User:Imbris/archives3

Unsourced data

This is an encylopedia. We report what outside reliable sources say, not what we think they should say. If there is something "wrong" with the IOC website, put it into a footnote with a reference to another reliable source that says something else. Don't just make up new numbers yourself. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please take your ethnic hatred somewhere else. You are intentionally disrupting a perfectly valid article because of your POV bias. Please stop. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

use of YUG vs. SCG for 1992–1998

Please stop your edit warring on Template:Infobox Olympics Yugoslavia. It is an easily sourced fact that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia continued to compete at the Olympics using the designation "Yugoslavia" and the country code "YUG" for the 1996 Games through 2002. The name "Serbia and Montenegro" (and the code "SCG") were only ever used at the 2004 and 2006 Games. Although you may prefer to call the 1996–2002 teams "Serbia and Montenegro" because that matched the territory of what was previously known as FR Yugoslavia, the fact is that every WP:Reliable source we use for Olympic articles calls the team "Yugoslavia" in 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002. Please stop trying to re-write history. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Good morning. I have added a footnote within the infobox that might address what I think you want, which is a distinction between the FRY years and the SFRY years. Will that be an acceptable solution? In any case, please stop insisting that the team that competed from 1996–2002 was called anything other than "Yugoslavia" (YUG). Even the OKS website says "Yugoslavia participated with 68 athletes in 13 sports " etc. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you even know how that template works? Do you even bother to check? Look at Yugoslavia at the 1996 Summer Olympics, which transcludes the infobox, and tell me what flag do you see. The only article that uses the infobox with a possibly incorrect flag is Yugoslavia at the Olympics, which is the top-level summary for all instances where a "Yugoslavia" team competed at the Olympics. The SFRY flag is used as the default mostly because it was used longer. You can add the FRY flag to that article if you think ut would help. But stop changing the infobox based on your POV. It works perfectly well as is. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

How am I "misleading the Wiki-community"? Look at the prose text on top of articles that use this infobox, such as that 1996 article. Does it not explain the situation? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am trying very hard to understand your point of view, and include it neutrally in these articles. Please try to show some compromise yourself. You simply cannot keep dismissing the fact that a team named "Yugoslavia" with the country code "YUG" competed from 1996–2002. EVERY single WP:Reliable source that we have shows this, including your beloved Serbian Olympic Committee. You cannot change history if you do not like it. I have spent considerable time trying to show the relationship between "YUG" for those years with "SCG", but you are erasing it altogether. Stop being disruptive. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see the latest comments on my talk page. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please let me know what you think of the most recent change to List of participating nations at the Winter Olympic Games and also the "new" article I wrote for Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics. Are you ok with these? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait

Wait, don't move everything back yet with Yugoslavia. Grk1011 (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, we decided to merge it all into Yugoslavia since its the same television network, selection, and the official eurovision website shows the 1992 entry as yugoslavia. There was no talk about merging with Serbia and Montenegro, so idk where you came up with that. Grk1011 (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As it is an EBU event, they have every right to make that call. Its a similar case with them saying "FYR Macedonia". It's their contest. I am going to get some administrator opinions. Grk1011 (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If it was about Yugoslavia in general, then yes, there would be a difference, but you can't go against the EBU because it is their contest, they are the main source and the rest are secondary. Also, don't mark edits/reverts like that as minor. Grk1011 (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed on the talk page, you even left a comment. It was not brought up at the project talk page because there are mainly 5 active members of the project, three of which responded including myself and decided that merging, not deleting, was the right decision. Your claim that it was simply a mistake by the EBU is ludicrous. By their disclaimer they don't mean that they can be crazily wrong like you are suggesting, just little things like the wrong flag, maybe they listed a country as receiving a certain number of points that they didn't. We are only concerned about what the EBU thinks and says, not national politics. Lastly, my post on the administrators notice board was not an attack against you, it was a request for an outside opinion. I have the point of view of Eurovision, you see it from the side of the politics of Yugoslavia. I want someone who does not edit Eurovision or Yugoslavia related articles on a daily basis to offer up their own opinion. Grk1011 (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize where i was posting. But, you made the page because of your original research. You came to your views because of your own thoughts. The EBU ultimately decides how their contest will run. Grk1011 (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

