User talk:Hxseek/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Your edits to Illyrians

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Ronz 20:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Thank you. --Ronz 20:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hxseek for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Ronz 19:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to History of the Balkans and Macedonia (region)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ronz 19:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Ronz 19:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 which gains a consensus among editors. --Ronz 19:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for sockpuppetry
It has been established that you engaged in sockpuppetry by evidence presented here:
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hxseek, and you are therefore blocked for period of 48 hours.
You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires.


[edit] Illyrians

Your edits in this article were well known historical facts. But it will always be marked as POV by other users who didn't like the meaning of that text, if you don't come with references and sources. I'm sure that you used some sources so it costs nothing to show it. Put your version of the text into the talk page with sources, later it would be much easier to put it in the article. This way nobody could call you a POV pusher. Zenanarh 09:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I made a typing error, thus creating two seperate, but obviously similar accounts: Hxseek and Hxseeker. I did not have any malicious intent in creating to accounts, ie i did not do it for the purpose of intentionally engaging in edit wars and such . I admit that I also did not log in on a couple of occasions- again an honest oversight rather than manipulation Hxseek 02:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC-7)"

Decline reason: "The problem isn't that you have two accounts, which is permitted as long as they follow WP:SOCK. The problem is that you were using both of your accounts to edit-war, which is forbidden under WP:SOCK. Can you please address that? — Kurykh 19:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Yes, will do. As i said i as not really aware i was using to accounts, certainly did not do it for puropose of edit war. Hxseek 22:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have formatted your unblock request for you, using the template, so it will show up for review by another adminstrator. MastCell Talk 17:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Will pay attention Hxseek 21:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo: country debate

Hello. There's a discussion going on Talk:List of countries as to whether or not Kosovo should be included in that list. You contributed to the same discussion at Talk:List of unrecognized countries and I thought you might be interested. The articles List of countries and Annex to the list of countries (where the inclusion criteria reside) are both relevant. Cheers. DSuser 13:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. It's probably a minor point, but there a discussion and vote going on at Talk:Kosovo#Kosovo:_terminology as to whether or not it's better to use Kosovo rather than Kosovan or Kosovar in the Wikipedia articles. Perhaps you have no interest, in which case sorry to bother you! DSuser 15:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Try to wait 28th November. Agim Çeku announced it as the Independence Day. Kubura 07:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Ancient Macedonians

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [1] --Ronz 17:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[2] With regard to your comments on User talk:Ronz: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--Hu12 08:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Balkans500.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Balkans500.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Blacksmith2 talkEditor Review 09:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Balkan700.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Balkan700.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Blacksmith2 talkEditor Review 09:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:700AD.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:700AD.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Balkans300.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Balkans300.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still more WP:CIVIL

Please carefully read WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. You appear to either not understand them, or are ignoring them. [3] [4]. I suggest you strikeout incivil language from these comments of yours to indicate you understand the problem. --Ronz 18:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

And [5] --Ronz 18:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
What I'm suggesting is you edit your previous comment by striking out text like this. --Ronz 02:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Please note

WP:3RR applies to user talk pages. --Ronz 04:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

'Italic textBold text

[edit] Your maps

Hi Hxseek, thanks for your work on Balkan history. A small request about your maps: For Image:Franks.JPG, could you please specify which source image you cropped that from so we can give it a proper copyright declaration? As for your maps you downloaded from euratlas.com, I'm afraid I had to delete them, because that website license them only for "non-commercial" and "illustrative" purposes and we can use images only if they are licensed freely for all use. Hope you'll understand. It's a pity because they were nice maps. Perhaps you can find somebody at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps who could help you create your own or who might be willing to make one for you? -- Feel free to contact me if you have any other questions or need help. Regards, Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Actually, the source you seem to mean, Image:Europe mediterranean 1097.jpg is apparently a different map, but don't worry, I found the right one too (from the same atlas, at [6]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, was this meant as a request for deletion? If yes, just for future reference, the "correct" tag is {{db-author}}.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Balkans

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on History of the Balkans. 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 which gains a consensus among editors. --Ronz 00:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Please pass on the message to Mr J H. I will not tolerate thuggery

