User talk:NeroN BG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, NeroN BG, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Dijxtra 15:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Article Improvement Belgrade

You may wish to vote for Belgrade at the Article Improvement Drive page, here. --estavisti 21:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

Hello! I invite you to join the WikiProject Serbia. All the best, --serbiana - talk 02:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for joining WikiProject Serbia.

[edit] License tagging for Image:CrudeEU27-1-.png

Thanks for uploading Image:CrudeEU27-1-.png. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


Flag of Serbia
The current Serbia Collaboration of the Week is Kragujevac
 Flag of Serbia
Every week, a Serbia-related article that is in need of substantial improvement is Selected to be the Serbia Collaboration of the Week. Help improve it to a higher standard of quality.

[edit] Thanks for Choosing Belgrade

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Belgrade was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Posted by (^'-')^ Covington 07:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the the AID Maintenance Team

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Srbija-1-.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Srbija-1-.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 82.83.108.230 13:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Check this out

Template:Requests_for_new_languages/cg

[edit] Srbi u Hrvatskoj

Napisao si da je oko milijun Srba porijeklom iz Hrvatske. Meni to zvuči kao realna tvrdnja, ali probaj što prije dat neki dokaz za to (po mogućnosti pisani izvor) jer će ti to gotovo sigurno netko revertat, a već ratuju oko tog članka sto godina i stvarno bi bilo bezveze da opet počnu. Ponavljam, ja ti to neću dirat jer mislim da si upravu, ali očekuj negativne reakcije kad god stavljaš činjenice bez dokaza, ma kako točne bile. Pozdrav!

Jakiša Tomić 12:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WPFY has a new look!

Check out WP:FY. If you wish, you can add {{WPFY}} to your user or talk page to keep in touch with the project. Zocky | picture popups 17:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:458px-Beli andjeo-1-.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:458px-Beli andjeo-1-.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Istorija

Molim te da ne mešaš Austro-Ugarsku sa Austrijskim carstvom. Mislim na ove tvoje izmene: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austria-Hungary&diff=69778579&oldid=69564165 Koliko se sećam, već sam jednom morao ispravljati tvoje izmene u tom članku, pa da to ne bih morao ponovo činiti, molim te da pročitaš ovo: Vojvodina kao politički pojam nije postojala posle 1860, a Austro-Ugarska je formirana 1867, pa pošto članak pominje "lands" (zemlje) Austro-Ugarske, onda tu ne možemo pomenuti Vojvodinu jer ona tada jednostavno nije postojala (sličan slučaj je i sa Transilvanijom). Što se tiče Boke Kotorske, ona tada takođe nije postojala kao politički pojam i ne spada tamo. Vojna Granica je postojala do 1882, a ne do 1869, a što se tiče Srpske Vojvodine, njen glavni grad su bili Sremski Karlovci (Temišvar je bio glavni grad Vojvodstva Srbije i Tamiškog Banata, što nije ista stvar). Postojale su dve Vojvodine tada, jedna 1848-1849, a druga 1849-1860. PANONIAN (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Inače, imaš dva druga članka Austrian Empire i Habsburg Monarchy, koji se odnose na vreme pre formiranja Austro-Ugarske (dakle pre 1867), i Vojvodina je u tim člancima pomenuta, jer je to vreme kada je postojala. Molim te da ubuduće ne mešaš te stvari. PANONIAN (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some Help Needed

Hi NeroN BG . I see you natively speak Serbian and I'm wondering if you could do a word by word translation of the Uros Predic article from the Serbian Wikipedia into English. Here's the linke sr:Урош Предић. It doesn't have to be perfect English - just a rought translation I can use to organize into an article. I'll handle the grammar and spelling. :D Thank you so much. Antidote 19:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Central europe

"Old Belgrade is situated in South-Eastern Europe, with one part on the Balkan Peninsula". Please stop vandalising the article. Balkan peninsula and Southeastern Europe are synonyms so this sentance does not bear any rational meaning. Vojvodina indeed belongs to Central Europe and so does Zemun and even New Belgrade, the latter however only geographically. To check out the borders of the Balkans see Central Europe, Balkan peninsula etc. Balkan peninsula reaches Sava and Danube which is where it merges into Central Europe. User:NeroN_BG.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Luzzifer"

  • Thanks for the advice. And? Sorry, man but you are absolutly wrong. "See the article Central europe, Balkan peninsula". Balkan is not the same es South-Eastern europe at all- the borders of Balkan peninsula are Sava and Danube, the borther of south-eastern europe is the northern border of Serbia (Vojvodina), as well as of Croatia. Sorry, that educational system let you down, that's why we have Wiki. :)

pozz, --Luzzifer 10:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Type in Southeastern Europe and it will redirect you automatically to Balkans. That's proof number one, 'man'...??

