User talk:Praxis Icosahedron

New user?

Hi, are you a new user? Or a returning old one? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New or returning old one?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina Invitation

Hello! I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina. We work on creating, expanding and making general changes to Bosnia and Herzegovina related articles. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Participants Page! Thank You.

-- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 20:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Croats of BiH

Nobody mentioned Stećci at all, why do you ad them? And about settelment of Croats, see the source I added. Croats settled in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well, and they inhabitet majority of it. Most of Bosnia was under Croatia, see sources as well. --Wüstenfuchs 17:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any further discussion, so I assume this issue is resolved. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniaks - Santa

Thanks and good luck, indeed !

(Hopefully without too much fuss.) --Santasa99 (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bošnjani

De Administrando Imperio described the region of Bosona as one of two small regions behind he hills that the Serbs inhabit, nearby Rascia, and that's a source describing some period between the 9th and the 12th century (I don't remember if that particular claim from it has been reliably dated). Either way, it should slightly predate the first mention of the Bošnjani. We also know from the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja about the existence of Stephen, Duke of Bosnia, who was definitely part of the Serb royal genealogy in the 11th century. So there's evidence of some Serb presence in the region, however scarce. Since overall evidence from that period is scarce, historians had decide basically based on educated guesses whether this was relevant or not.

Best thing we can do is find some actual historians to reference the article from. Until that's done, we're left with what's possibly just a hodgepodge.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, 10th century, whichever, the point is that it's earlier than the Banate of Bosnia. In general, you're missing the fact that DAI had several parallel descriptions of the same events in different chapters, and that they weren't necessarily internally consistent :) the Bosona mention is in chapter 32, see the two references in Medieval Bosnia. I'd very much welcome a contribution referenced from Bašić's book to explain what went on in the other chapters at the same time.

You may be correct that this is largely irrelevant to the Bošnjani article, but the text that Natalino was censoring there says that there were references to Serbs/Serbia/Rascians/Rascia in the same period while Bošnjani was in use, and the analysis of their juxtaposition is useful to explain the status of Bosnia at the time. The text says that the Bosnians clearly differentiated themselves from the Rascians, but sometimes they didn't differentiate themselves from Serbs, that's the point. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting it as universal fact should have been limited to the scope of the work, which is a single chapter rather than the entire work, you're right. I assure you that engaging in pan-Serbian propaganda is anything but a favorite pastime of mine. I'll tag that until you have time to elaborate on it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics table

Catholics in Bosnia and Herzegovina were shaped as a Croatian nation in 19th century. Those catholics are ancestors of present-day Croats, and those Catholics were Croats during the Kingdom of Croatia, so it is completely normal to list them as Croats. --Wüstenfuchs 18:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got your point... how about two tables? We list them as Catholics to Austria-Hungary and from Austria-Hungary till today as Croats? --Wüstenfuchs 19:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is so... but the term Bosniak should be avodied, insted you should use the term Bosnian. It is also widely accepted term in English-language literature. I'll add two table soon. --Wüstenfuchs 20:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about his religion, it's rather about the time when he lived, that is, in time when modern nations in Bosnia and Herzegovina weren't still formed, from that reason I removed him. --Wüstenfuchs 16:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should exclude Andrić, I'll find some replacement. To add this, you should discuss this at Croats talk page as well, but I gave you my opinion. --Wüstenfuchs 05:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Wüstenfuchs claims not to be an ethno-nationalist, and THIS is how he spends his spare time? What's next, messuring skull sizes of Bosniaks against those of Croats and Serbs? Jesus Christ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.96 (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will you stop harrasing me now IP? It's been for days you follwing my edits, everything I wrote, just stop it! --Wüstenfuchs 05:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bosniaks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avars (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Software

Here you can find a list of free software used by wikipedians for map making.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Map making

No idea what's BCP, sorry. I made some edits to a few maps using Gimp for PNGs and Inkscape for SVGs. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

Hello, I'm Jeff G.. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Muslims (nationality) without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks,   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My edits

No better thing to do then follow my edits? About this article, I removed source which wasn't cited properly. Cite me pages of Velikonja, and we are fine. --Wüstenfuchs 22:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not give me my psychological anaylisis. Your edit at my talk page are rather subjective, and you obviously refuse to discuss the source and the article. The source had no pages, I replaced it with one that has. And you may have noticed that Zovko's book isn't very much different from Velikonja's. --Wüstenfuchs 08:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About Velikonja, did you bused the source, as bages 131-134 can't be seen at Google Books... can you cite few paragraphs at the talk page? --Wüstenfuchs 09:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I wish you a happy New Year. I had no bad intentions. I'm improving this article, and I'm not forbiding you to edit. I just find it easier to erase all infos that didn't contained pages at the time or I cosidered them replacible. I'll use anglophone sources where I can, but the problem is, who writes about the Condominium of Bosnia and Herzegovina as Croats/Bosniaks/Serbs do. Believe me, I'm not trying to denie anybodies self-determination (Meša Selimović's article is my proof). I hope we can improve this article. And again, all the best in 2013. --Wüstenfuchs 19:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of BiH (1878-1918)

Sorry for this, but I was in a hurry last nigh. But I again can't see pages from Velikonja... This is what I get when I enter the link, the discription says "Du har antigen kommit till en sida som inte visas eller.." It's not in English, don't know why. This is why I asked you to citme this paragraph. I hope it's not a problem. --Wüstenfuchs 08:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see 130-135 --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Matrakçı Nasuh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Visoko (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source