[edit] Genetics

Here [7] you can find genetic distribution found among present South Slavs but there's also a table with data for all European nationalities. You cannot prove what exact distribution was 2500 years ago in the same place, but on the other hand you can prove when a specifical haplotype came to the area. When Ancient Macedonians are in question it's obvious at the first sight that they belonged to the same genepool as their neighbours (dominance of I1b, E3b, J2). R1a was undoubtly related to the Slavs, while the most of R1b could be related to the Celts. there's no doubt about it because these genetic analysis include aproximated "dates" of migrations. I1b originated in the western Balkans (Dalmatia, today's Adriatic sea) 20.000 ago - so these people could not be aliens there, E3b1a2 originated in Thracia 9.000 years ago - nothing unusual to say that Macedonia was later one of their homes too, the same goes for J2 (J2a1 originated in Greek). These 3 groups (with a several subgroups) were definitively making the genepool of Ancient Macedonians. The question is only what was its relative distribution 3.000 years ago. There are no some other haplotypes that you can point to and say these were a.M. Cheers. Zenanarh 12:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, diversity would be something like dispersion. Diversity increases with the distance from the place of originating. When at some specific place high frequency and low diversity is found, that means that it could be the place where that genotype originated. Zenanarh 08:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Again, I'd hope you'll consider refactoring some of your edits, especially: [8] [9] [10] --Ronz 16:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The map about the Balkans around 900 AD is not correct. For first time the term Vlach was used during 11 Century. - In the 10th Century, the Hungarians arrived in the Pannonian plain, and, according to the Gesta Hungarorum written by an anonymous chancellor of King Bela III of Hungary, the plain was inhabited by Slavs, Bulgars, Vlachs and pastores Romanorum (shepherds of the Romans) (in original: sclauij, Bulgarij et Blachij, ac pastores romanorum). However, the chronicle was written around 1146. Bulgaria was not Khaganate since 866. The borders are not correct too! Regards! Jingby 11:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You took the words out of my mouth. Please make sure you repair the map. I'm taking it out for the moment. --Laveol T 14:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


At the beginning of 864, Boris I was secretly baptized at Pliska by an embassy of Byzantine clergymen, together with his family and select members of the Bulgarian nobility. With Emperor Michael III as his godfather, Boris also adopted the Christian name Michael. Jingby 05:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] recent edits on south Slavs by Hxseek On IRANIAN PEOPLES

Someone shoulkd check the recent edits by Hxseek. They are dubious,. He says for example that there were no such a people as Bosniak prior to the 17th century. So what? There is such a people now. Ethnic groups born and die. Secondly he says that their names are Iranian, while the theories speak on their origins and not on their names, those talks on their names follow only after the assumption of their (partial) Iranic origins. --Babakexorramdin 21:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:DR. Given Hxseek's history, WP:RFC/USER is probably appropriate at this point. --Ronz 23:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You two chumps are dubious, not me. Babakexorramdin if you want to discuss real theory rather than pseudo-scientific folk-lore, then here:

The original version was dubious. I just helped the article in good faith to make it more scientific. The mainstream theory connecting Croats and Serbs to Iranic peoples (ie Anceint Iranic peoples in the way of Sarmatians) is the linguistic -naming of the tribes, as i already outlined in the article. Certainly most scholars concluded that even if it was true that the Serbs and Croats were originally Sarmatian tribes, they were already Slavicised by the time they reached the Balkans. There they mixed with more Slavs and Illyrians. So to say that modern Serbs and Croats are even partially descended from Iranian peoples is a bit of a stretch. As for the Bosnians, no one denies that they exist now. All I was stating is that there was no Bosniak tribe back in the migration era (ie back in the 600s), so the discussion about the Iranian influence on peoples in late antiquity and early dark ages time does not directly concern them (although indirectly one may state they too may be partly descended from Iranian tribes because in essense Bosniaks are merely Muslimized Croats and Serbs

If you refer to the theories which trace the origins of Serbs and Croats to Sarmatians, then it is not relevant what the names of tribes hsould be. I am not the one who denies the slavization of those ancient Iranic people, but almsot all peoples are a result of intermingling. As for Bosniaks. There are theories which trace them back to the Bogumils. Anyway whatever they are they are as you said of the same origins as the Serbs and Croats, therfore the theories which apply to the former ones also applies to them. --Babakexorramdin 20:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


