User talk:Ceha/ Archive 5

File:1991 BiH towns.GIF listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:1991 BiH towns.GIF, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Maps?

Hi, Ceha

I just saw your maps: File:Montgomery b.png and File:Montgomery a.PNG.

You gave this article as a source: Interview William Montgomery: Hrvatski entitet je realnost.

But, the problem is, Montgomery didn't mention any specific borders of the entity. As i- see it now, you draw the lines by yourself. That is why I will propose this files to be deleted.

Please, do not play with maps anymore, as you did on commons. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of of File:Montgomery a.PNG

A tag has been placed on File:Montgomery a.PNG, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

map is unsourced, based solely on author speculations, see author's talk page

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:File:Montgomery a.PNG|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ante Perkovic (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of of File:Montgomery b.png

A tag has been placed on File:Montgomery b.png, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

map is unsourced, based solely on author speculations, see author's talk page

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:File:Montgomery b.png|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ante Perkovic (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Old contrib in Demographics of BiH article

Hi, I saw a sentence here which is not understandable and I saw you were the author of it. The sentence is:

“ During the time of percentage of Croats fell Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Croatian_percentage_in_Bosnian_municipalities_1971-1991 by more then a quater. ”

Could you explain me its meaning, so that it can be rewritten? Thanks a lot, --Diotime (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is fine now, thanks a lot, amigo.Diotime (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

boooookiiccc

) Kaj pa delas mein freund? Kazi mi, sta se desava sa mapom za 1991? Vreme je da kazes gde su onolko mnogo greska. :) Tell me, what is going on with the map for 1991? It's time to say where there are mistakes, 'cause you claim that there are so many. (LAz17 (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)).

Pa pazi, nebi ja reko da je previse sa plavim... ako ima gresaka, mozda je samo nekoliko, a nije mnogo. Kod kupresa izgreda da je uredu... sta je problem kod kakanja? Nemam imena naselja, ali mi izgeda da su karte uredu. Mozda ima neka mala greskica, al do sada nisam nasao. Takodje... ovaj koji je to uploadovo je nedavno stavio novu kartu, gde su ispravili nekoliko greska. Ja mi reko da je uredu. Kazi mi ovo, kolko vremena ti treba da nadjes primere greska? Sedmicu dana? Moram da kazem da mi se bas dopada karta. Poceo sam da malo radim ovo za naselja, da sam napravim kartu naselja.. mada to ce trebati dosta vremena, i moracu da idem posebnu kartu za posebno naselje... to traje dugo. :( Al hej, poceo sam... mada ide sporo - nisam radio na tome prosli mesec dana. Kazi mi, gde si ti? Hrvatska prepostavljam? (LAz17 (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)).

Roditelji su. Oni su se odselili u sloveniju, jer hej, tamo je standard bio MNOGO veci nego u drugim republikama. Sad, pazi ovo, ja ti ustvari purger. Rodjen sam u zagrebu, a to je interesantna prica. Slovenci su upisivali novorodjene kao slovenci, dok u drugim republikama pitaju roditelje sta je dete... vidis, ti slovenci su teli da se prikazu da ih "vise ima". Tuzno je. Ipak, da nebi bio neki janez, moji su cekali porodjaj u zagrebu, i eto, na neki cudni nacim ipostavlja se da sam ustvri purper.

Mape smatram da su vecinom dobre. Videcemo sta ce tu biti. Problem sa onom tvojom mapom sa kruzicima je da se nezna koji je census, i verovatno imaju greske. Kod oni "cro-stat" mapa za bih ima neki greska. Ovi momci mi izgeda da su se mnogo trudili. (LAz17 (talk) 05:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)). Dak su vudei nape hrvatske koje su napravili? Te su interesante - bas za 2001 je interesantno. (LAz17 (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)).

