User talk:Fomafomich

Fomafomich, I would like to thank you for your valueable and above all entertaining commentary on Bosnians discussion page :). I am writing up an anthropological addition to the article and your help would be much appriciated. --Dado 16:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Herzegovinians

I appreciate your comments. However, I am not so sure that it is as simple as you'd like it to believe. Herzegovina was preceded by Zahumlje or Hum, which Stjepan Vukcic Kosaca was governor of, and which existed long before his time. Herzegovina is also known as having fended off Ottoman forces longer than Bosnia, showing a certain distinctness even then.

Since the nineteenth century, what was called by the Ottomans, Bosnia, has been called Bosnia and Herzegovina. As long as that is the name of the country, Herzegovina is more than just a region. It is one part of a country.

The Herzegovinians article was largely written in response to the Bosnians article. This article makes it seem that all Bosnia and Herzegovinan nationals are Bosnians. However, there is no reason that a Bosnia and Herzegovinan national cannot be considered a Herzegovinian, especially when they might find the alternative offensive. The reasons that they consider "Bosnian" offensive are complicated, and discussing it here will overcomplicate things.

From personal knowledge, Herzegovinian Croat suspects and witnesses at the ICTY complained about being referred to as Bosnian Croats to the point where it had to be changed to B&H Croats. The English world does not make the distinction between Bosnians and Herzegovinians because Herzegovinian is too difficult to say and English lacks a single word (natively we have bosanskohercegovačko).

Also, citing distant historic examples proves nothing about the Herzegovinians of today. If many of them don't want to be called Bosnians, don't call them that. It's as simple as that. However, you would be surprised how insistent some groups are on forcing the Bosnian label.

I won't push this issue anymore. Thanks for the response, even if we may disagree. --Thewanderer 00:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmed-pasha Sokolovich

I generally agree with your statement; but however, I do not want to open a WWIII. I was (then) a little frustrated because I judged that the other party was being one-sided, using only one source and grappling for everystraw to deny what is generally accepted in the world and is a fact.

However, I value all sources (as long as they obbey the reaches of logic, I must add :). So, I will not add the "Serbian" origin unless Emir Arven agrees that. Unfortunately, he himself has admitted that he will never agree to that, so I think that it's best to leave non-defined this way. Howver, what I found troublesome is the emergence of tags and citation neededs for everything that could connect him to his Serbian roots (his brother becoming the Patriarch of the Serb Orthodox Church; as well as two of his nephews; his scholarship at Mileševa,...) It is this that's the actual issue.

Regards and I hope that you will comment further! --HolyRomanEmperor 22:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am only wondered that every second sentence of the article would then be ...it is believed... or ...some say.

Anyway, when I tried to insert that; it was changed by the opposing party (User:Emir Arven, in this case) to According to Serb authors... On the other hand Bosniak historians consider that above thesis is never proven. They think it is another Serb myth mixed with nationalism and anachronism.; so you can understand why I reacted with such turmoil on the talk page. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Safetplakalo.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Safetplakalo.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —An gr 19:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Safetplakalo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Safetplakalo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —An gr 19:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Safetplakalo.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Safetplakalo.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

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

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

—Angr 19:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Skloniste.gif

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2008 (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) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]