User talk:WikiEditor2004

Notification

Hello PANONIAN, This message is to inform you that I asked for an Arbcom warning as has been promised to you here.--Nmate (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Digwuren notice

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

PANONIAN, you are posting messages to a thread at WP:AE that is already archived. Nobody is reading these messages, so I suggest you stop posting them. If you think that there is a dispute to resolve, please use the appropriate forum per WP:DR.  Sandstein  06:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Placa Srbska u 9 veku

This map should be titled 10th century; not 9th. During the 9th century, Serbia was still in its infancy, and if anything, Croatia extended over much of Bosnia.

The naming - "Rascia" was not used in this period, but began later , in the 11th. So using Rascia is anachronistic - it was called Srbljia by COnstantine. ALso, there is no such thing as Pannonian Croatia. This is a misnomer. Pannonian Croatia. according to contemporary sources was called Lower Pannonia or Pannonian Principality. No "Croatia".

It is a lovely map otherwise. Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok for the names - please provide a single source from the 9th century which says the names "Rascia" and "Pannonian Croatia" (PS: you won't find one). The sources from 9th century Frankish Annals - refer only to "Serbs" and Guduscani (Liburnian Slavs), and Liutevid of Lower Pannonia. No "Croats" until c. 860s, no "Rascia" until 11th century.

The territory: Serbia did not ruled over Travunia, Doclea, etc in the early 800s (ie 9th century). This began to hapen slowly; first with the union of Serbia with Travunia (the marriage union with Belos' daughter), then with Peter Gojnikovic's extension over Bosnia and the ware against Mihailo of Zachlumia in the early 900s (ie 10th century). Serbia reached its peak in the 950s when ruled by Cheslav- exactly when Constantine Porphyrogenitus wrote in DAI that the Serbs ruled Zachlumia, Travunia, Pagania.

These are accurate maps of early 9th century, nid 9th century, and mid 10th century ->

Early 800s

c. 850

950

Zhiveli Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to take my enquiry into your maps as hostile. As far as I see it, I am merely discussing an interesting topic with a fellow Yugoslav and historian. This is friendly discussion for both our benefits.

Now, you misunderstood my question, and failed in your answer. I asked for a contemporary source (ie a primary source from the 9th century) which states the name "Rascia" and Pannonian Croatia. The Istorijski atlas, Geokarta, Beograd, 1999 as you can see is from the turn of the 21st century. And my maps are not OR; but based on information from credible books. The shading and lack of clear borders are, in fact, more accurate, because we have little solid evidence for what the borders were, if borders even existed back then Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't anywhere say that your map was unsourced. And I'm sure the Serbian education system is great. Plenty of literature exists (in English, at least) which has properly assessed the primary sources. I was merely highlighting to you a topic of discussion; which you might wish to address if you wish to make your maps - which are otherwise very nice- 100% accurate. It was not a personal criticism; although you appear to have taken this that way. So forget it. "you can bring a horse to water ......"

Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Jabuka

Hallo Pannonian, let me try to explain something to you. You and I, both proud to be from Vojvodina, should keep on searching the truth.

You reverted, “that the village was founded by Slavic fisherman”. "Selo je imalo 15 porodica slovenskog porekla", their names were Stoikov, Stepan, Pavao and Damian) They might be coming from Romania or Bulgaria. Written by a professor, who has been living in Jabuka since 1945.

Between the two world wars there were no Serb colonists settled in Jabuka and consequently they were not expelled from Jabuka. Where should they have lived? In whose houses? Please have a look at „Population and major ethnic groups through history:”

You write: “During the war (from 1941 to 1944), on a location named Stratište near the village, German forces killed more than 10,000 people [8] (Serbs, Jews, and Roma) who mostly were brought from Sajmište concentration camp near Belgrade.” Source: [[1]]. More than 10.000 people! But there are no witnesses, no evidence. I spoke with Romanians from Jabuka, I spoke with Pancevac, the newspaper. No answers, no ideas. According to inhabitants there was an execution in Oct1941. In1945 the partisans were searching for mass graves. What they found, was a mass grave with 21 German people, killed Oct. 24TH 1944. Another error: “After the defeat of Axis Powers, in 1944, one part of German population left from the region, together with defeated German army”. When the German army left the village, unlike in Backa, no one of the settlers was allowed to leave Banat. And: “in 1948, the remaining German population left Yugoslavia because of economic reasons.” The people down there suffered from hunger, coldness and malaria. Those who survived after 200 years woul not have left their homes due economic reasons. After 1948 they were officially free, but without property and without passport. Most of them had to work three more years in mines, in factories, on farms or on the road. The newspaper Pancevac wrote about the village Glogonj, some miles north of Jabuka. The same situation, the same history. Hope I can get some more information about the area. Cordially,--Speidelj (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Answer

If I am accosted........I answer your question , but I do not want to do so on Wladthemlat's talk page.

