User talk:Live Forever

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Srebrenica article in need of vigilance

KOCOBO, Osli73, Srbijanković, Svetislav Jovanović, and Bormalagurski have all teamed up to do a major renovation of the Srebrenica Massacre article. Since they are working in concert, it is easy to make a single user go past their three reverts. It is not clear how administrators will see this. I will hold out as long as I can, but the original editors of this article will need to be vigilant if is not to be lost to nationalist revisionists. All of the above mentioned editors are from the WikiSerbia forum... whatever they call it. 128.253.56.185 22:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7000 estimate is antiquated

Live Forever, I just added this to the Srebrenica discussion page.

Based on the information available in 2001 the ICTY Trial Chamber stated it "is satisfied that, in July 1995, following the take-over of Srebrenica,Bosnian Serb forces executed several thousand Bosnian Muslim men. The total number is likely to be within the range of 7,000 -8,000 men."

Based on data available now in 2006, it is clear that the 7,000 estimate is too low.

The ICMP has a very strict accounting for Srebrenica victims and only accepts family testimony backed up with DNA samples. The ICMP list of Srebrenica victims is currently at 7,789. http://www.ic-mp.org/home.php?act=news&n_id=175 The Federal Commission of Missing Persons in 2006 is now over 8000. Their method is also strict requiring at least two independent confirmations. In addition to the approximately 8,300 confirmed by the commission, there are several hundred more under review. I have put in a request with a Harvard researcher to give the latest official numbers with primary source material. I hope to have that soon.

I believe the data now available in 2006 collected by internationally accredited institutions will substantiate that the introduction ought to say "approximately 8,000 killed" not the year 2001 estimate of "7,000 to 8,000". I want to thank Osli for inspiring this additional research and given his professed commitment to a rational approach to writing this article, I rest assured that he too will agree to the "approximately 8,000 killed" in the introduction once all the documentation has been presented. Hmmmm... well on second thought he'll probably go running to Seselj to get the latest "controversy" and do everything he can to sabotage putting a reasonable estimate based on ICMP research in the introduction, but so it goes. Fairview360 22:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read through the entire ICMP website but I agree that it looks like a respectable setup. So, I think "an estimated 8,000" or "about 8,000" is a good text. But in that case, there is no need to, in the intro, mention either the ICTY's 7-8000 or the Bosnian govt's >8,300 figure. These things could be expanded on in a separate section instead.

Finally, it's sad that you seem uncapable to imagine that anyone who is not willing to go along with your views on this topic must be a Serb or, for some reason, be for Seselj or Milosevic or be a "leftist apologist". In fact, that seems a bit paranoid.

Once again, I urge you to take action against the current Copyright violation.

Finally, take it easy and stay civil Osli73 22:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Osli's vandalism

Live Forever, Bosniak, Bosoni, Emir Arven, HanzoHattori, Dado, Haris M:

I would like to protect the Srebrenica massacre introduction from any further vandalism by Osli. He repeatedly deletes sentences from the intro that are accurate, true, relevant, and well referenced.

If we can all agree on the text of the intro, then it will become entirely clear to administrators that Osli is a vandal.

Please look at the intro as it stands now. It would be great if we could all leave it as it is now or quickly come to an introduction that we all can agree to. Currently, it explains in stark terms what happened. That is why Osli wants to delete the sentences. Make the truth less clear in the beginning, so that he can then throw in his “Defend Milosevic! Defend Serbia!” propaganda and potentially confuse some of the readers.

Please all take a look at the intro. Let’s all come to an agreed upon intro and let it stand. Then if Osli continues to delete sentences from the intro it will clearly be vandalism and if he continues, perhaps he can be banned. Then we can concentrate on the article and let our own differences of opinion be a source for constructive conversation and continuing improvement of the article.

What do you think? Fairview360 00:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good job

LiveForever, good job pointing out that the "source" for supporting MacKenzie was MacKenzie himself. Fairview360 14:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LiveForever, very glad you stepped in today at the Srebrenica massacre article. I was getting tired and annoyed with Osli-Rev. Fairview360 20:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COTW Project

You voted for High Middle Ages, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

FAC

The copyediting you've done has improved the flow of the article a lot, thanks. I'll have another read through and fix anything that I see, then I'll switch my vote.--nixie 02:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniak page

If as you claim the Ottoman peoples did not have a even mentionable input into the Bosniak gene pool then why is there such an obvious visual discrepancy between a Bosniak and a Bosnian Serb or Croat? Perhaps it is wise to include it.

Correction

Why are you constantly trying to destroy the improvments I have done to the bosniak article, stop immediatly changing to older versions. And for that matter there isn't anything turkish in the bosniak gene pool, the turks barely ever mixed with the bosniaks, but on the other hand it is well known that the serbs and turks mixed a lot during the osman time, so you will find a lot of turk genes in serbian gene pool. The bosniaks are descending in my oppinion from illyrian tribes, because the bosnians and albanians are the only muslim people in europe and Kulin Ban had an illyrian name and even "Bosnia" is an illyrian name and so on, the bosniaks does not have anything to do with either serbs, croats or turks.

By the way are you a bosniak ??

Yes, I am a Bosniak. And the part of the article you keep changing is perfectly good and says nothing about Croats, Serbs, or Turks. If you look at the section titled "Genetic analysis of indigenousness" you will see that the article supports that Bosniaks are (genetically) Illyrian. Live Forever 17:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to change it anything, I'm trying to improve the article on bosniaks. We must make clear, that bosniaks are the ethnic (real,orginal) bosnians and we must make clear that they were bogomils before converting to islam, this is critical fatal information and need to be in the article. I will change again and I hope you realize that the change only are for the good of the bosniak people.

Man you are really getting on my nerves, how dear you call yourself bosniak, you are a shame to the bosniak people since you don't have a clue on how to defend the interrest of the bosniak people. You are indeed harmful to the real bosniaks, you are harmful to the bosniak identity. And I will never give up my fight against people like you driven by their own stupidity.

Kad se vraćaš kući?

Nemate na bosanskoj Wiki? Kad misliš nazad? Ako budeš imao vremena pošalji mi email na moj već poznatu adresu. Emir Arven 22:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poslao sam ti e-mail, pa ako stignes pogledaj. Emir Arven 14:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I started the process

First of all, I don't think that any kind of mediation etc. would help. So, I asked for assistance on AMA requests page (look at the top of requests). I'll inform you about next events according to this issue. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 09:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image moved to Commons

Hello! FYI, I renamed and reuploaded your Image:P7080177.JPG to commons:Image:Tsars Mosque.jpg. --romanm (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnians

Mozes li pogledati clanak Bosnians na kojem stoji sablon za pospremanje. Napravio sam par ispravki ali mi treba jos neko svjez da ga procita prije nego uklonim sablon. Pozdrav --Dado 16:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you visit the article Bosnians when you get a chance. There seems to be a dispute going on that could use your opinion.--Dado 16:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the proposal. I have moved four choices for images to go into template on a "Bosnians" talk page. Tvrtko and Husein are given if you can find images. I agree with Andric but there is so much heat generated around his identity that I just don't want to get into it. Sokolovic is also good. I proposed Aleksa Santic and Djuro. Somehow they just work. --Dado 23:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huso-kapetan