I've removed a label you added on Aqif Bluta, but if there's an offline source that supports it, feel free to revert it back. As far as I know NP of that era was a mixed area of Albanian- and Slavic-speaking Muslims, so we only have definite identity markers for the notable figures of the region and I'd go as fas as saying that there existed a local identity at some level.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic vs. anglophone sources

Sanjak of Novi Pazar certainly received much more attention of sources you referred as domestic than in English language sources. Language of the source does not make the source questionable or reliable. Sanjak of Novi Pazar could not be part of any administrative unit which title is "Bosnia and Herzegovina" simply because there was no such administrative unit before 1878. Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first. With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, to prevent edit warring and disillusioning either other editors or yourself (if your hard work is rejected by others).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Mirza Delibasic Bosna 1973.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mirza Delibasic Bosna 1973.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Mak Dizdar.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mak Dizdar.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Sanela Catic Jenkins.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Sanela Catic Jenkins.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniaks infobox

Many image choices in the montage are poor and aren't portraits (Dzeko and Spaho full body shot, Tanovic side shot, uncropped Kulenovic bust shot), images are skewed in the montage and weren't properly scaled, things like cropping, contrast, and color haven't been´taken into account, and replacing an individual may mean uploading two images as opposed to one (one for the original to exist, second for the montage). You put 14 individuals to fit in two rows which is understandable since you want to have full rows, but that means decreasing the size for everyone for it to fit and renders it at such a size that it appears pointless. The image array also allows for names to appear right under the individuals. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a cropped version. The first image admittedly had a mugshot feel to it. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 21:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello, thank you :) Ana Radic (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Adnan Zahirović. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 09:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa Whoa! Relax before people around here start questioning your alleged administrator's privileges. The way you are tossing off policy threats is likened to abusing them, and not to say utterly offensive. If you aspire holding your office for very long you certainly need to obey the basics of diplomacy. As I in vain tried to explain to you in the edit summary Bosnians (which constitute no ethnicity as per se) belong to either of three ethnicities (called constituent nations in the legislation of Bosnia-Herzegovina): Bosniaks (Muslim) (48%), Bosnian Serbs (Orthodox) (37.1%), and Bosnian Croats (Catholic) (14.3%). Apart from a very small number of Albanians, Jews and Roma people, the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina is to 99.4% comprised of its "constituent nations". This can be verified under the entry for Bosnia and Herzegovina on the CIA World Factbook page: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bk.html. Adnan Zahirović is Bosniak, because you will not find Croats or Serbs giving their children Muslim names (Adnan (name)) nor will you find Serbs or Croats with surnames who make reference to Islam (Zahir (Islam)), ović in this case is a Slavic patronymic found in all ethnic groups.Praxis Icosahedron ϡ - Talk 11:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Introduce a reliable source to Verify that Zahirović is Bosniak, rather than using original research based on "Muslim" and "non-Muslim" names (ridiculous concept!). FYI, me bein an Admin has nothing to do with it, but interesting to see you going straight there. GiantSnowman 11:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Beckham 1/4 Jewish but whatever. If you continue to add religious/ethnic categories to BLPs without reliable sources, and based purely on names, then I will seek a topic ban. You might also want to remove the "I am a humble and modest editor committed to promoting neutrality and objectivity by providing articles with citations" biog from your user page as it's patently false. GiantSnowman 12:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm not trying to prove that Beckham is English - the burden of evidence is on you. Feel free to request sanctions against me for whatever reason you feel, but keep WP:BOOMERANG in the back of your mind if you choose to go down that path. GiantSnowman 12:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather very simple - find a RS, add the categories. No RS = no categories. GiantSnowman 12:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hi Joy

Hi there. That message of yours was unexpected - typically people don't use user talk for small talk. I usually think that's a good idea, but it's sometimes nice to break from the convention :) Things have been, well, fairly typical - in the last week or so I've had to roll back hundreds of anonymous edits consisting of unadulterated nationalist vandalism, and tag dozens of articles with cleanup tags. Didn't have as much time as I would have wanted for improving articles myself. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's just Balkan stuff because that's the bulk of my watchlist. A similar kind of nonsense happens everywhere else where entrenched real-world biases are involved. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cookies!

	Here's a plate full of cookies to share!
	Hi Praxis Icosahedron, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! WhiteWriter^speaks 14:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cookies.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something to have in the Bosniak-article?

I don't know if you are Bosniak/Bosnian, so I don't know if you understand this, but if you do, would this be something to put into the article about Bosniaks:

"To svjedočanstvo zapisao je Philipp Calimah u životopisu poljskog kralja Vladislava Varnečika (1440-1444), koji je izabran ugarskim i hrvatskim kraljem poslje smrti Alberta II. Izborom toga vladara bili su oduševljeni bosanski kralj Stjepan Tvrtković kao i srpski despot Đorđe Branković. Kralj Stjepan Tvrtković poslao je odmah ovome kralju "sjajno poslanstvo odličnih muževa", veli Vladislavov biograf pa nastavlja: "Ovi su, ispričavši porijeklo svoga plemena isticali, da su Bošnjacima bili isti pradjedovi kao i Poljacima te da im je zajednički jezik kojim govore i da se radi te srodnosti jezika i porijekla njihov kralj Tvrtko II živo raduje, što je Vladislav - kako se je pronio glas - sretan u svojim pothvatima. Mnogo su nadalje isticali priliku kako bi se radi srodnosti i susjedstva mogli, šta više i morali, ujedinjenom snagom i savjetom među sobompomagati protiv užasnog turskog zuluma koji im prijeti." - Source: Muhamed Hadžijahić, page 7. - Od tradicije do identiteta, http://bs.scribd.com/doc/77645161/Dr-Muhamed-Had%C5%BEijahi%C4%87-Od-Tradicije-Do-Identiteta