We are not listing it under SFRY, we are listing it as just plain Yugoslavia. Grk1011 (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I read your response on the noticeboard. There will be NO reference to the 1992 entry on the serbia and montenegro article, only the Yugoslavia one. Grk1011 (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't get your reasoning. So say Abkhazia and South Ossetia join the contest, it seems that your way would be to make a new Georgia page since those provinces are no longer included and it would be wrong to say Georgia because Georgia used to have them. It doesn't make sense. You seem to be the only one who wants this to happen with Yugoslavia. I was not "campaining", I asked help from someone who dealt with your understanding before and asked an administrator who i have dealt with and has Eurovision knowledge to weigh in. "Campaigning" would be if i gave them a lecture, I simply said that I would appreciate their input. Grk1011 (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Its different with the olympics because the controlling body did not previously call the country by their preferred name. And sure, all on the article talk now. Grk1011 (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be on again tomorrow, Law and Order is on and i want to watch it. Let's wait for some other opinions. Grk1011 (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Though I get what you are saying, the one source thing cannot be ignored. Its not like its a certain newspaper or something, its the foundation that runs the contest. If you want to set up a merger proposal, by all means go ahead. I am simply looking for more opinions besides you and me just going back and forth. Grk1011 (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That is because Morocco entered the contest as Morocco even though they only participated once. FRY entered the contest as Yugoslavia, not FRY so there should not be another page. Grk1011 (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse you! I have been contributing for almost as long as you have and made over 7,000 edits compared to your 1,400. Do not accuse me of being inexperienced or of not contributing in a productive way. I have a source and I am using it, unless you can find a specific source that says that FRY participated under that name and not Yugoslavia like in previous years regardless of what land mass they represented then you have no case. Grk1011 (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I get that they are two different countries, but that is irrelevant in the eyes of the contest. Both countries entered under the name "Yugoslavia". That is a fact, not an error on their website. I thought that greekboy summed it up pretty well on the article's talk page. I am going to to a real merger proposal and see how that goes. Grk1011 (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

By starting the merger proposal, more editors will get involved, and I am just an impatient person. Grk1011 (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

We have been going back and forth and getting nowhere. I suggest that you reply to the proposal. Grk1011 (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The merger proposal is the way of getting the third opinion so calm down. Its not supposed to be you and me going back and forth. Grk1011 (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it easier to understand if I say that it has less to do with the country itself, but more with the name? FR Yugoslavia nor SFR Yugoslavia took part in the contest, Yugoslavia did and the merged page will describe which countries used that name in the contest. Grk1011 (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The flag could always be taken out or both of them put in, its not that big of a deal. Like I said before, the article will have to be edited to reflect the fact that its not the same country. Grk1011 (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

ok, after reading List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest, I will not oppose merging the article with Serbia and Montenegro because it was the same mass of land, the same broadcaster, and that page is a "featured list" meaning everything on it has been scrutinized. Grk1011 (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It also has the same flag :) . I'll do it eventually, now we just need to clean up everything, remove the templates and such. Grk1011 (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

AN

How do you want me to help there? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Not that I know of. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Serbia and Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest 1992