You are right, at that point, nor was Wladthemlat unconstructive there. Howbeit, Wladthemlat is a SPA user with a strong penchant for trolling, who has no more than 5-6 constructive edits on Wikipedia. The others are edit-warring over Hungarian related contents with Hungarian users, and that is all. [2][3].

--Nmate (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Funny you would say that [4]Wladthemlat (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, you have a message at my talk page. [5]. Adrian (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Communist Camps

I would appreciate it if you would reinstate the inter-wiki link to the German article from which this material was derived. Also, please do not change the Danube swabian text to German.

The German/Axis camps you added are fine as far as I am concerned, but I see no need to modify what I translated from th German Wiki.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imersion (talk • contribs) 20:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Demographics of Hungary

Hello PANONIAN
Important impact to demographics was also Battle of Lechfeld (Magyar defeat). In this battle is interesting also the amount of Hungarian warriors, because it was very important for invasion of the Hungarians into Western Europe. "According to chronicles, the Hungarian army amounted to 25-50,000 men, but a more realistic figure is 10-25,000 men." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omen1229 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Buhuhu

Of course you're wrong about this... You are wrong with 180 degrees. What can I say, "thanks" for contributing at my block (Buhuhu (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC))

As I said, you are wrong with 180 degrees. I am not him, but one of his biggest enemies. You are helping him with this report. Thanks again (Buhuhu (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC))

I am banned user Iaaasi, one of Nmate's biggest opponents. Nmate will be grateful to you for annihilating this account of me :)) (Buhuhu (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC))

Logic isn't your strongest point, isn't it? You don't need to be a genius to realize that any of accounts listed by you isn't a sock of Nmate (Buhuhu (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC))

Checkuser case

Hello, WikiEditor2004. You have new messages at Baxter9's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Imminent ArbCom report

"Logic isn't your strongest point, isn't it? You don't need to be a genius to realize that any of accounts listed by you isn't a sock of Nmate"

A rare occasion when I agree with Iaaasi on something. It is true that the checkuser investigation is a legitimate action but blatantly spurious reports may be indictable. So then we will meet at ArbCom as my wrath that your recent gimmick caused me, needs to soothe.--Nmate (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. I felicitate you on that.[6]--Nmate (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Historical regions by country

I have come across Category:Historical regions by country. Please explain why you created this, since Category:Subdivisions of former countries already exits? Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Jaša Tomić, Sečanj

Sorry about the edit conflict this afternoon. Hope you can sort it. It is best to add (Lutheran) after Evangelical in English because Evangelical has another meaning in modern English (happy-clappy revivalist Christians).

I'm not happy about all your corrections of my corrections on grounds of English usage, but as you seem simply to have reverted to what you wrote (someone ungrammatically) before, I'll leave this page to you. It is after all fairly understandable, which is the main thing.Bmcln1 (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article List of local rulers of Vojvodina, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. And here is another ... Epeefleche (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not edit war, as you have done at the above-indicated list, which is discussed here. I would request that you self-revert there, for the reasons detailed on the list talk page, on my talk page, in my edit summaries, and above.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Cease your interference

Most esteemed "college",

I do appreciate your efforts but please do be kind enough and do not interfere in what I include, with the best of academic intentions, to the Jovan Nenad article. I am fully aware of your dedication to the subject and I do sincerely appreciate what you've done but please restrain yourself from replacing what I have included in the article and with no valid arguments to do so. For example it is very relevant if Fabijan Literat is considered a protestant or a catholic since the entire scenario has a background of egalitarian perspective. He was a proven protestant as does exhibit his modesty. Consider your English good but you have issues with nouns and pronouns and do not attempt to correct my own grammar in the future.

Sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satoran (talk • contribs) 21:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Response

You are absolutely right but please constrain yourself from delivering false information do those who read our articles. Please, I have studied the subject of Jovan Nenad for some time now, I was even included in a public presentation. Fabijan Literat was a Protestant, just because Ilok has an old Franciscan monastery doesen't mean every Christian from Ilok is Catholic. Everything implies to the fact that he was a Protestant. This was proven by the emminent Academic Historian from Novi Sad, Peter Rokai. Why in the world would Jovan Nenad have the support of Protestant England if not for the very Protestants in his ranks. I implore you, stay out of the subject if you desire to manifest modern political interests.

