Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yugoslavia/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Yugoslavia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Death

Many massacre articles for ex-Yugoslavia were tagged by Wikiproject death (including Talk:Bruška massacre, Talk:Ahmići massacre and Talk:Podujevo massacre). I removed these tags but have been asked to reinstate them. I believe it is insensitive to have the following template on the talkpages of these articles Wikipedia:WikiProject Death/Templates. Many relatives of those killed can look at these pages. Please make your opinions known on this here and keep a watch on this talkpage tagging. I have suggested that it is okay for wikiproject death to keep a view on these articles but that the project banner on the talkpages is not acceptable. Polargeo (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Volleyball

Why did we not have this earlier? Well, I made it now. Yugoslav Volleyball League. Some help would be appreciated, especially as we have some club articles such as OK Partizan. (LAz17 (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)).

London Victory Parade of 1946

This is a British military history article with a Yugoslav aspect, among other aspects. Please come and take a look at the article and see the work that has been done over the last month, by looking at diffs. Input as well as comment on the extent of our success at achieving WP policy and guidelines is requested. Ideas for next steps most welcome. -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

MoS

A MoS page should be created to inform users which languages to use and how to properly format them on Yugoslavia related pages. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Locations of concentration camps in former Yugoslavia

A number of articles about concentration camps in former Yugoslavia need to have geographic coordinates added. User:The Anome/Concentration camps needing coordinates contains a list of these articles (towards the middle of the list, after the list of Nazi concentration camps), and WP:COORD contains instructions for how to add coordinates to articles. I'd greatly appreciate any help you can give on this. -- The Anome (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yugoslavia articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Yugoslavia articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Magnum Crimen

An IP has assessed Magnum Crimen as a class=A within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia. I reverted him twice already. Is this ok, or others think we are having an A class here? Kebeta (talk) 09:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

CSUCTLT

Hi. Would someone be able to take a look at Confederazione dei Sindacati Unici Classisti del Territorio libero di Trieste and see if there is any Slovenian and/or Serbo-Croat material that could be used for expansion? The article is currently at T:TDYK, but is considered too short. Thanks, --Soman (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Yugoslavia to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Yugoslavia/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 01:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josef Schultz

German soldier that dropped his gun to stand besides Yugoslav partisans about to be shot. Help would be needed to find sources offline and in Serbo-Croat, especially about ~the monument in Lokve.^walk victor falk^talk 07:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Concentration camp coordinates

There are quite a number of articles about concentration camps in the former Yugoslavia that still need geocoding: see User:The Anome/Concentration camp articles needing coordinates for a list of these, and WP:COORD for a guide to geocoding. Many of these are proving difficult to track down, yet all are historically important. Can anyone here help with adding location data to these articles? -- The Anome (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Creation of new important articles

I would like to invite the members of the WikiProject Yugoslavia to contribute to the following articles I partly started, which I think are of utmost importance to this project:

Habel (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Please review the policy against synthesis of published material that advances a position before proliferating more new articles like this. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Defense Ministry

Yesterday, I greatly expanded article Federal Secretary of People's Defense of Yugoslavia and renamed it Ministry of Defense (Yugoslavia) in order to list there all defense ministers of Yugoslavia from 1918 until 2006. I found data about most ministers in the Kingdom period (1918-1945), but I'm not completely sure about who were ministers since the end of the April War (who served within Government-in-exile). That's period from April 1941 to March 1945. If someone have data about that, please add it to the article. -- Sundostund (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

election article names

Please see Talk:Yugoslavian parliamentary election, May 1992#Requested move. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Vukovar

I've rewritten, greatly expanded and improved the Battle of Vukovar article with the intention of getting it to featured status by the 20th anniversary of the end of the battle, on November 18th. Any comments would be much appreciated. Prioryman (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Flag symbol

This user is a Yugoslav

I am noticing a problem with NPOV with WikiProject Yugoslavia. It involves text in the intro and images used in the Project, I have made new images to address this that are presented here to show you, I hope they aren't too distracting from the text. The intro says that this is about the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that it shortens down in an internal link to "Yugoslavia". Plus, though I am aware that the SFRY flag was a prominent symbol of Yugoslavia before the SFRY collapsed in 1991-1992, it is not the exclusive symbol, plus the symbol with the communist red star may not be accepted by those who disagree or oppose communism, but still support Yugoslavia - there were definately such people like this in the history of Yugoslavia - ranging from moderate liberals to extremist anti-communists. Prior to the SFRY flag there was a plain Yugoslav tricolour used both by the state and earlier by Yugoslavists - it is the same flag as the Pan-Slavic flag, plus this plain tricolour was used by the partially-recognized rump Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and plain Yugoslav tricolours have been seen in protests since 2006 (when the last remnant of Yugoslavia - Serbia and Montenegro broke up and the flag was no longer used). I have created a new flag map that displays a plain Yugoslav tricolour on the map of Yugoslavia. I also created a new version for the Yugoslavian Merit Barnstar that has a Yugoslavian plain tricolour - I would prefer this version to be used instead of the SFR Yugoslavian one for the sake of it being less politically-charged, but nevertheless this plain tricolour version should be available to those who wish to have a plain version and not the SFRY version. I have also created a plain tricolour flag version of the Yugoslav user template - I chose the plain pan-Slavic tricolour flag because historically Yugoslavists saw Yugoslavia beyond its post-1945 borders - they saw Bulgarians as Yugoslavs, and Slavic Macedonians in Greece, so just per chance if a Bulgarian or Slavic Macedonian in Greece views themselves as a Yugoslav person, this template accounts for it without connecting the identity with the geographical territory of Yugoslavia from 1946 to 1991.--R-41 (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me start off by noting that "R-41" was a military plan of the royalist Yugoslav army. Obviously you're a Kingdom of Yugoslavia enthusiast, and that's fine. However, I preset the following objections to your "history lesson" up there.

In general terms, the blue-white-red tricolour is the pan Slavic flag. However, when used to depict Yugoslavia, it represents the royalist Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia article is full of sources explaining that royalist Yugoslavia (an authoritarian state at best, and a right-wing dictatorship at worst) was controlled by ethnic Serbs. This is often described as "Serbian hegemonism". The flag of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia is thus offensive to many non-Serbs.
Even worse, and more recent, the plain tricolour is the flag of Serbia and Montenegro (or "FR Yugoslavia"), a state which recently waged bitter war against Croats, Bosniaks, and Slovenes. Once again: offensive to those peoples of Yugoslavia. Not only that, but Serbia and Montenegro is not part of this project, and the templates you propose to change with its flag are not used for it.
Next, the territories of any of these three states are not the same. Template:Yugoslavia-stub, that you are trying to change, uses the flag of SFR Yugoslavia over the outline of the territory of SFR Yugoslavia. You apparently wish to push the royalist flag over SFR Yugoslavia :).
Finally: that is the last flag of Yugoslavia. We shall use the last flag of Yugoslavia, not the second-to-last. Its communist, yes, and I don't like that, but its the only flag of Yugoslavia that is accepted as having represented all the nations of Yugoslavia.

The flag is communist, that is true, but forcing the royalist flag is hardly any better. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia was no "liberal democracy", but an authoritarian, dictatorial regime, openly resented by vast chunks of its population. -- Director (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, I am not a Yugoslav nor a Yugoslav royalist! You're accuasation is groundless If you must know the embarassing details of why I named myself R-41, it is because I am a Star Wars nerd who still uses the user name I adopted on Wookiepedia - I named myself after a spacecraft in the TIE Fighter space-flight simulator game called the "R-41 Starchaser"! See here: [2] I am a Canadian person of English-Irish-Italian-French descent. I know Yugoslavs and I am deeply interested in Yugoslavia's history. That is shown in my talk page, your accusation of me being a "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" enthusiast is groundless personal attack aimed at discrediting what I am discussing here, and also I am a Canadian who sees monarchies as antiquated and useless. The flag was used by Yugoslavists and there were many, many Yugoslav republicans in interwar Yugoslavia who opposed the monarchy - unless DIRECTOR you can prove they all believed the plain tricolour as an exclusively royalist symbol, your claim is groundless. And even during Milosevic's days the flag was not just used by his supporters, but was used by people who OPPOSED Milosevic.--R-41 (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not "accusing" you of anything, R-41. I did not say you were a royalist, who's a royalist nowadays anyway...? In fact, I'm a rather big Star Wars fan myself (though I think they really ruined the series with the prequels..). You have to admit, though - its an amazing coincidence with "R-41".. Anyway, cut the WP:SHOUTING please.

In Serbia the flag was used by folks who are and aren't pro-Milosevich, that's not the point. Incidentally Milosevich was a socialist, and his strongest opposition were the nationalists, the radicals (from bad to worse, one might say). I'm talking about the flag's perception with Yugoslav non-Serbs. Its the flag of the country non-Serbs were engaged with in bitter war very recently. Can you show there is no resentment, because as a Croat, I can guarantee you there is (the fact that you're not from ex-Yu explains why you even demand evidence from such a thing). -- Director (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The flag's perception by non-Serbs who still identify as Yugoslavs is not easily decipherable because the region is tainted by factional ethnic nationalism that oppose the concept of Yugoslavia itself - even the many staunch Serbian nationalists are opposed to the very idea of Yugoslavia, as limiting Serbian unity. But here is a plain tricolour flag-map used on a Yugoslavia-advocate website from Bosnia and Herzegovina: [3] and on the side of this page I've provided an example of a Yugoslav tricolour that is used by at least one Yugoslav user (it appears on multiple user pages but so far I see that it is used in that one user's signature) that is a Yugoslav tricolour flag without the red star - so Yugoslavs do accept a Yugoslav tricolour without the red star as a symbol. I can tell you that the flag adopted in 1992 was not designed by Milosevic himself - Milosevic's supporters used SR Serbian flag [4] and the SFR Yugoslav flag [5] prior to 1992 - and most likely if Yugoslavia had been changed into a federal multiparty democracy as Ante Markovic and others had planned, probably the very same plain Yugoslav tricolour would have been adopted. The same question could be asked about the SFRY flag, and I can tell you that I've seen a lot of pictures of Croats during the war burning the SFR Yugoslavia flag - so the population of Yugoslavia wasn't wholly pleased with that flag either. It is a historical image, yes, but it is very politically charged. The plain tricolour is not politically charged, besides the tricolour was and continued to be the main symbol of Yugoslavia throughout its history with and without the star. Bottom line the flag with the star has a far more clear distinct political-charged and specific isolated historical context. I don't see how the flag without the star - that is not politically charged - would be irrationally and suddenly viewed as a "symbol of evil" (aside from people with a very strong POV) any more than the SFRY flag - it's the same flag just without the star, and the SFRY flag was based upon the original plain tricolour flag. So keeping this in mind, according to Direktor, does this mean that Tito the League of Communists of Yugoslavia adopted the "offensive" "royalist" tricolour symbol behind the red star?-R-41 (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is really getting ridiculous. What can I tell you? That's not the last flag of Yugoslavia. That's the flag of the state Croats, Bosniaks, and Slovenes (i.e. half of Yugoslavia) were fighting against in a shooting war very recently, packed with ethnic hatred. Its also the flag of the dictatorship where Croats, Bosniaks, Slovenes, Macedonians, and Montenegrins were not even recognized as nations, and were actively repressed. I'm sorry you "can't understand" that using that flag of Yugoslavia would be offensive to those ethnic groups. But even if all of that were not so, I can't see any reason why we should use the old flag of Yugoslavia and not the latest flag.

In short, in this context, that is not the "plain tricolour" - its the flag of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro. I wish that were not so, believe me. I'm not a communist or a socialist, but I do like the concept of a Yugoslav state - so I would be the first to prefer the non-communist symbols if they did not carry the message that they do. Its unfortunate that they have come to represent an ethnic Serb-dominated Yugoslav state. Those who find the SFRY flag offensive (the nationalists), would find the symbol of "Serb hegemony" just as, or even more, offensive.

