User talk:Emir Arven/Archives 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Hvala

Hvala za sliku Gradaščevića Emire. Evo tebi nešto što sumnjam da si prije vidio ali mislim da bi te (kao Sarajlija) zanimalo.. pogodi ko je ovaj tip u centru.

Ako ne znaš, samo klikni na novu sliku koju sam stavio na članak Bosniaks.Live Forever 20:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I have found a picture of Meša Selimović for you: [1] I believe that it would interest you HolyRomanEmperor 20:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nikola Smolenski

Since what this user is doing doesn't quite classify as vandalism, but rather an edit war/ POV dispute, you can try following the road to arbitration. Follow the guidelines in this page along with User:Dado who also requested this, to try and resolve your disputes and edit wars with him first. If nothing on that list works, the last resort is to request arbitration towards his actions in which other users will come together and decide whether his actions are right or wrong. Good Luck. -- PRueda29 Ptalk29 19:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kao stranac

Kao nepristrasni stranac, ja si dozvoljavam koristiti vas jezik.

Gospodine Emire, kad izrazujete svoje misljenje na Wikipedije, odmaknite se od upominjanja svima bolnih stvari, jer vi ne znate tko sjedi s druge strane zavjese. Ne svi ljudi koji pisu ovdje su dobrosavjesni; ja imam razloga vjerovati da Milos jeste, ali to je moj lican stav. Onako ili ovako, ne bih savjetovao da kvarite svoje vlastito ime na takav nacin. --VKokielov 01:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Drago mi je u svakom slučaju da govorite bosanski jezik sasvim solidno. Zamolio bih Vas da pojasnite "bolne stvari" i diskusiju s Milošom, jer nisam shvatio? O kojoj je diskusiji riječ? Emir Arven 12:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Da, mislim na onu u pocetku oktobra. Mladicevo ime tesko moze naci opravdanje tu na Wikipediji. Samo pretpostavite da ste na drugoj strani onog razgovora, te... --VKokielov 00:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Odgovor HolyRomanEmperor-u

To nema veze s jezikom, ili nacijom. Što se mene tiče možeš biti i Marsovac, ali mi prestani spamovati stranicu. Ovo je bilo posljednje prijateljsko upozorenje, prije nego aktiviram proces banovanja radi spamovanja moje talk stranice. Glupo je da diskutuješ sam sa sobom na mojoj talk stranici, jer ja ne želim da ulazim u diskusiju s tobom. Imaš svoju stranicu. Emir Arven 13:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!!!

Hello Emir!

I just wanted to thank you for being objective about University of Prishtina. There is a Serbian nationalist who doesn't want to face the facts and official documents. Once again, thank you in advance!--Epirus 15:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: "Spam attacks"

Emir, adding a signed comment addressed to you at the end of your Talk page is not considred a "spam attack". I realize you asked this editor to stop leaving messages on your Talk page, but you have to understand that this is the standard way of communicating here on Wikipedia. In fact, removing signed comments from your Talk page is considered poor form, unless you are archiving them.

If you feel you cannot resolve this issue by discussing it directly with the other person, please review Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for other alternatives. Owen× ☎ 20:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for an advice. As you can notice I archived all messages including spam. I will act according to your advice if that person continue to discuss to himself in my talk page. Emir Arven 20:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't attack other users

Emir, I know you feel strongly about the edits made recently by User:Nikola Smolenski but please don't make personal attacks against him. It's not good practice and it doesn't get anyone anywhere. Please also try to resolve differences by discussing them on talk pages, not by reverting articles. (I've told Nikola the same thing.) -- ChrisO 00:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I have tried everything to improve the articles, but there are some vandals that keeps reverting my edits. I base my edits on a relevant documents, I try to discuss but they dont act according to discussion. For instance User:Nikola Smolenski keeps destroying articles that are related to Albanians, Montenegrins, Bosniaks, Croats and Kosovo etc. I was adviced by User:GeneralPatton to start a ban process (AMA request) because he is also aware of a Serb nationalists, but it is very slow process. And I didnt make a personal attacks. Otherwise Nikola called me a crazy for a few times...Emir Arven 14:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting and using the word vandalism in the summary

Please don't revert pages on the basis of a content dispute and describe it as reverting vandalism. You may or may not agree with edits others have made in good faith but they are not vandalism. Content disputs should be worked out on talk pages and not settled by reverting. Vandalism has a specific meaning here and it does not include content disputs, thanks. Rx StrangeLove 04:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Greetings, vandal-fighter! I must say that I come bearing ill news, unfortunatly. I am an goodf (at least I think) historian, and am currently re-writing the articles of Doclea, Zeta (state), Rascia, Travunia, Zachlumia and Pagania. User:Emir_Arven is changing those articles. That would vandalism if he didn't actually think that way. For instance, he is deleting and changing (to a strange way) the beautiful lyrics of the poet Petar Petrović Njegoš (see?). I am afraid that my slow connection and little free time will not leave me enough time to revert all the incorrect date, unfortunatly. HolyRomanEmperor 19:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
After HolyRomanEmperor said in the above message (I took it from your talk) that I delete or vandalize articles which is just a brutal lie. For instance I have never visited Rascia, Travunia, Zahumlje and Pagania articles. As you can see above, he said: "User:Emir_Arven is changing those articles." Plz just see the history of these articles. Serb nationalists, write articles according to their mithology, not according to facts. They are trying to change history of Bosniaks, Albanians, Croats and Montenegrins. When I try to improve the article, they just reverte it or say as above person did about my "contribution". I expect from you to be more neutral. --Emir Arven 10:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
All I'm trying to say is that calling someone you're in a content dispute with a vandal isn't right. Let me ask you this, how do we stop the warring and conflict between users on Wikipedia that have real disputes outside Wikipedia? Rx StrangeLove 18:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
On je u pravu, Emire. Ono sto naime nije u redu je koristena terminologija. Ti ne bi volio da te zovu Turkom, pa i iz slicnih razloga ne valja svojih neprijatelja ovdje zvati vandalima.
He is right, Emir. What is, in fact, not advisable is the terminology you use. You wouldn't like to be called a Turk, so for similar reasons it isn't proper to call your adversaries here "vandals." --VKokielov 19:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Demographic history of Kosovo

Please curb your number of reverts on Demographic history of Kosovo. More than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period may cause you to be blocked from editing. For details see Wikipedia:Three-revert rule and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for details. I merely reverted you because of your 3RR, regarldess of the content. Please do not revert a page more than 3 times in 24 hours, because the next time you most likely will be blocked from editing for 24 hours. -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry. I didnt understand the rules about 3RR. Emir Arven 15:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours for violating the 3RR on Meša Selimović and Petar Petrović Njegoš despite my warning. Please note, that this is not against you, or the content of your edits, but merely puts a stop to excessive reverts. Ideally, after the block expires you should continue the discussion on the talk page with the other editors. I think i already saw some approaches to a compromise by stating both opinions in the article. It may be the more difficult way, but please continue to try to find a consensus. Also, you are still able to edit your own talk page. -- Chris 73 | Talk

Note that I also checked the contributions of HolyRomanEmperor (talk · contribs) and Nikola Smolenski (talk · contribs). While they also reverted a lot, they did not revert more than 3 times in any 24 hour period per article, hence i did not block them. -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I esplained in the talk page the sources on the article. I am leaving the disputed, but please do not delete the useful info on his life. HolyRomanEmperor 13:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I bid you to look at Duklja and tell me exaclty why do you disagree with the article. HolyRomanEmperor 13:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

All Bosniaks were Muslims; but only some Muslims are Bosniaks.