Evo ti link na sliku Husein-kapetana. Konacno sam pronasao finu sliku, ali nisam siguran da li se moze koristiti slobodno. Uglavnom, eto samo da vidis facu naseg gazije, s obzirom da si ulozio veliki trud u rad na njegovom clanku. Fina cehra, vidi se da je ascare Bosnjo :) Emir Arven 13:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Svaka cast za Gazi Husrev-bega.:) Emir Arven 22:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A znas sta je jos inetresantno na onoj novoj slici Bosniaks, svi su begovi :) Bosansko plemstvo :) Neka, neka, nek se vidi da i mi imamo nase plemice. Emir Arven 23:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniaks page -- biases

Bosniaks are a Slavic-Muslim peoples. No one will contend with that sentence, for it is true. They are a mix of Slavs who converted to Islam and Muslim peoples who turkified them, with frequent intermarriage due to religious connection. No history book will deny this, yet you seem to. Get a grip. Antidote 23:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Bosniaks hate to call for History and get nearer to Serbs or Croats, but which would, to your opinions, be closer? HolyRomanEmperor 17:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Bosniaks hate to call for History and get nearer to Serbs or Croats, but which would, by your opinions, be closer? HolyRomanEmperor 17:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To which would (historically and ethnicly) the Bosniaks be closer; the Serbs or the Croats? HolyRomanEmperor 18:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, you support th theory that Bosniaks are Croatian and Serbian converts to Islam? HolyRomanEmperor 20:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but if you then historically go to the Bogumils (I suppose you do), the Bogumils were far more closer and more interacted with the Serbs. HolyRomanEmperor 13:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bogumils came to Bosnia from Serbia; the maternal language of all of their rulers was Serbian and they most identified as Serbs. Even though they were mostly baptised Catholic, they were much closer to the (Serbian) Orthodox Church. HolyRomanEmperor 13:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then which theory? HolyRomanEmperor 16:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now

I see what you reverted. Now let me explain myself. "Greater Serbia" isn't an article about what the Serbs did to the Croats; it's an article about a master plan. Would you like better examples of Croatian nationalism? But, whatever the case, we need that link. --VKokielov 23:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, how can there be arguments "for Greater Serbia"? And whose arguments are they?

I'd like to know. --VKokielov 23:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ja sam promjenio opet, pa pogledaj(te): Greater Serbia. Hvala sto ste mi odgovorili. --VKokielov 21:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to write a little (research) on Bosniak history (origin) but I fail to find anything. The reason od my posts, is to hear something from you... I am all eyes... HolyRomanEmperor 14:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour

Je suis un wikipédiste français. Je vis actuellement en Slovénie, à Ljubljana (mais je ne parle pas ni serbe ni croate, juste slovène).

Adijo

Reply to David Latapie 21:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This Charming Man

I'll get on it, hopefully I'll upload it and everything tomorrow. The article's looking really awesome by the way. the wub "?!" 22:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, beaten to it. I forgot I hadn't installed all the necessary software onto my new laptop yet, hence the delay. Good luck with the article, its looking like it'll easily make featured. the wub "?!" 11:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When your propaganda is going to end

Could you explain your Bosnian? language and how come that you seak better Craotian. Is there a chace that your so called "Bosnian" language is actually mutation of Croato-Serbian or Serbo-Croatian language with addition of few of Arabic and Turkish words. It is a fact that you are Croat or Serb that under Turks accepted new religion and now claims new nation

When are you gong to stop to falsificate history of a Balkan when every single world know encyclopedia claims differently then what are you stating. Go to ecyclopedia.com or ecyclopedia catolica, britranica, History section on BBC...

Is is particularity of your culture havuing turksih names, religion and rabic influence... is it "your" culture.... Or you keep stilling from your roots upgrading from your conversion and forcing other to be what they are not. Are you aware that this is why Croations and Serb have no other choice but fight for the freedom in theri own land from the converts who denied them history, name and land...

What seems to be the problem with the History of Bosnia and Herzegovina article, my friend? Did you read the talk page? HolyRomanEmperor 22:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ban Matej Ninoslav

I didn't even notice the ridiculosly biased parts of the article. Removed and I am adding more info. Do you like it now? (enough for the tag to go down?) HolyRomanEmperor 10:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnjani

E, aj napisi valjan clanak na temu Bosnjana, makar i samo u nekoliko recenica. Ja sam uklonio redirekciju na Bosnjake i stavio da termin moze znaciti Bosanac ili Bosnjak. Mislim da je to ok bar inicijalno... --millosh (talk (sr:)) 01:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Da, mislio sam upravo na to. Hvala ti. Drago mi je sto makar sa nekim Bosnjakom na Vikipediji mogu pricati bez muke. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 16:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina

...is an article started by me. But I am lacking all sorts of info; and am afraid that the article remains Serbian-POV; so I am inviting you to help me make it right. Will do? --HolyRomanEmperor 21:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This Charming Man

I say go for it, you've done a very good job on the article and I personally think it meets the criteria. Although you weren't able to get your hands on "Songs That Saved Your Life", I recommend having a search @ Google Books (http://books.google.com) - although they don't have that specific title (I've looked ;) ) you may be able to turn up something of interest nonetheless. --Hn 01:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molim te...

ne želim ispasti napadan; ali niti želim djelati bez tvojih uputstava... (Talk:Demographic_history_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina) --HolyRomanEmperor 12:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. ~~Marry Christmas!~~ --HolyRomanEmperor 13:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err... sorry for that part. I have been Marry Christmasing for the past 15 days everyone I know... I forgot shortly whome I talk to :S I sincerely meant nothing bad. I hope you don't mind it... Do you? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Namek

Hi, I have for now just joined the English Wiki. In the future i would like to start editing also the Bosnian version but for now i`ll stick to English because I think i can contribute here more. Namek 05:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...sorry again...

I promise that I will merry you Bairam on... Will it be on 24th October or...? --HolyRomanEmperor 21:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sretan Bajram!!! (Beogradski muftija kaze da je danas) --HolyRomanEmperor 15:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nationality

Are you done with this test/example template? If so, please mark it for speedy deletion. -- Netoholic @ 22:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charming Man:

No, I will never change my vote to neutral. See the voting page for my reasons...... :) .... Spawn Man 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novi nacrt za History

Zdravo! Imam plan o povijesti BiH. Želim da pišem odvojeno: History of Bosnia i History of Herzegovina; jer bi prvi ostao History of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a drugi bio Zahumlje-Hum (napisacu uskoro)-History of Herzegovina. Šta kažeš? Ako se slažeš, mogli bismo to zajedno da uradimo. Čujmo se! --HolyRomanEmperor 18:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Herzegovina Moramo djelati brzo ako ne želimo da ostane stub i da bude izbrisan (vjeruj mi na riječ, imao sam takvih slučaja :) --HolyRomanEmperor 23:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Husein-kapetan Gradaščević

See his talk page. Since zou are writing the article about him, I have found some info (the size of his army, and the Bosnian Army's War song) --HolyRomanEmperor 20:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herzegovinians

I noticed you removed a part of the Herzegovinians article. May I ask why? This is what it said:

"In recent years, the term Bosnian has been applied to Herzegovinians as well to try and create a national identity in the country. However, this has been mostly limited to the Bosniak population, and Serbs and Croats generally consider themselves Herzegovinians first. Bosnia comprises the larger northern portion of the nation, and by extension a Bosnian is normally a person who comes from this geographical region."