By the way, its hard to WP:AGF when you're WP:SHOUTING by bolding half your post, and posting misinformation. I changed the offensive title of the section. This project is NOT "only about the SFRY", and that's stated quite plainly. And for your information, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was also, for a goodly part of its existence, a single-party-regime, under the Yugoslav National Party. Which state was more oppressive is quite debatable indeed. -- Director (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is website that has an image of a plain Yugoslav tricolour badge used on uniforms of the Yugoslav Partisans that disproves your claims that the plain Yugoslav tricolour is exclusively a symbol of royalists, and thus legitimizes that the plain tricolour can be used to represent Yugoslavia from beginning to end, see here: [6]. As you can see on that image file, plain versions of the Croatian, Serbian/Montenegrin, and Slovenian tricolours were also used by the Partisans - so it is clearly representing a flag. So this shows that we can use the plain Yugoslav tricolour as a symbol here without worry about offense because the Yugoslav Partisans used the plain tricolour symbol as well.--R-41 (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake... that was in 1943! We're discussing present-day implications. And we're not talking about badges, we're talking about the national flag - the Partisan version of which had a red star. -- Director (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know... the only thing I can think of is that we invent some flag of our own. Maybe a Wikipedia "W" over the tricolour? -- Director (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way I bold when I want to point something out, I am not shouting. Remember we are talking about WikiProject Yugoslavia. The site it's on further more identifies it as the "tricolour flag ribbon".[7] WikiProject Iran's flag-map template is a historical flag that is less politically-charged than the current flag that is very politically-charged with the state's theocratic ideology. Bottom line: you said that the plain tricolour was a symbol of "royalists", I have found and shown to you that it is not a symbol of royalists. I don't care who used the plain tricolour - royalists, republicans, Yugoslav Partisans - I have demonstrated that it was used as a symbol by the Partisans, so you can't complain anymore that it is a royalist symbol. It is a less politically charged flag and can represent Yugoslavia from beginning to end.--R-41 (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The combined coat of arms on the first page of a fictional "Illyrian Empire" used by the Illyrian Movement, based on the one found in the Ohmućević Armorial.The divisions are labelled with letters as follows: (A) Macedonia, (B) Slavonia, (C) Bosnia (the star-and-crescent of "Illyria" is present in an inescutcheon in the Bosnian coat of arms), (D) Bulgaria, (E) Dalmatia, (F) Serbia, (G) Croatia, (H) Rascia, (I) "Primordia", with an added imperial double-headed eagle (labelled J)

"the only thing I can think of is that we invent some flag of our own." - statement by Direktor (you) - I was thinking about something on similar lines but not the same. Out of my intest in heraldry and the history of Yugoslavia, out of curiosity I experimented and designed a concept of a Yugoslav coat of arms based on the old Fojnica Armorial used by the Yugoslavist Illyrian movement - I am thinking of either selling or voluntarily giving the design to the Nova Jugoslavia movement so that they can adopt it as a symbol - I could never fit in a Montenegrin symbol into it - but I cave a bit to a Serb friend's opinion that Montenegrins are ethnic and cultural kin of Serbs - they have the Serbian Orthodox Church - so the firesteels are used in Montenegrin society - or the golden lion could represent them perhaps - I used the Bulgarian/Macedonian golden lion on red background - original Yugoslavists claimed that Bulgarians were Yugoslavs. Bear in mind that I also drew the svg image of the coat of arms of the SFRY that I admire as visually impressive.---R-41 (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

First it needs to be said that this would imply that the project is about the current countries of Yugoslavia, and not the historic state. I would not mind that, truly I wouldn't, but I think others might. That said, lets see how this will go.

CoA. Your CoA is excellent, but I can see a few (potential) problems.
- I can't make out where Macedonia and Slovenia are. I suspect that the lower-left area is Slovene(?) but their symbol nowadays is the Triglav mountain, something they owe to the Slovene Partisans. The Macedonians I just can't find.
- Bosnia is where nations and states diverge somewhat. The symbol of the Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) is a fleur-de-lis. The blue coat of arms you're using is the coa of all of Bosnia (including Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats), and is strongly opposed by the other two Bosnian ethnic groups, which fought against it in the past war. If you want to represent the six states with the CoA, you should use the present Coat of Arms of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as the previous CoA is rather unacceptable to Bosnians that are not Bosniaks. If you want to represent the six nationalities (which is what I would do), I suggest simply using some symbol for the Bosniaks such as a single yellow fleur-de-lis on a blue background.

Flag. We still don't have a flag though, do you have any proposals in that regard? Incidentally, a flag with seven horizontal stripes of red-blue-white-blue-red-white-blue covers the Serbian (red-blue-white), Slovene (white-blue-red), and Croatian (red-white-blue) tricolours. But still, we'd be missing the Bosniaks, Montenegrins, and Macedonians. -- Director (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The Macedonian symbol is the golden lion - its the same symbol as Bulgaria. I used some older symbols of Slovenia and Macedonia to make the symbol look heraldically grounded in their heraldic history - plus to avoid the Vergina Sun controversy of the present FRYOM flag. I made a composite of the flag that I am thinking of giving to the Nova Jugoslavia movement at least for their website, here it is on the left side. I still think a plain tricolour is an appropriate, apolitical, and recognizable symbol that can be used for the WikiProject, similar to the flag-map used on WikiProject Iran that uses a historical flag that appears apolitical.--R-41 (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The Macedonian symbol should be the sun, as it is now. The lion is controversial as its pro-Bulgarian and rather right-wing. It would be self-contradictory to have it on a Yugoslav flag or coa. Macedonia is a land between three (or even four) countries that would claim it as their own. Its politics are complicated. In a sentence, the symbol of Macedonia in Yugoslavia would be the sun. -- Director (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

CoA. Revised problems/suggestions:
- The Slovene symbol, since WWII, is primarily the Triglav (see Slovene Partisans).
- The symbol of Macedonia in Yugoslavia would be the sun, since the lion emphasizes pro-Bulgarian (as opposed to pro-Yugoslav) sentiment. I suggest the proposed variants with the sun [8].
- I can't find Montenegro?
- Bosnia is where nations and states diverge somewhat. The symbol of the Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) is a fleur-de-lis. The blue coat of arms you're using is the coa of all of Bosnia (including Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats), and is strongly opposed by the other two Bosnian ethnic groups, which fought against it in the past war. If you want to represent the six states with the CoA, you should use the present Coat of Arms of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as the previous CoA is rather unacceptable to Bosnians that are not Bosniaks. If you want to represent the six nationalities (which is what I would do), I suggest simply using some symbol for the Bosniaks such as a single yellow fleur-de-lis on a blue background.
- As an aesthetical suggestion, I propose doing away with the black borders between sections?

Flag. To be honest, I just don't like the tricolour with such a complex coat of arms as the modification. And imo, if its not communist, it ought to be 3:2. Maybe we can think of something else? -- Director (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't buy the lie made by anti-Bosniak ethnic nationalists who opposed the Bosnian state that the Bosnian fleur-de-lys is an exclusively Bosniak a.k.a. Muslim-only symbol - the Bosnian fleur-de-lys symbol was adopted by a Catholic King Tvrtko I of the Kingdom of Bosnia, plus the Bosnian state of 1992 to 1995 had a number of Sarajevo Serbs in the multiethnic Bosnian Army. If anyone complains about the Bosnian symbol - I will be more than happy to point this out to them to show that that Bosnian symbol was used by non-Muslims. As for the 1:2 flag, Hungary uses a 1:2 flag, and many of the ex-Yugoslav states still do. I also think that it is difficult to see the coat of arms on the flag, that's why I'd prefer we use the plain Yugoslav tricolour flag symbol - as I have shown it has been used by all the governments of Yugoslavia (I include the Partisans as the beginning of the SFRY). As I said, I designed the symbol out of curiosity as a symbol of Yugoslavism. It's best to use the plain tricolour flag for the main symbol on this WikiProject, I'd be honoured if the coat of arms would be accepted here.--R-41 (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not "buying any lies", R-41, I'm very well familiar with my country's history. What you don't understand is that we're not so much discussing heraldry here, as a hypothetical symbol that just might be acceptable to people today. The "Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina", RBiH (as opposed to the modern "Bosnia and Herzegovina"), was unfortunately de facto a Bosniak entity in a war against the entities of the other two nationalities. I'm not saying anything against the Bosniaks (hell no), I'm not suggesting that the RBiH wasn't legally the Bosnian state, and I am fully aware of the heraldic origin of its coa. What I am suggesting is that its simply opposed by many Croats and Serbs, in particular Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs.

And can we please discuss point by point? -- Director (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well the flag is representing the Yugoslav nationalities and not republics, and Bosniaks use the symbol still. The Bosnian fleur-de-lys shield is a beautiful symbol of Bosnia with non-ethnic origins, but that happens to be preferred by the Bosniaks - Izetbegovic authorized the flag as an appropriate non-ethnic flag even though he and his supporters used this flag: [9]. As I said, I would suspect that any Croat or Serb who would be frustrated with the symbol would either (1) be uninformed of its non-ethnic origins and this could be told to them, or (2) a bigot who hates Bosniaks. I suspect that people who would be outraged with the flag even after being told of its origins would be (2) - bigots, and I will not cater to bigots' views in my design.--R-41 (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Bosniaks don't use that symbol, they use a single fleur de lys. Which is my suggestion. The coat of arms of the Kingdom of Bosnia is simply unacceptable to the majority of Croats and Serbs, in particular Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs. The majority I speak of are not necessarily "bigots", but simply nationalists. But they wouldn't like it because using the symbol that has become synonymous with the Bosniaks to represent all of Bosnia and Herzegovina - would be favoring Bosniak nationalists. Its also not the symbol of the Bosniaks as a nation (because if it were, it would suggest that Bosniaks = Bosnians, which is also favoritism). I hope I'm conveying the complexity of the issue. Its not unused for no reason.

Would you care to respond to my other concerns re the coa? (Let's at least try to get that out of the way.)

P.s. See the File:Bosniak Coat of Arms.png. I would suggest using something like that, but with a blue background, and either no frame, or a white frame (instead of yellow). -- Director (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

To summarize with regard to the CoA:

There's the issue of the Bosnian/Bosniak symbol
There's the fact that the Bulgarian lion really makes little sense on a Yugoslav Macedonian CoA
The Slovenes use the threefold peaks of the Triglav (topped with the three stars of the Counts of Celje).
And there's no Montenegrin symbol.

I will say that I myself really would like it if we could agree on a version here. -- Director (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the prior version that was previously shown on the page so that the section is not completely littered with images. But here is the revised version with much of what you wanted. I am reluctant to use the modified Vergina Sun of the flag of Vardar Macedonia due to the Greek Aegean Macedonian vs. Slavic Vardar Macedonian dispute over the symbol - I don't want Greeks mad at me for using it, so I believe it is best to avoid it altogether and use the long-used golden lion used by Vardar Macedonia. I am thinking of adding some sort of modernist mural crown (similar but distinct from that used by Croatia) that will display the symbols of the two major ethnic minorities in Yugoslavia: the Albanians and the Hungarians - but I have to design it. But first let me know if this is acceptable now?--R-41 (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Now you see why the coat of arms of the Republic of Macedonia has remained the way it was in the SFRY. The Vergina Sun is offensive to the Greeks, but the Bulgarian lion is pro-Bulgarian. Let me say again: you should under no circumstances use the Bulgarian lyon. 1) Outside of heraldry, it is officially not the symbol of the Republic of Macedonia; 2) it is a (pro-)Bulgarian symbol and has no place on a Yugoslav CoA. It is highly controversial in Macedonia and it is by no means universally accepted as the symbol thereof. It is presumptuous to use it. I recommend you use a sun symbol, which is exactly what Macedonia uses both in its flag and coa. Not necessarily the Vergina Sun, but a sun.

You're a wiz, btw. Your work is excellent. I mean I can do Photoshop, but you're just a level beyond :). -- Director (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are a few aesthetic suggestions:

How would it look without the black borders between the individual coats of arms (and on the outside)? With just the different colours marking the difference (there are also black borders within the Serbian cross).
I'm not an expert on heraldry, but I suggest doing without the pointy end at the bottom of the CoA? Its kind of archaic. Have you considered modifying the shape to look more like the Serbian or Croatian coats of arms?
The stylized shape and yellow border of the Montenegrin coat of arms seem rather out of place. A yellow/gold border is ok, I think, but perhaps the shape should correspond with the general shape of the coa.

