User talk:R-41

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, R-41, 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!  --Bachrach44 01:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:DNVP_emblem.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:DNVP_pennant.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Hey, just wanted to say thanks for uploading the roundel and tail fin to the SFR Yugoslavia Air Force page. I had the old one where it was just a picture, but some other guy ended up uploading the FRY yugoslavia roundel and thought it was the same. Thanks for adding the tail fin marker too. Zlatko 08:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits to Serbia

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

[edit] Serbia

Hi. There is no need for such long history of Serbia in article Serbia. You have separate article History of Serbia where you can contribute. Regards, --Pockey 15:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Chinese Air Force Roundel 1920-1921.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chinese Air Force Roundel 1920-1921.svg. 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. 00:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 15:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Socialist red flag.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:Socialist red flag.svg. 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. 22:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Flag of SFR Yugoslav German Minority.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:Flag of SFR Yugoslav German Minority.svg. 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. 18:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:COA of Iraq (1965).svg

Thanks for uploading Image:COA of Iraq (1965).svg. 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. 17:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Rsi war flag.svg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Reform wave.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Reform wave.gif. 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. 23:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] June 2007

Thanks for experimenting with the page Hungarian Soviet Republic on Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Wikihermit (Talk • HermesBot) 13:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1944)

This article is nonsense at first sight. Can you help me to understand why you created it?

--peyerk 16:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't create this article, I added the stats list to it recently and found out the name and I'll add more when I can get some information from book sources. By the way, you said on the discussion page at the Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1944) that you don't understand why there is a page for each change of government and that there is no need for such pages. THERE ARE articles for the description of states when they changed their governments. For instance there are articles for the different Italian states, such as Kingdom of Italy (Napoleonic), Kingdom of Italy (1861-1946), Italian Social Republic etc. If you have a problem with this, I suggest you discuss it with the upper-ups in wikipedia, because I am simply following the model provided on other pages. --R-41 18:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

History shows you as creator. Never mind.

--peyerk 15:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved the page to a new title, it was a small stub as it is now, called the Regency of Hungary, I renamed it to its official name, plus the date of its existance to avoid confusion with other Kingdoms of Hungary in existance throughout a number of centuries. So yes technically I "created it". But like I said this model of a page is based off of other wikipedia sites, it just needs more information to be added. I could understand such a complaint about short-lived insiginficant states, which I myself wonder if they should be included or should simply be seen as a transition from one major state to another. As for the Kingdom of Hungary from 1920 to 1944, that was a major state in history and more information should be added. --R-41 18:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I see. You created & redirected instead of renaming that's why it's not easy to trace history.
--peyerk 09:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Prussia 1903-1918.svg

Nice work with this SVG version. Just one thing: according to FOTW, this was the flag for 1892-1918, not 1903-1918. My Italian is virtually non-existent, so I can't read the reference you used. So which is correct: 1892 or 1903? This image should definitely be placed on the Commons, but before that is done, this needs to be clarified (and the name corrected if necessary. Keep up the good work. - 52 Pickup 18:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the eagle was the same as that of the German reichskriegsflagge which adopted the same eagle in 1903. Before that it had a different design, so it is very likely that the same eagle was adopted for the Prussian flag in 1903. It could be from 1892 on, but I would have to check to be sure. R-41 18:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is from 1892. I just uploaded a new image with the correct date to replace the one with the wrong date to avoid any further confusion R-41 23:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, would it possible to upload the flag to WP Commons instead of just English Wikipedia. The old JPEG flag is used across other Wikisites as well and needs to be superceded at the Commons too. Thanks. Centy – reply• contribs – 13:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Former Country/Subdivision

I have just rolled back the recent changes you made to the former country infoboxes for Hesse/Baden/Saxony/Prussia. While what you did makes sense, there is a functionality difference between the two infobox types. In this case, the main difference is that the "Country" infobox places the article in a number of categories ("Former country", "Former monarchy", etc) that the "Subdivision" infobox does not do. For this reason, the "Subdivision" infobox should only be used if the state in question was always a part of a larger body and never independent. For the states of the German Empire, all of these articles have navbars at the bottom of the screen to indicate that they were part of it anyway. I guess I should clarify this on the template page. Thanks. - 52 Pickup 08:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom of Bavaria

The table of contents field automatically appears when a certain number of headings (4, i think) are generated. That's why there was no TOC when you sent me your message but there is one now.