Regards

Sremska Mitrovica

For your information. Most of the German people of Mitrovica left the region together with the defeated German army, because it used to be Croatia (NHD). After autumn 1944 the partisans carried the German people from Banat to the camp “Svilara”.--Speidelj (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)--Speidelj (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The establishment of Camp Svilara is to be read at Nenad Stefanovic, Jedan svet na Dunavu,Beograd, 1996.--Speidelj (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

PANONIAN, you have a message on Talk:Serbia under German Occupation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Medieval serbian army

Hello PANONIAN I think they should improve this article, I love the history of Serbia, but I like military history of medieval Serbia, although the article is very weak. I wish it were as good or better than medieval bulgarian army. A greeting--190.232.177.48 (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I might have some published sources about this subject, but I do not have enough free time to translate that for English Wikipedia. If I find time, I will see what can be done about that. PANONIAN 14:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Niš

Hi,

Will you please check the topic of the following articles: Niš Eyalet (you created) and Sanjak of Niš (created by me). It looks that those articles have the same topic. If that is true, what do you think how we could resolve this issue?

Best regards,

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I never mentioned the merge. I explained that I believe that those two articles could have the same topic. The Ottoman administrative units are not very well defined in the sources. The same unit is refered to as pashalik, vilayet, sanjak .... The article you wrote does not mention any sources and the article I wrote is sourced with works which support the existence of sanjak in period in which your ellayet existed. Therefore I propose you to check the sources you used for this article and investigate if they were wrong when they named this unit as vilayet instead of sanjak.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Bunjevci

Hi,

I noticed that you were editing article Bunjevci. There is one work of Ivan Ivanić that I think is not used in the article and might be useful. Bunjevci i Šokci. All the best,

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Category Bunjevci

Hi,

Sorry to disturb you again. I created an article about Ivan Ivanić. When I wanted to add him in category within [[Category:Ethnic groups in Vojvodina]] I could not find category for Bunjevci. What do you think about creating one?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Hello PANONIAN ive left you a reply, regards. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi PANONIAN, I've posted a comment about the symbols which I'd like your input on please. XrysD (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI notification

Please see WP:ANI. Concerning this report about your recent action user:PANONIAN_blindly_revert_warring Hobartimus (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Problem sa IP korisnikom

Можда је најједноставније и најбоље да се све редом ревертује. Јер ако и није кршење ауторских права, нит ја видим да ту има неких корисних информација нит да је у складу са Википедијиним стилом, не наводи изворе... Nikola (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Maps of municipalities

I was wondering if you could make those maps less inward-oriented and more in-context? Right now they only tell people the shape, the list of villages, and their arrangement, but nothing else. For example, you should at least name the territories around them, indicate national borders differently, and similar. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but nevertheless any map shouldn't be completely out of context. Notice how all {{location map}}s have other adjacent borders drawn - that's common practice. JFTR I also dislike maps such as the first one at e.g. Ozalj - there is some context, but it's still a blurb. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Pozdrav

Pozdrav Panonian, samo ukratko da vas obavjestim da je u toku formiranje 'Prve Proleterske Intelektualne Udarne Brigade', koja ima za cilj okupljanje svih jugoslavenski orijentiranih pojedinaca - intelektualaca sa ciljem ponovnog povezivanja Jugoslavenskih naroda i moguce uspostave nove jugoslavenske integracije. Za sve ostale informacije, molio bih vas da se obratite na email: yugoslavpro@gmail.com gdje ce vas uputiti za sve detalje ove grupe. Pozdrav; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.147.64 (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Uyvar

Hi, Panonian. Do you have any sources about the eyalet of Uyvar ? Takabeg (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What's Özü Eyalet. Is it same as Silistra Eyalet ? Takabeg (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for Move

Hi! I would like to join these discussions about Request for Move: Talk:Natasa Janics, Talk:Christina Vukicevic, Talk:Milos Raonic, Talk:Kristina Mladenovic, Talk:Alex Bogdanovic, Talk:Irena Pavlovic, Talk:Andrea Petkovic. Greetings and thanks! :) --Aca Srbin (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2011 (CEST)

The map

I don't have any POV towards Hungary and unlike you I'm not pushing to insert a map I made. If you don't think that the current map is adequately accurate you should provide another location map that clearly shows subdivisions and neighbouring countries to replace it with before removing it.--LK (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

In the same article, you added the Serbian Despotate among the predecessor states of the eyalet. However, I don't see how this is possible since there is a gap of almost a century between the last year of existence of the despotate and the first of the Budin Eyalet, and those lands must have been controlled by someone in the meantime.--LK (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