-- Director (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried to remove the black bordering, it is complicated to describe, but in order to make the symbol it required me to construct the shield in pieces, when I remove the borders it makes the image look very unusual - I can't tell you much more than that. I simply used the Montenegrin coat of arms from the Montenegrin flag. The Macedonian lion was actually one of the leading coat of arms in the contest to create a coat of arms for the Republic of Macedonia - yes it may be archaic - from what I've seenb a lot of Eastern European peoples like archaic symbols - they see them as connecting to the roots - such as the Russian flag used during the Tsar period, or the monarchy-appearing coat of arms of Hungary. Plus the Macedonian lion was used on the Fojnica Armorial - it has been a symbol of Vardar Macedonia far longer than the Sun symbol - and it is less internationally controversial than the Sun flag that is a modified version of the Vergina Sun flag - Greeks are still ticked off about the flag of the Republic of Macedonia - they see it as cultural theft of Greek Macedonian symbols - I am not going to make a position for or against that for purposes of not offending one side or the other, using the lion avoids the dispute entirely. Anyway, I have based the coat of arms on in design - and the point at the bottom is like the Fojnica Armorial shield.--R-41 (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, by the way, I am using the Macedonian lion that came in close in the contest for the new symbols of the Republic of Macedonia in 1992 (if I am not mistaken on the year) - this version of the Lion was designed by a Slavic Macedonian in contest for the new state's symbol and it was popular - so this version is not connected with the Bulgarian lion.--R-41 (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not about the Greeks, R-41 - this is about the Macedonians. You should use what they're using. Trust me, all political implications aside, using the lion is quite presumptuous indeed, as in "other people don't like your symbol, so I've decided that you shouldn't use it, and that its sensible for you to use this one". Imagine if the US decided Canada should change its coat of arms because it looks too much like, I don't know, the coat of arms of Maine or wherever. -- Director (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Please listen - this version of the Lion was designed by the same man who designed the later-adopted present-day version Republic of Macedonia flag - Miroslav Grčev - in contest for the new state's symbols and it was very popular - so this version is not connected with the Bulgarian lion and it is designed by the same man who designed the flag. I just do not want the just per change angry complaint from a Greek that I am submitting to accepting the Republic of Macedonia's flag. Bottom line, the same man designed both symbols - the lion has been used as a symbol of Vardar Macedonia for centuries - just look at how far back its been used at Golden Lion of Macedonia. The Golden Lion symbol is fine - plus it avoids the Greek Macedonia symbol issue.--R-41 (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Who designed the flag is quite irrelevant indeed. Like I said, political implications aside - its up to the Macedonians. You can't push your opinion on which coat of arms RoM "should" adopt. Greece has the right to protest, but Macedonia is a sovereign country. If their protest wasn't sufficient to change the position of the Macedonian government - it is presumptuous for you to decide they were "wrong", and that you should make that call for yourself. Do you get my meaning? If and when the Bulgarian Lion actually becomes the symbol (and it was formally rejected), then we can use it. Why not simply use the rising sun as in the current Macedonian CoA, recognized universally across the world? -- Director (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, I am removing the older version I posted earlier so that the images don't pile up on this talk page. Here is the latest version with changes you requested. Be advised that if Greek users complaint to me because they say the Sun sumbol is just a modified Vergina Sun and shout anti-FYROM ranting on me, I will say that it was not my original choice to use that symbol - I will show them the original version - I do not want to take crap from Greek users who may be mad at me using the Sun symbol. I do not want to be accused by any user of having sympathies on one side of the other on the issue of the Macedonia naming and symbols conflict I changed the background colour scheme for the Montenegrin lion - the green and blue looked too out of place, I used a red background to keep the colour scheme of the coat of arms - and besides the Montenegrin flag is largely red.--R-41 (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Complaints from Greek nationalists (I believe you used the word "bigots") do not concern me in the slightest - and neither should they concern you. The Republic of Macedonia is a sovereign state and is completely within its rights to use any flag or coa it chooses. Frankly I am appalled that this is an issue at all. What the flag of the Republic of Macedonia should be is entirely up to the Macedonians. Whether they will indulge Greek nationalist complaints is entirely a matter of diplomatic courtesy. The Greeks were very quiet indeed when the SFRY existed, with its Macedonian coat of arms featuring the sun symbol, but had no problem pouncing on tiny, destitute, independent Macedonia and making various arrogant threats and demands from its sovereign government. In short, we're talking about symbols of Yugoslavia here - not Greece. In such concerns, I recommend you try to be more considerate as to what Yugoslavs might find acceptable, and significantly less what nationalists in some other country might think. -- Director (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I said bigots in general, no I am not saying that all Greek nationalists are automatically bigots - I do not have a problem with patriotism, but I do not wish conversation nor confrontation with bigots of whomever their nationality may be. I am not going to comment on your statements involving your opinions regarding Greece. I have no informed opinion on the matter of the history of the Macedonia naming and symbols dispute, other than that I want to not offend anyone and that I don't want to be harassed by angry users from Greece or the Republic of Macedonia. I did take your comments into consideration - I don't think you've realized that I changed the coat of arms to now include the Republic of Macedonia's sun symbol at the bottom, so let's move on. I am bolding this not for shouting but to bring your attention to this in particular that I want to focus on: I accepted your premise on the sun symbol and the sun symbol is now in the new version of the coat of arms that is shown on the right side of the page - is the coat of arms acceptable now?--R-41 (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but one gets the impression that, to you, Balkans nationalists are "bigots" who don't know what's good for them, whereas we must all be careful to accommodate Greek nationalism? You did not particularly care what Bosnian Croat nationalists and Bosnian Serb nationalists think of the coat of arms you were proposing for Bosnia (and they live there!), whereas you hold Greek nationalist sentiment and their demands in high regard. I have nothing against Greece or Greeks, but I am appalled at the bullying of Macedonia on their part. I find it very distasteful that nationalists in one country prevailed to change the the flag and state name of another sovereign country. And it is a statement of fact that they made no such demands when Macedonia was part of the Yugoslav federation.

The CoA looks alright to me, on to the flag. You have no suggestions other than the plain tricolour? -- Director (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe the plain tricolour is appropriate - it is recognizable, it has been used as a symbol of Yugoslavia from the beginning to end - including as I mentioned as a flag badge on the Yugoslav Partisans' uniforms. The coat of arms could be superimposed on the tricolour - the problem is that it will be confusing to people who have never seen the flag in that arrangement. I do believe that the Yugoslavia Merit Barnstar Award probably needs some symbol on it other than a plain tricolour if we want to make it look impressive - so the coat of arms symbol shown here would be appropriate to put on top of the tricolour in the Merit Barnstar Award. I am going to make a couple more changes to the coat of arms however - I am going to add a modernist-appearing mural crown with the national symbols of the two major minority groups of Yugoslavia - Albanians and Hungarians, and within the crown have the symbols of the three major religions of the country - the cross of Orthodox Christianity, the cross of Catholic Christianity, and the crescent moon and star of Islam. With these added, the symbol will be as inclusive as possible to the peoples of Yugoslavia.--R-41 (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

CoA suggestions:
- I still think it would be great if the black borders were removed.. :P Outside, and in between, and in the the Serbian Cross.
- Perhaps a more "streamlined" general shape of the coa would be appropriate? I still think the pointy end is archaic and unnecessary. Perhaps the kite shield shape Slovenia uses? Or the rounded shape of Croatia and Serbia?
- I know this will sound silly, but its looking rather too complex. Like something that's really from the 19th century. I don't know how to make it look less complex, but if its possible...?
- The fleur de lys seems a little off-center, and to a lesser extent the Triglav
- For the love of all things aesthetically pleasing, please do not add more coats of arms! :) In the crown or elsewhere. Perhaps you could instead use the crown to make the main CoA less complex? You seem to like complexity, but the more complex it gets the more "forced" it looks. I'd go for streamlined simplicity as much as possible.
- I wouldn't support any version with religious symbols. Separation of church and state.

Flag:
- I don't know what to tell you.. The simple tricolour is just out of the question. As I said before, I would love if we could use it, but we can not. Its unacceptable to a large portion of Yugoslavs.
- Maybe, if we had a less overwhelmingly complex coat of arms, something like a "lesser coat of arms", we might impose it in the center of a 2:3 tricolour flag and have something that looks like its neutral.
- Another option is to combine the various tricolours. See the naval ensign here (see the tricolours to the right) or the "Flag of Serbo-Croatian friendship". Also, as I said, a flag with seven horizontal stripes of red-blue-white-blue-red-white-blue covers the Serbian (red-blue-white), Slovene (white-blue-red), and Croatian (red-white-blue) tricolours.

Just giving you suggestions/ideas -- Director (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Grb nove Jugoslavije.svg

The new Yugoslavian coat of arms.

I am again removing earlier editions of the emblem from here so the talk page isn't clogged by them. The final version that I have designed - I found a way to remove all of the black outlining except for a black outline along the edge of the coat of arms that is followed by a golden rim. I added a golden rim because the golden rim on the star of the SFRY looked impressive on the flag, so I put a gold rim on the coat of arms, especially for the case of putting the coat of arms on the Yugoslav tricolour flag. I am keeping the pointed bottom, it gives space for the the sun emblem of the Republic of Macedonia and makes the coat of arms look distinct.--R-41 (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The simple plain tricolour is not out of question for me - the tricolour - regardless of whether it had an emblem or not on it - was used from 1918 to 1991 across Yugoslavia. The plain tricolour symbol has been used by the Partisans, and besides a plain tricolour does not say a political statement - the only royalist flag would be a politically-charged flag that has the Kingdom's crowned eagle coat of arms on it. The tricolour needs to be used - it is the most common known symbol of Yugoslavia. Former Yugoslavian people will know what the blue-white-red tricolour is, whether it has an emblem or not - the tricolour needs to be the primary symbol.

The pointed bottom of the coat of arms is intended in the design - I don't mind an archaic looking coat of arms - most eastern European countries have adopted such archaic looking arms. Besides, I have the pointed bottom because I clearly want the symbol to look similar to the Fojnica Armorial used by the Yugoslavist Illyrian Movement that had a pointed bottom and similar aesthetic arrangements. As for combining the coat of arms with the flag, as I mentioned earlier - the coat of arms could be added on top of the tricolour on the Merit Barnstar Award - as the plain tricolour version of the Barnstar that I designed doesn't look distinguishable.--R-41 (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent work thus far, here are a few further suggestions from me:

Greater CoA
- Why the thick yellow border? I would use either no border (just the colour), or a thin light grey border like the Serbian coa uses [10]. If you really like the wider outline, how about doing it in light grey? Yellow isn't really a "Yugoslav colour".
- That shield shape just isn't used in Yugoslavia. Its archaic, what can I tell ya? It also looks like the shape of Serbia and Montenegro's coa (and I hope we've established that any likeness to the symbols of a "Serboslavia" needs to be avoided like the plague - the threat of Serb predominance essentially toppled both Yugoslavias). How about picking one of the shapes that are actually currently used by Yugoslav states? Or better yet, picking one as the shapes thereof as the general model and then modifying its details as needed? Or how about this shape?
  Forget about the Fojnica Armorial, we're trying to cater to modern Yugoslavs. Its ancient history, most people never even heard about it. And never mind "eastern Europeans". Fyi, most Yugoslavs do not consider themselves "eastern Europeans", that's a typically North American view. I for example live more to the west than Vienna.
- The fleur-de-lys still looks a bit off-center, if you don't mind me saying so.
- In general, I would desaturate the colours just a bit, to avoid contrast. Red and blue don't look very well when they're next to each-other. I'm by no means suggesting you should use their shade (just a limited desaturation), but see how Serbia solved that problem with their new flag [11] by desaturating the colours they had previously been using [12]. And look at poor Russia [13] and Taiwan [14], my eyes hurt looking at their flags :).
Lesser CoA
- If we could cook-up a (significantly simpler) "Lesser Coat of Arms" we might use it with the tricolour and solve the flag issue. I've been thinking along those lines but could not think of any really good proposals. Do you have any ideas?