Nice work with getting this article up and running - this was on my list of things to do for a long time.

Gradually, I am making location maps for all German states from 1806 to 1952 (excluding the Nazi period - i don't have a good base map to work with). The maps from the German wiki only cover the German Empire period, and tend to make Germany look like an island. Since that means a lot of maps, I've just been uploading them as they are needed. See my Commons page. If there are any maps that you need, just ask. - 52 Pickup 09:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi Germany

Your edits to this article are greatly appreciated. I see a lot of useful detail. While I don't dispute what you've written, I would like to encourage you to add citations to the new material you've added. Thanks again for the work you are putting into this article. Rklawton 21:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom of Yugoslavia - flag

There is no state flag in Yugoslav constitution. You can find it at the web site of former Yugoslav royal family (http://www.royalfamily.org/history/flags/flags_yu.htm), but the size and position of COA is slightly different from current state flag of Serbia. (BTW, the state flag of Kingdom of Serbia was different then current state flag. Check royal family site). I think that constitutional flag of Yugoslavia (without COA) is much better solution for this article. However, if you would like to use flag with COA, edit it according to the flag at http://www.royalfamily.org/history/flags/flags_yu.htm. Thanks! --N Jordan 16:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reich/Empire

Nobody is questioning your German, but I have to stop with your usage of Empire for Germany after 1918. Sorry to say this after the work you put in discussing whether it should be translated to Realm, but unfortunately what you needed to do was not look at how it should be translated into English, but how it was named in English at the time. For that, looking through historical documentation is more important than being a good translator. And if you look at the sources (as I have made clear in various places), all evidence points towards the use of "Reich" in English as is was correct post-1918. Apart from various international English-language documents (among which is the Geneva Convention), this naming was also used by the other organisations such as the British government post-1918 and the Allies during the Nuremberg trials. Furthermore, Britannica makes it clear that the Empire ended in 1918, but the Reich (without translation) ended in 1945.

It is true that the word "Reich" is used to describe empires in the German language, but that is not the right way to go about it. It would be nice to simply translate to Empire - it would make life a lot easier - but the evidence is against that, and we must go with the evidence.

There is no discrepancy: Reich (no matter how funny it looks) is correct English after 1918. Follow the evidence. Sorry about this. - 52 Pickup 19:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This thread should go on the article's talk page. Rklawton 19:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SMS Moewe

Thanks for fixing the flag on this page; I thought the other one looked odd! I lifted it from a page on another warship of the period, which makes me wonder now if they're all wrong. This is the ensign flown during WWI, yes? So is it only appropriate for ships commissioned during the war (like SMS Moewe), or should we be using it for all IGN ships that served then, do you think? Xyl 54 12:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

All Imperial German Navy (Kaiserliche Marine) ships from 1903 to 1918 or 1919 should have the German war ensign that is posted for SMS Moewe. There are a few ships commissioned and sunk or decommissioned before the adoption of this flag in 1903, the ensign from 1892 to 1903 was quite similar to it, but had some differences. Ships commissioned before 1903, but existed after 1903, should be given the 1903 version. Here are the variations of the war ensign over the years, unfortunately, I do not have an svg version for the 1871-1892 version, but here they are.
Kaiserliche Marine War Ensign 1871–1892.
Kaiserliche Marine War Ensign 1871–1892.
1892–1903.
1892–1903.
1903–1919. (this is the one used on the SMS Moewe page and many others)
1903–1919. (this is the one used on the SMS Moewe page and many others)

I think I've already got most of the pages with the flag image posted for SMS Moewe, but if you could find more and post the flag image there, that would be greatly appreciated--R-41 18:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 18:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. -- Doctormatt 06:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nihilist Spasm Band

Hello. I notice you added an external link, twice, to Noise (music), apparently in support of statements regarding the Nihilst Spasm Band. The link doesn't appear to be specific enough: the page it links to has no information supporting either claim. Could you add more specific links? Also, please keep in mind that in order to qualify as a valid citation, a link must be to an independent source (not, for instance, simply the band's website, though a well-attributed article on the band's website may qualify). Please, if you haven't already, take a look at WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY for more information about adding sources on Wikipedia, and feel free to ask any questions on my talk page. Also, since this information may be more relevant to the article Nihilist Spasm Band than to the noise article (which, frankly, is in sad shape), perhaps it should be added there (also)? Cheers, Doctormatt 18:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arctic dispute