Bosniakdom should not be forcefully imposed to the Muslims who live in Bosnia and Herzegovina, particularely in Western Bosnia. Also, Muslims have regional constitutional status in Serbia and Montenegro (live mostly in Sandžak), while Bosniaks are a national minority. Don't forget that some Muslims live in Croatia, as well. The Gorans were Muslims, Yugoslavs and Albanians, but they now switched back to Serbs and Muslims beckause of ethnic tensions on Kosovo. Are they Bosniaks? I think not. HolyRomanEmperor 11:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

As for the Montenegrin national anthem: the lyrics were created (just read them) to note that Montenegro is the last of the Serb lands free (unconquered by the Ottomans). Those were the original lyrics. Why delete them, just because they imply of Montenegrins being Serbs? Also, please don't delete valuable links (like those on Serbian) and leave the Serbian language as also used for the anthem's name (20% of Montenegro speak montenegrin, others mostly speak Serbian, some Croatian and Albanian) I have left the Controversy for you to write again; just not so POV, please. HolyRomanEmperor 11:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You are changing the article Herzeg-Bosnia which is the place in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Yes all of them are/were Bosniaks. As I said before, ur obsession and aggresive approach to deny Bosniaks/(Montenegrins as well) will cause that I will be forced to have a detail look at all ur articles because I think ur writing is based on nationalism and mithology. Emir Arven 11:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
When we are talking about Kosovo there is even Bosnjacka Mahala (a part of Kosovska Mitrovica, named after Bosniaks). Gorans nowdays declared themselves as Bosniaks...That is their right. Emir Arven 11:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
When we are talking about controversy section, it isnt just right to remove the whole section. Try to improve it, rather. Emir Arven 11:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I am going to add the original lyrics and re-work the article. Please (i beg you) don't revert until I finish; then I will leave for you to rewrite the Controversy part. HolyRomanEmperor 12:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand, my friend. Did you read why I said about Goranci? Are you saying that all moslem Serbs, Montenegrins and Croats are necessarily Bosniaks? I may be wrong, but it doesn't seem correct to enforce someone his nationality. I mean, with all due your respect, you are calling me aggressive; and yet you are trying to Bosniakize them? HolyRomanEmperor 12:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

A certain Ahmed Arnautić fled from Kosovo after his house was destroyed by KLA, and a portion of his family killed in the ethnic disorder of Kosovo. His last name in Turkish means Albanian, and he is a Serbo-Albanian, but he declares himself as a Serb after the Gorans lost all local majority on Kosovo according to the UNMIK plan. He is a harsh Serbian nationalist. I do not understand how can you name him a Bosniak...? HolyRomanEmperor 12:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

And please, try to contribute the article, not delete info. Why did you delete the Serbian iekav alternative? Only 20% on Montenegro's population speak Montenegrin. It is undemocratic against the others who speak Serbian. And you deleted also an important link to the Serb Montenegro site. That is anti-Serbian as well as anti-Montenegrin (the 35% Serbian Montenegrins). HolyRomanEmperor 12:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not deny anyone's right to express themselves however they want. I do object when people try to change what someone did. For instance, Njegoš was a Serb, and yet now some call him a Montenegrin because of his place of birth? Let's say that the central Croats would seperate from the Croatians. Would they then put disputed on my article??? HolyRomanEmperor 12:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Na primjer, [2] je jedna izuzetno uporabna stranica, ali bi je trebalo preuredit, jer Goranci su posebna nacija, kao i Muslimani, odvojeni od Bošnjaka. I nema nikakve logike da im je jezik kombinacija bosanskog (kako bi došao međ' Srbe na Kosovo?) i makedonskog, već kako sami Goranci tvrde: srpskog i albanskog jezika. HolyRomanEmperor 13:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Since you have already made serious acusations and personal insults against me: You are denying the existence of self-determination and constantly keep denying the fact that Muslims and Gorans are distinct nations, trying to use neo-Bosnian mythology to "Bosniakize" them, and constantly keep writing against Serbs and Croats. And you think that you are better than me because of...? HolyRomanEmperor 16:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't edit articles without explaination. Since there is obviously a dispute; I am opening a discussion with you in here to see what do you find inacurate in the Petar II Petrović Njegoš and Duklja articles. HolyRomanEmperor 14:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I would really like to obey any of your complains on Duklja and Njegoš. HolyRomanEmperor 18:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] RE:

I dont discuss with liars, nationalists and manipulators. Maybe you are not that kind of person, but I have showed you for a few times that you lied about myself. You said that I edited articles which I never visited. So drop it...--Emir Arven 19:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Another example of your pathetic manipulation is this when you ask VMORO to help u> Look: [3]; puh, I have never seen a person so violent as User:Emir_Arven. I suppose that he is a Greater Bosniak propaganda. HolyRomanEmperor 18:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Illyric therioes

This is after all the english wikipedia and therefore the only right thing to do here is to keep the talk english, based on that I will not write any messages on croatian or bosnians and my answers will be completly in english. I will start off by asking you Emir, my friend, don't you have any trust in the illyric theory what so ever?, I believe this theory is widely accepted by bosniaks worldwide. And I can't blame bosniaks for wanting to represent the truth, my firm belief is; the only way to establish peace in the ex jugoslavic areas is to let the bosniaks research their history. It is no myth that bosniaks didn't have the same national rights to research their history and ancestrory as perhaps the serbs and croats did. And I am one of those few who will admit that we treated you bad during jugoslavia.

But however regarding the illyric theories I would like to have them represented in the article, for God's sake tests have shown that bosniaks are genetically more like albanians (illyrians?) then what they are to serbs (in serbia) and croats (in croatia).

I will make som further modifications to the article. Damir Mišić ~


where do I vote by the way?

My only desire is to speak the truth and nothing but the truth; if some of your edits are based on nationalism; I will say so (like you did several times more about me).

In case that you think that I am against you in a way, please refer to Izehar's talk page as I even defended thee in a way.

Regardless of how low your opinion on me is; you said that you will work on the Serbian mithology and Serb propaganda that does not belong to wikipedia. You mentioned the Duklja and Petar Petrović Njegoš articles. Please, do; if there is anything whatsoever wrong with them; say it! (or change yourself; just with a careful explaination on the talk before you edit it; when everyone else working on the page agrees.) Thank you in advance. HolyRomanEmperor 18:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello! I tried to ask some people to vote on the case of Serbophobia. I'll try to get some more voting there.--Albanian since Stone Age 05:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Mesa Selimovic

The current article on Mesa Selimovic is obscure and according to me full of lies. The serbian users told me that "the Bosniak users accept the article as it is". Now is this true? For example the quote where Mesa "states" that he's of serb nationality lacks sources and sounds like something made up by serb nationalists. I am very familiar with Mesa and he is my most beloved Bosnian author after Mak Dizdar, and I can insure everyone that Mesa never stated he was serb! Mesa counted himself as Bosniak (Musliman) to the very end of his life even he's serb wife said this in an interview recently shown on HRT channel. So please inform me about the current situation on the article do you really accept it as it is? to just remind you mesa is even in the list among the 100 most famous serbs and he has been removed from bosniak writers list. Damir Mišić 18:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images for the Srebrenica massacre article

Thought these images may come in hand on the srebrenica article or bosnian genocide article. Damir Mišić

Image:Utakmica19fq.jpeg

Image:Naslovna465-big.jpeg

[edit] Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Regarding your edit summary in this edit: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this is mind while editing. Thanks, Izehar 18:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Then stop Nikola Smolenski to destroy articles. He is doing that for the last few months. --Emir Arven 18:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered mediation. You can get formal mediation from the mediation committee and informal mediation from the mediation cabal. Do you want me to ask Nikola to think about it? Izehar 18:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
We have tried with AMA requests, and other type of requests. This is not dispute issue. We all know that. Nikola is keeping to destroy articles not today or yesterday, but for the last few months. Discussion didnt help, he just return after a while and destroy any compromise that other users made (Serb and Bosniak). For instance in Meša Selimović article and many, many other articles. This behaviour is not honest, it is pathetic. --Emir Arven 18:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Administrator Deathphoenix said in Administrator intervention against vandalism: "this is for cases of CLEAR vandalism;". He instructed me to bring this in WP:RFC, but I think this will not help because noone cares. Man, he is doing this for the last few months, not for the weeks, but months. --Emir Arven 18:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Whatever he's doing, you calling other users fascists is not going to help your case at all. Izehar 18:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Then I just ask you to focus on his work. --Emir Arven 18:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Bosniak Nationalism"

Selam. Jel izbrisan clanak o "bosnjackom nacionalizmu"?