The Bosnians article makes it seem like all Bosnia and Herzegovinan nationals are by definition Bosnians. This is not necessarily true. From the CIA World Factbbook:

Nationality: noun: Bosnian(s), Herzegovinian(s) adjective: Bosnian, Herzegovinian

I was simply trying to express the fact that a Bosnia and Herzegovinan national can also be considered a Herzegovinian. Many people in Herzegovina would never consider themselves Bosnians. Response is welcome. --Thewanderer 20:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmed Paša

I hate when I have to disagree with people, but please bear with me.

Ivo Andrić presented the Orthodox Sokolovići village in the Na Drini Ćuprija, which was actually located near Višegrad. The first Serb Patriarch was indeed a certain Makarije Sokolović. No claims dispute the fact that he was his brother, although he could've been a brother by uncle or aunt. It must be pointed out that the creators of his "Serbdom" are a Croat (Ivo Andrić) and a Bosniak (Meša Selimović). Ivo's work is more like a biography than a work. He explained his life from his kidnapping (as a result of the Blood Tax, I think) when he was ten to the "wars on three sides (Asia, Africa, Europe). But he presented him not as a villain; but as a victim of the terrifying world back then; and especially the new unkown world of the Ottoman system.

Don't get me wrong, but I think that he is the result of a process that is known as "there are no Moslem Serbs" which is taking its toll. Compare that with "there are no Catholic Serbs" which is now even accepted. Today, Milan Rešetar and Pero Budmani are considered as "Roman Catholic Slavs of Serbian and Yugoslav orientation". But the strangest thing is with Balthazzar Bogišić who is now "...a Croat of Serbian orientation born in a Serbian family(his parents were Serbs)". --HolyRomanEmperor 12:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerally hope that your silence is not a sign of lack of the will to communicate with me. I have made many enemies because of my arbritrary acting towards nationalists: Serbs like Nikola Smolenski, Croats like Elephantus and Bosniaks like Emire Arven. I really don't want one more man on the list. :( --HolyRomanEmperor 12:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. :) --HolyRomanEmperor 20:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mesa Selimovic was a Muslim Serb, as he himself repeatedly stated, and Ivo Andric was a Catholic Serb, as he stated many times as well. Most "Bosniaks" will consider anyone who has even entered a Mosque or driven through Bosnia a Bosniak, even though most of these people died before the term bosniak was even coined. --Revolucija 21:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dva članka?

Što je sad pa ovo? Imamo članak o husein-kapetan Gradiščeviću i sad Great Bosnian uprising, a članci su faktički isti... Možda ti možeš nešto uradit povodom toga? (ne moraš odgovorit o Mahmudu Paši Sokoliju ako ne želiš). --HolyRomanEmperor 15:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My article

... could need clean-up and imrpoving. It's Stephen II Kotromanić. Since you're from Bosnia, you could help there (if you have time, ofcourse). Selam Alejkum! --HolyRomanEmperor 16:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image! I see that you put that the German origin part is slightly controversal. I take all my info from the Dubrovnik Archive. A Ragusian historian of Italian, Serbian and Slovenian heritage Marvo Orbini wrote a lot about the Yugoslav lands' history. He had described Cotromano Goto as the commander of the Hungarian Christian armies. It is known that that marriage between Tvrtko and the German family brought numerious problems, as the Pope himself wrote about their connectivness, so francly, I think that the German origin is rather obvious.

You then ought to have a look (as soon as you have time) at my other articles on Bosnian Bans: Kulin Ban, Prijezda I, Prijezda II, Stephen I Kotroman and Stephen. Perhaps you could also contribute? Thanks in advance! Selam Alejkum, prijatelju! --HolyRomanEmperor 21:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you for your image! :) Here's a reward:

! --HolyRomanEmperor 20:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E

Oprosti za moj POV-push na Mehmedu, ali Emir me je natjerao. Ti si covjek od casti & postenja, pa cu clanak potpuno prepustiti u tvoje ruke; jer' vjerujem da ces uvaziti sve izvore. Samo te molim, u ime Boga, Isusa, Muhameda, Bude i Shive da zastitis clanak od Emira. Jedini razlog zasto sam tu je zato sto Emir sve te knjige i internacionalne izvore smatra srpskom bajkom. Obecaj mi da ces NPOV-izirati clanak i zastiti ga od Emira. Preklinjem te. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... imam jedno pitanje... Bi li zelio biti administrator? - za sada ti ide odlicno... --HolyRomanEmperor 17:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK; samo javi kad oces. Tu sam da te rekomendiram. :) --HolyRomanEmperor 18:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evo, da te obavijestim - nemoj Vukichevichevu knjigu shvachati kao smejuriju, molim te. Husejin-kapetan Gradascevic - sto on nebi bio oba, a ne samo jedno? Ista stvar bi se mogla primenit i za Mehmeda. Znaci - o Huseinovom srpskom porijeklu nema ni trunke - no imamo onu knjigu koja izrichito prikazuje njegovo oprijedeljenje. Zar mislis da bi oni forsirali takve stvari tada tako budalasto? Molim te, pogledaj i ovo: ХУСЕИН-БЕГ ГРАДАШЧЕВИЋ To je drama koju je napisao Nikola I Petrovic Njegos Knjaz/Kralj Crne Gore. Jednostavno - Husein je bio (izgleda da nije ostao :) srpski nacionalni junak, neovisno od toga sto je ocigledno da je Bosnjak. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, brilliant!

I like the way how the article is going, however, let me please point out a little thingy that you left out in the beginning: commander of the imperial guard (1543-1546), High Admiral of the Fleet (1546-1555), Third Vizier of the Porte (1555-1565) and, finally, as the Grand Vizier (1565-1579) You missed the Second Vizier (he was that from 1561 to 1565). Could you restore that, please? (I'm a little low on connection). --HolyRomanEmperor 15:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and in 1551-1555 he was the Begler-beg of Rumelia. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know - but those disputes unfounded - he stopped being High Admiral persicely after five years; as you can see in the Life, I put really a lot of detailed info while he was the Begler-beg of Rumelia. Even the global encyclopedias mention that he was the General-Governer of Rumelia - so I think that it is pointless to note a dispute there.

Regards, ol' friend. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Charming Man has been listed on FARC!

Just a heads up. Someone has nominated This Charming Man for removal from featured articles. exolon 18:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back on FARC

Hornets Nest. This Charming Man has been returned to FARC. Discussion is taking place on the definition of "recently". exolon 23:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several remaining issues

Well, I re-added the Rumelia goverenship. I believe that you offer no objections? I like the current version of the article, and I think that pointing out his nationality would be like opening a can of worms (like it did before, see the history). Besides; deep, in his heart, he was nothing more than a Ottoman (Turk). However I dislike the numerious citations needed and several tags that still hang out. Could we deal with this? If you have nothing against it, after you deal with that, I would like the article protected for a while. As you can see, it has attracted quitte a lot of arguements in just several very brief weeks. If we just show the history to any administrator, he is bound to have it protected.