P.S. I see that your original inspiration for the coa shape was the Coat of Arms of Serbia and Montenegro [15]? Either way its a good thing you gave-up on the Serbian/Byzantine two-headed eagle [16]. That'a very Serbian symbol and its absolutely despised by non-Serbs. Again, I don't mind it, to me it looks "kinda cool", but I understand what it would mean to non-Serbs. I'll say again, the thing to avoid like the bloody plague, are any sort of allusions to the superiority of Serbian symbols or (perhaps even more) to symbols of a Serb-dominated Yugoslav state. Serbs are the most numerous Yugoslav ethnic group, by a rather wide margin, and the threat of their supremacy in Yugoslavia (à la Russians in Russia) essentially destabilized/destroyed both Yugoslavias. -- Director (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I designed it to look like the Fojinca Armorial - an ancient symbol used by Yugoslavists like the Illyrian movement, if you want to design your own version with a rounded bottom you can, I have made every other change you asked for. It is not a Serb-centred symbol - it doesn't have a big Serbian eagle in the background and because as I said it is clearly based on the design of the Fojinca Armorial used by the Illyrian movement, and remember that both Bosnia's arms and Montenegro's arms have a pointed bottom but Serbia's arms do not. The golden outline is like that of the SFRY star - it aides in giving the symbol a visual unity with the golden border - and I have seen golden borders used frequently on Yugoslav and ex-Yugoslav flags. You have to understand that there are multiple layers in this vector image with the pointed bottom outline - I would have to go through layer after layer to change it, I've already spent enough time changing it to address the more serious issues that you addressed. I've spend enough time on this - the pointed bottom is fine, the golden rim looks good, gives the symbol a sense of unity and all the serious issues that you addressed and I acknowledged that needed to be dealt with, have been dealt with.--R-41 (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not "forcing" you to do anything. Designing a whole new coat of arms for an area as complex as ex-Yugoslavia naturally isn't a little side project. You'd be hard pressed to think of a more difficult task in heraldry. -- Director (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That is why this last design is my final offer. It will take too much time to redesign the multiple layers that have that pointed bottom - I would likely have to start the whole symbol over from scratch-beginning just to account for all the changes of shapes that would occur. The only elements that I may consider adding to it are a mural crown with two small shields in it for the Albanian and Hungarian minorities - though I may not because some may say that this would favour a Serb irredentist view towards Kosovo. The symbols represent the six republics that formed Yugoslavia. I don't like to brag about my work - that can be shotty and crappy at times - but this coat of arms since you and I worked out the details is the best and most complete and balanced symbol for a modern coat of arms of Yugoslavia. I have invested as much time in this as I am willing to, I know from experience of designing an emblem for a local church that nitpicking over tiny issues can go on and on forever, eventually the designer has to say "this is the best I can do, I addressed as many of the issues that you addressed that I could, I am satisfied with what I designed, and I have invested as much time as I wish to into this, and this is my final offer". And that is the case here, all major issues have been addressed, the symbol is satisfactory to me, and this is as much time as I want to invest in designing it.--R-41 (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Now I will add the symbol to the tricolour flag for a "Yugoslavian flag with coat of arms" option and put up a new proposal for a new Yugoslavian Merit Barnstar Award symbol with the tricolour and this coat of arms on top of it, and see if you and others think it is an acceptable apolitical version for the Barnstar Award.--R-41 (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What?? This is a historical WikiProject. Like WikiProject Soviet Union. Using the last Yugoslav flag is not "political" - its historically accurate. Far from apoliticizing the project, to use a user-created symbol of a "new Yugoslavia" would indicate this is some kind of Yugoslavist political "forum" or "club". Its not. And I'm afraid there is simply no way we can use any of the symbols of Serbia and Montenegro which you seem to prefer and think they're "apolitical".

Maybe if we had a few symbols we all of us agreed on, we could put them up on the Project page as a novelty nice piece of work, but that's it. No fantasy/sci-fi barnstar symbols or "future Yugoslavias". At least not unless people agree that a "new Yugoslavia" is what this project is about. -- Director (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is the flag map that is used at WikiProject Iran. It does not use the most recent flag - the current flag of the Islamic Republic. We've gone through this before, the plain tricolour is not politically-charged, the tricolour with our without an emblem has been used from 1918 to 1991, and the Partisans used the plain tricolour flag as a symbol, and you cannot prove that everyone who flew the plain tricolour was a royalist from 1918 to 1943, and you can't prove that everyone who flew the plain tricolour flag from 1992 to 2006 was a Milosevic fanatic. Don't anal retentively overanalyze a flag that is made of three stripes that has been used with or without an emblem for almost a century.--R-41 (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not changing the coat of arms symbol anymore - you have no right to be angry or frustrated with my work - I listened to almost every one of your concerns - but complaining about a curve is nitpicking - stop worrying about some symbol fanatic who will burst into outrage because they think the curve looks too much like that of S&M - anyone who would burst into a fit of rage over a curve is irrational and insane. There is no big Serbian eagle clutching the arms like that on the S&M coat of arms - if that was there then that would be inappropriate. The coat of arms is fine to me, it will take too long to change all of the layers that have the curve in it - I have invested as much time as I can with it, it is done.--R-41 (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, I'm done here. You consider your own personal perceptions "superior" to those of Yugoslavs with regard to their own symbols. Its quite baffling. Let me stop you here: there is no reason whatsoever to consider any older or newer flag than the one Yugoslavia used last, and for the longest period of time. Both Yugoslav flags are politically charged, the versions with and without the red star. You may not "think" they are, or you may think they "shouldn't" be, but they are. And that's a matter of general knowledge around here. Deal with it. -- Director (talk) 00:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being spit upon after doing all that work for you. You think you are angry, I am OUTRAGED with your utter disrespect for all the work I have done for you!

Don't start playing a fit of anger - I worked with you to resolve almost every issue you addressed - you have no right to be this angry at me after all the work I did for you to address you concerns. Didn't you hear what I said - it will take TOO LONG to redesign the bottom of the symbol - I would have to change multiple layers. No I do not think I am "superior" to Yugoslavs on the symbols - I wanted input - THAT'S WHY I LISTENED TO MUCH OF YOUR ADVICE! And no - you do not represent every single Yugoslav just as I do not represent every single Canadian. I have in fact encountered a Yugoslav royalist on Wikipedia, and you clearly and deliberately discriminate against Yugoslav royalists as seen in your comments - they are Yugoslavs too. I showed you a Yugoslav user's image who uses a plain tricolour with a new arms. We have to have a symbol that can represent all Yugoslavs - Yugoslavs know what the tricolour is. You are being anal retentive about "tricolour flag with star=good and makes me happy :)" "tricolour flag without star=evil and makes me angry! >:(" (the last symbols are a happy face and angry face). I could make up the same argument for the WikiProject Iran template - that the plain Iranian tricolour is associated with the Shah and not the Islamic Republic and thus argue that it is reactionary, but it has not just been used by the Shah - the flag was shortly used by the Islamic Republic. WikiProject Iran uses a historical flag on the flag-map template, this project's flag-map can too. You relented when you said this comment: "I don't know... the only thing I can think of is that we invent some flag of our own. Maybe a Wikipedia "W" over the tricolour?" I already showed you that the Partisans used a plain tricolour flag symbol - do you have a problem with the symbol that the Partisans chose to use themselves?--R-41 (talk) 00:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If you do not immediately apologize for insulting the hours of work that I have done for you, I will report you for violation of WP:CIVIL, and I will even report myself alongside you in a report of both of us, because I have been significantly uncivil with you here, because I will not tolerate working in exchange for abuse, and if you keep it up, I am willing to sacrifice my Wikipedia privileges to have you reprimanded for this work abuse. If you are such a patriot to your country of Yugoslavia you should know better that people like Tito would not tolerate people working hard in exchange for abuse and being spit upon by those they have worked for for, as you have done to me!--R-41 (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"You worked for me"? Ok this is just creeping me out man. There was some HUGE misunderstanding here. At no point would I myself agree to using some made-up coat of arms for this historical country project. Using it would make this look like a Yugoslavist political "club" that supports a new Yugoslavia, not a WikiProject about a defunct historical country. You made these coats of arms for yourself quite a while ago. All I did was I liked your work and made a few suggestions on how I think you might modernize and improve the design (you talked about selling it somehwere). Now you're angry because I don't agree with you on the Serbia and Montenegro tricolour.. Feel free to report me, but please do not harass me further on my talkpage. -- Director (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please just apologize for insulting hours of work that I did - stop acting like a jerk to me.--R-41 (talk) 01:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Um.. what?? I'll respond on my talkpage. -- Director (talk) 01:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Yugoslavia should be extended to include modern times because Yugoslavs still exist, there remains Yugoslav culture, and issues of the Yugoslav wars

As said above there are current issues involving Yugoslavia that continue to exist. There are people who are still Yugoslavs, there are Yugoslav veterans from World War II, there remains a Yugoslav culture among those who still relate to Yugoslavia, and there are issues that continue to this day involving the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav wars - and international tribunal trials are still being held about the Yugoslav wars.--R-41 (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I support this motion. Perhaps you should notify the members personally. -- Director (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Great, i like it too... --WhiteWriter^speaks 11:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Supported. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain exactly what would you extend? Which new articles would you tag with the WPFY tag? Yugoslavs and ICTY are already tagged anyway. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well insofar as I understand the idea, R-41 believes the scope of the WikiProject Yugoslavia should be extended up to the present day. In other words, all articles who's subject is related to the area of Yugoslavia, period. That is, the WikiProject would not only encompass the historical state(s) and its formation, but would include modern-say subjects related to ex-Yugoslavia as well. I myself support this in principle. I do, however, anticipate certain problems when someone tries to enter articles like Croatia into WikiProject Yugoslavia :). That said, its really up to us alone as WikiProject members to decide on the scope. -- Director (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see the point myself. What is "Yugoslav" about e.g. Varaždin? Should we tag that with WP:A-H too? It looks like a very slippery slope and there is no immediately obvious benefit. If one wants to track all articles about former Yugoslavia, they can track the seven other WikiProjects instead, and have it all nicely categorized per republic/province. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes... seven WikiProjects.. one might notice a benefit in tracking these articles through one project. Well Varazdin was a Yugoslav city, and if its decided on those grounds that WikiProject Yugoslavia should extend to include it, then it should include it. As for "slippery slope", slippery slope to what? I fail to perceive any possible negative aspects of this proposal as regards the functioning of Wikipedia. There are some "ideological" difficulties, and it is perhaps debatable whether there are some strong benefits to this, but I do not foresee any particularly negative outcome at the bottom of the proverbial "slippery slope".

It's a slope to pointless scope creep, and you know it. We don't tag all historical articles with {{WikiProject History}}, or all geographical articles with {{WikiProject Geography}}; instead, they're split by period, region, etc. There is nothing ideological about not spamming talk pages with excess WP categorization. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I will mention here that should this proposal go through, i.e. if the scope of the project is expanded from coverage of the historical states themselves, the (historical) communist symbols on the WikiProject banners might be modified to a more ideologically "neutral" version (as was discussed at embarrassing length just above). -- Director (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

@Joy. Well I suppose its a matter of perspective whether adding this banner would be "spamming", that's one of the points up for discussion in this thread. @"and you know it" - what I know is that this expansion would be controversial on an "ideological" level. I see no inherent detrimental aspects from the perspective of the functioning of Wikipedia. -- Director (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Such an extension of use of the project tag is entirely pointless. The WP:FY itself says specifically that it does not include "articles on modern-day settlements, countries and/or regions that were part of Yugoslavia during its existence" or "history articles of modern-day settlements, countries and/or regions that do not exclusively cover a period during which the place was a part of Yugoslavia" and that is for a good reason - that would offer no benefit and therefore be pointless.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

"As said above there are current issues involving Yugoslavia that continue to exist. There are people who are still Yugoslavs, there are Yugoslav veterans from World War II, there remains a Yugoslav culture among those who still relate to Yugoslavia, and there are issues that continue to this day involving the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav wars - and international tribunal trials are still being held about the Yugoslav wars."