Izgleda da nije, jer navodno nije postignut konsenzuz iako je većina glasala za brisanje dok su s druge strane samo srpski nacionalisti glasali za ostanak "tog smeca" kako je autor clanka i sam rekao, ali s druge strane to je u neku ruku i dobro jer su se ovi kreteni pokazali u pravom svjetlu, spremni da izmisljaju pojmove i sire propagandu o drugim narodima, a to ce im se obiti o glavu kad tad. --Emir Arven 20:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Upravo tako! Samo bolje je da se clanak izbrise, jer inace moze doc neki totalni neznalica i sada to citat i mislit da je to sve istina. Ko to ustvari odlucuje, administrator? Ako je on trebala bi mu se poslat poruka da se ukine, jer stvarno nema ikakvih dokaza za nesto tako sto oni tvrde.Dr. Muu

[edit] Bairam

... is an excellent opportunity to make peace. Isn't it? :-) --HolyRomanEmperor 18:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

When you mention Bairam, old memories come to me, becaue on Bairam, Serb army surrounded Sarajevo and started to kill people. You can see there some pictures and stories The siege of Sarajevo. Bairam is a good muslim holiday, but if you want to learn smth from it, than you should behave, not just destroy as Serb army did with my city. --Emir Arven 19:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

...in short summary you wanted to say: "No peace! Eternal bloodshed!"; right? As you wish. But I simply don't understand why mentioned that historical fact. :) --HolyRomanEmperor 20:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No. The truth is very important, that is what I wanted to say. It is main condition for peace. No mythology, no propaganda. No denial of any nation or language... --Emir Arven 15:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

While I must apologize that I really do not understand what you meant about that denial part, I would like to add something: Bairam happens to be also the time when the Serbian Army attacked my city! (there, we have something common) - Karlovac. Also, might I add that Sarajevo is partly my city too? I've been there only shortly, but my ancestors fought in Sarajevo (who were ancestors of Svetozar Boroević by the way) have fought in the 1683-1699 War. It is quitte odd, since a soldier met there another ancestor of mine, Hana Dz. Selimovic, Moslem noblewoman (she was his relative actually). Fortunatly, it is way beyond the tenth knee I think. :) --HolyRomanEmperor 16:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Anachronism is a form of denial. You are the one that use anachronism when writting the articles, based mostly on Serb sources, which are full of mythology. --Emir Arven 16:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
You are the one who wrote that Husein Gradascevic was a Serb?! And that Bosniaks are Serbian people?! This fact completely destroyed you credibility to write articles. It is pure case of propaganda. And we all saw how Serb users made things up (Serbophobia or Unitary Islamic Bosnia, maybe tomorrow it will be "Vatican conspiracy against Serbs") --Emir Arven 16:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answer

I never wrote that Bosniaks are Serbs. I merely used the same concept that we have on List of Croatians. That means to include all foreign-borns in the list but to note their nationality. About Husein, I didn't notice that; :) Sorry, my bad; I will be more careful in the future.

Thank, thank you forever for your rv on Duklja. My connection is rather slow these days, so could you please keep that page on your watchlist and rv vandalism? Thank you in advance! --HolyRomanEmperor 14:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Hi, I'm your friendly cabal mediator, User:FreedonNadd has requested mediation on the subject of Republika Srpska. Please feel free to make your opinion known here. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 12:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I left my comment. --Emir Arven 15:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I will make a note of that on the mediation page and archive the talk page. I'm glad we could reach consensus :) - FrancisTyers 00:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medieval Serbia-Bosnia relations?

I think you misunderstood them. Before the Ottoman conquests Bosnians and Serbs were in eternal peace, alliences and mutual history spanning 800 years. The only exception is the warring ages of Stephen II of Kotroman.

Bosnia and Serbia shared full territorial unity on many occasions. Originally they were in an equal tribal allience. Then you have Serbian Princes rulling Bosnia from one side and later, the Bosnian Kings that ruled the Serbs. It is the Ottomans who brought these nationalistic troubles, dividing the two (or better - one?) peoples strictly on religious basis. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

They never shared full territorial unity except in Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Pinceses didnt rule Bosnia, just males. Bosnian rulers and their knights had many fights with Serbs. It is well known that Bosnian rulers supported Bosnian Church which was the reason that Serbian rulers used to send complaints to Pope asking him to attack Bosnia. Bosnian rulers used to marry princesses from other countries in Europe not just from Serbia. Serbs naver liked Bosnians because of their religion, not then, not now.--Emir Arven 21:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bosn-o-Serbian Medieval relations were brilliant

You're viewing it too one-sided :-(, my friend. Please let me point out cases of friendship.

I never mentioned a Princess. I mentioned Princes. The original was Bosnia and Rascia in a tribal state-hood allience known as Zagorje rulled by a single ruler before the splitting. Later, various Princes like Ceslav had ruled Bosnia. The Bosnian Kings were all Kings of Serbia and Bosnia. The peace between the two nations was shown in the fact that neither actually mettled in anyone's affairs can be seen that the Serbs have kept vast inner autonomy, before the Ottomans conquered the Serb lands from the Bosnian Kings (which made them angry enough to participate in the Crusades to liberate Serbia in 1443/1444).

Friendship can also be seen throughout the history, as Kulin married his sister to Miroslav of Zahumlje. Ban Matej was frustrated at Serbia, because it as its traditional ally didn't send help to the Western Crusaders that came to destroy it's Bogumil population. Ban Prijezda I (arguabal ancestor of the was a ruthless ruler as he is the sole reason why since his rule was a gargantuan Catholic minority in Bosnia (he almost completly anihalated the Bosnian Church) He arranged a marriage between his son (if he was his real son), Kotroman and the ruler of Usora and Soli, Stefan Dragutin; former Serbian King to connect the two nations.

Ban Stephen Kotroman was heavily under Dragutin's influence because he was his son-in-law. Ban Stephen II of Kotroman is the only exception, as he fought numerious aggressive wars conquering the Hum land and raiding Western Serbia, which eventually brought down the vast armies of Stefan Dušan that conquered entire Bosnia except for its capital, Bubovac. This is the only period of war between Bosnia and Serbia. Even next to this, he was proud of his Serbian mother.

I do not need to mention Tvrtko, who helped strengthen Serbia by anihilating the bridge created by Nikola Altomanović between Bosnia and Serbia, ascended the crown over Serbia which would last for a century (until the Ottoman conquests) and helped the leage of defence of Christian Europe at the famous Battle of Kossovo, which he greeted as one of his greatest victories. Unfortunatly, the autonomy that Tvrtko gave the Serbs proved to be the biggest mistake. The lack of organization meant that there were poor preparations for defence against the Ottomans. In the end, Stephen Tomaš proved to be the one that would firmly unite Bosnia and Serbia through marriage with a Serbian Princess - but the time would be just two months, as the Ottomans snatch Serbia from his hands.