Then: "Od važnosti je i napomenuti da su upravo za Bosnu vezani jedni od prvih spomena ilirskog imena. Naime u XVI. glavi historijsko-geografskog djela "De Europa" čuvenog humaniste E. S. Piccolominija, kasnijeg pape Pija II. (1405 - 1464) navodi se sljedeće: "Poslije Albanije dolaze ilirska plemena (Illyricae gentes); taj soj ljudski naziva naše doba Slavenima (Sclavos) i Bošnjacima; drugi ih opet zovu Dalmantincima, Hrvatima, Istranima i Kranjcima". Da je etnonim Bošnjak bio rano poznat i u Bosni pokazuje fojnički grbovnik, čija se kopija čuva u fojničkom samostanu, koji tobože potjeće iz 1340. godine, a po svojoj prilici iz prve polovice XVII stoljeća, u kojem se poistovećuje "bosansko aliti iliričko vladanie". Puni naslov grbovnika glasi: "Rodoslovie bosanskoga aliti iliričkoga i sarpskoga vladania, zaiedno postavgleno po Stanislavu Rubčiću popu, na slavu Stipana Nemagnića cara Sarbglena i Bošgnaka, 1340."

So, I thinkt that you are better in English then I am, so if you think that this would be good to have in the article, would you maybe translate and write it down?

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norrskensstämmor (talk • contribs) 01:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll look through it in due time. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 02:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cookies!

	Here's a plate full of cookies to share!
	Hi Praxis Icosahedron, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! Sokac121^speaks 14:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Praxis Icosahedron thanks for the cookies:)--Sokac121 (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prlic

Serbs are mentioned in the AlJazeera article while the Hague talks more neutrally about "non-Croats". I agree the victims were mostly Bosniak but it would be better to find the exact data for the sake of quality of the article. Perhaps it can be found in the indictment? Regards, --Avala (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi P.I. I appreciate much of the work you have done to the Bozniaks article. My comment was that to start what is essentially a history paragraph with war crimes and the hague paints a very bleak picture, does little to celebrate the beauty of Bosniak people, and is of questionable direct relevance as to the origins of the Bosniak people. As someone of Macedonian descent, i sympathyse with yor peoples struggle for recognistion and your neighbours irredentism; however, it just 'sounds bad'. I'm sure you could think of a better place to put the first two paragraphs.

My main specialty/interest is the earliest /ancient parts of South Slavic history. I hope some day soon to embark on improvements /update on all Medieval Balkan states articles - Bosnia, Duklja, etc; and look forward to your collaboration. Regards Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the origins of every nation are shrouded in mystery, and ultimately, all nations of today are more or less new, despite how ancient we'd like to think they are, whether ancient Illyrians, or macedonians, or Greeks. Much has come to light regarding the South Slavs recently with better, less nationalist methodology and new archaeological finds. To name a couple of innovations :

- there were no seperate Serb or Croat migrations, who ultimately come from Iran since anceint times. that is just nonsense word play; and the Croats and Serbs first emerge as political groups in the 9th and 8th centuries CE, respectively.This emergence was one of political ethnogenesis. In fact, until 9th cnetury, no one had ever used the name Croat, previously the power in northern Dalmatia were the Guduscans.

- the region of Bosnia propper, ie between the Drina and Bosna, before the 13th century expansions, etc; appears to have been almost deserted , just like most of the balkans, from c. 550 AD to the 8th century. Of course pockets of people survived here and there, but simply, there is no real proof for an existence. The first edieval finds, eg from Muzici, date to 750 AD on the analogies of finds dated to the Avar khanate.

- Bosnia was sparesely inhabited until the 12th century, when the mineral ores (just like in Roman times) attracted settlers and miners, etc. Little is known about it politically, and was probably for the most part self-ruled, minorpolity.

- the earliest mention of Bosnia is in de Administrando Imperio in the 10th century, which states it was a chorion (= terriotry) of Serbia (ie at that time ruled by Caslav Klonimirovic). And then ofcourse it switched to and fro for a while, but never really incoporated to either,until Kulin, Tvrtko and its goldern Age, etc.

- so there you have it, Bosnia was never settled by beliHrvati, nor beliSrbi, because such migrations were invented 3 hundred years later by constantine Prophyrogenitus. They were just Slavs like everyone else, who merely formed a polity slightly later because of its smaler population and more isolated location. "original Serbia" was between Drina, Ibar and bar rivers, Croatia did parts of what is northwestern Bosnia, and herzegovina was formed by the independent principalities of Pagania, Travunia, and Zahumlje which at times also came under Serb rule until they came part of Bosnia also from 13th century. These were all jsut "political'events, not "ethnic", thus no one really "owns" anything from the original times until borders were more established in the eraly modern period Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is also my pleasure to come across such an eredute editor, unfortunately far too rare on Wikipedia.

