User talk:Ceha/ Archive 3

Voting

Considering the circumstances (no activity, then just a vote on my RfA - I'm not saying that you were invited, but considering the situation it seems so; and due to the nature of ethnic-driven votes), could please present which POV history and how long ago? --PaxEquilibrium 08:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, could you please provide direct links to evade confusion behind your vote.

Thanks in advance. A million cheers! --PaxEquilibrium 19:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you reply please? --PaxEquilibrium 15:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Bih 1991.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bih 1991.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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. 21:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Bih-fronts93.JPG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:661px-Bih93.JPG. The copy called Image:661px-Bih93.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 14:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1991 BiH towns.GIF

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:1991 BiH towns.GIF, by A Man In Black (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:1991 BiH towns.GIF fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Obvious copyvio; tagged as PD-self but taken from here

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:1991 BiH towns.GIF, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1991 B towns.GIF

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:1991 B towns.GIF, by A Man In Black (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:1991 B towns.GIF fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Obvious copyvio; tagged as PD-self but taken from here

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:1991 B towns.GIF, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1991 C towns.GIF

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:1991 C towns.GIF, by A Man In Black (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:1991 C towns.GIF fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Obvious copyvio; tagged as PD-self but taken from here

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:1991 C towns.GIF, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1991 S towns.GIF

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:1991 S towns.GIF, by A Man In Black (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:1991 S towns.GIF fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Obvious copyvio; tagged as PD-self but taken from here

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:1991 S towns.GIF, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:H 1961.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:H 1961.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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. 09:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please provide context

This is with regards to two articles you have recently created, BiH Croats 1991‎ and Croatian percentage in Bosnian-Herzegovian municipalities 1953-1961‎: please remember to provide a context when writing an article, for those readers unfamiliar with the subject. Wikipedia is not a gallery of maps. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that the articles are based on text, not on images. An article needs a text to outline the situation, in this case the position of the Croat community in Bosnia and Hercegovina at a certain time. The images only serve to illustrate that text. They can't be the body of the article.

I also fail to see how these articles are necessary on Wikipedia. We've already got the article Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina. What information is in BiH Croats 1991‎ and Croatian percentage in Bosnian-Herzegovian municipalities 1953-1961‎ that can't be mentioned in Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Aecis^Brievenbus 23:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I'm convinced by your argument why this information can't be included in Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but if you believe that this information needs a separate article, then I suggest you write the text of the articles BiH Croats 1991‎ and Croatian percentage in Bosnian-Herzegovian municipalities 1953-1961‎. At the moment, the two articles could be speedied for criteria A1 (no context) and A3 (no content). I won't speedy the articles and I won't nominate them for speedy deletion at the moment, because I want to give you the chance to write the articles. But I can't give you the guarantee that another admin will feel about this the same way. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you haven't edited the articles involved, BiH Croats 1991‎, Croatian percentage in Bosnian-Herzegovian municipalities 1971-1991‎ and Croatian percentage in Bosnian-Herzegovian municipalities 1953-1961‎, since September 16. I would like to repeat that the articles may be deleted from Wikipedia in their current state. If you want to see the articles kept, you may want to improve them. In their current state, I would recommend merging the three articles into the article Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina. If you have any questions or need help with anything, please leave me a message on my talk page. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

I saw some outstanding maps of Bosnia that you made. Where did you get the data for them? Do you have the 1953 census data? (LAz17 23:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Help on Jajce

user:Visca el barca is constantly vandalising Jajce by deleteing sourced information. Can you help fix the problem. Franjo r 13:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumable Croatian and Muslem percentage in Bosnian-Herzegovian municipalities in 2005

I have deleted the page you created, "Presumable Croatian and Muslem percentage in Bosnian-Herzegovian municipalities in 2005" under the speedy criteria A1 and A3 since it was not a proper article. Instead of creating an image gallery in the article space, you should look for ways to integrate your images into existing articles. I have not deleted the maps themselves since they appear to meet th relevant policies. Eluchil404 19:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

The articles I mentioned above, Croatian percentage in Bosnian-Herzegovian municipalities 1953-1961, ‎Croatian percentage in Bosnian-Herzegovian municipalities 1971-1991‎ and BiH Croats 1991‎, haven't been improved in well over a month. I have proposed merging them into Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina. You are invited to join the discussion, at Talk:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina#Merge proposal. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italy

