User talk:Rave92/Archive 1

Montenegro

it's cool that you don't depart. Ukraine supports you :) are you Montenegrin? --Riwnodennyk ✉ 13:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am :) - Rave92

how do u realize the motivation that makes some of wikipedians change language to “Serbian”? --Riwnodennyk ✉ 15:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you mean? - Rave92

i'm just interested in the causes of this war of edits in the articles about Montenegro, where language is mentioned, and some wikipedians change it from Montenegrin to Serbian, other do the opposite. --Riwnodennyk ✉ 23:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea, Serbs just can't accept that this is not Serbian. So only they can do is editing wikipedia :).- Rave92

Please stop

...and actually read the part of text you change (the notification). Thanks. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope :).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rave92 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 18 November 2007

I'm sorry but those are Wikipedia's rules. If you want to pay edit, you will have to follow them. Also please see WP:3RR. You've just violated that rule. Thanks. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Montenegro. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not side with any of the side of this dispute. But Wikipedia's policy prohibit you from reverting something more then three times. One more revert and I would have to report it. Happy editing, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Oj, svijetla majska zoro

Spare me. The song was written more than a century before "Montenegrin language" was invented. Nikola (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand what are you trying to achieve with this, and why are you continuing to claim that the song is written in Montenegrin. You don't deny the fact that the song was written more than a century before the term "Montenegrin language" was introduced. You may also note that third line of the second verse is Koji nikad ne poznaše but if it is written in Zeta speech it should be Koji nigda ne poznaše. This song is more Serbian than the Mountain Wreath. Nikola (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you are changing the article so that it says that the first version of the song is in Montenegrin, which you yourself say is not true. Second, as I told you above, even the newest version is not different from standard Serbian. Nikola (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have said that is isn't written in Montenegrin language:

I am changing as this anthem isn't the same like first, and therefore current is written in Montenegrin language.

If the current is written, one can assume that the former is not.

Either way, you are completely wrong: Serbo-Croatian standard language is a Serbian dialect, not the other way around. One would usually say that things that are not different are the same, but perhaps you will disagree..... Nikola (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that I reported you for WP:3RR violation. Nikola (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Talk:Montenegro has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. G ! B B i 3^{I4m 733t0rz} 14:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: ??

I'm not against it but problem is, the language hasn't been codified at all, no words truly exist as set out by the Montenegrin PEN Center, University of Montenegro or more importantly the Montenegrin Matrix. And honestly, Montenegrin is just a hybrid of Serbian mixed with localisms. --Prevalis (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And acting like the way you are is not proper for a Wikipedian and could get you blocked, something neither I nor you want. So just relax, we'll shut them up and have the last word, don't worry ;) --Prevalis (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Nemoj to tako, brate. Srbi nijesu toliko loši ljudi kao što misliš. I have to admit, though, the Serbs here do act up on us Montenegrins, but what can we do, they think they are the "alpha-dogs", always have - always will. We just have to wait for the damn Government to give the Montenegrin language the green light in its Educational system and then we can start showin' off our true Red and Gold colors ;) --Prevalis (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look again.

Hi there!

There were vandal edits from a unknow IP (but I guess that is a Albanian nationalist) and I reverted it to the last version which done by you, you can see it. There is nothing wrong with you. Regards! Angelo De La Paz (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That is OK. Have a nice day! :) Angelo De La Paz (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oj, svijetla majska zoro (2)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Oj, svijetla majska zoro. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Nikola (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

24h, edit warring, you know where William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

When will Wikipedia stand to defend Montenegrin articles from Serbs? You don't see me going on Serb articles and editing their pages, so they shouldn't be bother doing that on our ones. Rave92 (talk)

To point out some obvious things: you, or your nation, don't own wiki articles. We encourage people to contribute objectively. Also, you won't get you way by reverting the other side into the ground (ah, the good old days). If you're reverting, stop, and use the article talk page instead William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

But to talk what? It is offical language, just Montenegro can't have their language. Serbs on Serb articles, Croatian on Croat articles, Bosnian on Bosnian articles, why Montenegro needs to be expectation? Rave92 (talk)

Fair use rationale for File:Domainme.png

Thanks for uploading File:Domainme.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:ARBMAC notice

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the Balkans. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part, merely to warn you of the Arbitration Committee's decision. Thank you. - Ev (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Blind reverts at Mokna & Lake Scutari

Rave92, your repeated blind reverts at Mokna & Lake Scutari are removing several minor improvements to those articles, namely:

• Proper formatting per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Foreign terms.
• Additions of {{Convert}} to aid readers used to messure in feets instead of metres.
• Replacement of an old footnote with the standard {{Kosovo-note}}.
• Replacement of an external link to Wiktionary by an interwiki one.
• Correction of typoes; explanation of the Prokletije being a mountain range; inclusion of the form "Lake Skadar", also used in English-language publications.