About the new map: I tried to look for a good map to serve as a reference in some historical atlases, but they all show the Ottoman Empire without its internal subdivisions. Online I found plenty of maps (both old and recent) depicting the vilayets, but none that shows all the eyalets in the same picture. I found this map from terra.es but it's about the 19th century. If you can't find anything better, there's euratlas, but as I've written elsewhere I don't know if this counts as a reliable source (it's still better than another wiki though).--LK (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Found these two maps, don't know if that will help you, but check them anyway. Cheers, LK (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The main problem is that there are no two maps of the Empire that have the same borders. The maps you used as a reference contradict each other in too many ways to count, and most are vaguely dated, mentioning just that they represent the situation in the 17th century. Claiming that they represent a year in particular or even that they are to be considered accurate is probably too much, but still, they're better than no map at all. Cheers,--LK (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking about creating a series of locator maps as derivative works of your map central europe. (Like this one). Do you think this is a good idea? Cheers, LK (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Principality of Upper Hungary is a wrong name. It was the short-lived so-called Principality of Imre Thököly between 1682 – 1685. Between 1527-1682 Upper Hungary belonged to Habsburgs. After 1685 Upper Hungary returned to the Habsburgs. This short-lived upper Hungary have never been under Turkish suzerainty or under Ottoman rule. Moreover, the territory of Upper Hungray had never seen Ottoman troops in the history. Thököly fought against Ottomans and Habsburg. Upper Hungary must be colored with other color than transylvania, because it status was different state despite its personal union with Transylvania. It was governed separated by different. The turks were unable to conquer that territories. Therefore the border-line of Ottoman Empire and Upper Hungary must be signaled by black border lines too.--84.0.57.111 (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would not agree that "Principality of Upper Hungary is a wrong name". Certainly, there are several names used for this principality and all of them are valid. Here you can see that name "felső-magyarországi fejedelemség" ("Principality of Upper Hungary") is clearly used in the sources: [7]. Other name that was used is "Principality of Central Hungary" (or "Orta Macar" in Turkish). See quotation from this source as example: "Imre Thokoly who for a brief period was installed as an Ottoman client ruler in an area which previously had belonged to Habsburg Hungary, and was known to the Ottomans as Orta Macar". So, this source and published source that I have in my personal library are both claiming that Thokoly was Ottoman client ruler - it is similar status as was the status of Transylvania. Here is also translation from published Serbian source that I used ("Istorija Mađara, Beograd, 2002"): "Intention of Thokoly was to unite all Hungarian territories under Ottoman suzereinity. Ottoman Porta proclaimed him for a king of Hungary, but he took for himself only title of a prince of Upper Hungary. According to Ottoman document (berat), Thokoly ruled over 13 northern Hungarian counties and this area was called Orta Macar (Middle Hungary) in Turkish. It was defined as an Ottoman vassal autonomous principality and it was obligated to pay 20,000 ducats per year to Ottoman authorities." So, I based my map on these sources and if you think that this info is not correct, please present quotations from some other sources that claiming opposite things and we can analyze these quotations then. Also, you perhaps do not know exact meaning of term "vassal state" - an "vassal state" is not directly ruled by its foreign suzerains; it usually completely run its own affairs, with only obligation to provide certain amount of money or soldiers to its suzerain. That is exactly how Principality of Imre Thokoly was described in these sources. PANONIAN 18:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thököly's upper Hungary existed only for 3years. Before and after Thököly's 3 years reign it was part of Habsburg Empire. Austrian duke (later Emperor Ferdinand I)paid tribute to Turks, to avoid the attacks in the years when he fought with other European powers. Do you think that Austria became vassal country of Turkey? After serials of attempts in the 16-17th century, Ottoman military system proved unable to enter to Upper Hungary, because it had a lot of stone castles. The countries/states of the Balkan region (except bzantine greeks) fell under Ottoman rule very rapidly (often with one decisive battle), due to the lack of the network of stone/brick castles and fortresses in these countries. To built stone castle systems were expensive for the economic level/development in the medieval balkan orthodox countries.

Your map try to demonstrate 1 year event in an article which represent 145 years history (1541-1686), it seriously mislead the reader. Therefore the representation of that single short period map (whitout the other two maps) is a falsification of history.