There are very few "issues involving Yugoslavia" that come to mind. "People who are still Yugoslavs" have no public visibility in any of Yugoslav successor countries - either as an ethnic group or a political force; "Yugoslav veterans from WW2" have their associations, none of which is notable enough or politically influential enough to merit an article here. "Yugoslav culture among those who still relate to Yugoslavia" is quite a vague and meaningless construct. Have you ever seen a book published post-breakup which deals with current "Yugoslav culture"? Issues involving the breakup of Yugoslavia probably involve succession treaties on the former state's properties an the Hague tribunal - the former have been resolved for the most part and the latter has announced that its work has been finished - there will be no more indictments at the Hague, everyone wanted by the court has been extradited and once the ongoing trials are done the whole thing will be over. Yugoslavia is just a chapter in history and should be treated as such, not unlike Austria-Hungary or the Ottoman Empire. Not to mention that this would for sure attract a flood of vandalism across hundreds of pages and would on the other hand offer little or no benefit editing-wise. Timbouctou (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It's totaly unnecessary, since we alredy have WikiProjects taking care of subjects related to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia and Slovenia. What's the point of adding templates to the talk pages? That wouldn't have any connection with reallity. This WikiProject was founded to take care of Yugoslavia-related articles, that is history related articles. Everything other is just unnecessary. --Wusten fuchs 19:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Poll?

Everyone, should we do this with a poll? Its really not so much a factual dispute but a matter of personal opinion. It might be a good idea to notify all members and ask them to state their position on the proposal. The actual discussion could continue just above. -- Director (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It's unnecessary. People joined this project to improve Yugoslavia's historical articles, and also joined some other WikiProjects, like WP Slovenia to improve articles related to present-day Slovenia. Adding WP Yugoslavia template to a talk page have no connection to reallity, and it's funny a bit. What's the point to add a template? I'm sure users in WP Croatia will do way better improving Croatia-related articles then those in WP Yugoslavia, so no need for this one. --Wusten fuchs 19:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Support - issues about Yugoslavia are still important today - such as the Yugoslav veterans of World War II who are alive today, the breakup of Yugoslavia, the ongoing war crimes tribunals for officers of the Yugoslav army in the Yugoslav Wars, etc - these all should be addressed. If others criticize this by saying "well then this would mean that a WikiProject Austria-Hungary would be created", my response is that Yugoslavia is a historical state that has a WikiProject of its own and should users elsewhere support the creation of a WikiProject Austria-Hungary for that historical state, they have a reasonable precedent by this WikiProject for it.--R-41 (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Flag and barnstar issue: a non-SFRY version of the barnstar should be available as well, a plain map of Yugoslavia

File:Yugoslav tricolours.png

Flag composed of the Serbian (top), Slovene (middle), and Croatian (bottom) tricolours

File:Flag of Yugoslavia (proposed).png

This is my suggestion :), or at least, its the best I've thought of so far

This is the plain tricolour version of the Yugoslavia barnstar that I designed. Due to the possibility of assumption of political affiliation of Yugoslavia's historic Communist regime with the SFRY flag with the red star, I believe that two versions of the Yugoslavia barnstar should be available - one with the SFRY red star and a plain Yugoslav tricolour. A person presented with such an award should be asked whether they wish to be presented with the SFRY flag barnstar or the plain Yugoslav tricolour barnstar. Also the right is a plain map of Yugoslavia with no flag or political symbols on it - this or a similar map I think should replace the current map on the main page that uses the SFRY flag, the plain map is more neutral.--R-41 (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

As I explained several times, your aim does you credit but the plain tricolor unfortunately also carries political connotations. -- Director (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You need to provide evidence that others find the plain tricolour flag offensive, otherwise it only appears to be your opinion. The problem with your tricolours flag is that it excludes Bosnia, Macedonia, and Montenegro that either don't have such tricolours. I am not requesting that the plain tricolour barnstar replace the current barnstar, but that it be a second option for those awarded the barnstar to choose from should they not wish to have a barnstar with the SFRY red star on it.--R-41 (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

R-41 that flag is far from neutral and has represented KoY and FRY. The latter of which was a participant in the Yugoslav Wars. The map you've presented is of SFRY and is evident to anyone with a basic understanding of the region.

DIREKTOR, your suggestion neglects the other republics of Yugoslavia. Anyway enough of these silly fantasy symbols guys. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 18:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Haha, the voice of reason :). Its kind of fun, actually.. thinking up a reasonably satisfactory hypothetical flag. (That's not my suggestion, its just a neat idea I had. We would of course have to incorporate others too. I'll post my suggestion.) -- Director (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I've attached my idea. It's derived from an old sketch by a famous Yugoslavist named Tomislav Jeffersonovic. It incorporates the pan-slavic colors; however, it uses bi-color stripes rather than tri-color stripes to avoid offending anyone. A star is also included to represent how glorious the wikiproject is; however, it's repeated 50 times to decrease the viewer chances of not grasping how truly glorious we are. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Director, you still need to provide evidence that others find the plain tricolour flag offensive otherwise it is your opinion. What sources do you have that demonstrate that Yugoslavs find a plain tricolour offensive? (Don't just give pictures of Croats burning or descerating that flag, because Croats in 1990 to 1992 can be seen burning and desecrating the SFRY flag as well - Croatian nationalists despised Yugoslavia, provide written sources and be careful with them - there sources written by nationalists who opposed Yugoslavia altogether). Polish Wikipedia's article on Yugoslavia represents all the historical flags of Yugoslavia [17] - you may contest the use of the flag of the FRY - but what about Polish Wikipedia's use of both the plain tricolour and the SFRY tricolour - could both be used. --R-41 (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies R-41, I'm too busy rolling on the floor to respond in detail. Suffices to say I need no source for what the plain tricolor was used, and as such it is no more acceptable than the red star flag. The latter is used as the last flag of Yugoslavia. I've explained this numerous times and I'm pretty much done. I will revert any additions of the plain tricolour. -- Director (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

So you are refusing to present any sources to demonstrate that the plain tricolour flag as used particularly from 1918 to 1943 is considered "offensive" merely because of the absence of a red star. I have shown you Yugoslav Partisan military patches that use a plain tricolour flag. You have also refused to accept a compromise by having both the plain tricolour and the SFRY flag. I presume you mean that you are "rolling on the floor" because you are laughing at what you presume to be an "absurd" proposal on my part - highly insulting to my good faith efforts here. Lastly you have clearly declared that you are dedicated to starting an edit war on this matter without considering the views of others when you said "I will revert any additions of the plain tricolour". Therefore you have demonstrated that your intentions in your clearly declared plan to edit war and to refuse any deviation from your clearly stated goal to refuse any use of the plain tricolour regardless of what others think - even if it is used alongside the SFRY tricolour and star flag, are to in direct violation with WP:DISRUPT, you have refused all efforts of compromise, are being condescending, and stubborn to even address any concern presented here, thus I am now reporting you to the administrator's noticeboard for violation of WP:DISRUPT.--R-41 (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I am refusing to do so - report me. Because it is irrelevant whether I do or don't. As was repeated to you over and over and over again, the current flag is used because it was the last official flag of Yugoslavia, and was used for the longest period of all to represent that country. Without consensus, we will not replace it with your fantasy flags or make-believe insignia, nor shall we use an older flag because you demand it. You have attempted to push your position through, and even with support from myself, you met with unanimous opposition from anyone who even bothered to comment.

There isn't much more to say on this matter. And for the record, if anyone is being WP:DISRUPTIVE - its you, with this incessant, repetitive POV-pushing. My only mistake was indulging you in interesting, but completely irrelevant discussion on hypothetical Yugoslavist symbols. I think we're all glad that's over and done now. -- Director (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I have reported you for threatening an edit war. I said that we could include both the plain tricolour and the SFRY tricolour - like Polish Wikipedia has done, I asked for others views - I am not seeking to impose it - I am concerned over potential POV with the red-star flag being used alone - because implies affiliation with communism - having both the plain tricolour and the SFRY tricolour could resolve this. Remember that you yourself have contributed to create the fantasy flags that you are now attacking me for - and that was something I was doing for an organization outside of Wikipedia that I asked for some advice on. Here are the ranks badges of the Yugoslav Partisans that used the plain tricolour flag as a symbol, so they clearly did not view the plain tricolour as an "offensive" symbol, see here: [18].--R-41 (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG offers good guidance, which, wikilawyering aside, seems to support User:DIREKTOR's position. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where it opposes the inclusion of two historical flags. The entire issue could be avoided perhaps if a a blank map of Yugoslavia was used as the primary symbol here, like the blank map of Kosovo is used for WikiProject Kosovo. Would this be acceptable? If we include both the plain tricolour flag used by the Kingdom of Yugoslavia from 1918 to 1943 and the tricolour with the red star used from 1946 to 1992, the full history of Yugoslavia from 1918 to 1992 will be shown. The fact that the Yugoslav Partisans used the plain tricolour flag as a symbol on their badges shows that the symbol is not associated with royalist dictatorship nor Serb supremacism. I am not "POV-pushing", DIREKTOR has fallaciously accused me in the past of being a "royalist" even though I am not of Yugoslav descent - I have known multiple people from the former Yugoslavia and I am deeply interested in its history. To DIREKTOR: I have the right to address a concern here, I represent myself alone and you represent yourself alone, I am waiting to hear out others on the proposals made here.--R-41 (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Pardon, but while MOS:FLAG doesn't oppose your suggestion per se (but i do feel that's unnecessary wikilawyering to justify your suggestion on that basis), it doesn't demand it. More importantly, it offers what I feel is good, common sense advice:

Avoiding flag problems

...

Historical considerations

Flags change, and sometimes the geographical or political area(s) to which a flag applies may also change.

Use historical flags in contexts where the difference matters

Use a historical flag and associated country name when they have at least a semi-officially applicable rationale to use them. "

Other editors have commented that the last official Yugoslavian flag is "x", and you want to propose "not-X". It seems that the guidance, above, is a good "applicable rationale" to not adopt your proposal. Sorry.

Finally, I'll add that your concern raised at WP:ANI regarding "threats of edit warring" seem, to an outside observer, unreasonable at best, and contrived at worst. I'm sure you meant well and were sincere, but I don't share your concern, nor do I think this is an issue worthy of a dispute. Perhaps it is time to move on? Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Another user on the noticeboard, PANONIAN has addressed the threat of DIREKTOR edit warring here, noting that DIREKTOR has done in multiple times in the past and has been blocked for it, the issue seems real. I have sought to cooperate with DIREKTOR in the past, but this recent action has been a direct threat to edit war.--R-41 (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding User:PANONIAN, Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Final_decision#2012 suggests he should not participate in this discussion, and is potentially subject to sanctions for doing so. I recommend dropping the matter. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, here is another proposal for compromise: perhaps the SFRY flag map of Yugoslavia could be replaced by a fluttering Yugoslav flag in the background with a map of Yugoslavia superimposed on top of it - that way it wouldn't matter whether a red star is used in the centre or whether it has a plain centre because the map would be superimposed on the centre. Would this be acceptable?--R-41 (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No. As far as I'm concerned the last flag is perfectly appropriate. This is a project about a former country that was, for the most part, a communist state. And btw you may find yourself under a WP:BOOMERANG report if this character assassination campaign does not decrease in intensity. -- Director (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, if you would rescind your threat to revert any possible inclusion of a plain tricolour flag and be willing to wait to hear what others think, the issue will be over. You need to cool down - I personally think you are frustrated and said that threat out of frustration - if you rescind that threat and hear out others the problem will be solved.--R-41 (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with User:DIREKTOR. In my opinion, the WP:DRAMA of your proposal outweighs the benefit. There's no hurry. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Look I am just trying to address an issue of potential POV and am offering possible solutions. DIREKTOR has the right to object, and others have the right to be heard as well. If a majority of users over time oppose such proposals I will rescind then. Now then here is another proposal I have made a map superimposed on the flag of Yugoslavia, I used a waving flag template of the SFRY flag in the background and superimposed a map in the foreground over the centre, this way it doesn't matter whether a symbol is in the centre of the flag or not. Is this acceptable?--R-41 (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

There are no "threats" to rescind, R-41. And your proposal looks like a plain tricolor, with something superimposed over it. -- Director (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You said you would revert any inclusion of the plain tricolour - and you gave no indication that you would here out what others had to say, that sounds like a threat of edit warring to me, are you willing to hear out others even if they oppose what you believe? Anyway, here is the original image that I based it on, it was not a plain tricolour flag: [19]--R-41 (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Fresh start on discussions on flag used in WikiProject template

File:Yugoslavia-Map-Flag.png

Proposal for a map superimposed on the flag of Yugoslavia. I used a graphic of the waving SFRY tricolour for the background, see here: [1]. Note it is not a flag with the map on it, but a flag in the background of the map - that is why the map does not have folding marks.