If you wish to make a particular change to the languages listed, please take care in not undoing the work of other editors, especially without giving any explanation whatsoever for it. That's the correct and the polite thing to do.

Furthermore, do you know of any agreement on the use of "Serbian language" and/or "Montenegrin language" in Montenegro-related articles ? If so, could you please provide me a link to that discussion ? - Thank you already, Ev (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, read the constitution of Montenegro. I think that has maybe some bigger power on decission then some 3 guys discussion it on it? Rave92 (talk)

No, it has not. As I understand it, this is an editorial decision for us to make, and not something that is already decided for us. So, I ask again: could you please provide me a link to any agreement on the use of "Serbian language" and/or "Montenegrin language" in Montenegro-related articles ? - Ev (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, tons of it. Here is one of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oj,_svijetla_majska_zoro Rave92 (talk)

There's no such thing at Talk:Oj, svijetla majska zoro. There's a discussion on that particular song, but no general agreement on what language(s) to mention in all our Montenegro-related articles. I ask again: do you know of any general agreement on the issue ? - Ev (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, try watching on some Montenegrin article related, like article about Montenegro. Rave92 (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

So far I have found nothing clear. I had hoped that you may know of such an agreement, and thus save me the time that reading long archives entails :-) No problem: if I find nothing clear I will start a discussion on the issue at a later moment, and inform you of it. Thank you for the help. – By the way, the article on Montenegro itself currently uses "Montenegrin/Serbian: Црна Гора, Crna Gora". – Regards, Ev (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, just to stop from Serbs editing it. Well I will say it like this, to maybe make it more clear to you :). Montenegrin is official language. Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian and Albanian is known as "in official use also": that means that just beside Montenegrin, they can study that language also, but the real different language is Albanian. You don't see someone edit Montenegrin articles with adding Croatian, Albanian or Bosnian... no you see adding Serbian. I am asking you if you have any impact on Wiki staff and Admins, to try and defeat Montenegro from this attacks as believe me, Serbia is a lot bigger country, and their Internet users everyday go and edit our articles. You don't see us edited their. Montenegrin is official, it is now in schools, government, everywhere. Other languages are just mentioned because of concenzus in parliament. It is weird how only Serbs edit and add their language. Montenegrin should only be for all Montenegrin related articles, like Prokletije and etc... where it isn't in Serbia also, you can see for e.g. on article about Podgorica, it is written only in Montenegrin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podgorica . I don't say it is much different, but Serbo-Croatian is know got names of countries, so we have Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian and Montenegrin. Do you understand now? Rave92 (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of the general issues with the Serbo-Croatian & Montenegrin languages themselves (by "finding something clear" I meant "finding a clear general agreement on how to deal with the issue in our articles"; my apologies for my own lack of clarity there). Thank you for the explanation nonetheless. :-)

I would like to point two things:

First, it is a good thing that non-Montenegrin Wikipedians (including Serbs) edit Montenegro-related articles. It helps to reach and/or maintain the neutral point of view we aim for, which would be quite hard to archieve if those articles were edited by Montenegrins only. When writting about our own countries we often fail to notice our own biases, making "foreigners" editing "our" articles a very important asset. – In the exact same way, it is a good thing that non-Serbs (including Montenegrins) edit Serbia-related articles.

Second, as the lead section guideline currently mentions, the basic criterion to add alternative names (including those in other languages) to the lead section of our articles is not the official status of those names (and languages) in the country in question, or in any other institution. Instead, the "[i]nclusion of non-English names should be seen as a desirable part of maximizing information available to the reader." The guideline goes on to say that "[r]elevant foreign language names [...] are encouraged." To which I would add, for clarity: relevant languages are encouraged.

To summarize: the basic concept is that of relevance to our anglophone readership, and not official status in any particular country or institution.

Of course, the name in a country's official language is relevant for our anglophone readership, and as such it is better to include it. But the official one is not necessarily the only relevant name (or language). The name and language used by a substantial local minority is relevant too, even if it's not in official usage in the country in question.

Applying that criterion to the specific case of Montenegro, I think that:

• The Montenegrin language should be mentioned, because the country's official language is obviously relevant information to our anglophone readership.
• But the Serbian language, which according to the 2003 census is considered as mother tongue by ca. 60% (!!) of the Montenegrin population, is equally relevant information to our anglophone readership, and I think that it should be mentioned too.
• The other languages (Albanian, Bosnian, Croatian, etc.) are each spoken by less than 6% of the Montenegrin population. In my opinion, that fact makes them of little relevance to our anglophone readership, and worthy of mention only in articles on subjects where those minorities are significantly represented (for example, Albanian in the article on Ulcinj, and Croatian in the article on Tivat).