Wait a second: who exactly say that states and territories that existed only for short amount of time cannot be presented in maps? It is completely irrelevant whether this principality existed for 3 years, 3 days or 3 centuries. It existed, and due to that, it is valid subject to be presented in maps. Also, I created another map that show territory of Royal Hungary before Principality of Upper Hungary was created and that map too was included into article, so what exactly is a problem here? As for tribute, I know that rulers of some countries payed money to rulers of other countries just to avoid their attacks and that such payment does not automatically mean that these rulers were vassals. However, in the case of Imre Thokoly we have sources that claiming that he was a vassal. As I already said, you are free to provide quotations from other sources if you think that these quotations are contradicting to sources that I presented. PANONIAN 18:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Read the Imre Thököly article. He hold two positions, prince of Transylvaia and prince of Upper HUngary. Despite the half year personal union, the two states were not united and it was governed absoulte separately/independently. As "prince of transylvania" he became vassal of Ottomans, but as prince of Upper Hungary he didn't became vassal. Your map is tried to represent Upper Hungary as Ottoman vassal, however it is falsification of History. Turks were unable to spread their power to upper Hungary.

My source claim that his Principality of Upper Hungary was defined as an Ottoman vassal autonomous principality. It does not speak about Transylvania. Do you have any source that says that status of Principality of Upper Hungary was different? And when I say "source" I do not refer to Wikipedia articles, but to books, web sites, what ever. PANONIAN 13:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Now, let examine what some other sources are saying about Imre Thokoly and Upper Hungary:

• [8] - Quotation: "Thokoly was received with great pomp by the pasha of Buda in the summer of 1682 and at once a joint army of kurucok and Turks embarked on the conquest of Hungary. They spedily captured the north-eastern strongholds of Košice, Prešov, Levoča and, at the cost of 4000 Turkish dead. Fidiakovo. Thereupon the pasha Ibrahim delivered to Thokoly the antham of Mehmed IV which declared Thokoly to be king of all Hungary and Croatia, as tributary vassal of the sultan..."
• [9] - Quotation: "Thokoly was crowned the king of central Hungary by the governor of Buda, Ibrahim pasha, and thus became a Turkish vassal."
• [10] - Quotation: "In 1682 the Turks decided to help Imre Thokoly, the Hungarian leader, and Thokoly agreed to be a vassal of the sultan."
• [11] - Quotation: "the insurrection continued until it culminated in the expulsion of the Germans out of the whole of Upper Hungary by Thokoly. He was recognised by the sultan as vassal king of Upper Hungary"
• [12] - Quotation: "In 1682 a Turkish army invaded Northern Hungary and placed Thokoly on the throne of Northern Hungary as a vassal of Kara Mustafa."

I doubt that all these sources are wrong, and there are more in google books search: [13] PANONIAN 13:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Your sources didn't support your claims. Read it again and again. Thököly as prince of Transylvania became vassal of Ottomans, but Upper Hungary did'nt became vassal state. Some information for you: Don't confuse the two state: Upper Hungary is located in present-day Slovakia and Northern Hungary, Until Transylvania is part of present-day Romania. Thököly captured all of Upper Hungarian castles and cities without assaults and sieges, because the guards were mostly Hungarians and sympathized with Thököly.

Read about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuruc

The Kuruc uprising didn't mean the expansion of Ottoman Empire, because the territory of Ottomans didn't became larger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.114.139 (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You have semantic problems which inhibits your correct interpretation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.114.139 (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, claim that "I have semantic problems which inhibits my correct interpretation" is not quite example of friendly behavior. Also, which of the sources that I presented is claiming that Thököly became vassal of Ottomans "as prince of Transylvania"? I do not see such sentence in any of presented sources. Can you say in which source you found that and on which page? Also, These sources are clearly stating that "Thokoly was recognized by the sultan as vassal king of Upper Hungary" not as "vassal prince of Transylvania". I really do not see how this claim can have any other interpretation. And what you want to claim anyway? That Principality of Upper Hungary was an fully independent internationally recognized state instead vassal Ottoman principality? I do not see that you provided any source that can support such claim and without sources we cannot have serious conversation. And personally, I do not care what was status of Principality of Upper Hungary, but I am always trying to make correct maps which are based on available sources and I repeat that you did not provided a single source that can support your claims. PANONIAN 18:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody used that title "king of upper Hungary" hahahaha. It is 1000% sure, that Thököly didn't used that title. A book from 1872??? hahaha more funny and "very" reliable source. Again, you tried to falsify a 145 years long history. Thököly's success was Hungarian success which was supported by locals and kurucs in Upper Hungary. (Thököly was supported also by the vast majority of cities towns and villages of Upper Hungary.) Ottomans were not able to conquer that territory after dozens of Ottoman attacks the conquest of upper Hungary remained unsuccessful attempts. The poor medieval Serbia Bulgaria hadn't stone castle/fortress systems that's why they were occupied suddenly by the Turks. I feel a bit frustration in your false map edits.