[1] This is the website of the Stability Pact of Southeastern Europe/ the Balkans region, also known as the Balkans Stability Pact. [2] Website to the Center for Democracy and Reconciliation in Southeast Europe/ Balkans [3]- covering Balkan countries

One thing is political map and the other thing is geographical terms. I'm sorry if this is too hard for you to comprehend, I understand that you have a limited "storage" capacity, however that's not my problem to deal with. Geographical, cultural and historical terms prove my point. Political terms however surpass the Balkan borders well into Central Europe (Carphatian basin, Pannonian plain- and so in political terms the areas such as Vojvodina, Transylvania, Pannonian Croatia and sometimes even Slovenia are considered South-East or Balkan-european, which does not correspond to their historical, cultural and other ties)

So I don't know where you came up with all those missconceptions about this area, but it's pretty evident that you are lacking a significant, if not basic, amount of info to start with.

And, one more thing... that same Wikipedia that ur trying to involve into discussion is going to confirm my claims, so feel to check not only Wikipedia but every other encyclopedia that you can think of:) Thank you for your comments, enjoy your enquiries User:NeroN_BG

  • I'm really sorry, but you are wrong. Historically, borders of Central europe were borders of Austrian empire. However noone consider today not, Serbia, but even Croatia to be an Central European country.

Any case, you wrote, that Zemun (ok) and NEW BELGRADE belong have Central European culture. I cannot ignore political meanings becuase the TERM South-Eastern Europe is only 10 years old, and was made of political reasons. Croatia claimed that it cannot be a Balkan state since the half of it is not on the Balkans. Romania complaind that it's concidered to be a Balkan state and only 5% of it's teritorry is on Balkans. That's why new ter was found out whicj includes NORTHERN CROATIA, VOJVODINA and ROMANIA as well.

)

--Luzzifer 17:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've visited all that sites. Just an advice. Sometimes it's goog to read articles as well, not only to memorize maps.--Luzzifer 17:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • "* I'm really sorry, but you are wrong. Historically, borders of Central europe were borders of Austrian empire. However noone consider today not, Serbia, but even Croatia to be an Central European country."

[edit] ?

- First things first. Your sentence "Noone consideres Serbia nor Croatia to be Central European" is no argument whatsoever and doesn't offer a rational explanation nor covers your arguments. Nonetheless it depicts a lack of the latter. Northern Serbia and Croatia are indeed Central European, first of all geographically, according to the Danube-Sava-Kupa line which separates the Balkans from the Central Europe, not to mention culturally and historically. Transylvania of Romania is a Central European part of Romania, since it is located west of the Carphatian mountains, which are determening Central Europe's eastern border, also without mentioning cultural and historical arguments that there are plenty of, as in Serbo- Croatian case. Eastern Part of Romania, Wallacia and Moldova are considered Eastern European, while Dobruja region is a Balkan, or southeast european region of the country. Political map, on the other hand (type it on Google if you don't understand what it means) counts these areas as a part of Southeastern Europe or the Balkans, which indeed makes sence because today these areas are unified and represent a one whole; so in that case they are beeing perceived differently, wrong if you look it from the geo-cultural-historical aspect. You can go pretty much both ways however ONLY in political terms. BUT since political terms represent only a slice of a country's identity which is basically determined on its geographical position, history, culture, religion, neighbours, climate etc there are no reasons to fight those arguments. If you chose to perceive a country through political perspective only your results tend to be inconclusive and wrong, because ignorancy and uninforminess of the one sided view makes you see a totally misshaped image. I have to say I feel sorry for you if you think that's the way to be. p.s. Could you please translate this for me: "That's why new ter was found out whicj includes NORTHERN CROATIA, VOJVODINA and ROMANIA as well"....???? User:NeroN_BG

[edit] Belgrade

Hi! Did you remove the Alba Bulgarica name by accident or was it intentional? The name is attested in Latin sources during the Bulgarian rule of the city and is perfectly eligible. Here's a Columbia University source if you need one.