Also, I made a mispelling error stating Governer instead of Governor at numerious times. Since you're the main in charge of that article, could you see to it (before we protect it)? Thanks, mate! Regards. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why won't you answer me? I see that you've complained about the annons, so I think that protection's a good idea. --HolyRomanEmperor 11:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Bosniak sentiment

Thanks for info. I actually noticed it. I'll be out for few days but I will certainlly contribute when I'm back --Dado 02:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Greetings fellow Wikipedian!

Sorry to bother you, I'm new here, and I noticed that you have very interesting templates on your user page. Could you explain to me how you put them on your page? Please? Thanks in advance, all the best,

M.B. 04:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiVijest

Live Forever, molim Vas da glasate za WikiVijesti

To je WikiNews na Bosanskom

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Start_a_new_edition#Bosnian

--Kseferovic

Good job. If the voting goes thick, I could change my vote from Neutral leaning towards Keep to Keep. I would just advise you not to give up if the article atracts too many "shakals" and it becomes just another can of worms.

Problem je sto si stavio onu recenicu sa Bosnjacima omrzenim u Grckoj. Nebitno da li je to istina ili nije, privuci ce najekstremnije pripadnike optuzene grupe (ili onih povezanih s optuzenom granom). Dakle, isto ako bi stavio da su Bosnjaci generalno omrzeni Srbiji (sto na zalost ne bi bilo daleko od istine), ocekuj masu srpskih korisnika koji ce napadati clanak sa svih strana. Ja ti mogu pomoci, ali samo donekle.

All the best! --HolyRomanEmperor 23:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Grbavica (film)

"Rv. Tell that to the movie director. Wikipedia is not a place for your own personal opinions, but facts - and the fact is that the bosnian langauge is internationally recognized."

Thank you! I must agree.

--Godtvisken 23:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar awarded

I award you for your calmness and level-headedness when editing and discussing controversial articles. Asterion 18:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Live Forever, I am awarding you this barnstar for keeping it cool on the Anti-Bosniak Sentiment article. We may have different opinions but you have proven me that you are able to listen to someone else's opinion. This is the spirit of Wikipedia! Regards, Asterion 18:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosanski

Does the Bosnian language use Latin or Cyrillic. Any Serb living in Bosnia will say that they use Serbian. You will not find any Bosniak writting in Cyrillic unless they have to (i.e. grammar school). I feel that I am not represented by this cyrillic. We (opposers) have made a lot of comments on why cyrillic should not be placed on there.

If this cannot be settled than we should make another language template.

Bošnjački is the language called by Croatians that Bosniaks speak. I think we have to accept this (even though I do not like Bošnjački for international purposes) Bošnjački, since I am not represented by cyrillic. I SPEAK BOSNIAN BUT DO NOT KNOW CYRILLIC. (THANK GOD)

--Kseferovic

RfA for HolyRomanEmperor

Hi Live Forever, HRE has been nominated for adminship. I have seen him working around on many Balkan/Former Yugoslavia articles and I am very happy with his calmness when editing and discussing controversial topics, even on the face of personal attacks from many users. I think Wikipedia would benefit from a level-headed Admin who will dedicate himself to that part of the Wiki project. Thanks, --Asterion 11:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Bosniak sentiment

Live, sto ne komentarises moje komentare na talk page-u? Zelio bih te cuti (procitati). --HolyRomanEmperor 18:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivana Miličević

It can be verified by Reliable sources (IMDB et al. [1]) that Ms. Miličević is of Croatian descent. WP:V explicitly states verifiability, not truth. Based on this I'm strongly considering adding this to the article (with sourcing of course). The statement of her being born in Bosnia will of course remain intact... all I'm going to add is "of Croatian descent". I know you have a tendency to revert anyone adding "Croatian" to the article, so I wanted to explain my intended edit to you before I do it. I'm not going to do it right this minute so if you can come up with a good reason why this change doesn't meet WP:V guidelines I'll take it under consideration before I do anything.--Isotope23 20:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, since you are vastly more knowledgeable than I in this area, I will mock up a sample in my sandbox and show it to you before I post it. If you agree to the version I will post it up, and explain it on the talk page. If anyone disputes I will point them to WP:V. It's funny because I would have sworn up and down she was of Serb descent based on my memory... shows how tenuous memory can be after a decade.--Isotope23 21:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've mocked something up here: User:Isotope23/Sandbox. Please feel free to change up the wording etc.--Isotope23 17:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious...

Hi LiveForever,

Hope you are doing well. I've got a "real world" query for you about Bosnia. My Andalusian (ex)girlfriend's name is Almudena. Doing some research a while back, I came across the name Almedina in Bosnian. I assume they have the same origin (i.e. Arabic for The Fortress/The Wall). How common is it? Have you ever heard it? Thanks and regards, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 21:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for taking the time to look this up. I really appreciate it. Elmedina/Almedina/Almudena... It makes sense as short vowels are not written in Arabic (I think they call it abjad), so in that sense it would reflect the local pronounciation at a given time, if transliterated. Cheers, Asterion ^{talk to me} 22:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nema sanse batko, ne dam se ja... --serbiana - talk 03:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what is your reason

I can very well understand that some people might think that I am crazy editing articles in favor of the Bosniak thing, since I am an ethnic croat. But I have a good reason for this, as I explained earlier to the serbs on wikipedia ; I am married to a bosniak woman and therefore my children are as much bosniaks as they are croats, by this I have every single reason in the universe for supporting Bosniaks and the future of my children. After having explained this I will ask you what is your reason for backstabbing Bosniaks? I will take you for your word when you are writing that you have bosniak ancestry on your user page, but from my point of view you really make it hard for us to believe that you are truly a bosniak when you act like you do. Best wishes Damir Mišić 21:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure, but what I am trying to say is that Bosniaks are also bosnians, they are simply also reffered to as Bosnians. If you wish I can bring books and quotes on this where it says Bosnians instead of Bosniaks, what I wrote is only representing the current status of the term -not necessary the correct one. Damir Mišić

Smile!

Asterion ^{talk to me} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}} or {{subst:smile2}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Curious Ancestry

You do know that you're basically Serb/Croatian, but during the rule of the Ottomans your family decided to avoid taxes and adopted Islam and then stuck with it? Now we call these traiters Bosniaks. Some ancestry. C-c-c-c 02:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Bosniaks

Duja has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

I'm looking forward to your efforts; I'm rather short of time, and the article just accumulates nonsense over time. Duja 14:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Starimostturizam.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Starimostturizam.PNG. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniaks

As much as I appreciate your "good will" at wikipedia you can't simply come and change the bosniaks article in the massive way you did. These parts must be there and they may only be build uppon not removed: Dobri Bosnjani must be mentioned - Illyrian popular theories must be mentioned, bosnian kingdom must be mentioned AND that "Bosnians": geographic term, "Bosniaks": ethnic-geographic term MUST be mentioned. These parts have after all been there for some time (especially Dobri Bosnjani and bosnian kingdom part) and no one reverted them. So Please! Damir Mišić 00:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have gone to far now, Guess you are waiting for your companions Duja and Jadran to help you now. Of course they will agree with you even if they agreeded for the version that you are destroying - they will take any chance to produce propaganda and denial even if it means they contradict themselves LOL!. Damir Mišić

The only person who contradicts himself is you!--Jadran 08:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?