The Bosnian elite did marry outside Europe, but quitte a number of wifes were Serbian princesses (mostly in the case of the Pavlovićs and the Kosače).

I don't see where was this unfriendship. Perhaps you could point out cases? Let me mention that if you refer to the acusations for heresy against Kulin Ban committed by Vukan of Zeta; well, according to what the Montenegrins say, they draw descendents from those unique Slavs, meaning that it is a Montenegrin ruler who betrayen Kulin. The same can be applied to Tvrtko's war against the Montenegrins. AFAIC, (I now that this isn't Medieval, but I just feel that I should add) Slodoban Milošević and Radovan Karadžić are Montenegrins.

I look forward to your reply. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] no title

Perhaps you'll find the Bosnia section interesting in the Al-Qaeda article? -- Zec 23:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Why did you deleted most of the changes on herzeg-bosnia pages? All of them are made according to wikipedia NPOV policy, and sorces can be found in nearly any Croatian book about that period. Or most of daily newspapers for that matter:) Where is the problem? Ceha 20:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mehmed Pasha

Emir, you disputed all Serbian sources, not conserning how/what they are – just because they're Serbian. And you presented only one source – the History of Bosniaks of Mustafa Imamović.

That is not true. I presented you Radovan Samarcic book called "Sokollu Mehmed Pasha".--Emir Arven 19:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
This was discussed Radovan Samardjzhich wrote that he was an Ottoman, but a concealed Serbian Patriot. Please, ease down, for us all, if not for me. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You outgunned all of my sources, just based on that one. You also said that Turkish historians do not support this "Serb myth" and asked me to present any international sources. I did. Amyn B Sajoo & Pihlip Mansel. I noted that the entire world is contradictory to that book. You will also notice that it disputes Stephen Gerlach's claims "because he was not Grand Vizier" – the problem is – he was back then. I've also heard this on Rumelia – contradictory to all the global encyclopedias (Britannica, ...).

Amyn Sajoo is not historian. He had no research on Mehmed Pasha. He just wrote one sentence. And yes, Turkish historians do not support Serb myth. What are their researches on Mehmed Pasha? You didnt show me. Philip Mansel didnt wrote about Mehmed Pasha. He just mentioned him in his articele without references. You give me just articles, and mentions of Mehmed Pasha, not researches about him and his life.--Emir Arven 19:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

So, I now ask you to do the same – and give me a reason why should I not apply your logic – and acuse this of being a "Bosniak myth"? Tell me, please. --HolyRomanEmperor 11:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Because your sources are irrelevant. On the second hand, you have already supported another Serb myth called Serbophobia as I can remeber. I have not seen any serious source or research about Mehmed Pasha. --Emir Arven 19:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
You remember? When was this? :D --HolyRomanEmperor 22:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

Philip Mansel did not "write a sentence". He dedicated a large part of his chapter to Mehmed. Your disacceptence of Amyn and other sources just mean that you only look for sources that correspond to your personal ideology.

I wrote neutral on the deletion for Serbophobia because the article was contrary to everything that wikipedia stands for and I am the one who started the process for deleting Bosniak nationalism. Where is this alleged "support" of Serbian nationalism?

Your neutral vote was obvious. If you really want true, you should show that.--Emir Arven 16:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That which you said means only one thing: you didn't even bother to read the sources, because you simply do not care. If you cared, you would've seen them. Read the entire Talk page and then...

If I was you, I would take that book of Radovan Samarčić. ehm... :D Read it through. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have seen in Turkish the summary of the book. If I was you, I wouldnt put fairy tales as references.--Emir Arven 16:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If I voted Keep, I would be attacked by Bosniak & Croatian nationalists and if I voted Delete I would be attacked by Serbian. The reason why I voted that way is because I am afraid of you nationalists. :S --HolyRomanEmperor 22:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Holy, according to your contribution you are the greatest Serb nationalist here, who spread lies all the time.--Emir Arven 11:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I don't know if your accusations of being pathetic were directed at me or at Holy at my talk page, but please, don't be rude and accuse other users of nationalism. I can't even see how Holy is a Serbian nationalist, considering he told me he is Croatian. I can't be a Serbian nationalist either, as I'm not Serbian. --Latinus 13:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Holy told many things. And you are not even close to be neutral.--Emir Arven 14:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

So,[4] this book from 2002 by Yilmaz Dikbas & Philip Mansel's Constantinople are "fairy tales". I suggest you refer to fairy tale for description. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Philip Mansel has no research on Mehmed's life. And that book was not even about his life. There is not even a section of that book which is dedicated to his life. He just mentioned him. It can be based on earlier mentions, but I cant tell because there is no reference in his book for that.--Emir Arven 14:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Arven, as I told you, WP:NPOV dictates that all views be mentioned. If Serbs view him as a Serb, then the article should say that Serbs view him as a Serb and let the reader make up his own mind. --Latinus 16:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
What Serbs? For instance Serb Radical Party, whose president is a war criminal now in ICTY, views all Bosniaks and Croats as Serbs (Serb Muslims and Serb Croats). A million people in Serbia voted for that party. They based their war policy of aggression on Bosnia and Croatia, on that thesis, because they consider Bosnia and Croatia as Serb lands. Not all referneces should be put in the article, because many of them are crap and it is very dangerous to create another Serb myth. We dont need another Milosevis and Mladic in the Balkans.--Emir Arven 17:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
crap? Please, watch your language and don't curse. So, basicly, on those people that voted for the radicals, you're ready to discriminate the entire Serbian people? stereotypic... --HolyRomanEmperor 22:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Getting along

I get along with all Bosniak wikipedians (especially Dado and Live Forever) except you and Asim Led - of whome by the way, I have grown very fond of. I get along with all Croatian wikipedians (User:Joy, User:Mir_Harven, User:Speedy_Gonsales and even User:Zmaj from now one) except with User:Elephantus. You get along with no Serbian or Croatian wikipedians. If I was you, I would ask myself - "Am I the only one so divine & powerful that sees this Serbian nationalism - or am I really the only one that sees it?" Regards. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you know who I get along with? I dont care how do you represent yourself, but I see what you are doing. That is enough for me.--Emir Arven 14:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Btw, who are Serb wikipedians? You didnt mention them. Because you are one of them. --Emir Arven 15:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't talk to Serbian wikipedians very much. There is one exception: User:Nikola_Smolenski and I do not get along with him. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with Nikola? On Talk:University of Prishtina, he has been very co-operative, polite, helpful and neutral. --Latinus 16:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Emir, why not apply actual WP:CITE, by saying: according to Serb nationalist site X, Stephen II was originally Orthodox Christian. You can't say that's biased! --Latinus 17:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you think what would articles look like if you would put wp:cite from nationalistic sites. If you put this cite, then Croat nationalist will put their cites, Bosniak their etc. Can we be serious people. This article is about historical figure, not place for nationalistic cites.--Emir Arven 17:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but this is an important site. I haven't yet seen a case, where quotes from such sites have not been given; see Macedonians (ethnic group), there are many nationalistic sites there. --Latinus 18:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I dont agree that a site which supports sentenced war criminal is relevant source. There is not even the name of the author of the article presented there. But if you insist then write a section called controversy and explaine that Serb nationalists consider that he was baptised as Orthodox.--Emir Arven 18:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