Many countries claim that the Arctic is their territory, not just Canada and Russia, including the United States (through Alaska) and Denmark (through Greenland) and Norway. Also, Russia claimed that the Arctic was part of its territory much earlier than 1925, back in the days of the Russian Empire. I moved your comment to the Foreign relations of Russia article.--Miyokan 01:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 16:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Serbia_Air_Force_new_roundel.svg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Serbia_Air_Force_new_roundel.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Reform party book.gif

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Reform wave.gif

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pho 203x275 propaganda5.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Pho 203x275 propaganda5.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reichskommissariat Norwegen

A tag has been placed on Reichskommissariat Norwegen, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Kannie | talk 17:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Speedy deletion of Republic of Serbia (in the FRY)

A tag has been placed on Republic of Serbia (in the FRY) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. michfan2123 (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vichy Administration

I appreciate that while in practice the Germans were authorative in northern France, the Vichy Regime had legal authority over all France.[1][2]

Vichy nominally administered France while accepting occupation of the north. Although in practice the Germans ran the north and had a strong and later total domination in the south, the formal position was that France and the Germans were separate. The independence, however fictional, had to be preserved. German interference in internal policing, says the historian Julian Jackson, "would further erode that sovereignty which Vichy was so committed to preserving. This could only be avoided by reassuring Germany that the French would carry out the necessary measures."[3]

In a letter to Marshall Pétain, Hitler wrote, "The entrance of Axis troops is not directed against the French administration, which, I hope, will continue in its functions as in the past."[4] The German occupation made use of the puppet Vichy Regime over all of France as it allowed them to save resources for elsewhere.[5]

The article could perhaps be merged into Vichy France, or limited to just Belgium and Alsace-Lorraine. If you still disagree feel free to write back :). Kitkatcrazy (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


  1. ^ Vichy's authority legally extended itself to both zones. Jewish Virtual Library. The Vichy Regime.
  2. ^ The Vichy administration technically was responsible for all of France (except Alsace-Lorraine which was reannexed by Germany and strips on the border to Italy which were ceded to the latter). World History at KMLA. Vichy Government.
  3. ^ Jackson, Julian: "France, the dark years", Oxford University Press, 2001
  4. ^ Jewish Virtual Library. Hitler's Letter to Marshall Petain Announcing German Occupation of France.
  5. ^ By allowing the Vichy government with its pretensions to autonomy and legitimacy to function and carry out his directives, Hitler could govern France with a minimal German presence and save his forces for use elsewhere. (Margaret Collins Weitz. Sisters in the Resistance - How Women Fought to Free France 1940-1945. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1995), p. 265. :ISBN 0471196983)

[edit] Nedić Serbia

It is funny how with time you have come to user Velebit thinking. I have been reading old edits in article Nedic Serbia and others edited by this banned user. In my thinking few months ago you have been right with comments that Serbia during this time has been protectorate but today version that it has been military administration is POV and supported only by edits of Velebit and his puppets. Only for information his new puppets are Stagalj (blocked), Standshown and Smerdyakoff (still they are not blocked). If I do not make mistake you have before user google to explain use of definition that it has been military administration. In answer I will give you similar google search with words Nedićeva Srbija. This Yugoslav popular name for Serbia in WW II is giving 8860 hits. I am sure that you have read many things about this but I do not believe that you have been reading thinking of modern serbian right movement about that. Here is link --Rjecina (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Smerdyakoff=Standshown?Stagalj=Velebit. Problem is solved. We can return article to earlier version or we (you) can write protectorate ?--Rjecina (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits at SFRY