Serbia and Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest 1992 was created after our compromise. I'm not sure about the name since the countries Serbia and Montenegro didn't compete, FR Yugoslavia did. I mean its ok to say what we did on the country's summary page, but the name of this article doesn't seem right. Let's discuss this on the article's talk page before we do anything drastic. Also, Eurosong (talk · contribs) is out of the loop on what is going on and reverting. Grk1011 (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i was just scolded by the wikiproject and we are going to wait through the merger discussion. Everything has been reverted to before we started arguing, so leave it depending on the outcome. See Talk:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest#Merger proposal. Grk1011 (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yea, thats why i was arguing for the past few days, I only gave in because i wasn't getting anywhere and no one was helping. Grk1011 (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You do know that that was my talk page, but you seemed to not be addressing me?? I saw it in my watchlist. It seemed like a support to me, i dont think sims2 has been in many debates like that and prob didnt know the format. Also, if you think that me and Greekboy are the same person, then ask an admin for an ip check. Also, there are 6 votes for the merge (me, Greekboy, Sims2, Camaron, and the 2 third opinions) and only you against it, so i dont see how us both having the same opinion means that we are the same user. Grk1011 (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are borderline civility violations. I consider your post a personal attack, and I am not Greekboy and any admin can check that with an ip check and contribs check (timing of posts). They are very thorough too. And if you have a problem with Greekboy, bring it up with him. Grk1011 (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop harassing other users because you disagree with their posts/opinions. It is not appropriate to give them a lecture about how you feel you are right. Grk1011 (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I contribute because I like to, and I was actually talking about Chwech, but you seem to be doing it to everyone. We have rules here, like WP:Civility, and WP:Verifiability, which must be followed. Grk1011 (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing references for Yugoslavia Olympic articles

For Christ's sake, what is your problem now? Those are perfectly good web references for the specific years. Why on earth would you remove them? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You are removing references added by User:Darius Dhlomo, an extremely prolific sports editor from the Netherlands, who put them on those articles in December 2006. There is absolutely no reason for you to think his edits advocate a Serbian point of view, and I will revert you when you remove his work. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yugoslavia at the 1992 Winter Olympics

How can Croatia and Slovenia be represented by two teams at these Games? I do not understand this edit. Please explain here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The same way you wanted to list FRY both in the SCG row and YUG row at the List of participation. :)

Laughs aside I have wrote the composition of SFRY. Croatia and Slovenia were represented as temporary NOC or something like that. Where ever you would mention SFRY and say Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina (clear POV in terms of the alphabet) and then the states which competed independently. I would react in a way that lists the full composition of the SFRY. During 1992 W a larger portion of the World recognized SFRY as consisted of six republics and two autonomous provinces. -- Imbris (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Your most recent edit is fine, but I am confused by your intentional use of the phrase "Montenegro and Serbia". You used many, many, times the phrase: Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). So should I change those to Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Montenegro and Serbia)?? I don't get it. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Olympic medals

Through a discussion thread on Talk:All-time Olympic Games medal table, I found the following pages:

• (in Spanish) (gives a combined total of YUG and SCG, ranked under SCG)
• (in German) (gives a combined total of YUG, IOP and SCG, ranked under SRB)

Wow. I was apalled when I saw those. If you think we don't have NPOV on en.wiki, you ought to try working on some of the other languages first! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Croatia in the Eurovision Song Contest

That only lists years when an artist from the Croatia area of Yugoslavia was entered in the contest. In truth, every year that Yugoslavia participated, Croatia did also because they too voted for the entrant whether he was Bosnia, Slovenian, or whatever. It is misleading to say that then was the only other times when Croatia has participated. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not POV but an information table. If you want to claim that all of the Yugoslavian appearances are contributed to each and every nation/republic of the SFRY. That is your right, but Macedonians voted too (by an expert committee) so they have to also be mentioned as represented. Also the Kosovars (TV Priština voted too). And the constitutent nations of Vojvodina (TV Novi Sad voted too). Write all that facts in the Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest. Please stop removing the table, because it that table is a fact. If you want to rephrase then by all means, do it. But do not remove the table, please. -- Imbris (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It would be appropriate to add a link and say that they participated as Yugoslavia, but putting a chart is misleading unless that chart lists every appearance by SFRY since Croatia was part of it every year and voted every year, not only the years where the entrant was from Croatia. (reply here) Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest 1992