Of course, those percentages (and the encyclopedic relevance they entail) explain why Montenegro-related aricles see Wikipedia editors adding Serbian (spoken by 60% of population), but not Albanian, Bosnian, Croatian or others (which toghether are spoken by less than 15% of the population).

Thus, I think that using the form "Montenegrin and Serbian: XYZ" in all Montenegro-related articles would be the most appropriate option, both languages being equally relevant to our anglophone readership.

What is your take on this ? - Best regards, Ev (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that we add only Montenegrin till next census 2011. And if then people speaking Serbian language is over 50%, to add also Serbian? As there was no real census in independent state of Montenegro. To the latest polls, there were more people speaking Montenegrin than Serbian. By 2011, it will probably lead to lower number of Serbian language. Montenegrin is the only official language, while others can be official in municipalities where those ethnic minorities are biggest ethnic group. What would change if there is Serbian? While Montenegrin is #1 official language, Serbian isn't. I don't have anything maybe Albanian where Albanian are most, but adding Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian is absurd as it's all the same language, but got names by their countries. I don't see Montenegrin on Bosnian articles. We can see Serbian and Croatian, but those are official languages in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Rave92 (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

But Rave, you are arguing based on the languages' official status only. Remember that the basic criterion mentioned in the current version of our lead section guideline (which "should be followed except where common sense warrants an exception") is that of encyclopedic relevance, and not that of official status. – Official status is one of the factors that make a language relevant to our anglophone readership, but not the only one.

Why would we ignore the results of the 2003 census ? It may have been carried out in the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, before Montenegrin independence, but I fail to see how that fact changes anything. The data remains the same. – Of course, after the next census takes place we can discuss the issue again to see how relevant the new numbers are.

You don't see Montenegrin in Bosnia-related articles, but how many Montenegrin-speakers live in Bosnia ? Our article on the Montenegrins of Bosnia and Herzegovina states that in 1991 Montenegrins represented less than 1% of Bosnia's population. Do you think that those numbers are relevant enough to justify adding Montenegrin besides Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian ?

You say that "adding Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian is absurd as it's all the same language, but got names by their countries". That is a good argument. I agree with you that it is rather absurd: if it were up to me alone, I would simply use Serbo-Croatian in all cases :-) But I have two problems with this:

• A significan portion of our anglophone readership may not be aware that they are all "national versions" of the same language, and perhaps it would be clearer to them if we add both languages, "Montenegrin and Serbian", despite the obvious redundancy. :-)
• Even if they are all the same language, the amount of discussion over the distinctions between these same languages clearly proves that those distinctions are percieved as very important. Otherwise, you would not be arguing so much about not mentioning the language that 60% of your fellow countrymen considered to be their mother tongue only six years ago.

Best, Ev (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

But why to have Serbian? 1991 in Serbia, most citizens declared them self to speak Serbo-Croatian. It will change, when people used to name. We gone trough the serbisation trough whole history of FR Yugoslavia and State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. So what if 60% declared when it is now official. To add Serbian to satisfy Serbs? The difference between Serbian and Montenegrin (Serbian in Montenegro) is none, and don't see why to add their name when we have official language. Wikipedia moam when our language wasn't official. Now it is official, now they say about 60%? I think even if we have 90% of speak Montenegrin, Wiki admins would find out some reason to add Serbian. You don't have to be stupid that someone is doing inheres for them. Montenegro is very low presented on the Internet, like a lot of web sites have no our country flag (just SCG or something) etc... and there are couple of us who fight to present our country and its identity, and Wikipedia doesn't help us. We can't do it by our self. I hope that at least someone like you will help us do this. If you have some influence on Wiki Admins, just let us help do this. I know you don't have any profit from it, but one day a lot of people will be great full that we helped Montenegro get its identity on the Internet. Rave92 (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Why to have Serbian ?
Because, as stated before, in the latest census Serbian is what ca. 60% of the Montenegrin population declared to be their mother tongue (thus making it relevant for our readers). – The actual question would be why not including what over half of the Montenegrin population considers as their mother tongue ?

1991 in Serbia, most citizens declared them self to speak Serbo-Croatian.
If Wikipedia had existed in 1991, our article on Serbia would have reflected what reliable sources of the time stated, thus using Serbo-Croatian instead of Serbian. As changes are picked up by reliable sources, we modify our articles accordingly (since they merely reflect what our reliable sources tell us).