As for Ronz, my opinion concerning this self-righteous panzy is obvious Hxseek 11:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

His edit above is evidence enough of his inability to respect Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Ronz 16:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

fwiiw, I admit that my reaction was too harsh considering you haven't introduced the section. It still belonged removed. dab (𒁳) 13:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Please acquaint yourself with Wikipedia:NPA. Do not attack other users, not in English, not in Serbian, not in any language. ForeignerFromTheEast 17:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note Hxseek has a history of such behavior, clearly demonstrated here on his own talk page. --Ronz 17:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Kosovo

Yes, I am aware that it was too long - please see the talk page - but it was far more. This actually doesn't even summarize the history, presents mostly irrelevant info and in a POV way. I asked people to help me fix the old article - 'cause this one's a dump. --PaxEquilibrium 13:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

For example, Ottoman Empire and Modern Era articles are containing highly trivial and perhaps even irrelevant info, not even managing to mention some of the more crucial. Please help me rework my old version. --PaxEquilibrium 15:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Well done. Let me express what should/could be added/corrected:
  • White Serbs didn't come in a second wave - there were countless migrations and colonizations of Slavs (who knows how many "waves") before. T
  • he 11th century various Slavic rebellions were totally scrapped.
  • The Serbian Empire (with its seat Prizren in Kosovo) was declared in 1345. Its multi-ethnicity is unrelated specifically to Kosovo (where 95%-98% of the population was of one ethnic group)
  • The Battle of Maritsa doesn't deserve that much importance/relatedness to Kosovo.
  • The last paragraph is very problematic for the primary article related on Kosovo.
  • It doesn't say when Kosovo was conquered by the Ottomans (in 1455, and in 1441-1444 for the first time shortly) with Novo Brdo as the last Serbian stronghold standing. Novo Brdo is IMHO not even mentioned.
  • It previously explained that/why the Albanians by the end of the 19th century became the dominant people in Kosovo. Now it doesn't, also excluding the Second Serbian Migration.
These are all replicas that I can think of. I hope you don't think I'm insisting on every single fly. ;) Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 13:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Involved in WP:ANI

Hello Hxseek. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

--əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 14:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Hxseek. I can certainly understand that you feel frustrated at being reverted that often by what you must feel like a front of POV-pushing, but still, you must understand that continuing your reverts just won't help. You seem to be facing a consensus against what you write, legitimate or not; if you can't persuade them of the validity of your edits you'll just have to either change your approach or let it go. This whole Macedonia situation will quite likely soon end up at Arbcom, and I hope that there'll be a healthier atmosphere for discussion afterwards, with some of the more abusive edit-warriors removed from the scene - but just take care they won't count you among them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom case

I've taken the whole set of Macedonia-related edit warring to the Arbitration committee. You are named as a party to the case. Please see WP:RFAR#Macedonia. Thank you, Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sure, you can make a statement on the Arbcom page now (it helps to be as brief and matter-of-fact as possible), and later when the case gets opened there will be a separate page for submitting detailed evidence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Only evidence about people's behaviour, please. The Arbcom will not rule on content and the pages there should not be sidelined into content disputes. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 00:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] NOB

Hello Hxseek, you may be interested in helping to improve the quality and resolve POV on the "controversial" article People's Liberation War of Macedonia. Please consider it. Thank you for you time. Лилјак 10:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Troll

Could you please help me with an internet troll? If his talk page is observed, one may notice that it's a single-purpose account with the sole goal to obstruct my work, as seen at his contributions, where he reverts just every single of my edits.

Just to cite some comments from his talk page: "In the end, all your edits have shown 0% interest in Wikipedia, showing absolutely nothing at all (culminating with "Yes they are") and qualify your edits as plain vandalism, hence you are leaving me with no choice but to revert your edits. --PaxEquilibrium 23:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)" and then "I can say the same about you. If you revert me I will revert you. Woop-dee-doo. Hambla 23:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)" As well as other completely dull answers. --PaxEquilibrium 11:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Solved. An abusive sockpuppet blocked indefinitely. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Bosniaks‎

The recent discussions in Talk:Bosniaks‎ by the two ip's are consistently in violation of WP:TALK, and often WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE as well. Please don't let them bait you into escalating the problem. Best to keep a cool head in spite of their misbehavior. --Ronz 20:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia closed