You can't just slap a neutrality header on a page, you need to start a discussion on the talk or else no one knows what you are talking about. Did you read the header when you added it? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yugoslavia at Eurovision

The next step would be a request for comment. That could help you to determine consensus. Once consensus has been formed, it must be changed before anything else can be done on the matter. After the request for comment, I suggest a talk page discussion to help consensus forming. That's all I can recommend, as I'm better at working out consensus than changing it, sorry. Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 17:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Think about it

So you see someone and ask them what language they speak, they answer "Croatian or Serbian"?!?!?! When you phrase it like that you are saying they spoke two languages at once. Choose which ever language it was known by then, but it certainly was not a a choice. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are to continue to insist on Serbo-Croatian for all appearances of "Yugoslavia" (SFRY that existed to 1991) then I am to insist that all appearances of Serbia and Montenegro and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should also be listed as Serbo-Croatian. Also if someone still thinks that Montenegrins sung in Serbian language rather than in Montenegrin language the same thing would happen. Legaly in Croatia in 1990. the language was called Croatian or Serbian, if you want to change that oddity the only possible choice is to write Croatian language. -- Imbris (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to look for some sources to see what the language was entered as, but the "or" makes it sound very awkward. (keep convos together) Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think "Croatian" would work fine because the "or" would really confuse most people since you can't really speak either or. Are you sure that they didn't mean "Serbian and Croatian"? Also, that article has reliability issues. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure, since I have a copy of the Constitution of the Croatia (valid 1974-1990). -- Imbris (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats not random and all...Use Croatian since thats what it says here. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on All-time Olympic Games medal table. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. - Basement12 (T.C) 23:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly yes, the 3RR does also apply to admins. Secondly i'm not sure how i could let the other users ""spend" their three reverts rule" as it would not be possible for them both to do so (that would be 6 reverts of your 3 edits?). Finally, and most importantly, the fact that 3 seperate users (myself, Jonel and Andrwsc) have now reverted your edits clearly shows that there is no agreement for the changes you are trying to make. The way the medals are counted currently has been decided by consensus and in order to change this the proper process, of discussion amongst users on the talk page, must be carried out. You cannot simply state that you are correct and edit the page as you see fit. Basement12 (T.C) 00:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi, Imbris! There is no official Wikipedia policy which confirms my feeling, but there is common usage. Sometimes the highest undisputed title is used: Empress Matilda for example, not Matilda of England or Matilda, Lady of the English. Yet sometimes the highest title person was known by is used: [Queen] Victoria of the United Kingdom, not [Empress] Victoria of India. Although Victoria's highest undisputed title was Empress of India, she is known as Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom. Empress Maria Theresa is known as Maria Theresa [Archduchess] of Austria, not [Queen] Maria Theresa of Hungary (Queen outranks Archdcuhess, of course). Surtsicna (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, where have I mentioned Australia, Canada, etc? Are you telling me that Elizabeth II of the United KIngdom is known as Elizabeth II of Fiji? There are two more examples which you've neglected. Empress Matilda is known for being a disputed monarch of England, but she is referred to as [Holy Roman] Empress Matilda.

One more thing: books which have been written discuss whether or not he was Croatian monarch at all. Surtsicna (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mnecoadaniloi.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mnecoadaniloi.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

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

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Please do not add inappropriate images to Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Avala (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.--Avala (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Serbia is not using that coat of arms anymore and Macedonia uses the equal blazon but it's not called socialist anymore. How are we supposed to believe you that Croatian coat of arms had grey instead of white then? You haven't provided a single source to back up your claim anyway.--Avala (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Avala (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime the constitution got adopted which is obviously an event that you missed completely. And if you have problems with Croatian coa image then take a discussion there. Do not revert a third thing based on your dissatisfaction with something else. And just like you said, it is either silver or white but judging from the current coat of arms of Croatia, white is predominantly in use. And nakovanj is blue indeed, you can check in Encyclopedia Prosv(j)eta. --Avala (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