Due to the descending of previous discussions into argument I am restarting the discussions here. From what has happened I will lay out what has been discussed.

1) R-41 (me) has stated that exclusive use of the SFRY flag on the template may be POV since the red star symbol denotes the communist regime while not including Yugoslavia before the 1940s when a plain tricolour flag was used prior to the SFRY flag.
2) DIREKTOR has stated that the plain Yugoslav tricolour flag has negative connotations - associating it with the royalist dictatorship of 1929 to 1941 and Serbia and Montenegro - known for Serbian nationalist irredentism and war crimes under Milosevic.
3) R-41 response: (A) the plain tricolour is not a symbol of Yugoslav royalist dictatorship nor Serb supremacist politics of Milosevic - as the Yugoslav Partisans used a plain Yugoslav tricolour flag symbol on their badges. Also, Yugoslavia was not a royalist dictatorship from 1918 to 1929 when the plain tricolour was in use. (C) the SFRY tricolour itself was based upon the original plain tricolour and the plain tricolour is also a historical flag of Yugoslavia. (D) DIREKTOR needs to present sources to provide evidence that the plain tricolour flag was a symbol exclusively of Yugoslav royalism and Serb supremacism during its use from 1918 to 1943.
4) DIREKTOR and other users' response: have stated that since this was the last flag used in Yugoslavia, it should be used in the template.
5) R-41 response: Both the plain tricolour flag and the SFRY tricolour flag could be used, to show the history of Yugoslavia from 1918 to 1991. Or a map of Yugoslavia with a fluttering Yugoslav flag in the background - the map superimposed on top of the centre would mean that it would not matter whether the flag has a symbol in the centre or not.

Why do you believe there's a need for a fresh start, R-41? The discussion is over, at least as far as I'm concerned. There's no "problem" to solve, only you see one. -- Director (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I think that you are extremely angry at me for reporting you for what I saw as a threat to edit war. You need to calm down, I am not neglecting your opposition entirely - but if you are saying that you going to revert any and all use of a plain tricolour on this page, regardless of what others think, that is not appropriate and I reported it because I saw it as inappropriate - the user PANONIAN agrees with me. I have restarted this because I do see now that the plain tricolour alone does not seem to be an acceptable solution, including both like how Polish Wikipedia has done the Yugoslavia infobox template could be a compromise - we need to hear out others who are not frustrated and have a more clear head on this.--R-41 (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for anyone to conclude my position is influenced by your recent actions. I have not changed my position since before you reported me. In fact, before you reported me, I also stated I don't think there's anything more to discuss. User:PANONIAN is just trying to get back at me because we were engaged in a long dispute and he got topic-banned in the end. In fact, he was topic-banned specifically for his inability to participate neutrally in issues on this topic (among other things of course). Now really, I don't want to appear rude, but this is my last post on the subject. -- Director (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Very well that is your stance. Now we need to hear others on whether this proposal for a map of Yugoslavia superimposed on a fluttering Yugoslav flag is acceptable or not.--R-41 (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Not acceptable, per prior explanation of MOS:FLAG, as well as WP:DEADLINE, WP:POINTY and WP:DRAMA. Let it go. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not proposed a deadline, there is no WP:DRAMA anymore DIREKTOR is taking a break, I do not see what part of MOS:FLAG opposes compositions of a flag with another image on it, and another user below believes the issue could be resolved with another symbol other than the SFRY flag map - WhiteWriter proposes a plain Yugoslav tricolour.--R-41 (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

And what is wrong with simple flag map of Yugoslavia? Without star. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I originally proposed using a plain tricolour, but DIREKTOR opposes this - he claims it is a Yugoslav royalist symbol and associated with Serb supremacism of the Milosevic regime in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. You would have to ask DIREKTOR why - he/she has stated that he/she will not post anything more here - due to frustration, I've asked for evidence from her/him in sources to show these connotations, but DIREKTOR has not presented any thus far. Again, you need to ask DIREKTOR about this, but do you think that the image with the map superimposed over the centre of a fluttering Yugoslav flag would be acceptable?--R-41 (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

JoeSperrazza, if it is drama to you, i would propose retreat. R-41, that map you proposed is a bit ugly to me, i would love something more professional. Even this one is quite ok to me, it looks modern and interesting. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I recommend an extended WP:WIKIBREAK from this WP:DRAMAfest, and that those that don't take my suggestion all be awarded a very special Barnstar:

JoeSperrazza has given you a WikiTrout! Trouts promote WikiFun and hopefully this one has made your day more fun. Spread the WikiFun by giving someone else a trout, especially when they are doing something silly. Happy slapping!

Spread the fun of trouts by adding {{subst:Troutalt}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay then...Anyway, to WhiteWriter, I could try to find another image of a fluttering Yugoslav flag flying and superimpose another version of the map of Yugoslavia on top of it. By having a map superimposed on top of the flag that clearly is a background image, the whole issue of star or no star in the centre is no longer a problem. I created the coat of arms that is shown in that flag I designed - then I was able to work more constructively with DIREKTOR to develop a modern coat of arms that I am considering voluntarily giving to the organization Nova Jugoslavija for them to use - the last image was DIREKTOR's version with desaturated colours - it looks okay to me - I appreciate that you would like it, but I don't know if others others than you and I would accept it though. The issue is whether the plain Yugoslav tricolour is really neutral, I am not of Yugoslav descent though I study Yugoslavia's history - WhiteWriter do you know if the plain tricolour viewed in a negative way by most Yugoslavs? DIREKTOR suggested that it is, do you know of evidence that it is?

Well, if you ask me, i dont think like that. tricolour is true representation of Yugoslavia, and i am not sure that it can be insulting. I suppose that territories that ceded away from Yugoslavia may fell unconformable with it, they split away from Yugoslavia, at the end, but this should be representation of Yugoslav territory, and not personal feelings. Anyway, sources about it will do. --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

And, at the end, ihave the most neutral solution. we could start new section, and propose several flags, images, and coat of arms, so community can choose. The majority of arguments and users will solve this. --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Aaand, this is wikiproject about Yugoslavia. Yugoslav symbols are inevitable. --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

We won't be indulging in this little circus of creating our imaginary symbols. The suggestions above are just as ridiculous as the ones prior. Whitewriter stop beating a dead horse and making us go in circles with same nonsense over and over. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 20:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

What is going on around here!? First, this pointless trout should be used in personal user talk page, and not in the middle of the conversation, where we should talk all around it. And i didnt censor it, but collapsed unrelated trout. And it is still there, dont worry. Second, i dont know what all of you want in here! I said that i agree on any proposition, that have some aesthetic appeaser. Second, it is not up to you, PRODUCER, to say what will and what will not be, but up to community. If the rest of you have some previous problems with this article or talk page, step up. I am talking quite normally with R-41, and therefor see no reason for this wast obstruction of the process. And even more, following this, we should disband the thread, and start new one, with propositions, so people can say what they want, and what not. We can even go for RfC, it may be useful. Step down, lower this awful tension around, and talk like normal people do. We are talking about one ordinary thing, about nice image for OUR WikiProject, so, please, all, talk normally, without attacks. I will not be active for a few days, so, if none else start new section with a propositions, i will. Or, maybe, some solution will apear in few days... Anyway, all best, people, and please, calm down until i return... :) :) :) --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Do not censor/remove/collapse/blank (I'm not going to argue semantics) other people's comments that you personally dislike. Let it also be clear that attempts to discourage or intimidate other users from posting by censoring their comments, claiming their "obstructing" the discussion, or telling them to "retreat" won't be tolerated.

If you had bothered to read up on the already lengthy discussions above, you would not have asked a question so basic as what's "wrong with simple flag map of Yugoslavia" and have taken us to back to square one and beat the dead horse. May I also point out that it is absolutely no coincidence that you repeatedly show up at whatever area that I or DIREKTOR happen to be in a dispute or edit at?

On the contrary we will not be creating a fourth section on the same exact topic. The present image is in line with MOS:FLAG and we've already had the input of at least three or four editors on this trivial matter. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be bullying WhiteWriter by saying that her/his stance here is unimportant and bringing up old gripes (including one from last year) to accuse the user of bad faith for a different topic than the one where such problems occurred - that is in violation of Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith. Disagreements happen all the time, I for instance have disagreed with DIREKTOR now but have agreed with DIREKTOR in the past on other issues. WhiteWriter has asked everyone to calm down, I've disagreed with WhiteWriter in the past, but I think he/she is right that we should wait a few days and listen to other proposals, for instancePeacemaker67 below has just offered another solution that seems to be reasonable.--R-41 (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This really has been a ridiculous argument. If both Yugoslavia's (ie not Milosevic's one, but the Kingdom and the communist country) need to be represented, put both insignia on the tricolour. The star and the coat of arms of the Kingdom, the coat of arms on the left, the star on the right, equidistant from the sides. There is no rule that says it has to be the last flag, the first flag, or an exact flag. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

That is a reasonable proposition, I support it overall, as having both insignia would represent the full history of Yugoslavia. Though I would note that the only flag that had the Kingdom's coat of arms is the naval flag, the kingdom used a plain tricolour as its national flag. But as you say it does not need to be an exact flag - so I'll support your proposal. --R-41 (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a proposal, it's a suggestion of a alternative to what has been suggested so far. I really think enough time has been spent on this pretty minor matter (which is why I haven't dip my oar in earlier), and I don't have a strong view either way. Frankly, both were dictatorships, and many peoples of the various former Yugoslav states would probably prefer to forget both and just get on with what they are doing now. However, this is a historical period commencing in 1929 through to 1990 or so, and the project should probably acknowledge both periods. Exit, stage left... Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I support your suggestion and I agree that it would resolve the issue. I will end my proposal if your suggestion receives more support, as I think your suggestion is the best solution.--R-41 (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, i like that too! And that may be the most neutral solution! Give me the links of main files, and i will create that new proposition! --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have created a version of Peacemarker67's proposal showing the flag of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia on one side and the civil flag of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on the other side. Both are the same size arrangement. It can be used in the WikiProject Yugoslavia template in the place of only having the SFRY flag - it is better because it represents Yugoslavia from its beginning to its end. I would like to see what others think of this image as a solution.--R-41 (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be better to have one flag with the coat of arms and the star, rather than two flags. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Other users have complained about the creation of fictional flags and symbols for use here though.--R-41 (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Or one flag divided diagonally bottom left to top right. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Fellas, judging from all the above - you won't have consensus for this. So kindly WP:DROP THE STICK or it may be my turn to start posting nonsense reports. I mentioned before how the plain tricolour can be viewed as carrying a political message? It is even less likely non-Serbian Yugoslav users are about to agree that a the Serbian double-headed eagle be used on this pan-Yugoslav project. Especially since there is absolutely no valid reason not to use the last Yugoslav flag - the default flag. The latter is a point that keeps being ignored: why should we use anything else but the latest and most-used flag? Ideology? Its a history project! -- Director (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Director, firstly consensus does not mean unanimous agreement, the argument about the plain tricolour have political connotations is a canard (as the same may be said of the star), and there is absolutely nothing anywhere that says that the flag used on a wiki project has to be the last one used. I agree with you regarding the coat of arms, however, and withdraw that part of my suggestion. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Peacemaker67 that consensus does not require unanimous consent, also it is not time to drop the stick since three users here are seeking an alternative to what is currently used, and we have made constructive progress in developing a possible neutral solution that is a compromise of the multiple views expressed by different users, I also agree with Peacemaker67's stance on the issue of politics of the flag and the use of the flag. I agree with Peacemaker's proposal that a diagonally split flag (of the Kingdom's plain tricolour and the SFRY's tricolour with the star) might work - but usually that is done between two differently designed flags, here it may only appear like the star has been cut in half since both flags are much the same.--R-41 (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I am thoroughly familiar with the application of WP:CONSENSUS, and let me assure you: thus far you do not have one. Bear in mind this is not a factual dispute. Before you get sidetracked (again) with hypothetical Yugoslav flags, can you explain why the longest-used and last-used flag should not be displayed. As far as I'm concerned, that's the most basic question here, and you've not even gotten past that. R-41's motivations were made clear (by him): he believes it is socialist and should therefore be replaced. That's not an argument, however, as this is a historical country wikiproject [20] (about a state that was socialist for the majority of its existence). Are there any other reasons as to why a flag change is at all necessary? -- Director (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

the Soviet Union example is also a canard. What alternative flags are you suggesting it had? For 68 years it had one flag, and essentially one system of government. I am not suggesting that the flag of socialist Yugoslavia should not be used, I am saying the other main flag should also be used, and am suggesting an alternative to using just one by combining the two. The wikiproject flag would then represent all the Yugoslavias that this project is supposed to represent, not just one. There is nothing to say that such a thing is not appropriate, and preferable to one which represents only one, which is incongruous. The project is actually supposed to cover 1835-1995, and includes the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes as well as the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the socialist era and the first three years of Serbia and Montenegro. That actually equates to about 30 years of one flag and 50 of another. Not exactly overwhelming odds, and another good reason why both should be represented. Peacemaker67 (talk)