Whatever the case most historians recognize the fact that the Serb and Croat migrations would have been considerably less numerous than the generic Slav migrations ("Sclaveni") into the area'

I take this further, and go along the lines of Florin Curta and others recently (I'd have to fish out the papers) and say that not only was it less numerous, but it did not exist. Simply, there were no Serb or Croat nations who descended upon the Balkans from Poland , or what have you, numerous or just a small elite. Rather, there was political organization. In the case of the Croats, they appear to have succeeded the mysterious "guduscans" in ruling Lika, and the surrounds, and formed as a responce to encroachment by Franks, Byzantines, etc, perhaps on the basis of former bans placed by the now defunct Avars. Same with Serbs, but viz-a-viz Bulgaria and Byzantines.

these Slavs were one people speaking one and the same language which explains the common language of Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia today. To be perfectly accurate, this language is neither Bosnian, Croatian or Serbian but rather South West Slavic

Yes the imperial langauge of the Avar khaganate, in contrast to Bulgaro-Macedonian which was already a different dialect spoken in the Bulgar khaganate.

What is also true is that Bosnia was on a considerable distance from both writing centers of the time, Rome and Constantinople, so much less is known about its course of early history. The mention of Bosnia in the De Administrando Imperio simply reflects the political circumstance at that point,

definitely political. It simply means that Cazlav might have ruled Bosnia (however defined) at this time. Just like DAI states that the Travunians, Zachlumians, etc are 'descended from unbaptized Serbs" because at the time , they were under Caslav's rule. So , as commonly done, a contemporary political arragement was given geneaological -mythological basis.

moreover the exact translation is matter of dispute (i.e. whether it really says "of Serbia"). Whatever the exact nature of the early migrations and associated ethnic formations, it is safe to conclude that the Slavic-speaking populations of ancient Serbia and Croatia appear to have organized themselves into coherent units earlier than the Slavs of Bosnia who continued to exist on a local, individual, basis for a longer period of time. I suggest reading "The Roots of the Religious, Ethnic, and National Identity of the Bosnian-Herzegovinan Muslims" by Denis Basic which probes a lot of the classic nationalist contention.

Im pretty sure I recently read it. Realy good book. Also goes into gentetics, etc , if I remember coerect.

I am, however, pretty surprised to read that Bosnia proper (the very geographic origin of its state formation) would have been near deserted between the 6th and 13th centuries. Is there any proper historic rationale for this apart from the lack of archaeological findings which could be explained by the still incomplete survey of the area to this date? No doubt, Bosnia was probably less densely populated (as any mountainous region in the old world) but describing it as deserted is a bit over the top. In fact, I find the claim that the Slavic migrations would have eradicated the indigenous population fairly refuted, T E Gregory writes: It is now generally agreed that the people who lived in the Balkans after the Slavic "invasions" were probably for the most part the same as those who had lived there earlier, although the creation of new political groups and arrival of small immigrants caused people to look at themselves as distinct from their neighbours, including the Byzantines.

Not the 13th century, thats' when it really started becoming urbanized etc. However, there is definitely a hiatus for at least 100 years. Not just Bosnia, but the entire Dinaric heartland, as well as much of Bulgaria. The last of the Dinaric hilltop sites appear to be abandoned (ie abandoned, not burned or destroyed) (Slovenia -> southern Serbia, Dardania/ kosovo, northern Macedonia) by 600 AD. Now, there is debate about dating artefacts, and of course we always need to excavate more sites, however the earliest medieval "Slavic" villages appear in the 8th century, but more so in the 9th. This has been pretty well established. For a long time, i was clinging to the fact that simply, the population could not have just disappeared, but became 'archaeologically invisible'. However, this requires special pleading, and would require the population to have devolved to a mesolithic level of existence. What Tim gregory says makes sense theoretically, and Daniel Dzino wrote the same thing basically - that the Balkan -Roman population simply 'became Slavs' by acquiring new langauge and culture; but where were they ?? Surely they didn't live on the trees like Elves :) I think more needs to be researched, however, my strong impression is that the Balkans might have been repopulated from Pannonia - the Avar khanate - which was rich, wealthy and had thousands of thousands of settlements during this period.

The only area where there was some continuity as on the Dalmatian coast, from Istria to Albania (where the so-called "Old -Croat" culture existed and evolved from Roman -> Ostrogothic -> Slav/ Croat times; as well as the Komani-Kruje culture in Albania and western macedonia, along the via Egnatia, to south-east Bulgaria. There, a 'late Roman' culture continued into the 9th century, until it finally ended with the advance of the Bulgarian Tsars into Macedonia and northern Greece.

This has actually also been corroborated by genetic studies showing a large degree of "paleolithic signatures" in the genome of the South Slavs. I do not consider it outlandish to infer the South Slavs to be "less" Slavic than their northern counterparts.