Na EU nevalja, ja bi reko. Istocno Evropske zemlje netrebaju da ulaze u EU jer prosto receno, nedobijaju nesto mnogo, samo vise i vise zavise od zapada. Mi smo ti covece nove kolonije. :P lol

Hr1991 http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Hrvatska-Etnicka_karta_%2791_cir.gif

Hr2001 http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Hr_-_EK_-_2001.gif

Sta mislis o tim kartama? (LAz17 (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)).

Ti znaci nisi video census hrvatske, po naseljima. Dakle, tvoj zakljucak je pogresan. Vecina srpski mesta uz bosnu su vrlo malo naseljena. Centri opcina vecinom imaju hrvatsku vecinu, a mnogo je veci centar nego skoro pusta naselja. Ja imam census iz 2001e po naseljima... dakle nemoj da se brines, uredu je. Ako te zanima koja opcina, javi sta ti treba. Za onu tvoju drugu kartu - ko sto se vidi, to je preko 50% po opcini. To neznaci da nema drugi grupa u drugim mestima u blizini. Moze biti 51% hrvata - a gde je ostali 49%? Ja mislim da je karata stvarno izuzetna, i bas me iznenadjuje. Sto se tice EUa - to je napravljeno sa ciljem da bogati u zapadnoj evropi budu bogatiji. Istocna evropa pati sa time. Taj free trade je sjebo velik deo sveta. (LAz17 (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)).

Nazad an karte o bosni... sta se desava sa time? Nece da se ceka godinama, ako si to planirao. (LAz17 (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)).

What now? Maps okay, or are you just wasting time in order to keep your wrong maps longer? (LAz17 (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)).

There is absolutely no need to email for any reason. You have the census. Now go count the polygons if something is not certain. You may do it for each municipality if you want. The 1991 map is clearly correct. If you want any email, you do it yourself. And be happy that the maps are in such high resolution. That clearly shows that these people have nothing to hide. (LAz17 (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)).

Why did you make http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/1332/mapwithaquestion.gif ??? That map clearly steals the basemap from the map on the serbian wikipedia, and does not give credit to the authors that made it. Further, the map is awful just in terms of colors - serbs should be blue, that's their traditional color on ethnic maps - blue due to orthodoxy - croats are always redish due to catholicism. Further, that map does not show areas where there are no majorities.

I do not know what "zbilja" means. (LAz17 (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)).

Only in your maps do serbs appear to be red. Serbs are always blue, as that corresponds closer to their orthodox faith... green for muslims... and redish for catholics. No problem here, sorry. If the map is their map then you should source their names as the creators, and to top things off, you excluded areas where there is NO majority or NO people. Neighborhood majority must not affect majority in a certain area if that area has NO people. Please stop editing other peoples maps in order to try to seem valid. To top things off, Varjarcic's map with the Serbs being in Blue color shall be re-instated. Who gave you the right to change that map to make serbs red? Your own personal preference? (LAz17 (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)).

Karte

Koliko vidim, karte mogu biti OR.

Dakle, ti si u pravu :). --Ante Perkovic (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry što sam te gnjavio ;). Sad kad znam ovo za OR, više ti se neću petljat u karte. :) --Ante Perkovic (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

2006 population estimate for BiH

Hi Čeha. Its this image you posted. Do you know what source its based on, i.e. what estimate has been used to create it? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Čeha? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

But there's no source there either... do you know what estimate its based on? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It is probably ok, and yes it does look ok, but User:Kruško Mortale is insisting on some source before letting me include it in the Bosnian language article... besides also arguing on Template:Infobox Bosnian War that Republika Srpska and Herzeg-Bosnia were "allies" against Bosniaks during the Bosnian War... :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply

But the man was both Chairman of the Executive Council and President of the Presidency of Croatia. These were the two highest posts in Croatian politics. Plus he's an ethnic Croat. I don't see how he doesn't qualify as a "Croatian politician" just because he wasn't born in Croatia... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No, but he was a "Croatian politician". In fact, he was probably among the most popular and well-known Croatian politicians of the period.

