniaks developed an identity Hxseek (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I shortened the section, got rid of a large chunk about croat and serb kingdoms, etc, making it more relevant, whilst keeping a bit of the background, so a reader whom does not know much about balkan history can understand how the different peoples arose. Hxseek (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniaks article (Number 2)

Hello. How's it goin? I noticed your edit on the Bosniaks article yesterday. I have nothing against the content of your edit, but I'm sure those other guys will. But anyway, I like your additions, so I'm not going to revert the edit again, but I'd suggest making a statement on the talk page though. Kind regards. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment Osli73

Hi Ancient. I want to inform you that I am going to start request for comment, if Osli73 continues with the same behaviour. I have now plenty of material, but I will also like you to take a part. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to present this case very systematically, for example to list his block log, his reverts, other disruptive edits like this. So if you have something to add feel free to do that. Block log:

12:23, 5 December 2007, Stifle blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: Bosnian Mujahideen)
07:45, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month.
07:37, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months.
02:26, 23 March 2007 Thatcher131 blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violating revert limit on Srebrenica massacre see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo)
01:48, 1 March 2007 Jayjg blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violation of arbcom revert parole on Srebrenica massacre again)
09:48, 18 December 2006 Srikeit blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Sockpuppeteering and directly violating his arbcom probation and revert parole)
00:49, 5 September 2006 Blnguyen blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 96 hours ‎ (did about 10 reverts on Srebrenica massacre in about 2 hours)

Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Armija BiH.svg

Image:Armija BiH.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-and-paste page moves

Please don't attempt to do cut-and-paste page moves, as you did with Croatian War of Independence. It's not allowed because it destroys the edit history, which has to be preserved for GFDL licensing reasons - please see WP:MOVE for advice. In any case, before moving a well-established article, you should really try to get consensus from other editors for your proposed change. I suggest you raise it on Talk:Croatian War of Independence and ask for other people's opinions. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian War discussion

I've opened a discussion thread here that you may wish to comment on. Also, I would like to remind you per our policies on personal attacks not to call other users buffoons as you did here. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 17:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you don't like me. However, I should tell you that I'm not an admin. You're welcome to complain about me to whomever you would like, and we'll see where it goes. But if you take a good look at my contributions, I think you'll see that I spend most of my time fighting Serb nationalists. In this case, I simply see two issues that you're pushing that I think make the article worse. My efforts to change the article aren't vandalism, any more than yours are. I sincerely hope you will choose to discuss our difference rather than try to turn this into a fight. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 02:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph

Please, don't ruin everything me and other users have achived on Bosnian War articles. Someone can misuse your persistant will to include harsh words in introduction. Everything can be said in neutral way, which is very important, because we should avoid disputes. I improved Bosnian War a lot, and your action can destroy my efforts. 217.75.202.131 (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but I am only trying to help! =( Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New to the wikiworld...not sure I'm doing this right.

Adrien, please forgive me for not knowing how to navigate this site. I'll figure it out, but until then, I have a couple of questions I would like to ask you. A friend of mine was stationed in Bosnia while the war was going on. He is not a Serb. Some of the things he saw while he was there are now coming back to haunt him.

I would like to ask you some questions but I don't know if Wikipedia fosters this kind of one on one conversation.

If you know a better way to get this conversation going, I will be very grateful.

Thank you in advance. ELM1401 (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tvrtko

Although I fear I will be talking in vain, since your user page is filled with nationalistic sentences, I fully hope I'm wrong. The logic you described when returning Tvrtko to the "Bosniacs" article is invalid. You see, if 1. Tvrtko is related to Bosnia (which is true) and 2. Bosniacs are related to Bosnia (which is also true), it doesn't at all mean that Tvrtko and Bosniacs are related.

Tvrtko---+
          \
           Bosnia
          /
Bosniaks-+

You see, there hasn't got to be any relationship between Tvrtko and Bosniaks. If you find a reference that states Tvrtko was a Bosniak, then it's something else; but invalid logic can't be used. Cheers! --Darko Maksimović (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Дарко Максимовић (talk • contribs) [reply]

I fear that you are even more nationalistic as you seem to have the guts to state that Tvrtko (A Bosnjanin) does not necessarily have to be related to Bosniaks (Descendants of Bosnjani). So yes, your nationalistic comment is completly in vain. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terms "Bosnian" and "Bosniak"

"Bosnian language" is the codified language of Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims). Just because Bosniak fundamentalists decided to call their language bosanski "Bosnian", a term which has then penetrated English and many other languages, ambigously and misleadingly giving impression that the Bosnian [language] refers to Bosnia as a region, and that all Bosnians (regional multi-ethnical term) speak "Bosnian language", does not mean that that Bosnian language has anythong to do with pre-1990s attestations of the term. Open up Bosanska gramatika by Jahić/Halilović/Panić and look up the surnames of the writers the authors cite for illustrating the "proper Bosnian" - all Muslim.