I have blocked you for a violation of the three-revert rule on Stephen II Kotromanić. You are blocked for 24 hours. When you return, please do not revert war, but follow the dispute resolution process. Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked again? Why can't you reason, if not for yourself or me, for entire wikipedia? --HolyRomanEmperor 19:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
You was blocked, too. Rember? I was blocked because you lied about ur source and I didnt let you put it in the article.--Emir Arven 19:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, I tell the truth, maybe in the sharp way, but still truth. And you...--Emir Arven 19:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
And I want to tell you that you again spread incorrect info in the talk page of Stjepan II article. Stjepna II was not half-Serb because his mother Jelisaveta was not ethnic Serb but daughter of Dragutin and Katarina (daughter of Hungarian king). According to ur logic Vladislav II is not Serb, becuse his mother is Hungarian. Then all European nobility should be disputed.--Emir Arven 19:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
You asked me about history of Bosniaks. If you want to know more about Bosniaks read the article.--Emir Arven 19:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Btw, not even Vladimir Corovic in his book denies that fact. He quotes Hrvoje Vukcic when he says: Prilično uplašen on se obraćao kraljici Varvari, ženi Sigismundovoj, da ga ne odbijaju i nevina ne osuđuju, i da ga ne gone u ogorčenje i krajnost, jer će, prisiljen, morati najzad da traži pomoć gde je bude mogao naći. U ostalom, "pretio ja ili ne", poručivao je on u Budim, "Bošnjaci hoće da se združe s Turcima". Ali njegova pisma i poruke nisu ni stizali do Sigismunda, niti su inače imali kakva dejstva. Sigismund je nekad davao čak Hrvojevim protivnicima, da ih oni čitaju i da na njih odgovaraju kako znaju. Njegova nemilost bila je potpuna... As you can see he also called his people Bosniaks, because that was common name for people that lived in Bosnia (that practice was used in letters, documents, charts from that period), people who has its own nobility, rulers, territory and sense for own identity. It is natural that Bosniaks who are descendants from those people have every right to learn about their homeland and ancestors. You have to understand that the time of Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic who denied Bosniaks right to their own identity is over. That right was not destroyed even during last genocide conduceted by Serbs. It is obvious proof that there is nothnig that can destroy someone's need for freedom, independence and identity.--Emir Arven 23:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Da, Vladimir Corovic je jedan posten i dorbo-upoznat povijesnicar. On jednostavno kaze "Bosnjaci" za sve stanovnike Bosne i Hercegovine (kako je tada bilo u upotrebi) kako bi izbjegao disputes - nazalost - nije predvidio da ce Bosnjaci muslimanske vjeroispovjesto toliko svojatati to ime. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Tako je govorio i Karadzic, pa je sad u nekoj sumi s zivotinjama. Bosnjaci nista ne svojataju sto nije njihovo. Ja sam ono sto mi je i dedo rahmetli bio, govorim jezikom i nazivam ga imenom istim onakvim kako je to moj dedo radio. Ti ides od clanka do clanka i brojis srpske gene u nekoj licnosti, to nije naucni pristup. U svakom slucaju, pokazao si svoje pravo lice.--Emir Arven 16:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Look, you acuse my edits of those being of a Serbian nationalist - what are yours then? You get along with not a single Serbian or Croatian wikipedian, unlike me. You acuse all administrators that interviene against you for "supporting Serb myths" like User:Rx_StrangeLove, User:Izehar, User:Latinus,... What I am trying to say is that wikipedia wasn't created to spread Serbian propaganda. You have conflicts with everyone! User:PANONIAN suggested that there is no way to fight your stubborness - while User:Millosh - one of the greatest and most NPOV wikipedians - has called you a "fascist"! When people like that would call me a "fascist", I would ask myself, if I was you: "Am I so powerful, better and superior to them; or is the error in me?"
Ja nisam bolesnik da se svakom uvlacim u guzicu i ja ne pravim saveze ni s kim, jer pisanje clanka nije stvar lobiranja nego znanja. Tvoje problem je sto ti je tanko znanje pa pribjegavas laganju.--Emir Arven 19:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
User Panonian made up an article called Unitary Islamic Bosnia. After he realized that he was wrong he said it was a crap. He just wanted to take revenge.--Emir Arven 19:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I dont remember that I have problems with Rx_StrangeLove.--Emir Arven 19:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I will not make comments on others that you mentioned.--Emir Arven 19:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
If this is your goal, to find yourself support against me, then you will just prove ur real role and motive here in Wikipedia.--Emir Arven 19:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
You've had a problem with even another administrator - User:Khoikhoi - a brilliant wikipedian - that perscripted reverting your edits as a cure. Why can't you ever accept the possibility that maybe; just maybe you're wrong?
He was not familiar with the subject. He started to revert after Latinus asked him to do so. And of course you go from Wikipedian to Wikipedian to ask for help.--Emir Arven 19:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not yes-man. I dont need help. I have my own opinion on subjects that I work.--Emir Arven 19:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
And yes, I was blocked - you might notice that I reported myself. :) Best to report when you break a rule!
Now that you have already mentioned Radovan Karadžić - I suggest that you stop acting like him. Consider these as an advice, my friend. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I dont accept advices from the nationalists who lied about my contribution.--Emir Arven 19:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I would also pay attention to the fact that over 90% of your edits are edit wars, if I was you. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
You also claimed that you do not spread anti-Serbian nationalistic propaganda. How do you then define what you were doing on Petar II Petrović Njegoš? If you think that on this wikipedia "Bosniaks are good" and "Serbs and Croats are bad" and that spitting on the Serbian & Croatian peoples are standar wikipedian policy => then you have a serious issue
I havent visited that article recently. But I am aware that you spread propaganda on it.--Emir Arven 19:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I also payed a visit to the Bosnian wikipedia just now, and I saw that you award yourself barnstars through sockpuppets. :D --HolyRomanEmperor 18:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
You are just a liar. I just use one nick in Bosnian wikipedia. And I never awarded myself. Maybe you have other nicks. Everyone can check that I use just one nick. There is just one user with the similar name in Bosnian wikipedia. If you want to prove that you are a liar start Check User process and see for yourself that I dont use other nicks, because I dont need it.--Emir Arven 19:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Look, Emir, no one (at least not me) is spreading Serb propaganda, no one is building a cabal against you - some on man, I'm sure we can co-operate, I'd like to... BTW your block has expired. --Latinus 19:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I just cannot understand why you sniched on me, when you knew that I have every right to exclude thesis that was not proven. I read the book (that allegedly supported the thesis), found nothing and reverted the article. I am well educated person, familiar with history of the Slavs and capable of distinguishing mythology/propaganda from history. This was not the first time that I saw Holy asking for help, and I also saw that you asked for help from ur Greek frined (and you were not even familiar with the subject). I dont need such a crap. Wikipedia is not place for national/religion goals. I dont even need a help from Bosniak wikipedians, because I have my own opinion based on my education.--Emir Arven 19:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mandatory cooling-off period.

Emir, I would like you to think of yourself as being analogous to a nuclear reactor, churning out valuable knowledge for Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, like a nuclear reactor, you have allowed yourself to become overheated. I am blocking your account for three days, during which I would like you to please calm down. Do not insult other editors. I know that the Serb/Croat/Bosniak mess is very volatile, but there are Serb editors here and there are Croat editors here and there are Bosniak editors here. Be calm, and consider how another editor might try to alter the article after you. Try to write it so as to accomodate their viewpoints as well.