You know, its a little known fact, but the Yugoslav economy actually started to recover due to his efforts as Premier (making him quite popular), right before it crashed completely because of the wars... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, yeah - that too :). But when I say "war", I don't mean tanks coming in blowing up factories, I mean the complete dissolution of the integrated Yugoslav economy, when front lines replaced open borders. Not to mention the privatization... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Karađorđevo agreement. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Note: It doesn't matter who is "right" and who is "wrong" --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for for disruption and edit warring on Karađorđevo agreement. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• See here for the sockpuppet investigation report. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As I am blocked I can not respond to those accusations on that page. I think that that is ridiculous. I did not log in onto my page and that was all. My computer at home does not have fixed-ip (croatian max-adsl). Also I publicly stated that those 2 edits were made by me. [[1]]

# (cur) (prev) 09:32, 9 August 2009 Ceha (talk | contribs) (22,068 bytes) (rv (Polargeo, doesn't expirienced editors know about existance of discussion pages? And why are some of them deleting sourced data? I didn't check I was log in. What is your excuse?)) (undo) User producer is doing this with obviously malicious intentions.--Čeha (razgovor) 15:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Doesn't matter as that SPI is pending closure anyhow. If it's true that you simply didn't log in then taking the edits you've made under your IP and your username still equals a block for disruption for edit warring at the article. Policy is clear all edits are to be taken together: "reverts made by multiple accounts count together". Nja²⁴⁷ 15:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well Nja247, I would be tankfull if you could sorten out those accusations about sock puppetry (as I'd like to have a clear record).

As for punishment, I am accepting it, but I'd like your help with dialogue to other users (Producer, Polargeo and ICTYoda) as they do not participate on discussion pages when some of them is deleting sourced data, as can be seen onto [[2]]. Those my reverts where due to their's removal of a sourced data.--Čeha (razgovor) 15:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Thank for sorting that false accusation of sock puppetry in advance.--Čeha (razgovor) 15:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. I checked my edits and it seems that I did not break 3RR, look;

09:32, 9 August 2009

16:02, 8 August 2009

14:35, 8 August 2009

23:09, 7 August 2009

all of that edits were in the span of more than 24 hours? --Čeha (razgovor) 15:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• This block is for disruption and edit warring, not 3RR. Nja²⁴⁷ 15:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  

Ok,can I get a little bit more of explanation? I was blocked even if I do participate in discussion pages, and users like producers were not even warned even if they do delete sourced data (that which I added to the article:) and do not regulary participate in discussion pages nor do explain theirs actions? --Čeha (razgovor) 15:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well edit warring policy covers the reason for the block. I'm not going to take sides in this dispute, and as ThaddeusB said to you above on 20th July, it doesn't matter who's right or wrong in an edit war, the issue is the disruption to Wikipedia mustn't happen. Taking all the edits you made whether logged in or not together there was disruption being caused.

As for issues you're having with other editors, if discussion has failed you should consider moving the issue up the dispute resolution process, possibly by taking the issue to a relevant noticeboard for community comment. I wish you the best of luck in getting this sorted once your block has ended. Nja²⁴⁷ 15:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nja247 :) When this is over, I'm going to try that link. I tried to sort it out, but unfortunately we haven't managed to find a common language. C'ya :)--Čeha (razgovor) 15:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requesting_dispute_resolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal links to try in karađorđevo. Deleting sourced material. Ask for advice against users which are edit waring, dosen't discuss, have high POV. --Čeha (razgovor) 19:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

sourced data can be deleted if it is unnecessary

I haven't seen any rule that sourced data cannot be deleted from an article. Wikipedia would fail if that was the case because we could put anything in an article as long as it is sourced. Ridiculous. And if it was you using an IP address to revert my edits then I suggest you stop this immediately. Polargeo (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you make yourself up a nice new article and put whatever you want in it and stop trying to add lots of unecessary stuff to the KA article? Polargeo (talk) 08:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny, when I tried to exclude everything about divisons of BiH one administrator told me that this article is to small and that we should use anything which is about it. Do you wish I provide you a link with that?