Ah my, both, favourite and most hated area, because people misunderstand thing so badly. Now, the problem is Rootsi et al, who did the very first paper on haplogroup I, and whose findings a repeated like parrots in many subsequent papers, including Pericic, Barac, etc; are **completely wrong**. They used an incorrect mutation rate and did not notice the star-like expansion pattern of Dinaric haplogroup I2 STRs. As numerous amateur genetic genealogists have noted, haplogrup I in the Balkans appears to have had a very recent and sudden expansion, dated to c. 2000 -15000 years ago , ~ 500 AD. Now , that this frequency peaks in Herzegovina and Bosnian Croats suggests a recent founder effect, and not a LGM refugium status. In fact, despite widespread popularity, the Balkans does not appear to have been a LGM refugial area, at least not for huamns (maybe for a lot of plants and some animals)- the only evidence for LGM settelments unfortunately comes from Spain- Cantabria and the Ukraine (and possible the Danube gorges; not the east Adriatic). All this means, what the general public views to be "a marker of the pre-Slavic, "Illyrian heritage" of Balkan Slavs actually seems to have expanded in the early middle Ages, ie the "Slavic" period. Its overall age in Europe, of course, is 22 thousand years ago, but this is very different to when it expanded in the Balkans, to account for its high prevalence now. From where it expanded is far more difficult to answer, - it could be from within the Balkans itself, or could be Romania/ Wallachia or pannonia/middle Danube/ Slovakia. it seems that Croatia (mainland) , Slovenia share a similar population history with hungary, Slovakia, etc, whislt Bulgaria, macedonia, Serbia, northern Greece and Romania share another. As for, West Slavs and East SLavs, they have a very different history. I should know, I am Hg I2 !

Nada Klaić, an influential Croatian female historian, has even proposed that the South Slavs formed their first polity in Bosnia under Avar rule.

Perhaps, but there would surely be some signs of a "centre of power" eg forts, churches, cult sites, wealthy burials, etc (which have been found eg at Ras, or Nitra, or Biograd na moru). Hopefully, as peace and prosperity returns to Bosnia, good archaeological research will provide more answers for the haert of the west balkans, Bosnia.

Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PROTEST

On this Wikipedia hard to offend some people and their national languages​​, ignoring the facts and international documents. The fact that the Serbian and Croatian two different standard languages, here it does not matter how big the difference is, it deals with linguistics. Why did you lie about that?

What are these languages: http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomo%C4%87:Sadr%C5%BEaj http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%9B:%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B0%D1%98

See official international documents:

1. https://www.ethnologue.com/subgroups/indo-european
2. http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_changes.php
3. http://euobserver.com/news/31343
4. http://hrv.nsk.hr/dokumenti/Sluzbeno-prihvacanje-izmjena-ISO-639-2-Registration-Authority.pdf
5. http://www.danshort.com/ie/iesatem.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.227.18.219 (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ekrem Jevrić, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roma people (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Delibasic

Are there any sources (even unreliable ones) that say specifically that he is Muslim? I can't even find anything that states he is Bosniak. Adding the category will be blatant violation of WP:OR Spiderone 17:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so we're going on names now are we? So Zlatan Ibrahimovic, Mohammed George, Enver Hoxha, Omar Epps and Tatyana Ali are all Muslims then, by that logic? Spiderone 18:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or to provide two famous examples of people commonly thought to be Muslim but not: Usain Bolt and Barack Obama! Spiderone 18:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Praxis Icosahedron. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bosancica

I have never said that the script is a Serbian invention, my reply to DemirBajraktarevic was after his continuing edit-warring on the terms Serbo-Croatian and her name in Serbian Cyrillic script. First of all, the article (Bosnian Cyrillic) is still a stub, and fails to present academic view on the matter. It has been called an alphabet based on Cyrillic, Cyrillic influenced by Glagolitic, a Cyrillic variant, a Cyrillic minuscule, western type of Cyrillic, etc. As I see that this lies in your interest, I suggest that you perhaps work on that article, instead of calling me preposterous.--Zoupan 11:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A case of mistaken identity?

Hey, saw this revert you did on Sokollu Mehmed Pasha. You wrote "Ithinkicahn, you seem to be very keen on editing Ottoman Balkan history. This is classically disputed territory with numerous sources claiming him simply as Bosnian instead. There is an agreement to avid ethnic labels altogether." as your edit summary.

I agree with you completely, but I think you meant to say DemirBajraktarevic's name, since it's his edit you reverted. He seems to be very interested in attaching modern Bosnian nationalist sentiments and terms to articles he edits.

If you actually meant me, though, it could be my mistake. The article before I edited it said "Serbian" and I had left it alone. So by all means, proceed, I'm all for avoiding ethnic labels for a region where such outlines are extremely unclear and arbitrary.

Cheers,

Ithinkicahn (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bosnian Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

Pleasure. I'm sorry if we got off to a shaky start you and me. I'm not a perfect editor but for anything I do which may seem slanted, feel free to open discussion on my talk page and we can come to some agreement I am certain. My own personal background is mixed Bosniak and Serb (I personally declare Yugoslav but that's my own view on things, I don't press that on others). Naturally I have that sensitive bone if I feel the Serbian position has been misrepresented on things (but that more involves arguing with outsiders from "further west", not so much the neighbouring nations), but in real terms I could never choose between one population and another, I love the music of Hari Mata Hari (zabavna) and Halid Bešlić (narodna) as much as I do Đorđe Balašević and Ceca. Naturally the conventional teachings across this globe has produced many misconceptions about the Bosniaks and I like to play my part in correcting these things too, as well as what Bosnia is and what it stands for. Concerning the Serbo-Croat business, yes that is ludicrous. I know it is all one language for Croatia, BiH, Montenegro & Serbia in four standards but even SC didn't see light of day until mid-19th century, but there is even more to it than that - you know the things I mean. So if the other editor tries to re-insert SC, I'll start a friendly dialogue with him and attempt to explain the matter in more detail. You and Demir are most welcome to take part. Thanks. Zavtek (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Free images