You claim Bosnian language is millenium old through the bosnian script - which is a joke. First of all, there is 0 evidence that Western Cyrillic originated in Bosnia in the first place (oldest extant monuments of it are from Croatia and Hercegovina), and it has nothing to do with mixture of Croatian and Serbian called "Bosnian language" today. Many Croatian and Serbian writers have used the regional term Bosnian to refer to their language, which is esp. evident in Croatian Catholic priests operating with the Franciscan state Bosna Srebrena (Latin: Bosna Argentina), and which beside Bosnia included also Dalmatia and Slavonia (this little fact is often deliberately "omitted" to support the incorporation of the opus of Croatian Franciscan priests into Bosnian cultural matrix). Bosniak inteligentsia of the time (who called themselves "Turks") wrote almost nothing in Slavic dialects and favoured Persian, Arabic and Ottoman Turkish as much more "prestigious". I don't need to additionally emphasize how ridiculous is to misappropriate other Christian nations cultural heritage into some Muslim matrix, when at the same time these very same Christians were subjected to enslavement, persecution, devşirme and other means of Islamicization. It's as insultive to Croats and Serbs as it's ridiculous to any bystander watching this systematic misuse of the ambiguous regional appellative Bosnian.

You also said "Almost all of its traces are from Bosnia and the Bosnian church" - which is nonsense, as most of the preserved Western Cyrillic corpus is of Catholic/Croatian provenience. Yes, the "Bosnian Cyrillic" is much more used, but that term was coined when Bosnian language did not exist (before the 1990s) and I have no doubts that today much more NPOV version "Western Cyrillic" employed by Serbian and Croatian philologist will prevail one day. We have Old East Slavic language article, even though "Old Russian" is still much more prevalent in the literature, because it's much less ambigous and NPOV. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to stop reading your comment after the piece "Just because Bosniak fundamentalists decided to call their language bosanski "Bosnian"". How can anyone expect me to take a man who states the entire ISO-standard system to be "Bosniak fundamentalism" seriously? Smiri se Hrvatine Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISO code came to be registered only a few years later after the language name was established in the English language. Moreover, if you take a look at the Ethnologue page for ISO 639-3 bos code, the authors were mislead into the assumption of the Bosnian language = language of Bosnia ("Muslim, Christian, Jewish." - LOL). Ethnologue is full of blunders such as this.

It indeed was supposed to originally be named bošnjački "Bosniak"—the change to bosanski "Bosnian" was unilateral by Bosniak side and not discussed with Serbs and Croats. Numerous documented reports of the time confirm this. Read e.g. the reports by Croat representative when the issue was active, Radoslav Dodig (my high-school Latin teacher! ^_^): [5], quoting: " Uskoro je 21. srpnja 1994. objavljen tekst Ustava na hrvatskome jeziku, gdje je stajalo "bosanski jezik". Trazio sam od predsjedavatelja Skupstine da kaze tko je verificirao hrvatski tekst, posebice kada je cl. 6. u pitanju. On mi je rekao da je glavni tajnik Ustavotvorne skupstine Avdo Campara 1. kolovoza 1994. uputio pismo Sluzbenim novinama FBiH, u kojemu trazi od izdavaca da u tekstu na hrvatskome jeziku zamijeni izraz "bosnjacki jezik" s izrazom "bosanski jezik", kao da je doslo do pogreske." - mistake, yeah right! [6] "Ukratko, ulazak naziva bosanski jezik kao ustavna rješenja u službene federalne propise na hrvatskom jeziku grubo je kršenje pravnih odredaba, američki rečeno, kaubojski čin." The thing is, had the language been named Bosniak/Bosniac as it was originally supposed to, the alleged historical "continuation" with the attestations of the regional appellative bosanski or with bosančica wouldn't have been able to be established, and another myth couldn't have been created. The history of the Balkans has shown us that the nationalist myths are very dangerous, often being manipulated by academic and political elites to fabricate history and legitimize hideous crimes upon the nations which are their closest brethren, after being raised and canonized as undisputed Truths after at least a generation of collective brainwashing. Croatian nationalist hysteria activated in the 1990s has been effectively dead for the last 6-7 years (extreme right-wing parties have been completely politically marginalized), but the you still have Šešelj publishing books such as Rimokatolički zločinački projekat veštačke hrvatske nacije, or some Bosniaks old-school linguistis playing dumb on fundamental issues such as the bosanski/bošnjački (but the newer more open-minded generations are coming..) Please don't give in to the myths, you seem to be a reasonable person deep under :) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniaks

Of course they're Bosnians. What you don't seem to understand is that Bosniaks, Bosnian Serbs, and Bosnian Croats don't have the right to exclusively claim Tvrtko or other nobility, theses nobles belong in the Bosnians page. Quit adding that there 2 million Bosniaks in Turkey, this is unsourced and impossible. PRODUCER ^(TALK) 01:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ive edited the Bosniaks article hopefully we can agree on this. PRODUCER ^(TALK) 01:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To first start off with the population issue, these sources are an estimate made by Turkish academics on the behalf of the Turkish National Security Council (e.g the Turkish state) - which qualifies as a valid source. As for the pictures, this article does not exclusively claim these nobelties, as you can see in the descrption the word "bosnian" and not "Bosniak" king is used. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Sejo Pitic - Gornju Tuzlu opasala guja.ogg}

Thank you for uploading File:Sejo Pitic - Gornju Tuzlu opasala guja.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Sejo Pitic - Gornju Tuzlu opasala guja.ogg}

Thank you for uploading File:Sejo Pitic - Gornju Tuzlu opasala guja.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Sejo Pitic - Gornju Tuzlu opasala guja.ogg}

Thank you for uploading File:Sejo Pitic - Gornju Tuzlu opasala guja.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://ww1.rts.co.yu/euro/jedna_vest.asp?IDNews=575

[1] ttp://ww1.rts.co.yu/euro/jedna_vest.asp?IDNews=575

[1]