S obzirom na to da sam proveo poslijednje edite na wikipediji brisuci bas te kategorije - zaista nemam pojma o cemu pricas. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naser Oric

User OSli73 is continously vanadlising and writing half truths and whole lies on the naser oric page

Bosanski jezik

Zasto Bosanska gramatika s kraja 19 vijeka nije spomenuta na Bosnian language (P. S. kojim pismom je pisana?)? Osim toga, zbunjuje me ovaj odnos Cirilice-Latinice. Moj drug iz Novog Pazara (koji ima rodbinu u Sarajevu) mi prica da su Latinicom uvijek pisali katolici - no da je ona prodrla u Bosnu i Hercegovinu kao glavna od sredine 20 vijeka, formiranjem Srpsko-hrvatskog jezika (pozajmivsi neke rijeci i dijalekte od Srpskog - a pismo (Latinicu) od Hrvatskog). Koliko u tome ima istine? --HolyRomanEmperor 14:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

space men

you know what they found out yesterday? Bosniaks ccame from the space in the 16th century - exactly when the turks started making people muslim. So the ancestors of bosniaks actually never lived in bosnian kingdom but IN SPACE !!! Damir Mišić

Bosniaks were called Bosnianins (Bosnjani) when they lived in space, somewhere around mars Damir Mišić

I took away bosnian church and kingdom - stupid of me to place it in intro when it will be mentioned later in text - I hope. Damir Mišić

Noel Malcolm's and John Fine's view on Bosnian Church

I feel obligated to correct these serious mis-interpretations on Noel Malcolm and John Fine among some users at wikipedia. Non of these two object that the Bosnian church was predominantly bogomil, if you for example visit Malcolm's Bosnian institute you will see that he writes that: "the Bosnian Church (with its supposedly Bogomil beliefs)". Now I'm not especially good at English I guess, but I do know that the word "supposedly" implies "the most likely" so to speak. But I do on the other hand agree with the fact that there weren't many Bogomils (adherents of the bosnian church) left when the turks came, simply because they had been practicly forced to convert to Catholicism and in a much smaller extent orthodoxism. But we also know that these "bosnian catholics" in most cases remained true to the bogomil-bosnian tradition but "officially" changed to catholicism to avoid persecution - these bogomil bosnians - who officially recognized themselves as catholics - were the same who took Islam. So catholicism is a later part of bosnian history - bosnian church is earlier than that. First bosniaks were bogomils, then "catholics" and muslims in general. Damir Mišić

I made a fine home made tag for the bosnian people, bosniaks article for now. Damir Mišić

Bosniak history

Ne znam sto si ljut, ali vidi ovo: User_talk:Dado#Bosniak_history. --HolyRomanEmperor 07:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, I do not know if Emir Arven will allow the lack of presence of the "Bosniak history" category on the Medieval Bosnian rulers. Additionally, could we please just keep the "Croatian history" category at Stephen I and Stephen II and History of the Serbs for Stephen II? Just to emulate the fact that Bosnia was a Croatian/Serbian vassalaged part at those ages. Additionally, I support adding the Hungarian history category as well... --HolyRomanEmperor 19:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dobrodosao kuci

LiveForever drago mi je da ces doci u Bosnu. Dobrodosao pa da negdje zamezimo, ha ja :) Obavezno mi se javi emailom pa da se dogovorimo...Selam.--Emir Arven 19:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srebrenica Massacre & Greek Volunteers

Sources: according to the report by the Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, and regarding 'sympathy claim'- Takis Michas, Unholly Alliance: Greece and Milosevic's Serbia. Watch more closely and don't delete factual information.

- Bosniak

RS map

Could you possibly explain why you think Image:Rs lokacija.PNG is contentious? It seems a perfectly ordinary and rather useful map - just curious as to why you're objecting to it. -- ChrisO 20:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Live Forever:

Dont take away my source on the 250 000 who died during the Serbian aggression on Bosnia. I will write down the source again later.

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[2] made on July 10 2006 (UTC) to Republika Srpska

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 07:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pozdrav!

Zovem se Avdo, naleteo sam slučajno na tvoju stranicu i primetio da si Sarajlija :) Ja sam nekada imao vikendicu na Palama i često sam svraćao u Sarajevo, imao mnogo prijatelja tamo... Pre devedesetih, naravno :( U svakom slučaju, hteo sam da te pitam kako ti je u Americi i da li razmišljaš da se vratiš u Sarajevo? Da li ima mnogo naših (iz bivše YU) tamo? Pozdrav, --GOD OF JUSTICE 01:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lep ti je grad :) Istina je da stvari nisu baš najbolje u Bosni, kao ni u Srbiji. Međutim, mislim da se situacija prilično popravlja, a još kad se Kosovo odvoji i kad predaju Mladića, mislim da će nas to učvrstiti na putu ka Evro-atlantskim integracijama. Što bi rekli penzioneri: "samo da ne bude gore" :) Šta ću kad sam optimista. Inače, ako budeš hteo da kupuješ vikendicu negde u Bosni, imam jednog prijatelja koji se tamo bavi nekretninama, pa bih mogao da vas povežem. Kako ti se sviđa američka hrana? Zar se ne zaželiš balkanske hrane? :) Svako dobro, --GOD OF JUSTICE 23:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info

Mr. Live :) poslao sam ti email sa mojim kontakt telefonom, pa se cujemo. Javi mi da li si dobio email. --Selam.Emir Arven 06:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Live Forever (copy from my Talk page)

Response to Live Forever

Hi Live Forever, yes you did some changes on one part of the article, but completely ignored changes that Osli73 did. You need to keep changing his changes to keep that article on a level of high quality that was before. If you do changes, revert to my last version and do changes from there, and then when I start editing the article, I will do them from your version. Please do it this way and we will succeed in keeping the article on a level of encyclopedia quality. Thanks bro. Bosniak 03:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary on Ivana Miličević revert

You might want to consider adding that to the talk page (i.e. the fact that "nacija" in 'serbo-croat' is not the same as the English concept of 'nationality'). I tried to explain this, but I don't speak serbo-croat, so my explanation may not be the best possible way of stating it.--Isotope23 14:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be nice

I noticed your biased edits on Srebrenica massacre. I'll try not to get involved in your little edit war, but remember that this is an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Serb ^talk 02:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clear up position on Oric, I owe you

First of all, no matter who ordered Oric to leave Srebrenica, you need to understand that what he did was wrong. If he was a true leader, he would have never left his soldiers and people to fend for themselves. I am not anti-Oric or anything, as I hope you understand that I am Bosniak and I love my people. Secondly, Oric did a great job in defending Srebrenica for years before he left; our forces almost had no weapons to defend themselves plus they lacked food and basic medical supplies etc, but they did it, they succeeded to keep Srebrenica free from Mladic's genocidal barbarians for 3 years. However, when Oric left Srebrenica, chain of command collapsed, U.N. refused to return weapons to people of Srebrenica, and Serbs slaughtered over 8,000 people in the worst massacre since the WWII. Although U.N. failed miserably, they did succeed in negotiating forcible transfer of women and small children, and these lives were saved. Older children, ages 13-18 were also slaughtered. Had U.N. not been there, one of two things could have happened: 1) bloodthirsty Mladic would most likely slaughter women and small children too, and/or 2) Srebrenica would never fall under Serb control (remember, Gorazde was in exactly the same situation, except they refused to hand down their weapons to UN, and Gorazde did survive). Oric was wrong to leave Srebrenica - period. Bosniak 06:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Live Forever:

You are not a real bosniak! You are a false bosniak!