Principality of Hungary - Articles for deletion

You may be interesting about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Principality_of_Hungary --Samofi (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Western Bosnia 1994.png

A tag has been placed on File:Western Bosnia 1994.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: maps

We should discuss this at Talk:Independent State of Croatia where someone else already brought it up. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You can e.g. ask about this general issue at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I'm just a single person, who is not entirely uninvolved, so it's better to appeal things in general. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Vrelo Bosne, Sarajevo.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Vrelo Bosne, Sarajevo.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:VolgaBulgaria.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:VolgaBulgaria.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Visoko3.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Visoko3.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Visoko2.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Visoko2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire Barnstar

		Ottoman Empire Barnstar
		Awarded for valuable contributions to WikiProject Ottoman Empire, For your extensive and detailed work related to the Ottoman Empire, I hereby award you the Ottoman Empire Barnstar.- Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. PANONIAN 08:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Tuzla Municipality Location.png

A tag has been placed on File:Tuzla Municipality Location.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Slo regions marked3.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Slo regions marked3.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Zastava

Moram priznat... zbunia si me sa tim zastavama na Commonsu, ali ako je tebi tako draže dobro :). Meni je samo bitno da su točne boje.

Ćuj, ja stalno živim u nadi da ćeš komačno da svatiš da bi mogao na kraju Srbiju i Srbe staviti, puno više nego šta historija zahtjeva, kao nacističke kolaboratore na ovom projektu :). I da će ti ova američka i britanska gospoda koja mene okolo prate to upravo to sada i pokušat forsirat. Nadam se da češ da sagledaš širu sliku koju eto iz nekog razloga pokušavaš staviti na Wikipediju, i koji bi to impakt ovde eventualno imalo na obradu historije Srbije u Drugom ratu. Molim lijepo, mi smo kolaboracionistička gamad i sluge okupatora, ne vi! xD Idem sad na Brač opet par dana, ćut ćemo se brzo. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Pa šta sad? Da brišemo one delove istorije koji nam se ne sviđaju? Ako je u Srbiji bilo kolaboracionizma, onda ne vidim zašto to negirati. Događaji iz Drugog svetskog rata nemaju nikakvog uticaja na poboljšanje društvenih uslova u današnjoj Srbiji. Pored toga, besmisleno je koristiti Vikipediju kao mesto za propagiranje nekih političkih ciljeva, pogotovo putem istoricizma i udešavanja istorijskih članaka u smislu podrške željenim političkim promenama. PANONIAN 13:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ma ne! Govorim ti da naglašavaš više nego šta je povijesno točno, to nije u redu. I ja nikako ne negiram kolaboracionizam u Srbiji, ali "Srbija" kao takva nije bila kolaboracionistička država, shvaćaš? To je bitna razlika. (P.S. nije mi uopće jasno zašto pričaš o ostvarivanju nekih "političkih ciljeva", i još manje zašto pričaš o životnim uvjetima u Srbiji.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Dobro nije bila država i gde se to kaže u novom infoboxu? Pokušao sam da napravim kompromis i da uklonim sve opise koji tebi liče na državu i stvarno ne vidim šta je još problem? PANONIAN 14:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox je ok ako ti tako želiš, ali kako je dosta čudan i nema nigdje takvo nešto, tako ne vjerujem da će takav i ostati (ja ga neću dirati). Ostaje još par problema osim toga.. treba negdje staviti infoboxe za njemačku administraciju i za Nedićevu vladu kao prvo. Mogli bi staviti na onaj tvoj članak Government of National Salvation (Serbia) infobox za Nedića [14]? Onaj infobox trenutno tamo nije za vlade, nego za vladine agencije (najčešće se misli na američke). Nedićeva vlada nije država, prije nego šta išta kažeš, ali jest politički entitet i svakako može koristiti former country infobox, dapače, trebala bi. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, to jeste neki napredak, a ako neko drugi bude hteo da menja taj novi infobox o tome ćemo pričati tada. Što se drugih članaka tiče, kao što se ti ne slažeš da Srbija bude predstavljena kao država, tako se i ja ne slažem da Nedićeva vlada ili nemačka vojna uprava budu predstavljene kao države/teritorije. Dakle, ako onaj infobox u članku o Nedićevoj vladi ne odgovara možemo napraviti novi (takođe u slobodnoj formi), ali nikako se ne slažem da bude onaj "former country". Zanima me samo šta bi konkretno ti stavio u taj infobox kao i šta bi stavio u infobox o nemačkoj vojnoj upravi? Iako se po rečniku pojam "politički entitet" može odnositi i na teritorije i na vlade i na entitete bez teritorije, Nedićeva vlada nikako nije bila "country" i uopšte mi nije jasno kako da sada ti zagovaraš neku državnost kad si se tome protivio. PANONIAN 16:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Očito, nije mi na kraj pameti predstavljati Nedićevu vladu ili Njemačku administraciju kao dražavu. Kao šta ste i ti i Nuujinn i Fainites (i ja) utvrdili, Template:Infobox former country se može koristiti za sve vrste (historijskih) političkih entiteta, od vlada, do njemačkih administracija, provincija itd. Template:Infobox former country je infobox koji se treba i mora koristiti za Nedićevu vladu. Kažem opet, razlikuj teritoriju od političkog entiteta. I kao šta sam rekao nebrojeno puta, taj infobox je ok za političke entitete, ali ne za territory ili area. Vidi na primjer Governorate of Dalmatia. Bilo mi je drago pričati, ali sada stvarno moram na katamaran. Ćujemo se. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"Infobox former country" je mnogo neprimereniji za članak o Nedićevoj vladi nego za članak o Srbiji i s obzirom na ove sporove najbolje je rešenje koristiti "free form infobox" za sve srodne članke, jer se u takvim infoboxima mogu koristiti opisi koji nikom neće izgledati sporno. Ne postoji nijedan izvor koji tvrdi da je Nedićeva vlada imala capital, zastavu, grb, himnu, religiju, monetu... PANONIAN 16:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