Got it? DS 21:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Who will block those who lied about me? HolyRomaEmperor said that I was a sockpuppet. So plz go and check whether that is true. If you find it false, then I expect from you to block him. --Emir Arven 10:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I also expect that you block nationalists that keep destroying articles and putting false information. When I show that those information are false, nothing happenes. Why?--Emir Arven 10:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Emir, don't consider this as a warning/insult - consider this as a begging to be more cooperative. I cannot find a comune language with you if you don't want to! - and if you don't want to - I don't know what to do. :( --HolyRomanEmperor 22:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
You dont know what to do? How ironic...--Emir Arven 10:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, first you have to stop to spread incorrect information (according to dictionary it is called: "to lie"). It is a bad habit.--Emir Arven 10:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I dont have to be ashamed for anything. I have seen that you and your frineds blocked me in cooperative work for no reason. On the other hand you are the one who should be ashamed. I am not the one that lied.--Emir Arven 10:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False Friends of the Slavist

Please have a look at wikibooks:False Friends of the Slavist. With your language skills, you can help us very much there, though there is not too much to be done. See also wikibooks:Talk:False Friends of the Slavist for details on what is still needed. Thanks in advance! --Daniel Bunčić 18:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking for no reason

DragonflySixtyseven, according to what rule, did you block me?--Emir Arven 10:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It was the so-called administrative discretion. To request an unblock (I'm not happy with you being blocked either) add the text {{unblock}} to this page with a polite explanation of why you should be unblocked or, you can e-mail the administrator. If you need anything, ask me. --Latinus 12:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Emir, I blocked you because you were becoming very agitated and angry, and you were beginning to make personal attacks on other editors. You are not anywhere near as bad as some people - it's obvious you are sincere and not being a deliberate vandal, and that you want to help the project, and that's good. But getting angry, even about articles about controversies that are being changed by people you disagree with, is not a good thing. Even if they are objectively wrong. I suggest you examine the edit history of the article Did Six Million Really Die? - a vile book of poisonous lies about genocide - to see how this sort of issue can be handled calmly.
The "nuclear reactor" analogy was a deliberate choice, Emir. Don't overheat. Don't explode. Take some time off to decompress, and when you resume editing (and I hope you do; you're a valuable resource), consider how other people will react to your edits. Okay? DS 14:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that u misused ur admin privileges.--Emir Arven 17:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
If you wanted to be neutral you should have blocked other users involved in the discussion.--Emir Arven 17:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there a rule for those who deliberately spread incorrect information, sources and say that those sources and information are correct?!--Emir Arven 17:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that being rude is when someone lies, not when someone else says to that person that he/she lies.--Emir Arven 17:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I send an email to other admins asking for rule explanation because I think that you misused you privileges.--Emir Arven 17:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Petar II Petrović Njegoš

When I mentioned Petar II Petrović Njegoš you said:

  • I havent visited that article recently. But I am aware that you spread propaganda on it.--Emir Arven 19:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Please restrain yourself from making such harsh unexplained acusations. the reason why I mentioned it - is that I want to reopen the dispute there with you. Tell me what's wrong & we'll work it out! Don't just respond like the last time. Tell me what is wrong with the actual article, please (and not source your claims by a non-valid source like the last time, please) --HolyRomanEmperor 16:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Please restrain yourself from telling lies about my contribution. I put my sources in the talk page of that article. My thesis are based on Nikola Kilibarda's work. On the other hand, you continued to write that Petar Petrovic was a Serb as you do in all articles related to South Slav historical figures. --Emir Arven 17:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Your work is mostly based on anachronism (sometimes on Serb mythology and lack of logic/common sense). You still keep counting bloodcells of those historical figures and writing false information. You go from article to article that are related to Slavs and write that someone is a Serb. When I ask you to provide sources, you cannot or you dont tell me the truth. You give me naive explanations. For instance Stjepan II ruler of Bosnia, called his people in his document/edicts Bosniaks, but you say: "well that is not a proof that he was a Bosniak"?! According to your "common sense" if president of USA, Bush calls his people Americans then that is not a proof that he is American?! It is not the matter of bloodcells it is about identification. He identified himself with Bosnia and Bosniaks. He fought against Serb rulers. After that you say that he was ethnic half-Serb (or which is really stupid, Bosnian Serb?!), which is false as I explained earlier. His grandmother was Hungarian. Then you still keep counting his bloodcells or trying to connect him with Serb Orthodox Church, but without proof. You offer me a book and say that that book supports your thesis, and when I check it, I find nothing there. And finally when you cannot prove your thesis you go and ask for help. That are your explanations. I think that you lost your credibility long time ago.--Emir Arven 18:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
You have to know that spreading propaganda about history of the Balkans is very dangerous. You can watch hearings in Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_v._Serbia_and_Montenegro genocide case to learn that fact. When Serb nationalists/intellectuals started to talk about ancient Serb history/mythology from 14th century, about Serbs as heavenly people, their heroic Kosovo defeat, Serb saint medieval rulers etc. other people (Croats, Bosniks and Albanians) started to die.--Emir Arven 19:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
You do really seem to dislike Serbs, don't you? That statement you just made is totally unconstructive and IMO is totally designed to cause bad feelings.
I dont dislike Serbs. I was talking about Serb nationalists and mythology. The similar statement was stated at the beggining of BBC documentary "The Death of Yugoslavia". It is well known fact. --Emir Arven 21:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This is just your side of the story and the Serb side may be different (I don't know, I'm not Serbian). Please be more co-operative and try to assume good faith. I'm sure that Holy et al are not intentionally "spreading inaccurate information" (that is assuming you are right). --Latinus 20:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

As I can see from your talk page he continues "to spread inaccurate information" (if you like it this way) about my contribution. In ur talk page he said: He also uses vulgar language like f*** the land which hasn't got Bosnia - I don't want to seam like I'm running around sueing the guy to other wikipedians; but I just simply do not know what to do. Could you advice me, please? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:19, 2 March 2006
This is another proof about his weak knowledge. I used the phrase from well-known drama "A on meni nema Bosne" by Josip Pejakovic (Bosnian Croat) who replied to those who denied Bosnia: "Jebes zemlju koja Bosne nema". The point of that phrase was: "Land will not be more beautiful without Bosnia". On the other hand, if you translate it without the context or if you translate it without knowledge of that drama you will get what HolyRoman told you.--Emir Arven 21:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Could you advice him to stop doing that? It seems that noone cares.--Emir Arven 21:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Njegosh

You presented this source: "MONTENEGRO: THE FIRST VICTIM OF GREATER SERBIAN" - the problem is - where is Njegos there? Njegos is the subject of the article. Please, show me where are these sources of yours?
Now, instead of further arguing over non-existant subjects - tell me what is percisely wrong with the Petar II Petrovich Njegosh article! Just point out! I want to solve all disputes! The way that this discussion is going this far - you either can't or don't want to make an arguement on Petar. Which one of those? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Emir, now, before we make delicate changes, I suggest that you download this book: Горски вијенац It's the biggest & the most beautiful work of Peter II Petrovich Nyegosh. Please read it when you've got time. It'll give you all answers - if you're interested in Njegosh. I look forward to working on the Nyegosh article with you. Regards. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I said that you were not historian and that your knowledge was weak. On the other hand you can see my edits and my comments about that subject there. I dont intend to jump from one subject to another, and I dont intend to discuss it here in my talk page.--Emir Arven 21:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Meaning... that you don't mind the article as it is? If you don't wish to discuss - that means that it's OK? Ah, at least one place that we can both agree. :) --HolyRomanEmperor 21:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
ANSWER: I was pretty clear. I dont have to repeat myself...--Emir Arven 22:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood me. I said that I want to correct the article on Njegosh - as you obviously find that it has severe problems. Why won't you? If there is anything POV or contrary to any wikipedia policy - why do you not want it repaired? I will support your arrival to the discussion, if you fear the reaction of User:Nikola_Smolenski and User:Estevisti. Just get over there and repair the article! Don't keep saying that it's bad, if you have no comments on the article itself! --HolyRomanEmperor 13:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