The above arbitration case has closed, and the final decision may be found here. Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on Balkans-related articles if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 02:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Bosniaks:Ethnic make up

In case you haven't noticed, the page protection has been removed from Bosniaks. Could you take a look at the discussion you started in Talk:Bosniaks#Ethnic make up? We could use your opinion as how to proceed. --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm ready to remove the entire paragraph, but now you added, "Many ethnologists believe that the seperation of South Slavic peoples into 'ethnicities' is more a religious division than a truly ethnic one." Do you have a source for this? Would it be better to still just delete the entire paragraph? --Ronz (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bosniaks

Your addition to the article might be neutral, but it is not relevent as to wether serbs or croats settled in bosnia, nothing about the history of bosnia is relevant to this article, since this is the article about Bosniaks, not Bosnia. Please try to undertand. We have here an article about the bosniak people, why the hell would you then write about serbs or croats in it. Revert Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

Could you tell me what are these numbers in brackets that you put in the article - is this some odd way to add references. As won't do just the mentioning of a book without any page number or anything else - it can and has every ground to be removed. And lastly as you seem keen on pushing it to the end - why do you insist so much on this "They considered Macedonia "an indivisible territory and all of its inhabitants Macedonian, no matter their religion or ethnicity". It aimed for an independent and unified Macedonia." We've been trying to solve our problems from a long time here on Wikipedia and you come and with one snap you turn it to the most extreme POV just like that. I've caught you not well prepared on a few subjects already so this is not a precedent. The problem is that you keep insisting that has to be so - when 1. It isn't 2. It is too POV to mention. I've already removed it from one article for the two reasons: Not properly sourced and being clearly too POV for even the Balkan articles standards. A big part of the revolutionaries you're talking about had no link with the region of Macedonia, but still you insist on calling them Macedonian Slavs. And the sentence "It aimed for an independent and unified Macedonia." - I don't know what to say. The goals of IMRO??? Independent - ok. Unified? - how come - even if there was such a thing the region was already unified (it was as a whole a part of the Ottoman empire). I really assume good faith of your edits as I see you are into a lot of matters, but you obviously are not well into this one. Before stating such things, it'be better you get to know the organization and the people that formed it. I guess this is all for now - I'd be glad to hear from you. --Laveol T 00:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No, as a starter some of them were not Macedonian slavs and no, they were not aiming at a unified Macedonia for the reasons I've provided you above. And, no, I do not think it is polite calling other people culprit. As I said we're trying to achieve some sort of ballance - I'm not saying - they were Bulgarian Slavs and were fighting so that Macedonia joins Bulgaria, so why should you write just the opposite? Isn't it POV? Or it is POV only if someone else (not you) writes it? --Laveol T 00:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map blanks

Check this place out for exampleMap blanks.I ll inform you on other sources such as fractal map makers and other sources soon as i find out more and remember where they all are.Megistias (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map of the Byzantine empire

No, Croatia was not independent, although it enjoyed a similar degree of autonomy as Venice. Both Croatia and Venice were nominal Byzantine posessions and the Byzantines considered the doge and the king of Croatia to be imperial functionaries. The kings of Croatia required the confirmation of the emperor in Constantinople to rule over their lands in Dalmatia and Sirmium. Andrei nacu (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I1b1b

Hmm I think it means nothing special or new. Balkan I1b1 originated in period 18.000 - 20.000 years ago, it means during the last Glacial Maximum. Neolithic started around 16.000 YA. Paleolithic I haplo people (pre-Indo Europeans 35.000 YA) were settled somewhere in Europe, possibly in central Europe and around, with last GM coming and ice from the north they were migrating to the south, maybe because of the Alps as natural barrier 2 groups of them distinguished - western from the Alps and eastern. Both found the shelters by the warm coasts of the Mediterranean, western group in modern south France, eastern in modern Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro. The coast was not the same as today, during GM the most part of present Adriatic Sea was dry - Adriatic steppes, so that was real refugium of the eastern group. Paleolithic settlements found in the eastern Adriatic coast (islands, coast, inland) are probably just small part of the story. The real thing is lost under the sea. In hard life conditions, isolated in these 2 refugiums surrounded by the ice, when there was a small number of individuals, new mutations occurred in I haplo: I1a, I1c (recently recognised as subgoup of I1a) in south France and I1b in the western Balkans. Melting of the ice was followed by new migrations of some people from both groups (before the early Neolithic) mostly to the north, I1a is now present in small numbers everywhere in western Europe, some went far to the north (Vikings were I1a), I1b more in eastern Europe. However there was also smaller migrations to the west of I1b, I1b1b Sardinian haplo derived from Adriatic-Dinarian I1b1. Quote given by you implies that this migration and DNA mutation occured before Neolithic, in Paleolithic. Zenanarh (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Kosovo appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Dchall1 (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this edit can possibly be construed as NPOV. Dchall1 (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I think all the edits under the Kosovo after the war section need to go. As for the others, I don't think the Catholic encyclopedia counts as a WP:RS (though I could be mistaken), and I don't know anything about Hupchick. I've asked another editor to take a look as well. Dchall1 (talk) 07:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CWoI