Look, I'm very sorry that because your POV you can not see others opinions. Everything which I wrote is sourced. And according to wikipedia there is against the rules removal of sourced material.

This stand, took all your stuff and go away is very much against any wikipedia policy you can think about. As I said, I'm going to put all of this under arbitration comity and we'll see what will come of it. I'm certain that persons which do not discuss their edits and remove anything which is contrary to theirs opinion are not welcome to wikipedia.

I suggest you to try reading a bit of wiki rules and try to show a bit of civility.

P.S. I also suggest reading any of the books about bosnian war to see frontlines. Maybe you are just a little bit "short" on that data? :)

P.P.S. I'm sure that you know this but articles on wikipedia should be objective, writen from NPOV and free of any propaganda. I'm sorry to see that by removing data which you deem "unnecessary" that is put to test.

Also removment of sourced data is deemed as vandalism. I'm certain you know that.

--Čeha (razgovor) 13:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Now let us get this straight. I seem to be the only one here editing this article who does not have a POV so don't push that one on me. I am English, not of Bosniak or Croat origin, I had nothing to do with the Bosnian War. I am either your worst nightmare or your best friend. I am an editor trying to improve wikipedia. I hope I can be of help to you. If there are already other sections or articles on Graz_agreement and Bosnian_War#Course_of_the_war then you are mearly repeating information that is already on wikipedia. This repeated information can be removed to improve the article. If you have a problem with this then please discuss these points. A brief outline of these things with appropriate links to the relevant articles/sections is all that is needed in Karađorđevo_agreement, certainly not loads of duplicate maps about the boundaries during the war. It is more helpful to add content to the appropriate articles rather than leaving a mess for others to tidy up/delete/merge. Polargeo (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Polargeo, I'm sorry but your behavior was(is) a little bit strange.

Your edits in Karađorđevo article were in fact just removal of mine, and you did not come into that article on your own, but you were called in by user Producer [[3]], and your behavior was unfortunately not neutral (you basicly took side in an edit war). You also reverted and edits made by user Aradic-es [[4]].

From the end of that conversation it seems that you can be civil, but I got to warn you, wikipedia is not a place were someone can threathen another (which you did with your take your things and go away attitude. Sorry, but your edits were far from neutral, probably cooperated with Producer on previous article and it look like (and it still do look like that way) you just came to help your friend. Your ethnicity is not important in this edit war. You could be a Bushman, it realy does not matter.