GOTO:ANSWER--Emir Arven 20:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Fine, I will no longer bother you. Just please - never again say that the Rade Petar II Petrovich Nyegosh article is a "Serb myth" - since it's obviously unfounded. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
You are not the one who will tell me what to do. I didnt make up Serb mythology. Former Serb nationalist Novak Kilibarda is the one who talked about it. Not just him. Many others (like Marko Vesovic or BBC if you like). If you want to present Njegos as a Serb (as you did with other Slav historical figures), then your goal is so obvious here. There are intellectuals from Montenegro who consider it as robbery of their history. I dont understand why it is so important to Serbs that "steal" history of Croats, Bosniaks or Montenigrins and try to present them as Serbs based on very disputed nationalistic sources (as for instance Serbian Unity site - supporters of nazi collaborator Draza Mihajlovic, that you gave).--Emir Arven 19:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's OK if those people claim that. My interest is not in presenting Njegos as a Serb - it is in my interest to reach the inner deepness of truth (not Original Research) based on sources. I find it strange why did the Montenegrin controversy appear. If you provide me with sources on Njegosh - ofcourse I will support you. I always support commendable people. The reason why you didn't receive support from the last time - is that you didn't cite sources. Like I said - you can expect my support if your claims are founded. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, one more question - if a man yells with all of his lungs' strength "I am a proud Bosniak, I speak fluently the Bosnian language and am a pious follower of Islam!" - would you not consider him a Bosniak? --HolyRomanEmperor 22:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
According to your logic - that man cannot be considered a Bosniak (absurd). --HolyRomanEmperor 15:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
RE:Dont want to talk with the man who tried to justify convicted fascist, and war criminal, Draza Mihailovic during WWII. Shame...--Emir Arven 16:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Fine, then stay away from the disputes - since you have no desire to solve them. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
oh, and if you didn't know - Radovan Samarcic - whose book you presented to support your Bosniak-origin claims - talks of him as a Serb. :D --HolyRomanEmperor 17:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

GOTO:RE--Emir Arven 17:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (I posted this on my *own* talk page. Here it is on yours.)

Emir, I genuinely want you to stay on Wikipedia, because you are intelligent and erudite. However, you cannot let your anger get the better of you. Do you understand?

If there is some dispute as to whether a given historic person was of Serb or Croat (or whatever) ethnicity, then state that there is dispute. Give the reasons for each side. Okay? DS 18:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

OK.--Emir Arven 18:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mehmed Paša Sokolović

Hi Emir, Dictionnaire Larousse's Turkish editon volume 6 page 2165 "Sokullu Mehmet Paşa". About print date, (orginal edition) Larousse 1993 and (turkish edition) Milliyet 1993-1994. This is all i can found. I hope this helps --Ugur Basak 23:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Emir again, I've posted these to HolyRomanEmperor
the links heading Sırp Vatanseveri Osmanlı Veziri means Serbian patriot Ottoman Vizier the text is a abstract of a book as you can see written by Radovan Samarçiç. It's about, Sokollo's hidden Serbian patriotism.
Second one: Kökeni Bosnalı bir Sırp olan Sokollu Mehmet Paşa means Sokollu Mehmet Paşa's origins are a Bosnian Serb.
Third one: Sırp asıllı Sadrazam Sokollu Mehmet Paşa’nın önünden geçip. means Serbian origined grand vizier Sokollu Mehmet Paşa's "önünden geçip" I can't translate önünden geçip part because sentence is not complete, it can have different meanings.
Last one: sokolovic kasabasından alınma bir devsirme. aslen sırp olması ve olduren insanın bosnak olması ilginctir means He is a devshirmeh taken from Sokolovic town. Despite his Serbian origin and to be killed by a Bosnian (is interesting)
I guess you found last one from sourtimes.org. It's not well controlled site, any user (not everyone can be a user) write anything even feelings about anyone. Not %100 accurate and also sentences are not in good form. So translation also meanings are difficult to understand. Also i've found one more thing on that site, again not cited. hırvatlığı veya sırplığı tartışmalıdır. means his Croatian and Serbian origins are controversial
in this site he is mentioned as Croatian. Hirvat kökenli Sokullu Mehmet Pasa.
Hir origins is really controversial
Cheers --Ugur Basak 23:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calm down.

Emir, I am blocking you - and also blocking User:HolyRomanEmperor - for twenty-four hours. It takes two to argue. DS 21:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dictionnaire Larousse's Turkish edition

Dictionnaire Larousse's Turkish edition: is there a way using which you can display the actual source for us all to see (as you have insisted that on my place - so I insist that you do that)? Additionally - does it go into Mehmed's life, or just mentions him - without deeper explainations? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you asked Ugur Basak to give you information so he searched it and found: Sokoloviç adlı Boşnak bir papazın oğluydu, volume 6 page 2165 "Sokullu Mehmet Paşa". About print date, (orginal edition) Larousse 1993 and (turkish edition) Milliyet 1993-1994.--Emir Arven 16:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

He also explained to you that Boşnak means Bosniak (ethnicity).--Emir Arven 16:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I will quote it here:[5]

Tell me, please, is there a difference between Boşnak and Bosnalı? --HolyRomanEmperor 22:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
About Boşnak and Bosnalı. In Turkish we use both words for every nation. Türk and Türkiyeli etc. Boşnak means Bosnian people (mostly for ethnically) and Bosnalı has two meanings; one who is living in Bosnia (Bosnian citizen) and other Bosnian people.--Ugur Basak 22:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Tell me, in that ecyclopedia that you mentioned earlier, what of the two was it reffering to (ethnicity or inhabitant)? --HolyRomanEmperor 22:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Sokoloviç adlı Boşnak bir papazın oğluydu in this text writer uses Boşnak, as explanied above. Sentence is about Bosnian ethnicity--Ugur Basak 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

So, my answer is the same as you got it from Ugur Basak.--Emir Arven 16:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Serbian nationalistic propaganda

You don't spread anti-Serbian nationalistic propaganda, right?

You wrote: their heroic Kosovo defeat, Serb saint medieval rulers etc. this seems anti-Serbian. What did you try to say anyway?

You similiarly tried too... ok... - I'll use your logic temporarely - "steal" from the Serbs this great writer - Petar II Petrović Njegoš based on no sources/arguement and more than once.

Then this one: Oj, svijetla majska zoro, where you deleted the original lyrics and compulsed a Controversy section based on Original Research (or better, no research :) - again trying to delete everything on Serbs and presented them as generally the bad guys even here.

I'm not getting near to the fact that 70% of your edits is edit-warring on Serbian-related articles and every 27th word you say is "Serb myth".

How, just how can you claim that you don't suffer of Anti-Serbian sentiment? --HolyRomanEmperor 22:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Serb Radical Party said the same thing when speaking about ICTY and international community (something about anti-serbian nationalistic propaganda) which is nonsense. Watch CNN. Or read my earlier comments. And you said that you were not a Serb?! So, why do you care? Plz...Inace postajes dosadan i ponavljas se...--Emir Arven 10:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually - you remind me of him. You're trying to fight the entire world, like Yugoslavia did in the 1990s and you're acusing all around you of forming conspiracies - just like Vojislav Šešelj claimed with the Vatican & German thingy. :D --HolyRomanEmperor 12:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense.--Emir Arven 17:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two points.

Firstly, please be polite in your edit summaries. Being a jerk in edit summaries can be grounds for disciplinary action.

