This is an encylopedia. We report what outside reliable sources say, not what we think they should say. If there is something "wrong" with the IOC website, put it into a footnote with a reference to another reliable source that says something else. Don't just make up new numbers yourself. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 23:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Please stop your edit warring on Template:Infobox Olympics Yugoslavia. It is an easily sourced fact that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia continued to compete at the Olympics using the designation "Yugoslavia" and the country code "YUG" for the 1996 Games through 2002. The name "Serbia and Montenegro" (and the code "SCG") were only ever used at the 2004 and 2006 Games. Although you may prefer to call the 1996–2002 teams "Serbia and Montenegro" because that matched the territory of what was previously known as FR Yugoslavia, the fact is that every WP:Reliable source we use for Olympic articles calls the team "Yugoslavia" in 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002. Please stop trying to re-write history. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 01:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I am trying very hard to understand your point of view, and include it neutrally in these articles. Please try to show some compromise yourself. You simply cannot keep dismissing the fact that a team named "Yugoslavia" with the country code "YUG" competed from 1996–2002. EVERY single WP:Reliable source that we have shows this, including your beloved Serbian Olympic Committee. You cannot change history if you do not like it. I have spent considerable time trying to show the relationship between "YUG" for those years with "SCG", but you are erasing it altogether. Stop being disruptive. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 23:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Please see the latest comments on my talk page. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 21:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Please let me know what you think of the most recent change to List of participating nations at the Winter Olympic Games and also the "new" article I wrote for Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics. Are you ok with these? — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 22:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Wait, don't move everything back yet with Yugoslavia. Grk1011 ( talk) 16:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Though I get what you are saying, the one source thing cannot be ignored. Its not like its a certain newspaper or something, its the foundation that runs the contest. If you want to set up a merger proposal, by all means go ahead. I am simply looking for more opinions besides you and me just going back and forth. Grk1011 ( talk) 03:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it easier to understand if I say that it has less to do with the country itself, but more with the name? FR Yugoslavia nor SFR Yugoslavia took part in the contest, Yugoslavia did and the merged page will describe which countries used that name in the contest. Grk1011 ( talk) 21:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
It also has the same flag :) . I'll do it eventually, now we just need to clean up everything, remove the templates and such. Grk1011 ( talk) 23:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
How do you want me to help there? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Serbia and Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest 1992 was created after our compromise. I'm not sure about the name since the countries Serbia and Montenegro didn't compete, FR Yugoslavia did. I mean its ok to say what we did on the country's summary page, but the name of this article doesn't seem right. Let's discuss this on the article's talk page before we do anything drastic. Also, Eurosong ( talk · contribs) is out of the loop on what is going on and reverting. Grk1011 ( talk) 03:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Your comments are borderline civility violations. I consider your post a personal attack, and I am not Greekboy and any admin can check that with an ip check and contribs check (timing of posts). They are very thorough too. And if you have a problem with Greekboy, bring it up with him. Grk1011 ( talk) 02:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
For Christ's sake, what is your problem now? Those are perfectly good web references for the specific years. Why on earth would you remove them? — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 22:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
How can Croatia and Slovenia be represented by two teams at these Games? I do not understand this edit. Please explain here. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 00:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Through a discussion thread on Talk:All-time Olympic Games medal table, I found the following pages:
Wow. I was apalled when I saw those. If you think we don't have NPOV on en.wiki, you ought to try working on some of the other languages first! — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 21:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
That only lists years when an artist from the Croatia area of Yugoslavia was entered in the contest. In truth, every year that Yugoslavia participated, Croatia did also because they too voted for the entrant whether he was Bosnia, Slovenian, or whatever. It is misleading to say that then was the only other times when Croatia has participated. Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 23:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
You can't just slap a neutrality header on a page, you need to start a discussion on the talk or else no one knows what you are talking about. Did you read the header when you added it? Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 23:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The next step would be a request for comment. That could help you to determine consensus. Once consensus has been formed, it must be changed before anything else can be done on the matter. After the request for comment, I suggest a talk page discussion to help consensus forming. That's all I can recommend, as I'm better at working out consensus than changing it, sorry. Dendodge| Talk Contribs 17:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
So you see someone and ask them what language they speak, they answer "Croatian or Serbian"?!?!?! When you phrase it like that you are saying they spoke two languages at once. Choose which ever language it was known by then, but it certainly was not a a choice. Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 19:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
All-time Olympic Games medal table. 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. -
Basement12
(T.