Hi! I searched for some images of Mak Dizdar to eventually upload on Wikipedia, and I don't have a huge knowledge to know if an image is free or not. I guess that images which is Some right reserved can sometimes be used. I found those images on flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/97390687@N05/9030890883/in/photolist-eL2Fee-eLdWTh-eLdu6L-eL224r-eLd4Nd-eLdNrb-eLdteA-eLdoV9-eL2EkD-eL2pBK-eL1KoP-eL22T4-eLdb7S-eLdXNQ-eLdhQS-eLd8oL-eLdLE9-eLdsm3-eL1N4n-eL27jB-eL2tpr-eL1WKi-eL2Nvr-eL1U7D-eL2yTK-eL2ssV-eLd1yb-eLe9M9-eL1GLP-eLd5GS-eL28hi-eL1Skk-eLdbXU-eLd9io-eL2LFc-eLe4j5-eL2fYt-eLdW1d-eLd2Gy-eL29XH-eL1RsD-eL2vit-eL2edv-eLdks5-f2Fp6S-e8wp2g-dNrBDm-f2iuPy-f2rfon-f2FvCL-f2rbPB and http://www.flickr.com/photos/97390687@N05/9030724515/in/photolist-eL1PLP-eLe7YG-eLdRdQ-eL1FWH-eLdZJ1-eL2gSB-eL2m5e-eLdncb-eL1BjP-eLdQjw-eLdJYo-eL1z5Z-eLd2W3-eLdJ8Y-eL2bEK-eL2Ga2-eLd3Sf-eL2cwB-eLecvw-f2FpfQ-f2Fpkj-f2r96n-f2FpqL-eL2nRa-eLdo6U-eLdxPA-eL2Fee-eLdWTh-eLdu6L-eL224r-eLd4Nd-eLdNrb-eLdteA-eLdoV9-eL2EkD-eL2pBK-eL1KoP-eL22T4-eLdb7S-eLdXNQ-eLdhQS-eLd8oL-eLdLE9-eLdsm3-eL1N4n-eL27jB-eL2tpr-eL1WKi-eL2Nvr-eL1U7D-eL2yTK

I don't know if they are free to use or not, and if they are, try to upload them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norrskensstämmor (talk • contribs) 14:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! It would be great if you could upload them if you have time for it. Me and my Wikipedia skills are not so good yet, all I can do so far is to create and update articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norrskensstämmor (talk • contribs) 18:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also by the way think that this one of Isa-Beg Isaković is usable: http://www.radiosarajevo.ba/novost/92648/prica-o-osmanlijama-na-podrucju-sarajeva# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norrskensstämmor (talk • contribs) 19:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. I will try to find something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norrskensstämmor (talk • contribs) 02:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y-DNA Haplogroups

Well, I personally found it was a little too much overkill. I admit it, so I removed all discriptions of less common haplotypes like R1b, G, T, J1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norrskensstämmor (talk • contribs) 22:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. I'll probably reduce it further in due time, if I (or you) find some things unnecessary.

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bosniaks may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. | class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin-top: 0.2em;" |-

! style="background-color: #FAA;" |

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)

|-

| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; " |

• |population = >3 million
• Biology and Evolution | volume = 22 | issue = 10| pages = 1964–1975 }}</ref>. A majority (>67%) of Bosniaks belong to one of the three major European Y-DNA [[Haplogroup|haplogroups]]<ref
• been found.<ref>Glasnik zemaljskog muzeja, 01/07/1894 - ''Vjerske starine iz Bosne i Hercegovine'' (Scridb: http://www.scribd.com/doc/75692611/Glasnik-Zemaljskog-Muzeja-1894-god-6-knj-1</ref><ref>

|} Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillic

After notecing some of your recent edits related to Cyrillic in Bosnia-related articles, I kindly ask you to add your opinion at this discussion in order to stop the existing edit-war on numerous articles and a consensus can be reached. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

◅ PRODUCER (TALK) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas to you, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Yes, I know werry well who Sušić is, but I replaced the image of him because it was a drawn picture of him, and not a photographed one. But it's ok, let it be, I replaced him with Bakir Izetbegović, not with aim to politicize the infobox, but only because Bakir was the only one (fairly significant Bosniak person) with a free image. If there was a free image of e.g. Muhamed Filipović, Hanka Paldum or Safet Isović, I would of course choose one of those three options before Bakir Izetbegović.

By the way, I must ask; do you know how to crop images on wikipedia? Like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Umihana_%C4%8Cuvidina_cropped.jpg I think we need one of Elizabeth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norrskensstämmor (talk • contribs) 18:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Franjo Tudjman (Yugoslav Wars)

You can find my entire explanation at [1].