I haven't read this book by Sabrina Ramet, but from your quotes of her text, it seems that she's not a very good source. One thing that very much sticks out is the claim that "Serbian politicians responded to the secessionist movements in Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia by forcing the disarmament the local police forces there while the Yugoslav People's Army send arms to Serb paramilitaries to enable them to gain firm control over Serb-held territories." This is very loose and inaccurate retelling of what happened. In reality, it was the territorial defence that was (partly) disarmed, not police, the politicians who decided so weren't exclusively Serbian, and the paramilitaries didn't exist yet at the time when this happened (in 1990). If that's the general standard of research and reporting in that book, I suggest it's inappropriate for quoting in the article. Zocky | picture popups 20:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Very well, you may remove it, I was trying to find sourced information, if its wrong it may be removed.--R-41 (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Because of your edits in article SFRY I want to inform you about interesting information which are never published (in my thinking) in books on english language.
Original sin of Yugoslavia has been centralization. In 1918 when National Assembly of State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs has given mandate to delegation for coming in Belgrade for creation of new state. 2 points of this mandate has been clear:
  • Decision of internal organization of new state will be made by National Assembly of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes with 2/3 majority. (point number 1)
  • Until decision (about Yugoslav internal organization) will be made internal organization of Croatia will be controled by ban (viceroy) choosen by King or regent after propositions of Croatian regions. (point number 9)
In the end National Assembly has voted with 50 % + 1 vote majority for centralized Yugoslavia which has from begining created anger between Croats toward new state. During this National Assembly Serb members has not allowed Croat members to vote because they have demanded that Croats recognize Alexander for Yugoslav Regent before voting. They have refused and they have not voted.
Of this stuff which are speaking about creation of Yugoslavia you are having on internet this documents: mandate given do delegation (23 November 1918), declaration of this delegation in Belgrade (1 December 1918) which is different of mandate (they do not speak about 2/3 majority), declaration of Alexander of Yugoslavia (1 December 1918). Only problem is that all this documents are on Croato-Serbian language. If you want I will write you link...
On other side in Montenegro you are having revolt (1919-25) against Yugoslavia ! Ulmost all population of Montenegro has wanted union but what has happen in Montenegro has been annexation. If you are interested in Montenegro events you can read 6 March 1919 speach of Montenegro primeminister on Paris Peace Conference [1] or about Serbian massacres during Montenegro uprising. This second source is Chicago Tribune of September 4 1919 [2] .It is interesting to notice that Montenegro has been internationaly recognized in 1919 and even in 1920 ! --Rjecina (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Serbia (1941-1944) article

The Serbia case is unique and none of these other territories really set a precedent for it. Norway was already an independent state before the war, and the Reichskommissariat Norwegen was clearly a loss of sovereignty, national flag, etc. Serbia didn't exist at all prior to 1941, so the fact that it gained its own government (which included all positions except in foreign affairs) represents some sort of gain in sovereignty. The Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was a constituent part of Germany, which Serbia was not. Bohemia did not have its own armed forces as far as I know, while Serbia did. The Independent State of Croatia is viewed to be a client state, but its situation was in many ways similar to Serbia's. The German army had much more of its forces concentrated in Croatia than it ever did in Serbia.

I have removed the "client state" part from the infobox. However, we should leave the Former Counntry Infobox in place. The Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia article also uses it, and without it much of the info gets lost.

I still believe Serbia was a state, but I'll just leave it at this for now... Of any German administration, Serbia had the the most sovereignty. It was not a territory which Germany directly occupied, but which was made independent after the defeat of Yugoslavia. It had all the trappings of a state: its own government, military, flag, anthem, currency, post, press, national sports - none of which it had before 1941, and in no other instance did a country "gain" so much under German administration. The Serbian government was widely accepted, with about 500 influential Serbs (including Orthodox officials) signing a public letter in support of it. After initial Partisan resistance was stamped out, Serbia was relatively peaceful until later on when increasing numbers of Partisans came from Croatia and Montenegro into Serbia. Croatia, despite being labelled a client state, was much more reliant on German forces to maintain it than Serbia was. Serbia is on the borderline, and if it's not a state, we should at least be clear that it was very close.--Thewanderer (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fair. Though, I'd like to reinforce the fact that Serbia was much more stable than the Independent State of Croatia. The Republic of Užice only lasted for a few months. It was less significant as a resistance than as a point of fear towards communism for the average Serb. This precipitated the "Appeal to the Serbian Nation" which brought about Nedić's rule in the first place. After this, Partisans largely escaped to Croatia and were of relatively little significance until Partisans from rest of Yugoslavia and Soviet troops' arrived in 1944. After the Republic of Užice was stamped out, I'm not really aware of any liberations in Serbia until 1944, while in Croatia liberations were ongoing and sometimes completed multiple times to the same area.--Thewanderer (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] AfD nomination of Kosovo (geopolitical region)