But I think it's a very obvious thing that if there is a later law or regulation that is the valid one not some from before.--Avala (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Constitution says that Serbia has national symbols further defined by subconstitutional acts. "Recommendation" gave us an exact blazon. It couldn't be more simple than that. Turning recommendation of the parliament into a specific law is not necessary. And regarding Macedonia - just because the blazon is the same it doesn't mean that the title of the article is wrong. Simply both Socialist Republic of Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia had the same coat of arms. And finally I will repeat - if you have issues with the Croatian coa image take it to the image talk page, do not destroy other images because you are angry that no one understands you. It would be like if I vandalized the image of Icelandic flag because no one understood my edit on Chilean flag. It only gives less value to your further comments and edits if you act that way.--Avala (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want - revert it yourself but keep in mind that I am not the only one to support the current (correct) version but also Romanm, Schaengel89, Aivazovsky too. It's the original upload too. And recommendation adopted in parliament is very well official and is defining the coat of arms and flag mentioned in constitution. I don't know if the blazon was featured in a previous law but it's irrelevant because it was used to define symbols of the SR Serbia. Acovic can have his rant all he wants, he talks about other things like monarchy as well but it's his personal opinion that recommendation should be turned into a law is just like his opinion that Serbia should be a kingdom, both irrelevant. But he does say that since the adoption of the new constitution, the old socialist symbols are not official anymore and that the new symbols are "temporary" because they were not defined in constitution itself and therefore they can be changed and then he goes into rant on why did they change the text of the anthem etc.--Avala (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Acovic did not say anything about the symbols of SR Serbia being not official in Serbia today." - Do you realize what does "Tako je sve do ove jeseni petokraka ostala u ustavu." mean? It means "That way all the way until this (2006) fall red star stayed in constitution" which clearly means that by adoption of the new constitution the old flag and coat of arms ceased to exist completely all together with the old constitution. Now there is the recommendation which includes blazon of the new symbol, and that's it. The old constitution in force until 2006 also said that Serbia is a Socialist Republic within SFR Yugoslavia, yet it wasn't. The same goes for symbols between 2004 and 2006. But today in 2008 this discussion is over. And Acovic can say whatever he wants, he has no official position so his words have no significance.--Avala (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are also insignificant on Wikipedia.--Avala (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Theories about the crown. And no socialist symbols are no longer valid even per Acovic.--Avala (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all crown on today's coat of arms is not the symbol of monarchy. Second of all Obrenovic did rule as kings, Milan and Alexander. But these facts are highly irrelevant for the today's coat of arms. --Avala (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The current coat of arms is the one from 1882 so whose is it if not theirs?--Avala (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"And one in full colour on pergament" - ? How is that relevant to discussion. Please take your discussion about Croatian coa to commons and discuss with other involved editors there and refrain from discussion on Serbian documents as your level of knowledge of Serbian seems to be low.--Avala (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

[1] --Avala (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well surprise, surprise. Why bother edit Former Yugoslav-related topics if you have a low knowledge of Serbo-Croatian itself? (No personal attack intended) --Prevalis (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Sveta Gera

I don't see why you are getting involved with this considering you have always considered yourself as a Montenegrin editor from what I've seen. And on the second note, why should my actions and beliefs judge the creation and support of a Montenegrin Wikipedia, something I am sceptical of now considering one) the "new" Montenegrin will comprise of words I've never heard of in my lifetime, you likewise most likely as well, nor do we know the new grammar, so how can we contribute to a Montenegrin Wikipedia if we do not know the basics of the language itself, and two) after two FAILED attempts, what makes you think we will win a third time? The MediaWiki Language Committee or whatever it's called has encouraged us to contribute to the Serbian Wikipedia and cooperate with the Serbian editors there, even from the beginning.