On a more general note, any trial chamber findings about people who were not on trial are of somewhat virtual nature - it's not them who are on trial, there's yet to be an appeal, and the defence arguments in an appeal process become even more likely to implicate whoever is not their defendant. This is basically why everyone was so dismayed at the deaths of all those big shots before their trials could be conducted.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist

Hey I just created these two pages: Mustaj-beg Fadilpašić and Čika Mišo... could you add them to your watchlist and keep an eye on them in case a certain ethnic group tries to twist history in some way? I am going to Bosnia soon and won't be able to regularly check in to wikipedia --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damir

Hello, please, do not change info about his parents supposedly being Muslims without any source. TheLightBlue (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that, I know it from personal talk, in the latest census, if someone wasn't Muslim, then didn't chose "Bosniak", because if you chose "Bosniak" you are treated like Muslim. Damir is simply "Bosnian". And also, you cannot post information about very delicate ethnic issues without any source. TheLightBlue (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you understood me wrong, but generally it's not about what I know and from where, but you can't write that someone belongs to any ethnic or religious group without any source! Especially when it's wrong information. If Damir will say it personally to you that he is not Bosniak, and on census he didn't choose "Bosniak" you will still saying he is? Believe or not but in Bosnia there are people above divisions, for whom only their nationality matters - "Bosnian and Herzegovinian" or simply "Bosnian" TheLightBlue (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have "encyclopedic" source, so I didn't include those kind of informations in the article. You don't have also, so it would be the best if all will stay as it is - no mention about anyone's ethnic. He declared himself as "Bosnian", simply citizen of Bosnia, he's one of the around 4% of "others" in Bosnia.TheLightBlue (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is some difference. If you call yourself as "Bosniak", you want to belong to one of three major ethnic groups, if you say "Bosnian" ethnic divisions are not important to you, and you are just citizen of this country.TheLightBlue (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have anything against any ethnic or religious group, I'm far from that. But in Bosnia there are quite a good number of people who claime that they don't want to be considered as part of any "big group" (Bosniaks, Serbs, Croats), and they declare themselves only accoriding to their citizenship. And that should be enough in case of Damir - "... Bosnian professional tennis player". That's all. He has Bosnian passport, he represents Bosnia in international competitions, and rest is not needed to inlcude in any biography about him. He is Bosnian. TheLightBlue (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case of Bosnian Serbs or Bosnian Croat situation is much more clearer, cause they quite openly say they feel Serbs or Croats, only "had to be born" in Bosnia (or Yugoslavia, but on current Bosnian soil), they are proud that they speak Serbian or Croatian, etc. For Bosniaks of course Bosnia is "their country", but little percentage of BIH citizens do not want to be recognize either as Bosniak, Croat or Serb and also feel very proud of being Bosnian and all this things. Language is also not a 100% point - Bosnian language is spoken not only by Bosniaks, but also non-Bosniaks, who live there, and don't have affiliation to Serbia or Croatia. Before the war those people were declared as "Yugoslavians" (around 5% I think, according to 1991 census), later the became Bosnians, Serbians (not Serbs), Monenegrins, etc... Damir is one of them. TheLightBlue (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states
:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

FYI, since you've reached 3RR. — kwami (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias

I forget where I read it, but I heard that generalist encyclopedias are best avoided but specialist ones are okay. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chetniks

I noticed you have edited the article, Chetniks. After removing references and referenced information three times, user:User:2A00:C440:20:27E:248A:3A23:609F:A121 has initiated a discussion concerning the fictional[2] and bias[3],[4] of Sabrina Ramet's book, The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building and Legitimation, 1918–2005. I thought you might be interested in this issue. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjin

I made a wiki of a Bosnian politician named Sanjin Halimović during the protests and riots in Bosnia earlier this year. In the past week somebody has been deleting most of the sourced information about Mr. Halimović that shows the reason people gong like him. I reverted an IP... Then I'm assuming that IP user made an account. I reverted that too... Now another new account has been deleting sourced information from the wiki.... Can you help me report these users or get the page protected? --Sabahudin9 (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello friend. I am currently investigating sock puppets of User:No such user. Help me if you find something. --Lumi (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CarRadovan

The asked process in motion against the user. Kind regards Seader (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Hi,
Do Thefreshtake's edits look like somebody who has edited before? Perhaps somebody who was recently sanctioned? bobrayner (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP edit warring on Bosnian article

Hello. I noticed that there's been some trouble over at Bosnian War with a user who keeps using IP socks to reinsert the same information regarding Iran and Turkey's apparent involvement in the war. While I would certainly agree that s/he is being rather disruptive, I was just a little curious about exactly why you and a few other users have continuously rejected those changes. I mean, they don't really appear unconstructive or unverifiable to me. Was there a particular reason that you don't feel it belongs there? Thank you for your time, and I hope to hear back from you soon! Radioman450 (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herzegovina

[File:Bosna_regija_update.jpg] represents only Herzegovina in Austria-Hungary (1878-1918), this map exclude Tomislavgrad, North Posušje, Prozor-Rama and Foča, so as that's incorrect to represents modern Herzegovina. [File:Herzegovina.JPG] is correct.

Ulog, Glavatičevo, Blagaj, Počitelj is villages, not municipality or city. We can enumerate another hunderds villages in Herzegovina with this criteria.

Old Flag of Herzegovina (Zachlumia) [File:Flag_of_the_Duchy_of_Herzegovina.svg] see [File:Kosačegrb.png], ref [File:Grb_kosaca.gif] Stramput (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Your edit is POV. Map of Herzegovina in Austria-Hungary is historic map (40 years lifespan) not modern.

In Belgrade Armorial II (Beogradski grbovnik II) at the top of Kosača Coat of Arm is flag with red background and white double cross."Duchy of Herzegovina.....is not in any sort of continuity with Zachlumia". Yes, it's true just as "Banate of Bosnia is not in any sort of continuity with Bosnia". Both of them are separate historical entities separated by several centuries just as you said.

False accusation about sock puppet is shameless. If you disagree seems that we need neutral view. Stramput (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your objection that 'File:Herzegovina.JPG' include Rudo is not truth. 'File:Bosna_regija_update.jpg' excludes broadness municipalities Tomislavgrad, North Posušje, Prozor-Rama and Foča. Is this yours neutrality.