Sarajevo has 500 000 citizen cause Istocno Sarajevo is a part of Sarajevo!

There is just one Sarajevo! Hahahihihoho 15:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that you dont understand?

Sarajevo had 500 000 before the war and has it now als! Do you understand? They had 500 000 before the war! Hahahihihoho 16:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generacije

Baci pogled na primer na clanak Generation X, pa nastavi da citas ovu moju poruku... --millosh (talk (sr:)) 02:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tamo su opisane generacije u skladu sa onim sto vazi mahom u SAD i Velikoj Britaniji. Imam jednog druga koji je dugo ziveo u Sarajevu (sad je u inostranstvu) koji mi je pricao da je u Sarajevu postojala razradjena klasifikacija generacija prema vaznim dogadjajima u SFRJ. (Rodjen posle zemljotresa u Skoplju, rodjen posle Titove smrti, rodjen posle Olimpijade u Sarajevu...) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 02:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posto to nije bas tako razradjeno u Beogradu (postoji vrlo vrlo retko u sali), bilo bi lepo kada bi neko od vas to opisao i ovde i na bosanskoj Vikipediji (javi mi kad budete to uradili na bosanskoj, kako bih prebacio clanak na srpsku). Naravno, bilo bi jos bolje kada bi bilo i neke literature koja je to obradjivala. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 02:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:JMC.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:JMC.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:4Bosniaks.PNG

Hi Live Forever, can you please specify the sources for the right two pictures? Thanks in advance, --Flominator 21:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian WikiProject

Uclani se na projekat koji sam poceo na en Wikipediji: Wikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina. (Taman ne bio aktivan treba nam korisnika). Prosiri rjec. Hvala, Kseferovic 04:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuvaj se User:Flominator on je Njemac a ko da pricas sa srbinom. Opasan je, navija za srbe samo. Imao sam problema oko mog grada Bosanska Dubica na Njemackoj Wikipediji. Kseferovic 04:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman occupation of Montenegro

What is percisely wrong with the term? --PaxEquilibrium 16:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

check Srebrenica article

KarlXII who might be a reincarnation of Osli73 and Jitse are deleting the intro to the Srebrenica article. I believe the intro -- the way it was before these latest deletions -- very accurately communicates a clear and comprehensive picture of what actually happened. To stop the Srebrenica article from spinning out of control again, I am writing notes to all the editors who have an interest in the article and asking that you visit the site more often. Thank you. Fairview360 04:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbophoobia on vote for deletion again

Hi,

I don’t know if you’re still interested about it, but the Serbophobia article was nominated for deletion for the third time. You can go on the deletion discussiobn page and drop some lines of opinion if you want.--MaGioZal 06:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serb nationalists on the go, again!

Please help, there's problems with the article List of Serb war criminals, serbs are calling it POV just because it lists! And are voting for deletion because they obviously want to hide the crimes. Ancient Land of Bosoni

Reverts

Hi. I have seen that you wrote and moved some parts of Bosniaks article to History of the Bosniak people. PaxEquilibrium keeps putting tags, without reason to that article. As I've seen his controversial history, I think he does that by default because it is about Bosnia. Yours, Kruško.

Hi, again. I want to inform you that PaxEquilibrium or HolyRomanEmperor want to change the name of the article, becuse he thinks that Bosniaks don't have their own history. Kruško Mortale 12:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'm not putting the tags to the article, but I'm reverting Krusko Mortale's vandalism (unexplained removal). Pardon my expression, but it's really dull to claim that I did not explain when I explained for 4 times by now; one of Krusko Mortale's removals is the removal of the unsourced tag and the article doesn't have any source... while Krusko is removing the tag and claiming that I'm reverting his vandalism (as per WP:VAND) without explanation (when I have noted, for quite a number of times).
2. I consider the latter as a personal insults; I have no idea if Krusko Mortale intentionally lied. --PaxEquilibrium 17:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmed-paša Sokolović

I would also ask you Mr. Live, to check Mehmed Sokolovic article, where Mr. Pax, removed POV tag that I put, because there is origin dispute going on. But he removed it. He didn't want to sign in, when he did that, so it was sneaky vandalism. Kruško Mortale 13:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rts freak

Hello there. Mr. Pax told me that Mr. User:Rts freak was Bosnian user which also worked with him and Ivan on Bosniak History article, so he presented that kind of cooperation as multi-ethnic, against my argument that their actions were a priori attitudes based on nationalism against Bosniaks. But I suspect that this user is a sock puppet of User:Ivan Kricancic, so I put the sockpuppet tag in his user page, but he removed it. What should I do? Yours. Kruško. Kruško Mortale 15:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Live Forever. First of all, I'll say good morning to you. Second of all, I really think the only reason Kruško is calling me a sockpuppet is because I made one edit that went against his point of view. His comments toward me are not very civil and are not in good faith. I also don't even edit Wikipedia very much at all, so I don't think that this kind of hostility toward me is warranted. And another thing is, I talked to Kruško on his user talk page, and I explained my actions to him - stating that I'm on his side and I want to collaborate with him - and he didn't even respond to me, and just kept on going with his accusations. I really am sorry that my first interaction with you has to be like this, but I am just sick of his behaviour. Is there anything you can do? - [rts_freak] | 5p34k 2 /\/\3 23:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Live Forever, I need you to support Bosniakophobia project

Let's rename Anti-Bosniak Sentiment article into Bosniakophobia.

Here is more on Bosniakophobia: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=bosniakophobia&meta=

What do you think? Please answer on my TalkPage. Thanks.

Bosniak 07:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please

I am not the one who is introducing the Edit War. You' are (I am merely reverting Your unexplained revers); can You please stop and resort to civility? --PaxEquilibrium 10:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Deathtotheturks.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Deathtotheturks.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. — BigDT 00:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...