This [11] In particular, it stemed from the slaughter of 100, 000 Serb civillians by Croatian Ultranationalists during WWII is not really objective. It was much more complicated. In WWII there were several opposed sides of different political options involved in the area. Before the war the strongest political parties in Serbia were radical Serbian parties. In Croatia the most strongest were Demo - Christian parties. One Croatian politician was murdered in the senate in Belgrade! At the beginning of WWII all peaceful parties in Yugoslavia vanished from the scene, Chetniks were fighting for Serbian king and Greater Serbia, killed a lot of Bosniaks, Herzegovinians and Croats in B&H and Croatia, mostly the civilians but also partisans and Ustashe. In the first half of WWII chetniks were allies to Germans. Ustashe were nazi vasal army in Croatia and killed a lot of Serbs, Jews, Croats in Croatia and B&H, civilians, partisans, chetniks. Partisans had the best political background (communist parties in Europe were best internationally organised and connected) and on the winning side by the end of the war. They were mobilised at first in Croatia then soonly everywhere in Yu and killed a lot of everyone previously mentioned. Chetniks were massively transforming to partisans after 1943 (Germans were defeated in Russia). There was another wave of killing in last days of war, when a lot of Croats vanished, but all others too, many civilians among them. During communist Yu it was forbiden to even think abourt partisan war crimes, while others were accented. This case needs more of investigating. Just my friendly advise. Enjoy Zenanarh (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ustashe were not only Croats. The most of them were mobilised in central Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina. A lot of muslims from B&H became ustashe. Territories where Chetniks made a lot of massacres. It was all happening in the same time, chetniks were butchering muslims and catholics and burning their villages in Cro, B&H and western Serbia. Ustashe were killing orthodox christians in Cro and B&H but all others too who were nazi enemies. After all that chaos, crimes made under communist flag were "forgotten", while all other numbers have become where most of the animosity stems from WWII. And many crimes made by chetniks were simply "forgotten" since they had transformed into partisans at the end of the war. Now we have 50 years long history of repeating that ustashe were the real black sheep which largely influences todays perception. All ethnical and political sides were involved. Animosity was already there. Zenanarh (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo

Your edit concerning the Bulgarian rule in Kosovo is nonsense. First there is no need to call it "Slavic Bulgarian Empire" because it is obviously Slavic - it is not written there "Slavic Serbian Kingdom" too; then the title of Samuil is not King but Emperor and the collocation "King Tsar Samuil" is funny and absurd. And last, Samuil was not the last Emperor of the First Bulgarian Empire. --Gligan (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans

Could you, please, tell me why your made the following change. Every single line of the original came from a referenced source. [12] Your POV is irrelevant. If you are going to contribute to the already long article make sure you come up with non-Balkanese scholars/sources who are too busy to promote their own nationalistic agenda and thereby lack any credibility on the subject matter.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Also I did not revert your changes and responded further in [[13]]. There might be a need to make the article more ecyclopedic which is not that easy. However I feel that the overall tone is balanced. (I am sure people from the Balkans will have their own take on this). Perhaps if we refrain from our own versions of the past and stick to the sources verbatim we can always refer back to the original scholarly sources agains any potential and probable POVs.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am copying here what you placed in one of my ongoing-work sections that remained burried for a couple of days.