C) 23:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Imbris! There is no official Wikipedia policy which confirms my feeling, but there is common usage. Sometimes the highest undisputed title is used: Empress Matilda for example, not Matilda of England or Matilda, Lady of the English. Yet sometimes the highest title person was known by is used: [Queen] Victoria of the United Kingdom, not [Empress] Victoria of India. Although Victoria's highest undisputed title was Empress of India, she is known as Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom. Empress Maria Theresa is known as Maria Theresa [Archduchess] of Austria, not [Queen] Maria Theresa of Hungary (Queen outranks Archdcuhess, of course). Surtsicna ( talk) 09:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Mnecoadaniloi.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- FairuseBot ( talk) 23:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate images to Wikipedia; it is considered
vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.--
Avala (
talk) 20:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please
cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's
talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the
sandbox. Thank you.--
Avala (
talk) 20:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to
vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. --
Avala (
talk) 21:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
In the meantime the constitution got adopted which is obviously an event that you missed completely. And if you have problems with Croatian coa image then take a discussion there. Do not revert a third thing based on your dissatisfaction with something else. And just like you said, it is either silver or white but judging from the current coat of arms of Croatia, white is predominantly in use. And nakovanj is blue indeed, you can check in Encyclopedia Prosv(j)eta. -- Avala ( talk) 17:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why you are getting involved with this considering you have always considered yourself as a Montenegrin editor from what I've seen. And on the second note, why should my actions and beliefs judge the creation and support of a Montenegrin Wikipedia, something I am sceptical of now considering one) the "new" Montenegrin will comprise of words I've never heard of in my lifetime, you likewise most likely as well, nor do we know the new grammar, so how can we contribute to a Montenegrin Wikipedia if we do not know the basics of the language itself, and two) after two FAILED attempts, what makes you think we will win a third time? The MediaWiki Language Committee or whatever it's called has encouraged us to contribute to the Serbian Wikipedia and cooperate with the Serbian editors there, even from the beginning.
And on the other note, let the Croats support whoever and whatever they would like to support, that is their business, not ours, and frankly why should we get involved with them anyways. Let my actions, as well as your actions, stay independent of their own because in the end, neither of us, nor the Croats, will judge the final outcome. -- Prevalis ( talk) 23:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Imbris, I beleive that the changes which you made to Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest were a result of a good will and not pov. However I find several issues that may need to be corrected.
Shortly saying, not everything is black/white and so simple, this is a complex matter like all the Balkan-related articles. I will try to modify the article as good and as neutral as possible and I thank you in advance for your constructivness.-- Dzole ( talk) 01:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Citation: Well that SR Croatia is a predecessor of modern Croatia and that is appropriate by any account.
Yes, I agree, its cleary a predecessor, but Riva came from SR Croatia, it was 1989 and they won for ex-YU.
As far as I see Wikipedia has articles on historical states. See Kingdom of Serbia, Socialist Republic of Serbia, Republic of Serbia (federal) (as part of FRY), Serbia and Montenegro (bi-federation) and the modern-day Serbia. Yes they are all related but not 100% the same.
The majority of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest is POV so your feeling that I have done something inappropriate is just your feeling.
If I have objected some of your rushed actions that doesnt mean Im happy the current situation the article's in. I actually dont. Please don't rush. Hold your horses.
If you are that much keen in using the right titles then I will follow suit. Then I ask of you not to remove constituent republics because the socialist republic of SFRY were states with constitutions, governments and different legal systems not to mention symbols and other minute stuff. Socialist republics of the former SFRY had not only formal (de jure) sovereignity but also the real (de facto) jurisdictions. If you insist on using SR prefixes then SAP's were provinces (not regions).
I favour Constituent country cause it is a wider and better term. It covers entities that can be
It is an appropriate term to depict a country which is part of a larger entity regardless of its political system. The term constituent republics is narrower and it may confuse people. The Republic of France, the Republic of Italy and the Republic of Austria are all republics but they are independent. The word republic itself doesnt mean a dependent constituent country. This is a habit we inherited from the former Yugoslavia where the constituent countries were called republics, thus many people equate these two terms. Imagine a weather report in SR Montenegro in 1973: the weather in the Republic is cold (with republic meaning the constituent country in question, in this context, Montenegro). If you are really from former Yugoslavia as you claim, you will know what I mean.
Then, why do you think the word province solves the problem and properly explains the status of Vojvodina and Kosovo? Province is a unit of administrative division. OK, it can mean anything depending on the country's specific context and its central government's flexibility. See for example: Province (China). I doubt those provinces have the level of self-government as Vojvodina and Kosovo had in SFRY. With the Yugoslav constitutional amendments they even gained a right of veto in the federal matters. Its a completely different story although the same word is used-"province". Thats why I favour autonomous area. It covers many different types of autonomy be they called "autonomous provinces", "autonomous republics", and be they in Russia, Chiha, Spain, Finland, Uzbekistan or elesewhere. Åland Islands, Karakalpakstan or anything.