I was not a jerk. For several times you blocked me for no reason. If you wanted to show me ur cyber power in this way then it would not be good for the project. I am not here to earn some money. I am here to give contribution to project. There are many intentions by some users to put propagand instead of truth. Already seen during Balkan wars. When I ask them to show me the sources, and when I check the sources, I find that those persons lie. As I said: It is rude when someone lies, not when someone says to other person that obvious fact.--Emir Arven 18:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I didnt go from user to user to snich on someone or to ask for help. You should use ur priviledges against those who spread lies about my contribution and propaganda in general. For instance, when HolyRomanEmperor lied about my contribution noone blocked him. Why? This is what he said to one administrator about myself trying to block me:
Greetings, vandal-fighter! I must say that I come bearing ill news, unfortunatly. I am an goodf (at least I think) historian, and am currently re-writing the articles of Doclea, Zeta (state), Rascia, Travunia, Zachlumia and Pagania. User:Emir_Arven is changing those articles. That would vandalism if he didn't actually think that way. For instance, he is deleting and changing (to a strange way) the beautiful lyrics of the poet Petar Petrović Njegoš (see?). I am afraid that my slow connection and little free time will not leave me enough time to revert all the incorrect date, unfortunatly. HolyRomanEmperor 19:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
And this was my answer about those obvious lies (everyone can check)--Emir Arven 18:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC):
After HolyRomanEmperor said in the above message (I took it from your talk) that I deleted or vandalized articles which was just a brutal lie. For instance I have never visited Rascia, Travunia, Zahumlje and Pagania articles. As you can see above, he said: "User:Emir_Arven is changing those articles." Plz just see the history of these articles. Serb nationalists, write articles according to their mithology, not according to facts. They are trying to change history of Bosniaks, Albanians, Croats and Montenegrins. When I try to improve the article, they just reverte it or say as above person did about my "contribution"...--Emir Arven 18:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
He also did the same thing many times. I can quote all those cases (about alleged Vladimir Corovic source, about Ivo Andric, about Husein Gradascevic etc.)--Emir Arven 18:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
And you come here to block me because I am honest and I dont lie?!--Emir Arven 18:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Second, I would like to ask, what word would you use to describe someone who was born in, say, Rwanda, but then moved to Bosnia and took citizenship?

Boşnak or Bosnalı? DS 13:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity or nationalitiy? A good point. Every term should be used in correct historical context. First I have to know more about the case, about his/her life, background, origin and historical period. But according to this sentence when someone takes for instance citizenship of Bosnia, he/she is Bosnian citizen (in Turksih: Bosnali, in Bosnian: Bosanac). The term Bosniak had different meanings during history. Read it here: Bosniaks.--Emir Arven 18:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiNews (WikiVijesti)

Emir Arven, molim Vas da glasate za WikiVijesti

To je WikiNews na Bosanskom

--Kseferovic

[edit] Straw poll

U toku je Straw poll o statii Republic of Macedonia. Ako hoces mozes glasati ovde [6]

--Realek 02:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bosanski Jezik

Hey Emir, HolyRomanEmperor is telling me negative things about you. Check my talk page to see what I am talking about. He claims that you are writing against Serbian Cyrillic. I agree with you, not HolyRomanEmperor. He is the one changing the Bosnian Language template. He wants it to be in cyrillic and latin. Then, why isn't the Serbian Language template in Latin and Cyrillic, as well. Bosnian is not written in Cyrillic. Look at the Bosnian Language template discussion page. I, along with several other users, have made strong reasons for the use of only the Latin script.

Hvala, Thanks.

Kseferovic 00:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not correct. What I said is that Emir Arven was defending the Cyrillic scrypt from Serbinization (Bosnian uses too). What's bad in that??? --HolyRomanEmperor 13:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
This issue is resolved. It was misunderstood at first, but now understood. Kseferovic 06:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet

Administrators can't perform that task. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 13:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please...

see Wikipedia:No original research:

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

This is regarding your edits on the Mehmed-paša Sokolović article. Now, this rule is applied on the article Ruđer Josip Bošković, because the sources that call his a Serb a so vastle smaller and lesser (and minor) compared to the sources that call him a Croat. Your sources on Mehmed-pasha are even less. Because of this, you must understand why I find it so sceptical what you say.

This is exactly, why you shouldnt be administrator. In all Balkan-related articles (about Serbs/Bosniaks/Croats/Montenegrins/Albanians, that you work on, you push Serb POV. I gave sources, what is the problem.--Emir Arven 15:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
You gave a single source, and presented minority's POV - just like Jimbo Wales himself said that should not be done. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, you didn't continue the discussion on the talk page.

I jos ovo: pogledaj koje je godine rodjen Bajica Sokolović - 1506. Sprska Pravoslavna Crkva je nastala 1219 godine. Iste godine je osnovana i odgovarajuća Dabro-bosanska Episkopija, koja je obuhvatala (pored drugih mjesta) i mjesto rođenja Bajicino. Bajicin otac je bio Pravoslavni sveštenik, a Bajicin ujak je bio monah u manastiru Mileševa, zadužbini Kralja Srba Stefana Radoslava Nemanjića iz XIII vijeka. SPC je zvanično ukinuta 1532 godine od strane Ohridskoga ahriepiskopa istočno-pravoslavnog, Prohora Pčinjskog. To je mnogo nakon Bajicinog preobraženje sa Srpsko-pravoslavne u Islamsku vjeru. Ne vjerujem da postoji Bošnjačka Pravoslavna Crkva, niti vjerujem da je ikada postojala - pa po kojoj logici izvlačite, Emire, da on može biti Pravoslavni Bošnja. Ne kažem da to nije tačno, ali tvrdim da to treba obrazložit. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a note

Emir, I'd like you to calm down a bit about the Stephen II Kotromanic article, and to try negotiating things out with User:HolyRomanEmperor. If the statements in your sources disagree with the statements in his sources, then the solution is to put both statements, explain what sources they come from, and explain why one source is better than the other.

I don't want to block either of you again. Okay? DS 21:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that he doesnt have the sources. He said that he had, but when I checked them there was nothing there (Vladimir Corovic's book and Serbian Unity article). Should I consider that as an act of vandalism because it is a clear example of fraud.--Emir Arven 00:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long time, no see

It's been an awful long time since you last assisted me on wikipedia, my friend believe me when I say that the wolfs are coming closer, for each day a new propaganda article is being written by you-know-who. I hope you haven't been blocked. Best wishes, your wikipedia companion ;) Damir Mišić 22:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speaking of Propaganda

"Yes my good man, Bosniaks are the slavicized descendants of Illyrians. Only bosniaks and albanians accepted Islam in large scale, "Bosnia" stems from illyrian "Bosona" (meaning running water) and bosniaks are much more similiar to albanians than to serbs or croats. Yes bosnian serbs and bosnian croats look exactly as Bosniaks, more than albanians do, but this is because bosnian serbs and bosnian croats are simply Catholic Bosniaks and Orthodox Bosniaks. Even the real croats,from croatia, consider the bosnian croats to actually be only Catholic Bosnians and not Croats. Allthoug the croat government is lying about this because they want to claim Bosnian lands. Remember Bosnian croats were Bosniaks as late as in the 19th century when they suddenly changed ethnicity to croats because of religion." Damir Mišić 22:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the reason for the edit.--Jadran 05:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


Oh boy this new user, jadran, is gettin' on my nervs. However, concerning the last post, I am keeping up the defenses whenever I have the time for it. To me it seems like that several of the users here don't have jobs or family by the fact that they are allways here. Damir Mišić

[edit] Kotromanići

Emir, I've intentionally left an English version of the name Stipan/Stjepan, Stephen, to avoid any edit wars. To make it neutral form. I'm trying to convince HRE, but he doesn't listen. Now he got in edit war with you. Second, Kotromanići are part of Croat, Serb and Montenegrin history also , as well as part of Histories of Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia. Third, Croats, Serbs and Bosniacs claim this royal house as theirs. It would be best to leave it as "claimed by Bosniacs, Croats, Serbs". Greetings, Kubura 12:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)