Yes well done on your effort. But you seem to have missed the fact that my info is from the exact same source as your main one- Hupchik. I am not pushing nationalistic propaganda, or whatever u accused me of. I was merely establishing the 'scene' in the Balkans prior to the Ottoman invasion. In fact, i ask you to check your bias as your Turkish pride is definitely present in the article, since you speand numerous paragraphs describing the 'specialness' of Ottomans. I sorry to say, but you have been biased. Your concluding sentence stated that ottoman rule may have been beneficial to the Balkan peoples. I recognise the sentence you get it from -Hupchik's work. But you have misquoted him. He says early on they were better off c/f western european peasants, but overall -into the 20th century- there is no doubt that a backward, islamic regime of the Turks was oppressive and socio-economically devastating. The info i added was coorect and sourced. Hxseek (talk) 05:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess -unless you are a historian from the Balkans- I did not accuse of any bias. I am not sure if you read it but if you have Hupckick's book and compare the corresponding section to the article prior to your changes you may find them to be identical. Therefore any bias in the article is not mine but that of Hupchick's. I won't deny immunity from bias on my own part but perhaps that is the reason I prefer western scholars. I can not accept any of your above accusations as I have neither added my own sentences to the article nor have been selective of the content of the section. Unless Hupchick is Turkish we will have to accept the article as the work of an unbiased western scholar. I realise this won't satisfy the entire Balkan community but this has not been the objective from the beginning. This is a verifiable source written by a respectable and credible scholar. Your additions on the other hand are not. You added some text and images of Lazar and Ottoman maps. Frankly the context here is the 14th and 15th centuries. Maps from 17th century may be misleading. Also while putting images of the loosing side why are we excluding the victors. I avoided these things with the hope to provide some scholarly perspective but in wiki sooner or later the pictures and images will take over reasoning. On your last point regarding the 20th century condition of the peasants, the subject was Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans that occured way before that. We can discuss other aspects of the long-lasting empire in some other articles. Hupchick does a great job in his book.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ethnic Macedonian or Republic of Macedonia

I have started a discussion about article titles here. Please voice your opinion if you have one. BalkanFever 02:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] maps

I was using the everyday Paint.NET. It has anything we need to create a good map (layers, antialiasing curves). regards, --fz22 (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to join WikiProject Kosovo

I thought you might like to know that I've (re)started Wikipedia:WikiProject Kosovo to help coordinate editing and facilitate monitoring of Kosovo-related articles. I will be sponsoring the project. If you have any queries about it, please ask me on my talk page or use Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kosovo.

If you wish to become involved, please feel free to do so - simply leave your username at Wikipedia:WikiProject Kosovo#Participants. One feature that you may find particularly useful is the public watchlist. If you click here you can see all the recent changes to articles listed on the watchlist.

There is still a lot of work to be done on getting the project off the ground, so your help would be welcomed. In particular:

  • The public watchlist needs to be populated with all Kosovo-related articles (and redirects), categories, images and templates. I've added as many as I've found so far but more need to be added.

If you can help out with these, it would be much appreciated.

-- ChrisO (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Greetings friend. Lovely maps. I am quite an avid medieval history fan, and am trying to develop my map making skills. I was hoping if you would not mind sharing with me what programme you have used for yur maps, where you got the map template, and how yu trained yourself on the programme. Just whenever you have some spare time Wikipedia username: Hxseek""

Hello Hxseek. Thanks for your comment. I don't know which map you are talking about, perhaps it is Image:Cilician Armenia-en.svg. To do maps, I use this tutorial... it's in french and not finished yet ; when it will be done, it will be translated in english (but it can take a long time).
However, it has many pictures, and with an automatic translator and a dictionnary, I guess you'll be able to understand easily. Bon courage ! Sémhur 18:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
THANKS FOR YOUR REPLY about the maps. I will keep an eye out. May i ask where u got the blank map template to construct upon ? 203.41.143.148 (d) 14 février 2008 à 15:48 (CET)
Well, there was no blank map template : I have made it. I described on the picture's page what sources and what softwares I used to do this. But if you don't want, or know, to make this map, you can ask to the Graphic Lab. They can do that. Sémhur 09:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guduscans

Not lot is known about the Guduscani, a.k.a. Gacani. Serbian old historians had made very weekely (un)founded claims that they are of Serb descent. They are from the area surrounding the Lika region (or north), they were by the end of the 8th century included into the first Croatian state, the Principality of Dalmatia. They gave some rulers to the Dalmatians (Prince Borna) and were a very elite group, gradually completely croaticized.