It's behavior which counts. And I think it would be good that we get a cabal meditation of this, because user producer is basicly puting on parts of war propaganda on wikipedia, and is deleting anything with does not agree with his POV. Also the guy does not participate in discussion pages, or does it rearly. --Čeha (razgovor) 20:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It may be helpful if you'd both consider mediation, particularly the Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal to assist in sorting out this dispute so that things can move on. Consider it. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Nja. I came into this to try to resolve the edit war dispute on the article. I thought I was mediating by trying to help edit the article. I certainly haven't tried to take sides but suddenly I find my edits being reverted by an IP. Thanks for resolving this. Polargeo (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The IP issue has been addressed as the edits were in fact by Ceha. Thus any mediation should be with this user. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I signed myself when was giving latter commentary as can be seen here [[5]]. Unfortunaly user Polargeo did not just came as neutral observer, but was called to help by one side in the edit conflict (user Producer) [[6]] and did not prove his neutraly by his actions... As I said, nja247 your suggestion about media cabal is very good and I'm lookin forward on suggesting it tomorrow. I think I'm not going to waste my time with persons who threathen me with nightmares and wish me to go work on the other articles. And those persons call themselves neutral ? :) Good one. Polargeo, very transparent :) I'm just not certain that Polargeo and ICTYoda are not producer's sockpupetts? --Čeha (razgovor) 20:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Very funny Ceha, I am a "sockpupet" ha ha ha, I'm killing myself laughing, go on investigate me they might have trouble when they find that I am using a UK IP address. Please calm down. I am not on Producer's side. Look at my edits on the article. I have tried to improve the accuracy of the Testimonies header as suggested to me by Añtó| Àntó on my talk page. I have just improved the two citations in the Graz agreement part of the article. However, it is a perfectly reasonable thing to suggest that further information on the Graz agreement should go in the article on the Graz agreement and information on changes in territory during the course of the war really are best left in Bosnian War#Course of the War. I don't know why you wish to put it all into this article. On the other hand I agree with you if we were starting up the article now we might call it meeting and not agreement. But they are very close in usage and in that case I think it is best left with the name it has had for 2 years. There is no point taking me to mediation. If you want to wreck the article by putting maps in that really don't belong there then I don't really care that much, I won't revert you. To randomly stick Bosnian War territory maps in the Background section is not constructive article improvement. Polargeo (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, there is no harm in checking things out. I don't see why you are taking things personly. As I said your edits (at least in wich I took place) were mostly one-sided (although this could happen accidentaly). That map which I puted at the beggining of the article is not "just any map" of Bosnian war. It is the whole bosnian war in one animation. I'm sorry if I sounded rough, but previous admin said things which are contrary to your opinion. He said, that this article is missing data and that we should work on giving that. Article is a mess, and user Producer is deleting any oposition or opinion on that pages (sourced and otherways) which does not agree with his. I'm sorry but it seems to me that mediation is the only way out. I'm not going to participate in endless edit wars, or be endelessly trying to discuss data with persons which do not have dicency to answer on the questions puted there, but will endellessly revert others work.--Čeha (razgovor) 13:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have already stated that I will not revert you in this article. Polargeo (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that an admin/user said the article needs expanding does not mean put everything into the article. I also agree the article needs expanding but there must be plenty more to say about the '1991 Karađorđevo meeting' before we start sticking in maps of frontlines during the 'Bosnian War from 1992-1995' and additional information on other agreements such as the '1992 Graz agreement' (which isn't even between the same people as the Karađorđevo meeting). Of course these things are related to each other, they are all related, but endless repetition on wikipedia is not good. Polargeo (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That map provides context. Meeting was about the war. And that map shows that war. Similar goes to international conference in London. There are acusations about BiH divisions made on Karađorđevo meeting which are based on hearsay and rumors and that state was being divided on that conference (Lord Owen's Odisey for example is a good point on that) and that state is currently divided on ethnic divisions. Article about "Karađorđevo agreement" (and should be said that such name is ofensive to Croats and all of Croat victims which passed away in war that followed) is curently just a piece of post war propaganda.

I'd like to better that article, but because of Producer vandalic acts (removal of sourced data) I am unable to. So this goes to cabal. --Čeha (razgovor) 18:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

bosnia problem, maps

Why are those maps still up? You yourself admited mistakes here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ARjecina%2FBosnian_census&diff=255563465&oldid=255519741 , and you said that those on the serbian wikipedia look correct. You said yo uwanted to have time to check them... surely you have had enough time by now? (LAz17 (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)).

You made one more precise, and still keep the former one there. At any rate, the new maps from the serbian wikipedia are FAR more precise than any of the ones that you produced, on the basis on a BAD SOURCE. (LAz17 (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)).

You do not understand. Forget those other maps. We are talking about only your maps. You had one, and you admitted that it was wrong. Then you uploaded a new one, which supposedly was a better version of the old one. Why do you then keep the old one??? (LAz17 (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC))

As for maps of serbian wikipedia, you yourself said that they are are for the most part correct, maybe a couple errors, but for that they look alright. Look under bokic in my talk page, and you will see what you wrote. Clearly you do not want to find the mistakes, because there are not any. How did you even go about making your map, if you do not have the data? (LAz17 (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)).