PANONIAN, sad nema smisla to šta govoriš. Ta vlada je politički entitet i imala je i capital i zastavu i himnu i monetu. Ona zastava je Nedićeva zastava i to uopće nije nešto o ćemu se može raspravljat. Njegova vlada je imala i svoju monetu i svoju himnu. Ukratko to je povijesni politički entitet i MORA imati taj infobox. Zar ćeš opet da praviš spor gdje ne treba? Pa čija je onda bila ona zastava?

Jao.. ćuj. "Srbija" je ime koje se predominantno u tom povijenom kontekstu koristi za sami teritorij, ali ponekad (prvenstveno u našim izvorima) i kolokvijalno za Nedićevu vladu ("Nedićeva Srbija"). Ako ti naš izvor kaže da je to bila "zastava srbije", time misli na Nedićevu vladu. Ukratko: to je Nedićeva zastava. Ako smo zaključili da se "Srbija" kao termin u izvorima prvenstveno odnosi na teritorij, i da će tako biti i na našem projektu, tada "Srbija" u svom infoboxu nesmije imati zastavu. Nedićeva vlada, ili "Nedićeva Srbija" u našim izvorima, svakako ima zastavu - iako nije država - pa je MORA imati.

Ma za cijeli ovaj nered je kriv Nedić koji je, iako ga Švabe nisu jebavale dva posto, gurao svoju jadnu vladu kao nekakvu "državu", pa je stalno spominjao nekakvu njegovu "Srbiju" i izmišljao kojekakve zastave, grbove i himne. Otud ova konfuzna situacija. U suštini, "Nedićeva Srbija" nije ispravan izraz, i zvati Nedićevu vladu "Srbija" je povijesna greška, koja se ustalila kolokvijalno u nas. Izvor koji zove tu zastavu "zastava Srbije" promovira tu grešku, ali autor nije toliko kriv jer samo koristi ustaljeni (ali krivi) termin. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTORE, problem je što ti ne samo što uopšte ne razumeš istoriju i državno-pravne odnose, već svoje pogrešno shvatanje pokušavaš da nametneš drugima i time trošiš vreme drugih korisnika na gluposti. Zašto se lepo ne ostaviš te teme (koja ti očigledno ne ide) i ne pokušaš da radiš nešto korisno i konstruktivno? Nemoj molim te da mi objašnjavaš na šta autori izvora koje sam koristio misle: ako u knjizi piše crno na belo da su to zastava, grb i himna Srbije onda je to nesporna činjenica sve dok ne pronađemo drugi izvor koji tvrdi drugačije (a takvog izvora očigledno nema). Nema ni izvora koji tvrdi da se pojam Srbija odnosi na Nedićevu vladu ili da je Nedićeva vlada imala zastavu, prestonicu, himnu i monetu. To je isključivo tvoj lični stav koji nije potkrepljen izvorima i samim tim je nebitan. Ako ne prezentuješ bilo koji izvor koji potvrđuje tvoje tvrdnje nemamo o čemu razgovarati. Takođe, ako misliš da nametneš svoj stav u člancima i da to pitanje rešiš silom, tražiću pomoć svih mogućih administratora, a nemoj sumnjati da će oni od tebe na kraju zahtevati izvore koje nikad nisi prezentovao, pa ih verujem ni nemaš. Čoveče, zar nemaš ništa pametno i konstruktivno da radiš u životu? Piši o nekoj temi u koju se razumeš. PANONIAN 21:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Satellite image of Moldova in September 2003.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Satellite image of Moldova in September 2003.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Bačka-Bacska

Your reasons for the removal of Bacska from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944%E2%80%931945_killings_in_Vojvodina is inaccurate. In Wikipedia, it is common that place names be included in other languages, especially if other ethnicities are referred to within the article. As the article is about Germans, Hungarians as well as Serbs, it is appropriate to include Bacska as the Hungarian name for the region.