And on the other note, let the Croats support whoever and whatever they would like to support, that is their business, not ours, and frankly why should we get involved with them anyways. Let my actions, as well as your actions, stay independent of their own because in the end, neither of us, nor the Croats, will judge the final outcome. --Prevalis (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

hello

Imbris, I beleive that the changes which you made to Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest were a result of a good will and not pov. However I find several issues that may need to be corrected.

1. Though its true that the pre-selection entries were submitted by RTV centers and not by the constituent republics or provinces (it was a competition between the RTV centers not a nationalist competition between constituent nations), still it may be useful for the readers to understand that all of the constituent countries respectively contributed to Jugovizija. Now, after your edits, they got only links to the cities, which doesnt say much. I think that its no harm to mention the socialist republics in which every rtv center was based. After all you linked the modern-day independent Croatia and not SR Croatia in a sentence that says that it was the most succesful federal unit in Jugovizija. Thats not what I find quite appropriate.
2. Republic is a type of country/state not led by a hereditary monarch. Changing constituent country to constituent republic doesnt change anything. I beleive that you understand these issues and that for you the word republic is not equal to administrative region that has no statehood. SR Slovenia, SR Croatia, SR Serbia, SR Bosnia and Herzegovina and all the others were countries - constituent countries of a larger entity and they all had (at least) formal statehood (at least formal souvereignity, governments, flags, coat-of-arms, anthems etc..)
3. SAP Kosovo and SAP Vojvodina were indeed called provinces but the article autonomous area covers that too, as well as all the other types of autonomy which exist around the globe. There was no urge to change that.
4. You say that Extra Nena performed as FR Yugoslavia. Thats true, as the ESC 1992 took place on May 9, while FRY was officialy established on April 28. However you forget some formal issues: FRY was not recognized by the international community, and Im not sure whether it was a member of the European Broadcasting Union which is one of the fundamental rules to join the ESC. Also, another probably important fact is that the pre-selection for that year took place on March 28 in Belgrade (when FRY still didnt exist) featuring artists not only from Serbia and Montenegro but also from Bosnia and Herzegovina. The future of B&H was still uncertain though it proclaimed independence on March 1, which was internatinaly recognized on April 6.

Shortly saying, not everything is black/white and so simple, this is a complex matter like all the Balkan-related articles. I will try to modify the article as good and as neutral as possible and I thank you in advance for your constructivness.--Dzole (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:

Citation: Well that SR Croatia is a predecessor of modern Croatia and that is appropriate by any account.

Yes, I agree, its cleary a predecessor, but Riva came from SR Croatia, it was 1989 and they won for ex-YU.

1. The state where they came from was a constituent country of a larger entity, not independent
2. it had communist regime

As far as I see Wikipedia has articles on historical states. See Kingdom of Serbia, Socialist Republic of Serbia, Republic of Serbia (federal) (as part of FRY), Serbia and Montenegro (bi-federation) and the modern-day Serbia. Yes they are all related but not 100% the same.

The majority of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest is POV so your feeling that I have done something inappropriate is just your feeling.

If I have objected some of your rushed actions that doesnt mean Im happy the current situation the article's in. I actually dont. Please don't rush. Hold your horses.

If you are that much keen in using the right titles then I will follow suit. Then I ask of you not to remove constituent republics because the socialist republic of SFRY were states with constitutions, governments and different legal systems not to mention symbols and other minute stuff. Socialist republics of the former SFRY had not only formal (de jure) sovereignity but also the real (de facto) jurisdictions. If you insist on using SR prefixes then SAP's were provinces (not regions).

I favour Constituent country cause it is a wider and better term. It covers entities that can be

• a) republican (like in the ex-YU) or
• b) monarchist (like in the UK: England, Scotland, Wales etc.) and so on.