Articles for deletion nomination of Ethnic maps of Bosnia and Herzegovina

I have nominated Ethnic maps of Bosnia and Herzegovina, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic maps of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Polargeo (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sock

You may be interested ICTYoda was a sock Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historičar/Archive Polargeo (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Crazy colors

Pls don't do that. Your map is completely incorrect and utterly biased. For starters the Kingdom of Slavonia was NOT a part of the Kingdom of Croatia in 1868 (before the Nagodba), but was only included when the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was formed (after the Nagodba), and that period is covered in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article. The military frontier was included as late as 1881. Highlighting Dalmatia is complete and utter POV. Both the Military Frontier and the Kingdom of Dalmatia had absolutely nothing to do with the Kingdom of Croatia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes the name is incorrect, you're right, but what does the name matter? It was a stupid typo, the map is actually for 1860. I probably shouldn't have colored the Kingdom of Slavonia light red, as it was independent from the Kingdom of Croatia in 1860. Bear in mind that this is a map of the pre-Nagodba (pre-1868) "Kingdom of Croatia", i.e. before it became the "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia". Secondly:

• You are mistaken, Rijeka was very often under direct Hungarian or Imperial administration before 1870. It was a free port in 1849 (to my knowledge), and was actually not under the control of the politically weak Kingdom of Croatia for most of the 19th century (prior to 1870).
• The map is 1860, so Ilok is in Vojvodina.
• Claims are not for infobox maps, that is heavy nationalist POV. Make a for the article itself (not for the infobox) and feature all sorts of claims you like, maybe even Bosnia...

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you want, exactly?

• 1) A map for 1849? Croatia had Slavonia and Ilok, and was at its largest historical extent in the Habsburg Empire.
• 2) a map for 1860, which seemed like a good indicative year? Croatia lost Slavonia in 1849, so there's no Slavonia, and Ilok is in Vojvodina.
• 3) a map for 1867? Slavonia is not a part of Croatia, but Ilok is in Slavonia. However: this is the last year before the Kingdom became the "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia", the last year of the period.

I compromised. I made a map for 1860 but still colored Slavonia red because it was a part of the Kingdom of Croatia for most of its history, even though in 1860 it had nothing to do with Croatia. Concerning Rijeka: I need to see sources on when exactly was Rijeka within Croatia, and when it was a "Free Port" under Imperial/Hungarian control. (I'm talking about pre-1867 history, not the "Riječka krpica" of 1870) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok so do we go with

• 1848 (Croatia with Rijeka and Slavonia, Ilok is in Slavonia); largest territorial extent of the Kingdom of Croatia (before it became the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia)
• 1859 (Croatia with Rijeka but without Slavonia, Ilok not in Slavonia)
• 1861 (Croatia with Rijeka but without Slavonia, Ilok is in Slavonia)
• 1867 (Croatia with Rijeka but without Slavonia, Ilok is in Slavonia); last state of affairs of the entity known as the Kingdom of Croatia (before it became the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia)

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm already working on a map of late 1848 (after August 30 1848), the largest territorial extent. Status in late 1848:

• Ilok is within Slavonia
• Slavonia is an autonomous kingdom subordinate to the Kingdom of Croatia
• Rijeka is within Croatia (de facto)
• Međimurje... a source would be good on the "unilateral annexation". I'm not going to include it without a source, even if Croatia did annex it it was illegal and unrecognized.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about your previous maps, but the "claims" issue has hopefully been settled. There are now three, very accurate, non-fantasy maps of KC.

• 1) (late!) 1848, which is the largest territorial extent of the Kingdom since the Turkish invasion,
• 2) (early!) 1868, which is the last state of affairs for the Kingdom, and
• 3) cca. 1885 (this is the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia now, of course), though I'm not 100% sure about the borders of Bosnia and Montenegro in it...