Also, the name Beograd was not attested in 878, since this is a Serbian form and the city was then under Bulgarian rule. I know what the city's website says, but it's simply not true. The name from 878 is Beligrad, a Bulgarian form. Regards, Todor→Bozhinov 10:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Serbian Slavs didn't settle in the Balkans before the Bulgarian Slavs, because they were part of the same South Slavic wave. What contemporary sources prove Belgrade was initially settled by Serbs and not other Slavic tribes? These sources mention no Serbs in Macedonia — the tribes from around Thessaloniki were the Draguvites, who spoke a Southeast Slavic dialect (at the time = Bulgarian), as evidenced by the language of Cyril and Methodius, and thus had nothing to do with the Serbs.
What's the source mentioning the Serbs calling Belgrade Beograd before the Bulgarians (when the first written reference is in 878 in Bulgarian)? I'm more inclined to believe Beograd is merely a Serbian interpretation of the older Bulgarian name.
The Bulgars were not Turkic, this is only a theory that's constantly losing ground in recent years. They weren't nomads, but an established ancient civilization with significant state tradition, crafts and construction skills, and were European in appearance (as proven by the Novi Pazar necropolis).
Now about the real thing: I'm not disputing Beograd or anything, just that the name that was mentioned in 878 was Beligrad and thus the sentence "The Slavic name Beograd was first mentioned in 878 AD." in the lead is wrong. Also, I was asking you whether you have anything against including Alba Bulgarica among the historical names, because you seem to have removed it. Regards, Todor→Bozhinov 12:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The Draguvites were a Southeast Slavic tribe that later became part of the Bulgarian ethnicity, they're "Bulgarian" in that sense. The South Slavs weren't one ethnic group, but many separate tribes that later formed several separate peoples and, even later, nations.
Bulgarians don't claim Slavic ancestry, it's been long proven.
The letter is in Old Bulgarian, a Slavic language, and is the first reference to a version of the modern name of Belgrade. Who gave the name and how is impossible to tell, and I'm not talking about this. And then, the Bulgarians couldn't have printed anything, because the printing press was invented in 1447, but that's petty ;) Not many of the official documents of the Bulgarian Tsars have been preserved to this day, so if there has ever been one about the name of Belgrade, it's been long lost through the ages.
Now, to make things clear, here's the two things I'd like us to discuss and decide:
1. Should the lead of the Belgrade article say the Slavic name Beograd was first mentioned in 878 when in fact the name that was mentioned was Beligrad? Is that not a factual inaccuracy?
2. Do you disagree with the inclusion of the name Alba Bulgarica in the relevant historical names section and, if yes, why? If not, we should put it back where it belongs.
Hope I was clear :) And don't get me wrong, I'm not a crazy nationalist and have no historical claims directed to the city or to your country, I'm just pursuing accuracy and the truth (and I'm curious about Belgrade's Bulgarian history). I like Serbia (I've travelled through it several times en route to Central and Western Europe) and the Serbian people and have nothing against you, on the contrary! Todor→Bozhinov 16:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opet?

Mislim da sam ti već jednom rekao za ovo: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lands_of_the_Crown_of_St._Stephen&diff=79046774&oldid=77764680 Vojvodina je kao politički pojam u habsburškoj carevini postojala samo između 1848 i 1860 i za to vreme niti je bila deo Ugarske niti zemalja krune svetog stefana, već je bila direktno podređena Beču. Molim te malo prouči istoriju pre takvih izmena. Jel ok? PANONIAN (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ottoman Empire in 1848

Since the edit in question was yours, could you please reply at Talk:Revolutions of 1848#Ottoman Empire? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 03:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slika BG-a

Одакле ти ова слика? Треба нам извор да је користимо... --estavisti 21:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Since you like history, what do you think about my articles: Pagania, Doclea, Stefan Nemanja and the two poorly-written ones: Tvrtko, Stephen II Kotromanić? Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 21:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Belgrade

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Belgrade#Dead and express your opinions. I have started a movement for the recognition of the official status of this WikiProject or its termination. --PaxEquilibrium 12:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belgrade

You may be interested in Belgrade's FA nom. Please do not vote in favour simply because it is an article about Belgrade, but rather on the article's merits. If you feel that it is not good enough, please vote against. --estavisti 05:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How..

..do you like my historical contributions so far? --PaxEquilibrium 22:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Massacre of Serbian knights

Hi. Thanks for your article. It does not include a date for this event - can you find one and add it to the article? Thanks. Denni talk 18:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: rv

The second comment in edit summary wasn't directed at you, seems some edits are happening same time so edit history is not in order...

It's all good, I know you are trying to keep the article clean :) // Laughing Man 19:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] O Damjanichu

Kalapis Zoltán piše o Damjanichu(str. 215):

Srpska istoriografija ne zna sta će sa D.J. jednostavno ga ignoriše. Enciklopedija Stanoja Stanojevića štampana izmedju dva rata ga jednostavno naziva neprijateljem srpskog naroda, i krvopijom, a leksikoni izdati posle drugog svetskog rata daju samo njegove osnovne podatke bez kvalifikacija.

(A szerb történelemtudomány sem tud mit kezdeni Damjanich Jánossal, egyszerűen elhallgatja. A két háború közötti Stanojević féle enciklopédia szócikke a szerb nép ellenségének, vérszopójának mondja, a második világháború után kiadott lexikonok viszont csak néhány szavas életrajzi adatait közlik, minősítés nélkül.)

Mogu li ovo prisvajanje smatrati promenom kursa u srpskoj istoriografiji, ili je to samo dobra fora? Bendeguz 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Izvini, pogrešno adresirano. Bendeguz 20:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/r/User_talk%7ENeroN_BG_8cf9.html"