Thanks, for your vote. Bajram Serif Mubarek Olsun. Greetings, Vseferović 00:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Live Forever

Bosniak 22:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)I haven't seen you for a long time active with Srebrenica Massacre article. It is currently under attack by genocide deniers. Come and help us preserve the truth.[reply]

Template:Yugoslav wars

I've begun work on Template:Yugoslav wars. It's a work in progress, but feel free to add anything I've overlooked/haven't got round to yet.--Hadžija 18:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)--[reply]

Husein Gradaščević FAR

Husein Gradaščević has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Todor→Bozhinov 21:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpions

LiveForever, it would be much better if you quit the sarcastic riddles and explained your edits on the Srebrenica Talk page. All of the sources are quite clear that the link between the Scorpions and Serbia/YU at the time of the massacre are uncertain. Cheers Osli73 21:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Like a lost bird repeatedly crashing into windows in a vain attempt to get to the other side, Osli73 returns." Well said. Well said indeed. 89.146.130.23 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll on Srebrenica massacre

As a result of persistent edit warring on Srebrenica massacre, I have proposed that a straw poll be taken regarding one of the issues involved—namely, how to title the section currently named "Alternative views". This will help us to determine whether there is a consensus on what to title this section, or at least a consensus on what not to call it. The straw poll can be found at Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#Straw poll on "Alternative views" section. I have posted this announcement to each of the 19 users who have made multiple edits to Srebrenica massacre this year. —Psychonaut 13:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Fresh start' for the Srebrenica massacre article

Hi! Given that the Srebrenica massacre article seems doomed to get stuck on endless discussion on details (such as the current unproductive discussion on the peripheral issue of what to call Mackenzie et al.) I've proposed a 'Fresh Start', setting out some basic principles which should help us to make some real progress with the article. Unfortunately, so far no one seems willing to support such an initiative. I would much appreciate if you took a look at it and gave some comments. RegardsOsli73 10:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ICJ judgment and genocide at Srebrenica

Whatever the findings of the ICJ with respect to proving genocide in Bosnia as a whole, genocide of the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica was proved in Krstic. Whether or not the ICJ finds genocide proven in the case before it, unless the judgment specifically refutes the Krstic judgment and finds that genocide did not occur at Srebrenica the ICTY's finding stands. --Opbeith 09:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarajevo userbox

Hi, I saw you were from Sarajevo, and thought that you might want to use this userbox I made for people from your city: {{User:Patricknoddy/Userboxes/User lives in Sarajevo}}:

This user lives in Sarajevo.

Please tell me if you like it. - Patricknoddy^TALK^|^HISTORY 22:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox for Sarajevo

Why did you removed the beautiful picture of Sarajevo? I sked user:Kahriman about it when he first uploaded the image several months ago and he told me that it was not copyrighted. I honestly think that we should incorporate that image (or a better one) into the infobox. Every major city (including ZG and BG) have images in the infoboxes. If the wiki community finds copyright issues then I understand, but the image still exists with a fair copyright template/license. Pozdrav, Vseferović 01:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, let's not make it look like we are fighting ;). My issue is that we have to find a really good picture of Sarajevo, since the infobox looks empty and dull without an image. I was afraid that you took it as a personal attack... Greetings, Vseferović 14:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

proposed edit to Section 2.4 of the Srebrenica Massacre article

Live Forever,

I just posted the following on the Srebrenica Massacre discussion page and am now, as a courtesy, posting this on the talk pages of frequent editors of the article. Best Regards, Fairview360 02:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors,

Please visit this version of the Srebrenica Massacre article to see the proposed changes to section 2.4: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&oldid=117151359

Please visit this site to see the proposed sub-article which the proposed section 2.4 text will be linked to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_executions_in_the_Srebrenica_massacre

If there is no major objection, we would like to introduce this major edit to the article this Sunday March 25. This ought to give each editor the time they need to review the proposed changes before they are fully introduced.

The objective here is to make the article more concise while continuing to clearly state what happened and in no way obscure actual events.

A full review of the proposed changes to section 2.4 and the sub-article will show that all information regarding the executions has been preserved and presented in a clear manner.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Fairview360 01:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Markale2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Markale2.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 22:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsy

It is not directly relevent to the discussion on the Bosniaks page but for your information the term Gypsy is a correct formal word. This is because it is used in English legislation. For example the Caravan Sites Act of 1968 defines Gypsy as 'persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin'. The Court of Appeal in CRE v Dutton therefore accepted that some Gypsies as defined in the Caravan Sites Act - i.e. those who were Gypsies but not 'ethnic' (e.g. Romany) Gypsies would not be protected from discrimination by the Race Relations Act. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Strokescoverartlg1ud.jpg

Hello Live Forever, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Strokescoverartlg1ud.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Live Forever/Reviews. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 20:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About serb radical nationalist editors

Hi, I’m posting this anonymously because I don’t want to be annoyed with more and more attacks on my talk page (and the head-aching duty to answer each accusation).

Anyway, I’ve been editing Wikipedia from some years on, and it seems like there is a very strong SRS-like Cabal here in this encyclopedia that have been able to put their very distorted vision of Yugoslav history, persons and wars in practically all of the articles related to these themes. It’s disturbing.

If someone read Wikipedia articles related to Yugoslav Wars and base solely on them as a source of research (as many and many students in US and around the world do today), he or she will "learn" that "the "Holy Serbs were victims, the USA/NATO/Albanian/Croats/Muslims ere the villains, and a great injustice was made to the innocent Holy Serb population that never made anything wrong in History but to defend themselves from the aggressors".

This is gross revisionism of one of the worst atrocities of Europe in the second half of 20th century. It's like to put the blame of the Holocaust on Poland and the Jewish people rather then on Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany.

But the most incredible thing is that this radical nationalist vision are winning the game here in Wikipedia. The SRS Cabal editors use extreme pressure, group action and extreme edit techniques (and they're not usually caught on Wikipedia anti-edit war barriers, since they act as a collectivity) they are imposing their vision without constraints. People who try to question them or make any kind of edit that contradicts their rhetoric are hardly harassed in their Talk Pages and the talk Pages of the articles.

And what is worse of all, thy use the Administration of Wikipedia and the rules of Wikipedia to achieve their goals.

These people know very well the functioning of the tools of power and management in Wikipedia, and they use this knowledge to pressure, to block, and finally to silent editor who defy the radical nationalist ideology. Like many other authoritarian organizations, they use collective organized pressure to neutralize individual dissenters. And they go unpunished.

I’m saying this because I've been visiting many user pages of people who have been tried to make more balanced articles about Yugoslav matters here in Wikipedia, and when I saw their Talk pages I generally saw infinite hellish arguments with editor from the SRS-like Cabal, many adverts, many blockings… and many editor who simply ceased to edit anymore because all of this.

Sadly, I don't know what to do. I would like very much to find a way to counter-balance these editors, but I don't know how. I've been thinking like to catch up people who share my visions and found something like a "Pro-Accuracy Anti-Serb-Radical Group", but I don't know how to make this, since if something alike would be created somehow here inside Wikiepdia, it would be shut down in minutes by the SRS-like Cabal trough their well-known techniques.

Do you know any way to solve this Gordian Knot? If you have any ideas, please anwser here. I'll get back to read it. Best Regards.