There are many examples of this, not just in Wikipedia, but elsewhere.

Here is an example from the Sombor article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sombor

In Serbian, the city is known as Sombor (Сомбор), in Hungarian as Zombor, in Croatian as Sombor, in Bunjevac as Sombor, in Rusyn as Zombor (Зомбор), in German as Zombor, and in Turkish as Sonbor.

Do you have any objection in me re-including Bacska as the Hungarian name?Htcs (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please inform yourself about complexity of naming issues in Central Europe. Hungarian name of the region is mentioned in the main article about Bačka and there is no reason to mention it in this article as well. Sombor is in fact good example against your proposal: there are 6 official and several unofficial languages in Vojvodina and both articles (Sombor and Bačka) are mentioning names in all relevant languages, not only in a "selected language" which might look important to some users. This is the only possible way of NPOV presentation. PANONIAN 07:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your argument. If you are maintaining that it is NPOV not to include names and spellings from other languages, then that is nonsensical. I do a lot of research in Western and Eastern history and it is default everywhere, including Wikipedia, to include names and spellings of other nations if they were relevant. That is why Bratislava is also known as Pressburg in German historical texts. The simple reason why Bacska should be included in the article is that it is the name used in many of the sources. It is also easier for a reader to recognise that Baҫka is also Bacska, which I am reliably informed that other ethnicities know it as.Htcs (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I found the Wiki-policy for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28geographic_names%29

Read point 2 under General Guidelines. Htcs (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You do not understand that point 2: it speaks about alternative names of article titles, not about usage of names in text. Alternative names Bačka are to be posted in Bačka article, while main name of the region used in English is to be used in other articles where Bačka is mentioned. PANONIAN 15:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right. I think that point 3 talks about content where it is permissible. Also, the Zombor example I gave is in the content part and not the title. The guidelines suggest Point 2 - all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead This could be a solution.Htcs (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Purge vs Killings vs Massacre

Considering the contentious issues in the discussion pages regarding the terminology of what happened to the peoples of Vojvodina in 1944-45, purge is the more appropriate word for the reasons I have already stated in the discussion page.

Purge is an English descriptive word. The fact that you cannot find this word in the Serbian sources does not invalidate its use. It is a totally appropriate word to use in the context, rather than killings or massacre.

чистка is the google translation of 'purge' but in Serbian, it may not mean the same thing in a political context as it has multiple meanings in English.

The Oxford English definition of Purge is as follows:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/purge

Primary meaning: 1 an abrupt or violent removal of a group of people: (used in a phrase) - the savagery of government’s political purges

from Latin purgare 'purify',

You should re-evaluate your rationale for altering the title and consider that others have a better command of English. Htcs (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any source that mention word "purge" in relation to that specific event? That word is just too similar to term "ethnic cleansing" and I argued on article's talk page against accuracy of that view. PANONIAN 07:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You do raise a point. However ethnic cleansing would only refer to ethnic minorities, like Germans, Hungarians and Rusyn. As Serbians themselves were killed by Partisan Serbians in Serbia, the word purge is more descriptive. These Serbians would have been classed as 5th columnists by Tito. Purge is a word. The OED definition is all that is needed. It does not have a POV and doesn't imply any nationalistic bias like 'ethnic cleansing' or 'massacre'. To answer your original question, I have not come across the word purge in the sources I am familiar with to date. However that is immaterial for the reasons I've described here and expounded in the article's discussion page.Htcs (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is your opinion. My opinion is that term "purge" is more POV than "killings" and that, therefore, it should not be used without background in reliable sources. Do you have anything against word "killings"? Do you imply that such word is inaccurate or something? PANONIAN 15:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm only trying to help. Yes, I think that 'killings' is too personalised. The difference in understanding between 'killings' and 'purge' is subtle but quantifiable. A purge is instigated by a government and uses its forces to purge its population. Killings is much too POV as (in the case of the article) leads the reader to believe that the partisans were out of control and acted independently, murdering innocent civilians. This is exactly what a nationalist Hungarian POV is.

In this case, a purge is really the correct word.

I would be happy to have a 3rd editor look at this if you are agreeable.Htcs (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)