Well, roughly, yeah. That's pretty correct. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Croats are mixed with Illyrians who are ancient Dalmatians..who in turn have a small link with todays Albania. This can be proven with dna. Guduscani wouldn't be Serbian I don't think yet perhaps a unique group of people who became adopted by Croats over time . Serbs tend to make many claims on many Croatian people and neighbours. eg. Molise Croats, Serbs say they are Serbian. Burgaland Croats, Serbs say they are Serbian. Need I go on...

It's all Serb propaganda. Evergreen Montenegro1 (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] P

I think all of the former Yugoslavian states should hold serious talks with one another to project a better image of themselves to the world.

I think the world has a bad view about that part of the world due to the wars.

I think Croatia and Montenegro thru tourism are showing it's a great part of the world, now the rest must follow.


Kosovo is a huge problem and needs to be resolved without blood/war. If we have a war there.... the world will again go back to the old way of thinking.


We need to learn to live with one another!!!!!

Evergreen Montenegro1 (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Origin

No, We Montenegrins have our own group much like the Bosniaks. We like to believe that hahaha. I think over time boths groups have taken sides Bosniaks mostly with Croats and Serbs with Montenegro.

Most common theory is all Bosnians are mostly of Croat origin, however changed last names and religion when influenced by Turkish rule. This is true to a degree as many so called Bosnians of that time fled to other parts of Croatia. Many Croatians today trace their roots to Bosnia to some degree. As for us Montenegrins same thing common theory is we're Serb origin.

I am Australian Montenegrin - my parents come from Boka Kotorska and we have a possible Croat origin which is proven. I traced our family tree in Tivat and is seems not just beacuse we're catholic many scripts show us being called Venetian and Croat.

See so it's all mixed.

Bosnian and Montenegrin ancesty is a bit like saying I am of Australian ancesty. No depth in that theory but we go along with what we're told.. I believe all the people of Montenegro and Bosnia are mostly from Serb or Croat origin however I also know of some good arguments that say their might have been a people distinct to Serbs, Croats who later called themselves Bosniak.

Do you know about dna? Maybe that's the best proof.


I agree in Yugoslavia their was little hatred ..most of the war was started by politicians themselves and radicals from outside the country who supported change..

I think people lived better before, they had jobs and a Merc in the garage...today unless your're in Dalmatia, Istra or Montenegro it's hard. All the factories closed. Privatising thins made some rich while most poor. Sad.

Evergreen Montenegro1 (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Another thing India has many languages and many people of different origins, yet all fall under Indian. I know i whitish Indian who says his origin is Persian yet he's very proud to be Indian.


Look at Yugoslavia , 3 major religions and perhaps 4 origins ..yet couldn't live together.

Says a fair bit about our people. We should have looked at the Indian model before war broke out.

Now to see a Independant Kosovo, what's next Vojvodina, Dalmatia ..it's gone out of control.

Look at the world map ..only in the Balkans are the names larger than the countries shown hahhaha

I think it's all greed.

Evergreen Montenegro1 (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


RE Montenegro.

I know prior to 1910 that the Boka Kotorska region was mostly Croat in origin, the rest of Montenegro mostly Serb. Over time this has changed. Boka was once part of Dalmatia/Venice and always allied with them rather than Serbia. Some Serb historians have tried to change these facts and some have even been active in Wiki here.

Ivica Kralj (soccer star) family clearly Croat by name yet they say they are Montenegrin and not Croat. It's a strange issue and people try to avoid it. Where he's from _TIVAT_ is well known as a Croat settlement. My parent's come from there, I know what Iam talking about. Tivat and most of Boka was Croatian settled.

I don't know too much about the rest - maybe you can tell me?

Evergreen Montenegro1 (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2008 (U

Most common theory on Croat origin of all Bosniaks by whom?
That is incorrect, even before 1910 the Bay of Kotor was mostly populated by Serbs. During which period was there a Croatian majority in the gulf? If I recall, there were migrations of Croat to the Bay - mostly from Lika (one Croat saint is from there), but never en masse. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have heard of the Red Croatia theory and very little of others.