An editor has nominated Kosovo (geopolitical region), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo (geopolitical region) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom of Yugoslavia - Successor state(s)

The Kingdom of Yugoslavia was succeeded by communist Yugoslavia, not Nazi German or any Nazi puppet state. Please respect international law. For example, Czechoslovakia was not succeeded by independent Slovakia created by occupation forces. Please discuss it before making any changes in this part! --N Jordan (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Grammar

You have changed Serbia declared that they will withdraw their ambassador to Serbia declared that it will withdraw its ambassador. That was not necessary. It is grammatically absolutely correct for countries to take the plural form and, as far as I can say, even more common. The rationale behind is that they are bodies containing many people. Just think of police or press, they all take the plural form. There is no need to revert, however, because both ways are acceptable. Tomeasy (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Empire to Reich

Responding to your comments. Again, it isn't true that the literal translation of "Reich" is "Empire." Language is messier than that. "Reich" is appropriately translated as "Empire" in the case of the First and Second Reiches, but that does not automatically mean the same is true for the Third. The examples you give all predate the Third Reich. von den Bruck's book was published in Germany in 1923, which gives it little significance for the use of the term after 1933. The Nazis themselves left "Reich" as "Reich" in their English translations. And, as I noted, current scholars almost universally (maybe universally — but certainly the overwhelming majority) keep it as Reich. I cited Evans, who notes a "literal" translation won't work. It would be easy to cite a lot more. The point is that you are insisting on a translation that nobody else but you seems to want to use. Wikipedia depends on sources. Rather than using irrelevant historical examples, I still ask you to find current scholars who might agree with you. And I'm not sure at all what you mean by saying "Of note is that the Nazis considered the Holy Roman Empire during Frederick the Great's rule as being the first "reich". " Could you provide a source for that? Bytwerk (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If the Nazis meant "Reich" as "empire," they could have made that clear by translating it that way in English-language material they produced. They did not do so. They always used "Reich" in English translations. For one of many examples, see this page: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/hitler1.htm. It is the official German government translation of a 1937 Hitler speech. Note that "Reich" is always "Reich." The Nazis did not consider Frederick the Great as having anything to do with the First Reich. They did view him as a great German. The problem is that your case depends on what appears to you to be "a very accurate translation." Wikipedia does not depend on what editors think, it depends on what they can support with reliable sources. You have yet to provide a single reliable source that supports your point. I and others have provided quite a few supporting the opposite. Bytwerk (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Fascism. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. Gwernol 01:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization

Don't want to be picky, but shouldn't it be Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations? (lower case) ~ smb 00:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia and the Flag

Is the representative body of the citizens of the Republic of Serbia (the Serbian people and minorities) which is the solemnly responsible body for making decisions. It made a decision in a form of a Recommendation which obey the standards colours of Serbian flag through its recent history. The "graphical standards book" (file Grb_Zastava_Standardi.pdf even if it does not bear that name - hence "".) are dated 2004-08-28 at 09:20:31 hh:mm:ss; the author has not been named and the official level is not certain. Even if this file is presented at the web-page of the greatest authority in Serbia, this file is just a presentation and a possible source, as well as all others. This image could not be found in real life. Please stop with your uncivil behaviour and name calling. We are here to discuss the matter and not each other. -- Imbris (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No such compromise happened. You on the other hand have not abided the Wikipedia policy that compells you not to pressume any bad editing done on my part. Instead you have worked to block me but this is temporary because I will seek help from an admin who is not pro R-41 (like Zscout370 recently has become). Also I must stress that you have not participated in any discussion but instead pushed your own views onto the entire community. On the other hand I have worked with others and will continue to do so. On the other hand you do not work well with others and that will backfire sooner or latter, your only tactics is shouting (using capitals) and making ridicolous claims that you have been harrassed. I will not accept any compromise with you until you accept the compromises which were made previous of your meddling. -- Imbris (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This mentioning how you are able to work with Flanker is besides the point. You have a tendency to overreact and accuse people for nothing. The main point is that I do not revert everything you do and like sVG of the Coat of arms of SFRY. I do not agree with you completely because you have used a light blue for the ribbon and changed other colours. Some of your changes are acceptable. But now you are over every limit a know it all when you have changed the colours of Serbia the moment I was blocked. You have ruined the agreement that was made on commons and in that fashion declared all users who worked to solve the issue as bad faith editors. You have singlehandedly distroyed the colours and now pretend that you agree on the red. This is not good nor editing in good faith. You think that everything I do is against something, it is only against POV of some know it all's like you sometimes are. You distroyed the work of others on the flag of Croatia issue by using a source which do not exist in reality and now you used some of the Govt. of Serbia pdf in part so who is a hypocrite now. -- Imbris (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless what you might think, I have upmost respect toward your hard work on Wikipedia. All those fine images you have created are a great contribution. I hope that the small amount of help which I have given you is looked upon with same respect. Now for the matter of colours I am not completely satisfied with the colours of Avala but I am not satisfied with your approach to a simmilar issue, namely the colours of Croatia.