The Old Herzegovinian Flag have references in two ancient armorials and one great seal on charter in Archive of Dubrovnik. During 15th century coat of arms has been primary insignia while flags has been secondary. In 15th century great coat of arms sometimes contains flags, just as actual flags often contains coat of arms. That's primary sources. Now, you need assert originatin of this flag 'File:Flag of Western Herzegovina.svg' Stramput (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bosniaks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Slavic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Ares

The wiki for singer Donna Ares is under her birth name Azra Kolakovic. I tried moving it to her stage name but it said I can't. I'm assuming the page had been named that previously... how do i change it back to Donna Ares. She was just diagnosed with cancer and i want to flesh out her bio--Sabahudin9 (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Praxis Icosahedron!

Happy New Year!

Praxis Icosahedron,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Hi man

Y don't U contribute on Bosnian Wikipedia? --Munja (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Gazi Husrev-beg Mosque, Sarajevo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Gazi Husrev-beg Mosque, Sarajevo.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've got a proposed tag markup change for you

Could you perhaps have a look at [[[User:Drcrazy102/sandbox#Praxis_Icosahedron's_user-tag_markup|this proposed change to your user-tag]] as I noticed it had some slight markup issues. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BiH census map

Hi Praxis. I'm trying to understand this edit summary. You suggest that the data is biased, but then say that EU has not ruled the methodology invalid. What is your rationale for removing the map? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Larry, if you pay closer attention to the edit summary you shall note that I have made a difference between the pure demographic data of the diagram and the diagram ("image") as a whole which in addition contains written claims given in both BSC and English. It is these written claims which are at best false if not malicious, for they claim the EU to have disqualified the census methodology which is blatantly wrong. For the sake of POV and factual accuracy, the diagram/map/image cannot remain even if its purely demographic data/representation is correct (I'm assuming it is). The diagram needs to be stripped of its fallacious claims and returned in a purely demographic state. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 17:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. Looking at your summary again, it now makes sense. We should probably request that the image be deleted from the Commons. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I'm currently adding tags of dispute to all the affected maps by the author in question on Commons. However, I do not have the knowledge nor the time to currently induce a proper process on Commons against the disinformation at hand (which might easily spread throughout a large number of Wikipedias by usage of the maps which are rather well-made). I would be very grateful if someone could. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 17:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done with the tagging on commons! Also I noticed another error in the maps regarding Bosanski Petrovac in northeastern Bosnia. Both Bosniaks and Serbs are given a population percentage of 50-75 % for the municipality in question, which for obvious reasons cannot be the case. In the composite map for all three major ethnic groups the Serbs are dubbed the absolute majority in the municipality, which is a bit questionable considering the elected mayor for the municipality in the post-war era has been Bosniak. This error, and the possible POV issue, makes me question the total accuracy of the maps by the responsible author. Some of his maps are left in the 'Demographic history of BiH' article, I have to leave now but I would appreciate if you could clean them out. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 18:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tagging the images. I have also raised the issue at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Issue with caption on Bosnian census maps. I wasn't sure which maps the Bosanski Petrovac error applied to, so perhaps you could note that in the discussion there? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Etiquette

Lost your etiquette? You seem to have WP experience, so I didn't expect you having "had enough" with me based on our differing views at Stephen (honorific), without even talking to me directly. As you know, the article Serb Muslims is in its infancy. Numerous anthropological and historiographical studies, which, I assure you, are more in line with connecting the Bosnian Muslims with Serbs than not, are yet to be added. Your claim that the view that the majority of Bosnian Muslims are of Serb origin is based on so-called "evidence" of two commonly used examples by Serb nationalist (Mesa Selimovic and Mehmet Pasha Sokolovic) is plain-out false. I also noted the Bošnjani article which leaves out a crucial fact — the (more) archaic ethnonym attributed to the Bosnian population being Serbs. I expect your answer to that would be that it is Serbian megalomania. I would appreciate that you in the future ping me at talk pages to discuss matters (as you seem to have no interest in talking to me directly) rather than go cahoots.--Zoupan 19:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zoupan

I should only warn you that he works with several editors. I already see that 23 editor has already joined. FkpCascais could be next if needed. 89.164.179.27 (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is that suppose to be a threat? Well I'll tell you what, bring "Antidiskrimintor" as well. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 17:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This IP is a sock of Asdisis. This person has left similar weird messages on my talk page in the past. Craving for attention, I suppose. 23 editor (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up 23 editor! :) Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 18:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 7 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Bosnia and Herzegovina page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Praxis Icosahedron. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Praxis Icosahedron. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Umihana Čuvidina 2.jpg

The file File:Umihana Čuvidina 2.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessing Rape in Bosnian War

Hello @Praxis Icosahedron:, I would like to conduct "individual re-assessment" on "Rape in Bosnian War" article, which was, as I noticed, reviewed in somewhat inappropriate manner back in 2014, after its first (and only nomination?), with reviewer being a POV pusher, quite prejudical and antagonistic toward the known facts in the topic's subject matter, and that review was conducted with, in my humble opinion, obvious prejudice. I am contacting you as one (and only active) of the editors who were involved in nomination and review process, and to see if you are still around - it depends on that if I am going to take it into "community assessment" or chose to conduct "individual review" myself. So, ping me if you are interested to participate, I will wait on your reply.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]