Hello Live Forever. Sorry I wasn't able to keep up earlier. I've been tied up with other things (including Srebrenica-related matters) but it's very hard to ignore the malevolent activities referred to by your anonymous correspondent above. Of course bully boys try to wear their opposition down. The best answer is to be aware what's going on, know what you're realistically capable of and keep coming back *with the facts*, which say it all. Please contact me again if you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opbeith (talk • contribs) 08:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English help

Hi. I would like to introduce myself. I am from Bosnia, and my English is not so good. So can you please check my edits in Bosnian War article, because I hate to make grammar mistakes and I saw you speak English fluently. Thanks in advance. The Dragon of Bosnia 20:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniak Template

I saw that you removed the coat of arms of Bosnia-Herzegovina (1992-1998) from the template "Bosniaks". I support a multi-religious Bosniak people, however, I do not see putting the Bosniak symbol as POV. Sandzak (symbol), SDA logos (SDA), and various other organizations recognize that coat of arms as a symbol of the Bosniak people. They all are very similar (lily shape, etc.). The symbol has nothing to do with religious whatsoever as it originated from Tvrtko (who we know was a Catholic). As a friend, I ask you to discuss this matter. One could argue the "4S" and Croat "chess" symbols the same way since there are Serbs and Croats who are not Christian. Dragan Vikic, Jovan Divjak, Blaz Kraljevic, etc. (all non-Muslim) all fought under one flag (the Bosnian flag), which was the flag from 1992-1998. There needs to be a coat of arms (the current one of BiH is not suitable as it has no historical significance nor any relation directly to the Bosniak people). Thanks, (Just brother to brother discussion, not an argument) Vseferović 23:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian Genocide artilce

Hello Live Forever. Sorry I've been involved in collecting for Darfur, and I've been out at a wedding all day today. To be honest, I don't think I would want to do more than just defend the article as I hope to be offering a revised edition of the Srebrenica article at some time and I don't want to get involved in two battles on the same "general" front. --Opbeith 23:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Sorry, rereading what I wrote yesterday it sounds rather abrupt - I was pretty tired, hope it didn't sound too dismissive. I'm willing to help out with any specific suggestions you may have, it's just that I don't think I can cope with doing anything else more proactive at the moment. --Opbeith 13:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Edin Džeko

It was indeed Dzeko, after I consulted the Bosnian FA website. They also made a hash of the Armenian squad that morning, before changing it 60 minutes into the game. I've sent them off an e-mail explaining some of the inaccuracies in their data surrounding the Euro 2008 stuff, and in particular Bosnia. They've promised to look into it. Gaijin84 15:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HOUSE OF KOTROMANIC

If you are not a nationalist or fascist as you claim, I then ask you to pay attention to my post on the Bosniak talk page.

"It is utterly ridiculous to state that Tvrtko I Kotromanić and Katarina Kosača-Kotromanić were "Bosniaks" in any way, as the House of Kotromanic was ethnically SERB and geographically BOSNIAN but certainly not Bosniak. To include them on the list of prominent 'bosniaks' is in direct odds with all common sense, with all historical facts, and also with the House of Kotromanic page on Wikipedia itself.

Please take the Kotromanic members off this page as "Bosniaks are typically characterized by their tie to the Bosnian historical region, traditional adherence to Islam, and common culture and language", seeing as how the Kotromanic Dynasty was most certainly NOT an adherent of Islam and they did indeed speak Serbian Cyrillic and not the language of the Bosniaks, which is now called bosnian."

It is academically criminal to designate people like the Kotromanici, who never heard of the word "Bosniak" or "Bosnjak" in their whole lives as indeed "Bosniak". It is beyond trivial. Please correct this error of including the Kotromanici on the Bosniak page so i do not have to turn to other Wikipedia authorities.

Thank you. --Revolucija 19:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debate on the correct adjective for Kosovo

Hi! Based on your interest in the Balkans, you may be interested in the currently ongoing debate on whether we should be using Kosovo or Kosovar/Kosovan as the adjective for Kosovo. —Nightstallion 15:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Indexi.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Indexi.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Indexi.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Indexi.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian Genocide request for mediation

Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-23 Bosnian Genocide --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with Hereward77

(Copy of a note I left on User talk:The Dragon of Bosnia)

Can I first apologise for not getting back to you sooner? My advice is to make sure that you give Hereward77 every opportunity to discuss edits; if Hereward77 continues to editwar and does not discuss edits then it becomes obvious that he is unable to work with other editors.

If problems persist then the requests for comments procedure can be useful in alerting other editors to the fact of the dispute and getting their input on how to handle it. You can also bring a request for comment on Hereward77's user conduct; although this procedure is questionably productive. It is always best to discuss things rather than look to administrative action such as blocks and protections to help you.

Depending on who you think he may be, you might want to ask for an investigation into sockpuppetry at Suspected sockpuppets or ask for a checkuser investigation. Chronic edit-warriors with a strong point of view normally end up getting blocked or banned. However, strong point of view editing is not necessarily vandalism, so you need to be careful in reverting him. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slobodan Milosevic

Hi, I noticed that you edit a lot of Bosnia-related articles. Could you please take a look at the Milosevic article? There's an anon there who's been adding information that in my view whitewashes Milosevic's nationalism. I'm fairly familiar with Milosevic, but I can't handle this editor alone. I'd really appreciate your help. Thanks! Dchall1 (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:JMC.PNG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:JMC.PNG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Zedla (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment Osli73

Hi Live Forever. I want to inform you that I am going to start request for comment, if Osli73 continues with the same behaviour. I have now plenty of material, but I would also like you to take a part. I am going to present this case very systematically, for example to list his block log, his reverts, other disruptive edits like this:

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

So if you have something to add feel free to do that. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jukadani.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jukadani.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Madchester.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Madchester.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian Genocide

I just came back from vacation. What happened with the Bosnian Genocide? I think we should make an effort to improve it. Do you agree? Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Das Ist Walter.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Das Ist Walter.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Husein Gradaščević

Hi, Im not sure how to load a photo on the article. Seems strange that there is no referenced picture of him to uplaod.. any ideas? Thanks hmm1984 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmm1984 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Thischarmingmansingleback.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Thischarmingmansingleback.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...

Hello Live Forever. What's up? Can you review articles related to Bosnian War, because I think that some users are dedicated to sneaky vandalism. They remove sources, put false sentences etc... --HarisM (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Antibosniakriots.jpg

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly ^hi! 07:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Location1.PNG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Location1.PNG, 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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:RSLocation.PNG

File Copyright problem

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bratunac massacre

Thanks for that forceful overview. Opbeith (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is he bosnian

Have you got a link to these pictures of him at the training camp or have you got a link to some kind of citation that supports your claim that he is at that camp training now? Off2riorob (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2009

this is your edit summary.... What? He's at the Bosnian training camp right now... there are pictures of him. He took out a Bosnian passport in London a month ago and has changed his sporting nationality

Have you got a link to the pictures or a wikipedia citation to support your claims? Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, still they are weak but what we can do is try not to claim too much untill he plays or till we have a reliable source, Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of nationality requires a strong citation, lets see if he plays.Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Ninoslavcharter.PNG

Thank you for uploading File:Ninoslavcharter.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bosniaks: Images of notable Bosniaks for the Template:Bosniaks infobox

Please join the discussion.

Regards, --Wusten fuchs 11:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gradascevicmap2.PNG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gradascevicmap2.PNG, 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. Kelly ^hi! 22:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Indexi.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:Indexi.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Bosniakancestry.PNG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Gradascevicsmall.JPG

The file File:Gradascevicsmall.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sarajevo school of pop rock

The article Sarajevo school of pop rock has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources and the connections highlighted are tenuous.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Karst (talk) 10:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Jusuf Prazina.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jusuf Prazina.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Nationality

Template:Nationality has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Primefac (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]