I would guess Croats settled along and near the Adriatic sea which would take in parts of Montenegro and Albania and even Serbia today. Serbs followed close behind and settled todays Serbia and perhaps some upper parts of todays Croatia.

Croats came first to the Balkans which is obvious. Some say 6th Century while Serbs 7th.

From what i have read the dna of a Serb - Croat - Bosniak is different. Serbs have some Turkish/Gypsy blood while Croats are more Illyrian/Dalmatian. Depends on the individual, not 100% sure if the finding are for real or just anti Slav propaganda

Evergreen Montenegro1 (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Red Croatia theory is mostly unfounded; it bases itself on sole rather ambiguous mention of the Red Croatia in some versions of the Chronicle, and is generally dismissed by the Serbian, Montenegrin, Croatian and international historiography experts - the work is primarily poetic with only the story of "King" Vladimir being truly historical, as well as (possibly) the basic traditions depicted.
The "White Croats" came to the Balkans in the first half of the 7th century, they settled the coast from eastern Istria to the river of Cetina. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
There are loads of them. "History of the Serbian People" by Vladimir Corovic (modernly known as the "Illustrated History of Serbs", which is viewable even online. As for other good-quality sources, you have got "History of the Serbs" of Konstantin Jirecek and of course, the very most thorough one that you can find everywhere - the gigantic project "History of the Serb People" by a very large group of Yugoslavian authors.
As for the maps, the best way is for you to grab a historical atlas (of which I've got three). There is a map over at the Duklja article, check it out. Of course, which have got just this possible, but not fully likely, map of how it was in the early 7th century - but the very first real maps date from 800s, not a single one from the age before. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Who came first the chicken or the egg? Croat or Serb? hahhaha Pixie uvek vadis iz guzice neke Srpske knjige. Ne verujem u to brate. Reko sam ti sto puta ja sam Crnogorac danas ali jednog dana bit cu i pravi Crnogorac jer ono malo Hrvatske krvi sto imam ce ostati u proslosti i neme razlogoa spomenuti. Istorija je takva. Mi smo svi mesani i to je to. napred i napred idemo


Evergreen Montenegro1 (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duklja

The Duklja article on Wiki is very Serbian POV if you ask me. It reads almost straight out of a modern Serbian history book. It has no mention of Red Croatia.

It needs to be unbias.

Evergreen Montenegro1 (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually most of its content is from Montenegrin history books and world's encyclopediae (including the British Britannica, the French LaRousse, the German Brockhaus, the American Americana as well as the Vatican Catholic Encyclopedia).
There is a mention of Red Croatia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] East-Hem map template

Hi Hxseek. The blank map that I use for my maps is located here: http://www.thomaslessman.com/History/images/blank-East-Hem.jpg. I pieced that map together using this global map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_map#Global_1-kilometer_map. Another wikipedian, Cplakidas, has put together a really cool map of the Roman Empire in 400 AD using a more zoomed-in version of the same map I use. Someday perhaps I can make a world map that is zoomable to the extent Cplakidas' map is. First though, I need to get finished with the maps I've been making (which are difficult and time-consuming enough as it is!) Thomas Lessman (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Pixie

Get off your high horse Pixie? Any British writen history has a Serb twist to it..due to Royal linkage between Brits and Serbs. Brits often hold the Serbs in higher order than the rest of the Slavs. Be honest to say Red Croatia didn't exsits is like saying Serbs have no right to Kosovo. Very touchy subject.

Nothing is unfounded - many scripts show that a Red Croatia did exsits...they have an own version od the coat of arms.


I just know Croats were never as active in writing history as Serbs so that's why you have the balance of power shift. Just beacuse you have less books writen about the subject doen't meab their is no truth to it.

Look, Marco Polo is almost 99% of Slav/Croat stock yet many books depict him as Italian. Not enough Croats have writen about him and represented the facts - yet Italians have writen about him in great numbers with little proof.

These days you can write anything.

I even read a book on Serbs in USA, on one page they had John Malkovich. The guy is Croatian not Serb yet someone wrote he was Serb. That gets passed on and it goes down as some sort of fact.

See ya again

Evergreen Montenegro1 (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] DNA

A cool insight into the dna.

Evergreen Montenegro1 (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)