It is an appropriate term to depict a country which is part of a larger entity regardless of its political system. The term constituent republics is narrower and it may confuse people. The Republic of France, the Republic of Italy and the Republic of Austria are all republics but they are independent. The word republic itself doesnt mean a dependent constituent country. This is a habit we inherited from the former Yugoslavia where the constituent countries were called republics, thus many people equate these two terms. Imagine a weather report in SR Montenegro in 1973: the weather in the Republic is cold (with republic meaning the constituent country in question, in this context, Montenegro). If you are really from former Yugoslavia as you claim, you will know what I mean.

Then, why do you think the word province solves the problem and properly explains the status of Vojvodina and Kosovo? Province is a unit of administrative division. OK, it can mean anything depending on the country's specific context and its central government's flexibility. See for example: Province (China). I doubt those provinces have the level of self-government as Vojvodina and Kosovo had in SFRY. With the Yugoslav constitutional amendments they even gained a right of veto in the federal matters. Its a completely different story although the same word is used-"province". Thats why I favour autonomous area. It covers many different types of autonomy be they called "autonomous provinces", "autonomous republics", and be they in Russia, Chiha, Spain, Finland, Uzbekistan or elesewhere. Åland Islands, Karakalpakstan or anything.

FRY did not need to be recognized by the international community to participate in the ESC, the prequisites are clear, look Kosovo in the Eurovision Song Contest. The broadcaster needs to be a member of EBU, due to complete uncompetence by EBU (allowing FRY to compete under the right of JRT to compete) we have that unique sittuation which I solved by creating Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest. Subsequently that article was merged by force of Grk1011, Greekboy and Chewch to Yugoslavia in the ESC despite the fact that it would be a "lesser evil" to merge with Serbia and Montenegro in the ESC. I realize that FRY in ESC is a complex matter and that is not a black and white picture, but you have far more unconstructive editors in those who merged FRY with SFRY. I opposed that move.

Ok, I agree with this. FRY is not = SFRY.

Thus republics first because there were lots of TV centres in Yugoslavia, not just the eight mentioned.

What are those other RTV centers please? Now this is an enigma for me. Im not trying to be cynical, I really dont remember such thing. As far as I remember there were 8 public-owned RTV centers in the each of the federal units, with an exception in late 1970's when according to Eurodalmatia (which can be questioned!): "TV Split" nominated its own candidates on Jugovizija. I dont remember that any "Television Split" existed in the ex-YU (I suppose I would know about it). Maybe it was Radio Split, cause every larger town had radio station but not TV station, but their official website doesnt say anything about it. Are you sure what are you talking about? Please point me to a website that mentions other RTV centers other that the mentioned 8, except Eurodalmatia which I saw already. Btw Yugoslavia was a socialist country and any other television except public-owned couldnt be established.

FRY did not need to be recognized by the international community to participate in the ESC, the prequisites are clear, look Kosovo in the Eurovision Song Contest. The broadcaster needs to be a member of EBU, due to complete uncompetence by EBU (allowing FRY to compete under the right of JRT to compete) we have that unique sittuation which I solved by creating Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest. Subsequently that article was merged by force of Grk1011, Greekboy and Chewch to Yugoslavia in the ESC despite the fact that it would be a "lesser evil" to merge with Serbia and Montenegro in the ESC. I realize that FRY in ESC is a complex matter and that is not a black and white picture, but you have far more unconstructive editors in those who merged FRY with SFRY. I opposed that move.

I came to the article after a long time, so I wasnt aware of the changes that occured while I was absent. I also oppose the merge of SFRY and FRY and suggested a split. --Dzole (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please check this

I represented my point of view: HERE.--Dzole (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Eurovision Website errors

Just to let you know, I sent an email to the Eurovision.tv webmasters to see if they could change the wording so it does not seem like the 1992 entry was performed for SFRY. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I sent a bried email to eurovision.tv. we'll see what happens. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

They changed the wording to "All participants from Yugoslavia" here in response to my email. Keep in mind that it does not say that the SFRY flag was for all participants, it just says that it is the flag of the SFRY. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Where are you getting this other random eurovision website from? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about where you are getting these other random sites such as eurosong.nl and eurosong.tv. the site in question is eurovision.tv. Don't be a sore loser because they replied to my email and not yours. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