The reason why I made this map was the promotion of a new approach to Croatian history: exclusively non-fantasy :). Non-fantasy is a very good idea for Croatian history on Wiki, methinks. Lets not forget the disputed "pacta conventa", or the imaginary "Croatia-Hungary" (with Croatia first :), or the "Triune Kingdom" that "transcended the divides of Austria-Hungary". The fact that Croatia was puny poor, powerless, sparsely populated, slapped around by everyone is not enjoyable - but its factual. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Laz and the maps (1000th time)

Ceha has a famous history on Wikipedia of posting fraud maps. We must not forget his insisting that his bosnia maps are good, when in fact they were proven to be wrong. I just don't have the time to do everything, sigh. But basically, his track record for the maps is not one that is good. If he made bad maps that were pro-Croat biased in bosnia in the past - why would he not do that again in a slightly different context? And then when he posts them he does this : a) insists that the maps are correct, and b) when faced with another map he will say that he needs time to check it, and that time will be indefinite with no end. When confronting Ceha with mapping, the best is to be precise to the point. His maps often have no source, just made up stuff. In his discussions he often mixes things up to confuse people on purpose - using mesna zajednica data, and then going to settlement data. Be careful, this guy is tricky. Here is proof of the headaches that he can create. I mean, he admits that his maps are wrong, and still keeps them up. User:Rjecina/Bosnian census (LAz17 (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)).::

Nisam znao da se i ti malo bavis sa mapama, direktore. :) (LAz17 (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)).

As can be seen from that discussion, my maps are good. Laz is just a little bit POV:)--Čeha (razgovor) 22:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Your maps are good?!?!?! What POV statement is that? Your maps are confirmed to be false, and poorly false. On top of that you admitted that those other maps are correct - you just want time to check for possible mistakes - and you have not found any. When I finish some hockey stuff I shall replace all those false ethnic maps that litter this website. National Geographic, Belgrade Univeristy, and other institutions have produced far more accurate maps, using better data and a base map - you have no base map. You yourself use maps with no source - or to be precise - I got your fraud source deleted. Best day I had on wikipedia, seeing you protest that fraud getting deleted. (LAz17 (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)).

Ok Laz, I think that my discussion with you ended in that 181 kilobytes long file. My maps are fine. I offered to work on their precision if you or anybody else gave me verified and valid source. You did not do that. So please do spare me from your conspiracy fraud theories ("belosvetskih zavera"). Maps are good, precision could be better. If you have a valid and verified source, please do show it. If not, put the sock in it :)

--Čeha (razgovor) 20:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am new to this dispute, but if you don't have "verified and valid sources", how did you make the map in the first place? :P Maps are very, very powerful images. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no dispute. If you wish further information you might read that epic discussion. Map is made from census data. Laz claims that there are some inconsistencies and impressions in them, but he cannot produce any valid and consistent source which would would source his claims. And any possible "imprecision error" is really minor. As I said before, there is no dispute just unsourced claims from Laz:). --Čeha (razgovor) 21:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Laz, please do not put your garbage on my talk pages. Everything what was to be said is on those discussion pages. I think that should be quite enough. And again to repeat that those maps are good. If you have some valid and verified source which would show otherways they can be easily changed. But we went through all of this, and I'm not going to get into more circles with you. Your fraud stories take to someone else :) Isn't that simple enough? --Čeha (razgovor) 09:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Laz I don't care. This are my pages. I don't want your theories here. Give me something valid I can use, and that's the end of it. I need to have something valid and not just your small talk to get the changes done. And after all, difference between those maps is so minor it can be barely seen. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Nicely told, Ceho. You told him proper sentence "Your language describes you better than I ever could". Dobro si mu reka.
Please, read this [7].
Čemu se čudit? Why should we wonder? Kubura (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Yes. The guy is story for himself ;) --Čeha (razgovor) 02:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