Do not confuse the Italian state and Italy. Italian state has been created in 1861. Italy as geographical and political place exists since the time of the Roman Republic. That was discussed hundreds of time. Hundreds of articles report Milan, Italy, Roma-Italy, and so on, even for the time of the Roman Empire. Plz! Finnaly, do not revert all if you do not like a single point, correct just the single point! Tx.--Giovanni Giove 12:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC) I do not want to repeat what I've already written in Raguseo's talk page. Grts.--Giovanni Giove 22:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pleas list your complains in a neutral way, in the proper talk page (talk:Roger Boscovich). No personal attacks: you have claimed that I put "Italy" everywhere.... that is simply not true (and in the present case, I put it beside "Milan"!!!!!!). Just read WP:AGF. It is true: Dubrovnik is official now, but we are talkinh about the historical name, that is recognised to be "Ragusa", even by Croats. You need to read the rules for historical names: can you find them alone? Then write your complains. Regards.--Giovanni Giove 09:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to kosovo history

Yes, you are quite right, back then Bosnia was a small region around the river Bosna, which is but a small portion of modern Bosnia now. Regards Hxseek 23:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know...

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:Giovanni_Giove/personale

AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your contributions, your patience with finding good sources and for remaining calm despite the edit warring and being personally attacked by Bosnianjustice. I guess there is nothing more than be done, you've presented and defended your case in a way such that every unbiased editor will be sure to agree with you. Bosnianjustice is most probably not going to back down, the more sources you present, the more he resorts to personal abuses. I understand that it must be testing, but I really appreciate that you've remained so calm and factual in the face of this. Keep up the good work! JdeJ (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syrmia

ALL sources (e.g. read Željko Fajfrić's Sveta loza Nemanjića, Vladimir Ćorović's Istorija srpskog naroda or Konstantin Jireček's Geschichte Serbiens) state that. AFAIK, Dragutin reigned the Kingdom of Serbia and Milutin the Kingdom of Rascia, to make the difference between the two Nemanyiden realms.

I don't understand what you mean by "why is it important" or the other? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the title of the King, it appears that Dragutin also reigned most eastern "Syrmia proper". It's claimed by modern historians and it is found in two contemporary historians, one Anonymous Western scribe and a medieval biographer of Dragutin.

But that's not true. The twe realms indeed were called that way. In then's sources it was Servia for Dragutin and Rashka for Milutin's realm. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but no explicit mention of Zemun.

They are, in the Serbs of Vojvodina article I think. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. He (Dragutin) also had some properties over at Mount Frygian. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing is to have private properties in another state and another thing is that this properties are part of that state. For example I will use Henry II of England which has been king of England, duke of Normandy, duke of Gascoine and duke of Aquitania. All 3 duchy has been French territory controled by French duke (Henry). In modern serbian mythology if duke of Hungarian kingdom is of serbian nationality this territory is called Serbia. Returning to question of Dragutin and eastern Syrmia I stay with comment that he has not ruled north of river Sava because there is official pages of any towns which are saying different. Obscure books are not important. --Rjecina (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I pointed out properties, didn't I? :) This (reign over eastern Syrmia) is no Serbian mythology (I don't think except the Kosovo myth that it is greatly worked out, beyond the ancient Slavic one) and what is important, it is documented in sources that are not "obscure" books. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demography

Well yeah, this refers to, the early modern period. :)

The West Bosnia, back then, wasn't really Bosnia. :)

Orthodox majority is documented in general, in Herzegovina and in Bosnia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do tomorrow in the evening when I reopen my historical archive to see from where I took those percentages. :)

I thought Turkish Croatia is already mentioned in the article? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, not quite fully free these days. Just put a tag and/or comment the part out, and I'll get to it as soon as I find spare time. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tvrtko

No where did it say that all of Tvrtko's inhabitants were Serbs. ;)

What do you mean by "just small pieces of it's kingdom were parts of Nenjić nomains"? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: deleted maps

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, links always help. : - ) That page was deleted as it was an orphaned talk page (a talk page of a page that doesn't exist anymore). (WP:CSD#G8.) The image had been deleted, so the talk page was as well. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry

Don't worry, I won't delete anything. I will merge the content of the three articles into the main article. The history of the articles is still visible: BiH Croats 1991, Croatian percentage in Bosnian-Herzegovian municipalities 1971-1991 and Croatian percentage in Bosnian-Herzegovian municipalities 1953-1961. I will use the next few days to study the content of these three articles, to find a way to write a good text for the main article. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina sandbox

I have just created a sandbox in my userspace, to write the content that can be merged into Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina. If you want to, you can help at User:Aecis/Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina sandbox. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of twenty-four hours for revert-warring on Croat-Bosniak war. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 14:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1991 ethnic map

Where did you get it? I've heard from several people that it could be a forgery. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is different, less Serbs and more Croats and Bosnian Muslims.

When I compare the two it seams almost obvious that someone just edited the 1981 by his liking and used white color in Adobe Photoshop to remove the little texts below the headings to the lower left of the map. In fact, it was done so poorly that "by Settlements" in English was deleted too (while the Serbo-Croatian remained). So it's more than obviously amateur-made and not published by the Yugoslav Statistical.

Not only is it contradicting to those maps of Encyclopedia Britannica and the Brockhaus Encyclopedia as seen before, including to this 1991 CIA ethnic map of eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is based on the 1991 population census. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hunters of Dune and Sandworms of Dune

Hi, your extensive comments at Talk:Hunters of Dune and Talk:Sandworms of Dune (here and here) are really not appropriate for talk pages, which are intended for discussion of the content of articles in the context of editing them, not for editor analysis and reviews. That kind of material is better suited for a fan forum or your personal blog or website. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 02:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image converted to SVG

Image:1991 BiH towns.svg--mboverload@ 05:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:1991 BiH towns.GIF

A tag has been placed on Image:1991 BiH towns.GIF requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is a redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:1991 BiH towns.GIF|the 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. rootology (C)(T) 04:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1991 map

Dobar dan. I would like to know where you got the 1991 map of Bosnia. I have been looking into the University of Begrade's Geography department, and whatnot... it seems that this map is very suspicious. If you have a source for where this map appears then I would like to see it. Did you make it yourself? I am very alarmed by this map so I would like to get to the bottom of where it is from and what's going on.(LAz17 (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

But I still do not understand where the map is from. You said you found it on the internet... but where exactly?(LAz17 (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

Rastko.net is not a place that I go to for sources. They have a book written by the University of Belgrade which contains their maps. Now, the thing is that those are from 1981. I have the real 1991 map from Belgrade, not this croatian propaganda map that edits the 1981 map. It is from a book, and I need some help regarding that - what do I need to put regarding copywrite stuff? I do not want to upload it and have it deleted. LAz17 (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Also, I think that it is not correct to enhance other people's maps and keep their names on it. What is one author's map remains that way unless the author changes it on their own. (LAz17 (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

The differences are too big from your 1991 version and the one that I have. It is true what you say, that there are more bosniaks in your map, but at the same time there are far more croats in many regions, particularly what was the former Herceg-Bosna and Posavina. I would like it if the croat situation was really so, but alas it's not. Anyways, I will see to getting the map uploaded in the next couple days. (LAz17 (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

Miserable fraud map is done with. No more. The real image with an actual author is up. Your map, out of nowhere with clear falsities is out. Here is the link... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bosnia1991ethnic.jpg It is actually appropriate, unlike the one that you had. We will hopefully see that there are no complaints or questions about it, unlike your map which received numerous complaints and reactions. Pozdrav, (LAz17 (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

problem with war maps

The war maps show serbian territory extending far beyond Doboj, towards the south. A bit yes, but no way was it this far south. (LAz17 (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

Okay, true, but still, the ozren mountains do not go that far south. Here is a map that I found which shows where they are... http://www.bih-x.com/en/grafika/bosnia_maps_Geographic_Overview_Map.jpg It looks like they do not go much past the line of where Maglaj/Zavidovicei. So perhaps it's drawn too far on the current map?

Hm, well, I dunno. It still seems wrong to see the border go so far down. I guess I should contact that other guy, but still, it goes far beyond the Orzen range. I will contact you if/when I find more about this. (LAz17 (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

The definition of "vandalism"

Hello, Ceha. You recently referred to my edits to "Bosnia and Herzegovina municipal elections, 1990" as "vandalism". Please, take the time to read carefully Wikipedia:Vandalism, to learn what vandalism is, and how to differenciate normal good-faith edits from actual vandalism.