The Yugoslav flag represents Yugoslavia, very effectively. We're not trying to represent a time period. There were three Yugoslav national ("main") flags during the country's existence, not two. I'm not seeing any reason above to change the current flag. -- Director (talk) 07:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It represents 'a' Yugoslavia, and we are trying to represent Yugoslavia as it existed across a time period, that's what he wikiproject page says. If you don't like what the wikiproject represents, that is a separate issue. With respect, given your responses here, I think it is unlikely you would ever see a reason to change it, regardless of what arguments were presented. Ever since I first saw the wikiproject flag I have thought it was incongruous. Whilst I do not care enough about it to take it to another forum, I certainly would support any editor wishing to take it to a wider audience. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Its ok to cover the period in two articles, that makes sense. But its really one country. It sorta seamlessly "fades" from the one into the other through the course of WWII in the form of the DFY (which at all times controlled considerable, and increasingly large, chunks of Yugoslav territory). I don't support an alternative flag, since no reason has been presented for using some other flag. R-41 was trying to replace it with the plain tricolor because the red star kinda offended him. Now you're postulating that this isn't "WikiProject Yugoslavia", but "WikiProject Yugoslavias". -- Director (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

that is rot. I'm doing nothing of the sort. The wikiproject covers the period 1835-1995. If you don't like it, you should try changing it. As it stands, it covers all Yugoslavia, not just one. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I get the impression you think I'm being irrational? Its not rot, Peacemaker, and let me say once more: this is not a period WikiProject, its a historical country WikiProject. We're trying to represent a country. Not periods or countries.

Perhaps its just that you and R-41 aren't from around here. I'm not implying that's some kind of a disadvantage in factual discussions (in fact its probably the opposite), but in these sort of subjective issues you do perhaps lack a "feel" for the symbolism of local insignia and flags. In spite of having a huge red star in its center, what the SFRY flag represents, really, is a Yugoslav state that was accepted by all the local nations. The concept of Yugoslavia, and Yugoslavism in general, has a bad name among a large portion of the local population, as it is perceived as a historical instrument for Serbian expansion. Whether that perception is justified, I couldn't say - I myself certainly don't think so, but we must try to use symbols that are as neutral as possible in the ethnic conflicts of the Balkans. The red star flag is really a neutral flag, or as close as possible to a (non-fictional) neutral symbol. But all that is really my second objection to the proposals. My first problem is that there is really no reason to go beyond the latest flag - that was also used to represent this state for the longest period of time. -- Director (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

WhiteWriter is a person from the former Yugoslavia and he says he sees no negative association with a plain Yugoslav tricolour - he sees it as a major symbol of Yugoslavia. Direktor, you have to present reliable sources that demonstrate your claim that the plain tricolour of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia is viewed as an offensive symbol by Yugoslav people (other than ethnic nationalists who oppose Yugoslavia from the first place). If you do not present sources for this, then there is no evidence for your claim, and it can only be regarded as your opinion. Direktor, you accuse me of bad faith - saying that I have an anti-socialist motive - I am a socialist and I happen to believe that Tito's efforts to breakdown religious and cultural antagonisms between the Yugoslav peoples was a positive effort, but your motivation Direktor has been made clear - you are an anti-royalist and you oppose the Kingdom of Yugoslavia while you admire the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, that appears to be the main reason why you refuse to consider having the plain tricolour - because you see it as a royalist symbol and you oppose Yugoslav royalism. Second of all, most histories I've read refer to there being two Yugoslavias, the "First Yugoslavia" being the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the "Second Yugoslavia" being the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - represented here as "WikiProject Yugoslavia" here because both states had a similar agenda, a united Yugoslavia.--R-41 (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Again I reiterate my objection to these fantasy symbols. The KoY flag does indeed carry negative political connotations. As DIREKTOR said, the SFRY flag is more neutral, has been in use for a longer time, and is the last flag used. R-41, how you can question DIREKTOR's opinion on the matter and request sources, but at the same time blindly accept Whitewriter's opinion is beyond me. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Because PRODUCER and DIREKTOR are not trying to help, but to denigrate this discussion. If you want to help constructively, do so. If not, step up. It is nonsense that Yugoslav flag is offensive. Why? Do you really have any source for that? I dont need source for WP:SKYISBLUE, but you do for counterclaim. Also, i can find you source for any flag on the world that is offensive for someone. And on the other side, you disband created, "fictitious" flag for this purpose. So, what do you propose at the end, next to the plain SFRY flag? What is your compromise? Do you even have one? Like, ever? --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This flag change is needed as we agreed that this wikiproject scope should be all three countries named Yugoslavia, and not just SFRY. Therefor, we should have some visual identity for this, regarding all three, and not just SFRY. Simple as that. --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with WhiteWriter, DIREKTOR needs to present reliable sources that back her/his claim the plain Yugoslav tricolour is offensive. Also the proposal I made to have both the flag of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the civil flag of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Having both flags is a reasonable compromise as it shows the symbols of the First Yugoslavia and the Second Yugoslavia. What DIREKTOR and PRODUCER should be doing is try to be constructive here, since there is disagreement between three users - including myself to their positions what compromise do they believe could be made in an effort to gain consensus here.--R-41 (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This project is not about "all three countries named Yugoslavia". The SFR Yugoslavia and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia are not two countries, but the same country - Yugoslavia, under different regimes. And no, this project is NOT about Serbia and Montenegro (which is a different country, in contrast). This is not "WikiProject Yugoslavias".

@R-41, I ought to report you immediately for your strange outburst above. You do not know me (as you've demonstrated quite well), please apologize. @WhiteWriter, you're here on a WP:STALKING campaign. This is the fourth talkpage you've stalked me or PRODUCER to after having failed to have your way on WWII Serbia, and that can be shown very convincingly. Talk about "denigrating" discussions. Hopefully you will terminate such behavior before it gets out of hand. (@MrIP, this is a discussion for registered users, project members. And no, I do not require any sources at all.) -- Director (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not post this the immediate comment above saying "This project is about" - do not accuse me of things that I did not do. I did post the comment above that one though that I will apply my name to. Direktor, you are clearly assuming bad faith of each person you disagree with in violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith - WhiteWriter has been cooperative here with me even though I have strongly disagreed with WhiteWriter on other things in the past, and has been cooperative with Peacemaker67. And Peacemaker67's proposal to have the two symbols is what we are discussing. I can tell that you are getting angry and are trying to push me, WhiteWriter, and Peacemaker67 away from here. Let's discuss a compromise here, and not sniper off people like WhiteWriter from this discussion board because of past disagreements, WhiteWriter's behaviour here has for the most part been cooperative and constructive. What compromise do you suggest could resolve this issue. Also, you do require sources to make a claim that the plain Yugoslav tricolour is offensive - no Wikipedia user is above the laws of Wikipedia that state that reliable sources must be used to make claims - you are making a claim.--R-41 (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I rather feel I'm the one being bullied here, alongside Producer. WhiteWriter is following me around to oppose whatever I may be advocating, and you, with your fascinating description of my inner thoughts and ideological motivations. It is hard to assume good faith when you're being stalked and subjected to personal attacks - by others with apparent AGF difficulties. Not to mention the appearance of an IP from Ontario that never posted any edits on enWiki before.

I will repeat: this is not a factual dispute. Your proposals are opposed by several users. The fact that there is no consensus is painfully obvious. What do you expect to accomplish by perpetuating this discussion? -- Director (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I will repeat that the status quo of having the one flag that you support is opposed by several users.--R-41 (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and it is supported by another "several". That's why we call it "no consensus". -- Director (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

When there is no consensus, then consensus is to be sought. A number of users have offered compromises.--R-41 (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Consensus has been sought - and was not found. Now its just WP:STICK until everyone's annoyed and bitter. -- Director (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict): WhiteWriter is member of WikiProjectYugoslavia since March 2010, which is more than two years ago. I am member of this project since November 2010. This is talkpage of WikiProjectYugoslavia. Accusing members of this project for Stalking just because they are opposed to your thesis (which are actually OR without sources) here is very disruptive. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, since 2010. And you never posted anything on this talkpage before. Somehow you're always opposed to my "thesis". And may I ask how is it that you join us now, Antidiskriminator? -- Director (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, you are assuming everyone here who disagrees with you of bad faith and seem to be insinuating conspiracy, that is assuming bad faith that is in violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Please, do not do this it does not help just agree to disagree with Antidiskriminator, and let's all calm down here and seek a compromise.--R-41 (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

WhiteWriter has indeed stalked both DIREKTOR and I as evidenced by the diffs above and by a recent incident where he opposed me in a Srebrenica massacre article discussion despite having never edited the article nor having engaged in any prior discussion on the talkpage. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 18:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Really, shame on you two! You are giving your self FAAAaar to much attention than it is in the reality. I came there by this page, and this is nonsense. Why are you editing pages i edited, on the other side? If page is on my watchlist, i will edit there, despite your wishes. I never edited before? So? Wikipedia have milions of pages i never edited before. I am member of several wikiprojects wher i never edited main pages. If someone post something wrong or questionable, i will edit there, whoever that is. Very rude unfounded Comment on contributor, instead of content, also, highly unrelated to the subject. You should question your self why are all those people opposing everything you pushed. And what, now Antidiskriminator is stalking you also? Who else? :( Now, can we go back to the subject, please?? --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Great, it looks like we need an administrator to break up a fight. Everyone calm the fudge down! DIREKTOR and PRODUCER, you both are going at lengths to suggest bad faith and conspiracy, - now I do not know this for certain, but I think you two should be careful with your behaviour, in fact it is reasonable to suspect with your names both being in full-caps and both referring to someone who creates something - that one of you is a sockpuppet of another, or that you do are siblings who are tag teaming here. Now if DIREKTOR, PRODUCER, and WhiteWriter continue to be disruptive and hurling accusations against each other, I will request an administrator to investigate all three of you. It would be better if we could work out the problem like grown adults and not like screaming children. We can go bouncing off the walls in rage with each other for hours and we are going to end up arriving right back here with the same problem, we need a compromise solution.--R-41 (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

R-41, i dont know what else i can do. I also agree with your attitude about flag, and will try to collect all propositions and out them in one place. Then, we wuold be able to see all of those, and see what is wrong and what can be good. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you do not have to go away, I think that is exactly what DIREKTOR and PRODUCER are pushing you to do. Secondly, if there accusations are true, you should not do that - but they can leave it to me to report you if I see that you are disruptive towards them, just as I will report them for being disruptive to you. I think your last statement was very unconstructive. You are a member of WikiProject Yugoslavia and you have a right to address your views here on this subject. I suggest that everyone here accept and know their blame - I accept that I got frustrated and uncivil with DIREKTOR before, but it is time to seek a solution. The proposal to have the two flags beside each other appears to be a reasonable compromise, now everyone, even if it is not a perfect solution, is having the two flags side by side a reasonable compromise to the contesting sides? If not, what could be another possible compromise?--R-41 (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

@WhiteWriter: No, you trying to claim that by looking at pages that link to Armenian Genocide denial article, which you've never edited either, that you managed to stumble upon the Srebrenica massacre talkpage is nonsense. Pointing out your editing pattern and how they in fact constitute stalking are not personal attacks.