Simmilar thing (to Croatia flag) has happened with Russia. It has been used in colour ranging from the Guatemala/Argentina/Luxembourg to the British blue. If we are to agree upon your proposal on the Flag of Serbia I expect we are to agree on the my proposal on the Flag of Croatia.

Croatian Government website took from the http://www.flags.net/CROA.htm AND this is not an official act of the Goverment. I hope that you understand that this is obviously the work of an uninterested webmaster. There are no official images other than those in the Presidential decision where they also made mistakes (the marten is slowly walking on the blue field instead of red).

Of course I will firstly must request the admins on commons to unlock me but this is another story.

Imbris (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why sourcing the Croatian flag to "one source" only?

Especially because those colours are not in use by the Parliament web-site. And are uncommon in Croatia. Once you have supported the colours of vexilla-mundi.com for that flag. What changed in the meantime? Those vexilla-mundi.com colours have support from [3] dated 2004-07-22. So two wexi-person's have endorsed those colours.

The rest is in the details. The Law on symbols (in short) has provided with basic naming of colours of the 1st, 3rd and 5th small shield in the Crown as being blue, and the 2nd and 4th small shields being navy blue. The flag of Croatia is red-white-blue so what is the problem. And with all those sources + the ones from the UN.

Some of those sources can be found at commons:Image talk:Flag of Croatia.svg.

Imbris (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Facist Italy.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Facist Italy.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SDP CG

I don't think you should outright rename that article. We should keep to the official name of the party in English. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

Around month ago consensus is reached about sources for Yugoslav Wars. Please see talk page of article Yugoslav Wars or if you want to see all discussion you can see talk page of Serbs of Croatia.--Rjecina (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:DNVP logo.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --18:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My recent revert

Hi R-41, I reverted your recent edits on Yugoslav Front of WW2, but I thought it might be helpful to the discussion if I mentioned that I bore no ill-will in doing so, and that I respect your efforts on improving ex-Yugoslavia related articles. You will find a detailed explanation of my reasons on the talkpage of the article, I hope we could agree not to edit any further until issues are resolved (even though the version before your edits is current) Regards --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming pages

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. Specifically, you copied the contents of National Socialism and pasted it into National Socialism (disambiguation). This is what we call a "cut and paste move", and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming an article is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Russ (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Declaration of Italian Empire in 1939

Hi - I reverted your (unsourced) change, because... [4] [5] [6], which is already mentioned in the article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Socialist Party of Serbia, references, talk at the talk page...

First, they are not a clear social-democratic party. By the ideology, they are the most similar to the French socialists: so, some mix of soc.-dem., democratic socialism and leftist nationalism. Their bylaws says that they belong to the "democratic left" (which is a valid reference), which is the other name for "democratic socialism" (as I described at the talk page). Even at the time of Milosevic, they were not state socialist party (simply, they initiated multi-partial system; state socialism assumes one [or more?] socialist parties). However, this was my description. The point is that if you claim that their politics is state socialism, you should find relevant sources for such claim. The only relevant source up to now is their bylaws (see talk page). --millosh (talk (meta:)) 23:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)