"Vandalism" is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.

My temporary removal (by <!-- hidding --> them) of two maps that contradict each other and that appear to include original reaserch was most certainly not "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". Quite the opposite in fact: it was intended to avoid presenting our readers with confusing contradictory information (the first map states that the results of many municipalities "are unknown", while the second gives data for all municipalities), which also appear to infringe our Verifiability policy, as it seems that the information has not been already published by a reliable source (you mentioned that "For some municipalities I don't have data, but from the data I've seen it is most probable that the nation with most peoples in that municipality choose the major from its nationalistic party").

Please, read Wikipedia:Vandalism carefully to avoid calling other people's efforts to improve articles and comply with Wikipedia policies as mere "vandalism". – If after reading it you have any doubts, feel free to ask me for clarification. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I persumed bad faith which is against wiki rules. I appologise. As for maps, nationalistic parties won all the municipalities except 3 (Vareš, Tuzla and Novo Sarajevo). Which was sourced on [1]

unfortunetly, that article is not on the net anymore.

--Čeha (razgovor) 00:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted, and don't worry about it :-) At one time or another we all have called "vandalism" edits that weren't (me included). In my humble opinion, the best course of action is to simply avoid using that word except for the most obvious cases.

Please, when you provide a link try to indicate always what you're linking to. And when you link to a lenghty document or text, please do indicate exactly what to look for and where (in this case, provide at least a page number, and if necessary indicate paragraph - cite your sources clearly). Otherwise you force the reader to innecessarly spend time going through the whole thing.

For example, in this case, the 1998 Guide for Journalists in Bosnia and Herzegovina booklet, edited in Saravejo by Media Plan, mentions (p. 27) that "in the municipal electios [of 1990, t]he three national parties won absolute or relative majorities in as many of 104 of the then 109 municipalities. Only in Tuzla, Novo Sarajevo and Vareš, former communists and reformists ([SDP & UBSD]) won majority". It repeats (p. 13) that "[in Tuzla] in the 1990 election the parties with left/civic orientation [SDP & UBSD] won".

That leaves us with 104 municipalities in which nationalists won majorities and 3 -Tuzla, Novo Sarajevo and Vareš- for SDP & UBSD (predecessors?). But what about (& which are) the other 2 (of the 109 total) in which nationalists didn't win majorities ? - Best, Ev (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I realy don't know what about that 2 missing municipalities. Is it possible there is an error there? Because there where 109 municipalities in BiH in 1991, and SDP (former communies and reformists) won elections just in 3 (Vareš, Novo Sarajevo and Tuzla, as sourced), and in the rest nationalistic parties should have won....

As for sourcing I see that is should have been better but I can not understand the way how to do it...

--Čeha (razgovor) 23:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There can always be errors, of course. But without further sources to verify it, that's pure especulation on our part.

As for how to indicate sources, don't worry, we'll work on it toghether. :-) You mentioned elsewhere that the problem was in "how to tag [the] exact part of the article where the information lies". Do you mean how to provide a hyperlink to a specific paragraph ? Because that is not necessary. You can provide an hyperlink to the whole article, and explain in text, with simple words, in which part of the article the specific information lies.

In fact, hyperlinks themselves, although very useful, are not indispensable. After all, when using books as sources we can't link to them. You can indicate your sources with plain old text, just as books did before the arrival of computers & the internet. :-)

Just indicate what you used to make the map, and I'll help you to correct any format issues that may appear. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In articles that are still on the net (which are still active) references to the mumicipal results can be found using ctrl-f municipal name. Should I remove links to the articles which are not active anymore? --Čeha (razgovor) 23:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that it would be better not to remove those old links, to keep a clear record of what URLs were used as sources. - If you have time for it, it would be helpful to mention besides each link -still active or not- the date in which you used it (which I assume would be around the time you added the link to the article). I do it by adding "Retrieved on Day Month Year" after the link, but you can use any clear format with which you feel comfortable.

Oh, I just discovered the existence of Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, which may be simpler to understand :-) Best, Ev (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Persumed Izbori 1990.GIF listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Persumed Izbori 1990.GIF, 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. Ev (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]