@R-41: If you wish to file a sockpuppet investigation then by all means do so - I encourage it. Whatever you do please stop claiming other users are acting in bad faith and then immediately accuse them of being socks. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 19:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Jez, calm down, I said that DIREKTOR and you both are accusing editors of bad faith and Direktor seemed to be accusing Antidiskriminator of being in a conspiracy with Whitewriter or a sockpuppet since Antidiskriminator arrived - and yes I cannot help but notice that you have similar names - I was informing DIREKTOR that accusing Whitewriter and Antidiskriminator of conspiracy with no evidence could result just as easily as the same almost evidence-less argument of what you and DIREKTOR are doing. I do not have much evidence to suggest that you are sockpuppets - other than similar names and that you both edit the same subjects and are experiencing the same level of rage with each other towards the same users, it still is not enough evidence at all - only an investigation of your edit patterns and IP address would resolve that. What I am willing to do is inform administrators that you, DIREKTOR, and Whitewriter are bouncing off the walls in rage with each other and that that is being combative, and it is disruptive to other users. Its hard to be courteous to you when you are insulting others, accusing each other of bad faith, and being combative to other users. But let's try to go down the path of dispute resolution, shall we? Now again, can everyone please try to work together to find a compromise. Peacemaker67's proposal and arguments for having both flags seems highly reasonable and neutral.--R-41 (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I brought evidence to the table which has shown a pattern of stalking on the part of WhiteWriter. It is not mandated that I blindly assume good faith in light of evidence which obviously shows that an editor is acting on the contrary. R-41, if you are going to make a statement then stand by it. Do not throw out wild accusations to simply make a point. You've already involved the admins with this silly matter before. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK)

If WhiteWriter has clearly been stalking you for two years, then you should report him to administrators - there is no point in complaining to me about it - other than suggesting that you report it at the Admin noticeboard, there is nothing else I can do about someone stalking you. So now then, report him, let the administrators review it, and be done with it. I am not going to report you for suspected sockpuppeting - maybe I subconsiously remembered I thought you were before but was disproven - we all make mistakes - DIREKTOR once accused me of royalist Yugoslav POV claiming that my username R-41 was named after some royalist plan in WWII, in reality I am not a royalist nor Yugoslav but a Canadian republican, I chose the name of a fictional spacecraft called the R-41 Starchaser [21] in Star Wars - again DIREKTOR made a mistake in her/his accusation, we all make mistakes, nobody's perfect. Now then, everyone here, stop bouncing of the wall in anger and frustration, stop the combative battleground behaviour, and let's work through the issue via dispute resolution here. Now, let's get back to the topic about Peacemaker67's compromise proposal of using both flags and other proposals.--R-41 (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll tell you what, I'm sick to death of editors suggesting that others are socks or are being stalked, particularly here, but in general. Just because more than 1 editor disagrees with your position does not mean they are socks or stalking you. Get some perspective. These suggestions consistently derail discussions and are completely unproductive. I suggest that if an editor believes that consensus on this issue cannot be achieved with the editors currently represented here, an alternative form of dispute resolution is used. I would support this issue being discussed in front of a wider audience, where the poor behaviour can be monitored by experienced admins and others. I recently had some success with taking an issue to the WT:MILHIST, and perhaps someone at WT:HIST would be willing to look at this. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, would you bring up this issue to WT:HIST, or a similar discussion board. You seem to be the one that people are the least pissed off with here, I got into stupid arguing with DIREKTOR in the past - I've agreed with him on things in the past, but now things seem ugly. I would like to see it brought to one of those boards, particularly to address DIREKTOR's claim that the plain Yugoslav tricolour flag without the star is viewed as an offensive symbol in the former Yugoslavia, perhaps a WP:EXPERT on the topic of Yugoslav history and Yugoslav politics would know about that.--R-41 (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

With respect, I did not raise this issue, I only proposed a possible solution after this had been going on for ages in circles. If you believe that taking the issue to WT:HIST might help, you should do so. I would support that approach and will participate in any further discussion there. Over to you. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I have brought up the issue of DIREKTOR's claim of offensiveness of the plain Yugoslav tricolour to WT:HIST, here: [22].--R-41 (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll just say it again. While the red star obviously carries ideological connotations, the plain tricolour is far worse: as it unfortunately carries a nationalist political message. It has been the symbol of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Milosevich's Serbia and Montenegro. Both states were decidedly "pro-Serbian". These are basic facts of Yugoslav histroy. I cannot understand what is so difficult to grasp? Setting aside the historical grievances and the oppression in the Interbellum, the plain tricolour was until recently an enemy flag in half of Yugoslavia. Its a tragedy that such a simple and clear symbol of Yugoslavia was abused thus, but that is unfortunately the case. As I told R-41, I personally don't mind the plain tricolour - I just know what it represents to Yugoslavs, and we're trying to have a project for all of Yugoslavia. It must at all costs avoid any symbols that might appear less neutral in the Balkans ethnic squabbles. If we use a flag that carries pro-Serbian nationalist connotations of any sort, we risk alienating half the country from the project.

All that aside, there is just no reason whatever not to use the latest (and longest-used) flag of Yugoslavia by default. I'm not saying its perfect: it sports a communist red star and was also used in the early stages of the Yugoslav Wars. But its the best we have unfortunately: 1) its the last flag of Yugoslavia; 2) its the longest-used flag of Yugoslavia, and most importantly, 3) it carries the least nationalist symbolism. -- Director (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The SFRY flag certainly carried negative symbolism towards the Croats in the Croatian war who can be seen burning and tearing apart the SFRY flags in photographs taken during the war. There are Kosovo Albanians who denounce Yugoslavia altogether who would not like to see ANY Yugoslav symbolism representing their homeland. There were political prisoners who I doubt would appreciate the SFRY symbolism either. In fact, the Serb forces in Bosnia and Croatia after the end of the SFRY in 1992, used the Serb tricolour - not the plain Yugoslav tricolour, that was only used in the FRY. Every flag can be deemed offensive, DIREKTOR. We need evidence to see if it is viewed on a widespread scale of being offensive, therefore I have referred it to an outside group.--R-41 (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I will repeat: the current flag is not perfect, it sports a communist red star and was also used by in the early stages of the Yugoslav Wars (hence the burning, there's no need to teach me my own country's history). It is nevertheless the best we've got. The plain tricolour is much worse. Once more: the red star tricolour carries political connotations of Yugoslavism and communism (hence the flag was burned by anti-Yugoslav, right-wing Croats). The plain tricolour represents Yugoslvist greater-Serbianism, i.e. a Serb-dominated Yugoslav state. Why? Because the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were Serb-dominated Yugoslav states, which is a sourced fact. Ok? So while there are political connotations inherent in the red star tricolour, they're purely ideological - not nationalist. Naturally, if you're anti-Yugoslavist, you'll hate both flags - but the symbol we use must at all costs avoid any symbols that might appear less neutral in the Balkans ethnic squabbles. As I said, if we use a flag that carries pro-Serbian nationalist connotations of any sort, we risk alienating half the country from the project.

And again: the plain tricolour was the flag of an enemy state for half of Yugoslavia during the course of almost a decade.

If you want sources that the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were Serb-dominated Yugoslav states, they can be easily provided. But if you want a source that a flag representing a Serb-dominated Yugoslav state represents a Serb-dominated Yugoslav state - then I consider that a nonsensical request. -- Director (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing dispute resolution procedure on Wikipedia, prior to determining whether the plain Yugoslav tricolour is deemed offensive by many people of the former Yugoslavia, I think we should pursue Wikipedia:Negotiation, and make an agreement between us on what is completely unacceptable to the differing sides. I will make a list of both sides issues - including DIREKTOR's, my own, PRODUCER's, Peacemaker67's and WhiteWriter's. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

SIDE 1: SIDE IN FAVOUR OF HAVING ONLY THE SFRY FLAG

The following are deemed by Side 1 to be unacceptable

(1) To exclude the SFRY flag or to use the 1:2 size flag of Serbia and Montenegro to represent Yugoslavia - due to its historical connotation with the regime of Slobodan Milosevic and its connection to the Yugoslav Wars.
(2) To deny the relevance of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and its symbols to the history of Yugoslavia
(2) To include fictional flags
(3) To include the Yugoslav monarchy's coat of arms that excludes multiple Yugoslav ethnicities.
(4) To exclude the SFRY flag based merely because of its historic political associations with a communist regime.
(5) For Side 2 to completely exclude the possibility under any circumstances of the option of having the SFRY flag alone, should a a large consensus of the total number of WikiProject Yugoslavia's members support having the SFRY flag alone.

SIDE 2: SIDE IN FAVOUR OF HAVING BOTH THE FLAG OF THE KINGDOM'S AND THE SFRY FLAG

The following are deemed by Side 2 to be unacceptable

(1) To promote excluding the use of the plain Yugoslav tricolour in the size format used by the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (as opposed to the 1:2 sized Serbia and Montenegro flag that Side 2 users agree shall not be used), without reliable source evidence that demonstrates that it is offensive.
(2) To deny the relevance of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and its symbols to the history of Yugoslavia
(3) To exclude the Kingdom's flag based merely because of its historic political associations with a royalist regime.
(4) For Side 1 to completely exclude the possibility under any circumstances of the option of having the Kingdom's flag alongside the SFRY flag, should a a large consensus of the total number of WikiProject Yugoslavia's members support having both flags used.

MUTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SIDE 1 AND SIDE 2

(1) That a full and indepth discussion involving consultations with WP:EXPERT (if available) and third party users to review be undertaken to insure that cultural controversies and political controversies with both the flags of the Kingdom and the SFRY are both addressed
(2) That upon the above being completed, a request for comment be sent out to all members of WikiProject Yugoslavia to take part in a vote on the matter.
- (a) That the WikiProject Yugoslavia members be informed of the controversies and the reviews of third-party users including WP:EXPERT on the matter prior to voting.
(3) That upon the vote being completed, both sides 1 and 2 will acknowledge and respect the result of that vote regardless of what it is; and will regard the issue as having undergone thorough examination and accept it as being resolved.

Now these are what I believe the two sides are strongly opposed to, if I am mistaken, correct me. But let's try to make an typed-out agreement in which both sides agree on what will be unacceptable Once we agree on what we can accept both of us disagreeing to, I will copy the final draft of the above proposed agreement into a new section here, where the multiple users involved in the previous discussions will sign it with their signature and timestamp button - if they wish to - if they do not we will address their concerns until an acceptable agreement can be made, and then we can move ahead from there and find an acceptable compromise.--R-41 (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ugh.. cut it out please, R-41. Your "lists" are incorrect, biased and pretentious. Since you want to change the flag, and others want not to change the flag, then to propose to change the flag is not a "compromise" - its you having your way. And since this is not a factual dispute related to Wikipedia content, or solvable by sources in any way, its nonsensical to perpetuate this discussion. -- Director (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Director, but keeping the flag as it is is having YOUR own way. Talk about one-way traffic. @R-41, I suggest RfC. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Why are you sorry? You're completely correct. The difference is that the burden is on you to build consensus for a change, not on me to justify the long-standing state of affairs. And didn't we already try to request comment? When the WP:3O user agreed that the proposed changes were unwarranted, he was essentially politely told to go away as this is a matter for project members. And it is. Peacemaker: this is not a content dispute. -- Director (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, don't throw around words like "pretentious" or "biased" - I was attempting to follow what Wikipedia:Negotiation recommended. Upon questioning you on it, you have made your statement earlier, that you absolutely will refuse under any circumstances to support having the plain tricolour alongside the SFRY flag. Your point is made, now stop bullying other people here, some people agree with you, some people disagree with you. Now we could proceed with Wikipedia:Negotiation, or continue to try to smash each others heads against rocks. Which would you prefer Direktor? To try to smash my head against a rock, or allow Wikipedia:Negotiation that notes your outstanding objection to any inclusion of the plain tricolour flag, but seeks to hear out others?--R-41 (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)