While viewing your site, I noticed that on this page http://www.eurovision.tv/index/main?page=67&country=7 for Yugoslavia, it says that the list shows "All participants from Socijalistička Federativna Republika Jugoslavija". My problem is that the 1992 entry was not performed by the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but rather the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Anything concerning Yugoslavia causes a stir, and I've already heard some outrage over this, especially on wikipedia. If you watch the contest footage from 1992 it is clearly performed under the flag of the Federal Republic. Would it be a hassle to change the wording to just "All Participants representing Yugoslavia" so then it makes no distinction?

Also, if anyone has any knowledge about how the Federal Republic participated without EBU membership could you pass it along, I'd be interested to see what happened that year.

I would appreciate a reply and thank you in advance for your help.

We know it was a diff country Imbris, so I don't want to hear anymore complaints about that. I am posting this to be nice, I didn't have to Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't get anywhere with you. I try to help out, and you complain. I'm done for now. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:

I explained you why I favour "constituent country" and "autonomous area" with a whole elaborate. Doesnt matter now.

I agree that Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest should remain, and it should cover only SFRY until 1991. I have explained to the opponents at least 136 times that SFRY participated under Yugoslavia for several decades (I just wrongly quoted 40 years,its 30). That Yugoslavia once won in 1989, and even founded the damn EBU so there's no doubt about it. "Yugoslavia in ESC" is definetly="SFRY in the ESC".

About your suspicions that, allegedly some users deliberately post data based on dubious sources: After seeing unsanctioned blatant POV-pushing all over Wikipedia for ages, Im too quite paranoic, sometimes with sometimes without reason. The only "source" I got so far from the opposing side, is the one and only "eurovision.tv", which, as you already know, contains some obnoxious factual errors. Basicaly, I got nothing.

Grk should not worry whether Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest will be too short if we split the current article in two. There are other countries which participated only once, for example Morocco in the Eurovision Song Contest and Lebanon in the Eurovision Song Contest. Some countries have never participated at all, but still, they not only have wikipedia pages, but they are not short at all: Kosovo in the Eurovision Song Contest. The "lenght" rationale is a nonsence. If you participated just one year, thats one year, its not 30 years.

And FRY should not be merged with Serbia & Montenegro! They are different entities. The former was not admitted to the EBU till 2001 (tho it participated illegaly in 1992, and I explained how 7938 times). The latter participated normally. You cant equate them. I have all the sources and stuff on the talk page. As I became tired of this nonsence , I asked for admin help, but im not a great optimist, I hope Im wrong--Dzole (talk) 06:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Tips

You cannot use "&" in the article unless it is a proper noun and "Entry for Serbia-Montenegro" does not make sense. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Informal mediation

I have adopted Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-01 Sveta Gera. There are some questions to help get things underway. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Vassyana (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Imbris. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#Disruptive_editing. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There is another thread mentioning you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#My_topic.3F.3F --Enric Naval (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo Police Service

About the percentage table, it should include an explanation of how the percentage of serbs on security forces was much higher than the percentage of serbs on the population. Also, the percentages are from all accross Yugoslavia or only from Kosov? If it's only from Kosovo, then it needs some tweakings like the table header saying "Population of Kosovo" instead of "Population". --Enric Naval (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

red star

I'm waiting for your answer on my talk page. Cukiger (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to answer, then it would be better if you answered on the talk page of the article 'Coat of arms of the Republic of Yugoslavia', because I moved our discussion there, so others can read it, too. Cukiger (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Jugovizija

I moved the discussion to the appropriate page here, for archiving and historical reasons regarding the article. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Smile

Grk1011/Stephen (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=) Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

ESC languages

Hey, I saw this in my watchlist today and I don't have the energy or know any of the background as to why it should be reverted. Do with it as you please. [2] Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)