You have been blocked from editing for two weeks to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in a slow-moving edit war on Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ceha (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Toddst, this is compleatly unjustified. User Laz provided unsourced map (in 2 compleatly different versions) (Link1) which he latter removed (as it is unsourced) (Link2) . Secondly the same user changed my map with the same one, but in different colors. I don't see this (as I was right in the first issue, and at least on equal footing on the second issue) as a reason for 2 week ban! We 2 were the only editors in that time, nobody else made some changes which were lost. Finally, we did agreed on the first issue (user Laz obviously lacked sources) and we could use an mediator about the second issue (only thing which is in dispute are map colors). This is completely wrong and draconian punishment for something purely innocent. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You may be correct, but being correct is not an exemption to WP:EDITWAR. You reverted the article 5 times in the past 4 days, and I see no where in this unblock request where you indicate you intend to stop reverting. If you wish to be unblocked, you need to convince administrators that you will stop reverting the article to your preferred version, even if you believe your version is right. The correct course of action is to discuss the matter on the article talk page, while the version you do not like is still the visible version, and then after consensus is established at the talk page, you can change it to your preffered version. You show no signs of wanting to do this, in fact your behavior shows you are willing to revert the article over and over again without ceasing, which is why this block was necessary to stop such disruptive behavior. Again, if you wish to be unblocked, convince the administrators you will stop this. Jayron32 02:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Link1 [8] Link2 [9]

{{unblock|Well I do. As I said, the only thing that was left to discuss was the color of the map. I'm perfectly willing to discuss it on the discussion pages, moreover it would be good if someone would help us as mediator? I think that from my history and contributions ot this wikipedia it can be shown that I was always willing to discuss my changes, correct any possible errors and contribute in the best manner to the wikipedia. I should have probably try to discuss it with Laz, but the guy barged in, and started reverting map. Due to previous bad experiences with this user and unsourced images he puted in, I made an error (not discussing the changes, or better say discussing it through edit summaries). Shouldn't I have another chance, at least in shorter time period? Anyway I still think it is a draconian punishment :) P.S. It would be good no matter the outcome of this plee if you could suggest a mediator for that discussion? It would shorten the time, I think there should be maybe 2-3 lines after the mediator could give his/hers suggestion. Again, it is pretty simple problem, color of the map. And perhaps it would be better than he/she make the final change? --Čeha (razgovor) 07:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)}}

Glad to see this account is being cut some slack. :) Blocking the fellow for two weeks would merely prolong the silly dispute to no end. I'm sure admins will have some understanding for users struggling to put together a reliable and accepted map of something as touchy as ethnic distribution in Bosnia (when the words "ethnic" and "Bosnia" are included in the same sentence, one can certainly expect at least some edit-warring :). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) It was a silly issue to start with :) --Čeha (razgovor) 21:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Balkan Sanction imposed

You are now subject to a sanction restricting you to 1RR per week sanction on all Balkan-related articles. This sanction has been recorded in your block log and in the list of blocks and sanctions related to the Balkans. Violations of this sanction can lead to long-term blocks. Toddst1 (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, I do not see reasons for this kind of behavior. The same request as for unblocking stands. Can you show in some case that my edits were disruptive, unproductive, unwillingly to discuss or that I as wikipedian had any bad intentions in mind? --Čeha (razgovor) 00:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you willing to abide by the 1RR per week sanction imposed by ArbCom on this article? MuZemike 20:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Off course. Rules are rules. P.S. Do you perhaps know a somebody with enough experience who could help as with those colors? It is silly issue, but :)

--Čeha (razgovor) 21:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI Notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 18:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Banovina i Bosna

Malo ti granice ne štimaju. Osim toga, ne vidim svrhu karte s današnjim administrativnim granicama i povijesnim. To je mješanje krušaka i jabuka. Povijesne karte se ne crtaju baš tako. --Ex13 (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Žepče new municipal borders

Good news. I deleted your Zepce map. Apparently I found out that it was a cropped image from a CroStat map, and hence you did not have permission to upload it. Wikipedia is very much into licensing when one uploads. (LAz17 (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)).

If there was some problem with copyrite than map should have been deleted. It is simple as that. --Čeha (razgovor) 21:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It was. I am just letting you know that your upload is now gone. (LAz17 (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)).

Great. Thanks for the notification. --Čeha (razgovor) 08:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)