It will change, when people used to name.
The situation revealed by the 2003 census could change, of course. When/if we have reliable sources indicating that it has changed (the best possible source will be the next census' results), then our articles should reflect those changes. But only then. Not before we have confirmation of those changes actually taking place. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

We gone trough the serbisation trough whole history of FR Yugoslavia and State Union of Serbia and Montenegro.
I understand how you feel, but Wikipedia is not the place to advocate against any percieved serbianisation, or advocate for any kind of montenegrisation. :-)

So what if 60% declared [their mother tongue to be Serbian] when [the Montenegrin language] is now official. and [I] don't see why to add their name when we have official language.
As stated before, this is arguing based on the languages' official status only. Remember that the basic criterion mentioned in the current version of our lead section guideline is that of encyclopedic relevance, and not that of official status. – As I see it, being considered as mother tongue by over half of the Montenegrin population makes Serbian relevant to our readers.

To add Serbian to satisfy Serbs?
Of course not. The idea is to satisfy our anglophone readership by providing them with relevant information (including the mother tongue of over half of the Montenegrin population). – The other side of that question would be "To remove Serbian to satisy Montenegrins?" That would be equally wrong.

Wikipedia moam when our language wasn't official. Now it is official, now they say about 60%? I think even if we have 90% of speak Montenegrin, Wiki admins would find out some reason to add Serbian.
Wikipedia administrators are not confabulated to add Serbian to Montenegro-related articles. :-) The idea is simply to add relevant information to benefit our readers. When/if the Serbian language ceases to be relevant, then I would support its removal from Montenegro-related articles for the very same reasons I'm not proposing to add Albanian, Bosnian & Croatian now. – Again, the basic criterion is that of encyclopedic relevance to our readership.

[T]here are couple of us who fight to present our country and its identity, and Wikipedia doesn't help us.
Wikipedia's goal is to present our readership with accurate & factual information about Montenegro, written from a neutral point of view. It is not however to advocate and propagate a particular vision of what the Montenegrin identity is or ought to be.

Wikipedia should reflect the simple fact that in the 2003 census over half of the Montenegrin population considered Serbian as their mother tongue. Wikipedia should not be used to promote Montenegrin as the country's language, especially at the expense of other relevant information.

Keep in mind that the idea is not to remove the Montenegrin language from the articles, but merely to include other relevant information beside it. - Regards, Ev (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It actually is, we have official language. I would understand if it will mean different in Serbian, and then to add it, but there is no difference. Rave92 (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In Kosovo

Rave92, in your revert of my edit at "Bogićevica", you claimed that "[Bogićevica is] in Albania, Kosovo and Montenegro. In first two states is Albanian most [i.e. Albanian is the majority language], and in [the] third [state the] offical [language] is Montenegrin."

So, in the case of Kosovo (where Serbian is an official language -cf. Article 5 of its Constitution- and which is regarded by the government of Serbia as an integral part of its sovereign territory), the official status of a language is of no relevance, and the majority language is all that counts.

But in the case of Montenegro (where ca. 60% of the local population claim Serbian to be their mother tongue, and only ca. 22% Montenegrin), suddenly the majority language becomes irrelevant, and it's the official status of a language all that matters.

It doesn't get more impartial, fair, unbiased than that. You probably know the English saying, "What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." :-) Cheers, Ev (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at Milla Jovovich

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Milla Jovovich. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Papa November (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, Mila's grandfather was from Vasojevići clan. Vasojevići are Serbs from Montenegro. Her grandfather had estate in Kosovo i Metohija, which in years of her father birth was not part of Montenegro. Montenegro was part of Kingdom of Yugoslavia. So please, don't be so stubborn. -- Bojan  23:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Znak vcg.gif

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

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Moscow-Bridge.JPG

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Moscow-Bridge.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — neuro^(talk) 19:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

OOPS

I got it wrong, it wasn't the Montenegro article I requested to be protected, you can make the request here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection . Also, I think the history section should be slimmed down and any future additions should be moved by the person making the edit to the History of Montenegro page. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it's ok. We will keep it open, but if it gets attacked, we would ask for protection. Rave92 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I had to revert your edit, but the article should comply with other wikipedia articles on individual countries, bulking it with repetitions does not make it look good and is likely to make people doubt its good faith. All my edits are in good faith and aimed at improving Crna Gora's view in the world, my girlfriend is in Kotor right now. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Croatia's article is the same. From this what you add, it looks like Montenegro exist from 1918. Please leave it like this. Rave92 (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section#Introductory_text and it seems to be ok to keep it as it is, I still feel it needs a bit more work though. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :). Rave92 (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Crna Gora

Dolazim u maju u Ulcinj. Poz. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Andrea Demirović

Please note you should not be adding links to copyrighted content to Wikipedia. See WP:ELNEVER. Stifle (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh OK, I didn't know, sorry. Rave92 (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)