FRY did not need to be recognized by the international community to participate in the ESC, the prequisites are clear, look Kosovo in the Eurovision Song Contest. The broadcaster needs to be a member of EBU, due to complete uncompetence by EBU (allowing FRY to compete under the right of JRT to compete) we have that unique sittuation which I solved by creating Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest. Subsequently that article was merged by force of Grk1011, Greekboy and Chewch to Yugoslavia in the ESC despite the fact that it would be a "lesser evil" to merge with Serbia and Montenegro in the ESC. I realize that FRY in ESC is a complex matter and that is not a black and white picture, but you have far more unconstructive editors in those who merged FRY with SFRY. I opposed that move.
Ok, I agree with this. FRY is not = SFRY.
Thus republics first because there were lots of TV centres in Yugoslavia, not just the eight mentioned.
What are those other RTV centers please? Now this is an enigma for me. Im not trying to be cynical, I really dont remember such thing. As far as I remember there were 8 public-owned RTV centers in the each of the federal units, with an exception in late 1970's when according to Eurodalmatia (which can be questioned!): "TV Split" nominated its own candidates on Jugovizija. I dont remember that any "Television Split" existed in the ex-YU (I suppose I would know about it). Maybe it was Radio Split, cause every larger town had radio station but not TV station, but their official website doesnt say anything about it. Are you sure what are you talking about? Please point me to a website that mentions other RTV centers other that the mentioned 8, except Eurodalmatia which I saw already. Btw Yugoslavia was a socialist country and any other television except public-owned couldnt be established.
FRY did not need to be recognized by the international community to participate in the ESC, the prequisites are clear, look Kosovo in the Eurovision Song Contest. The broadcaster needs to be a member of EBU, due to complete uncompetence by EBU (allowing FRY to compete under the right of JRT to compete) we have that unique sittuation which I solved by creating Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest. Subsequently that article was merged by force of Grk1011, Greekboy and Chewch to Yugoslavia in the ESC despite the fact that it would be a "lesser evil" to merge with Serbia and Montenegro in the ESC. I realize that FRY in ESC is a complex matter and that is not a black and white picture, but you have far more unconstructive editors in those who merged FRY with SFRY. I opposed that move.
I came to the article after a long time, so I wasnt aware of the changes that occured while I was absent. I also oppose the merge of SFRY and FRY and suggested a split. -- Dzole ( talk) 02:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I represented my point of view: HERE.-- Dzole ( talk) 18:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I sent an email to the Eurovision.tv webmasters to see if they could change the wording so it does not seem like the 1992 entry was performed for SFRY. Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 00:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
While viewing your site, I noticed that on this page http://www.eurovision.tv/index/main?page=67&country=7 for Yugoslavia, it says that the list shows "All participants from Socijalistička Federativna Republika Jugoslavija". My problem is that the 1992 entry was not performed by the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but rather the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Anything concerning Yugoslavia causes a stir, and I've already heard some outrage over this, especially on wikipedia. If you watch the contest footage from 1992 it is clearly performed under the flag of the Federal Republic. Would it be a hassle to change the wording to just "All Participants representing Yugoslavia" so then it makes no distinction?
Also, if anyone has any knowledge about how the Federal Republic participated without EBU membership could you pass it along, I'd be interested to see what happened that year.
I would appreciate a reply and thank you in advance for your help.
We know it was a diff country Imbris, so I don't want to hear anymore complaints about that. I am posting this to be nice, I didn't have to Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 23:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I explained you why I favour "constituent country" and "autonomous area" with a whole elaborate. Doesnt matter now.
I agree that Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest should remain, and it should cover only SFRY until 1991. I have explained to the opponents at least 136 times that SFRY participated under Yugoslavia for several decades (I just wrongly quoted 40 years,its 30). That Yugoslavia once won in 1989, and even founded the damn EBU so there's no doubt about it. "Yugoslavia in ESC" is definetly="SFRY in the ESC".
About your suspicions that, allegedly some users deliberately post data based on dubious sources: After seeing unsanctioned blatant POV-pushing all over Wikipedia for ages, Im too quite paranoic, sometimes with sometimes without reason. The only "source" I got so far from the opposing side, is the one and only "eurovision.tv", which, as you already know, contains some obnoxious factual errors. Basicaly, I got nothing.
Grk should not worry whether Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest will be too short if we split the current article in two. There are other countries which participated only once, for example Morocco in the Eurovision Song Contest and Lebanon in the Eurovision Song Contest. Some countries have never participated at all, but still, they not only have wikipedia pages, but they are not short at all: Kosovo in the Eurovision Song Contest. The "lenght" rationale is a nonsence. If you participated just one year, thats one year, its not 30 years.
And FRY should not be merged with Serbia & Montenegro! They are different entities. The former was not admitted to the EBU till 2001 (tho it participated illegaly in 1992, and I explained how 7938 times). The latter participated normally. You cant equate them. I have all the sources and stuff on the talk page. As I became tired of this nonsence , I asked for admin help, but im not a great optimist, I hope Im wrong-- Dzole ( talk) 06:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
You cannot use "&" in the article unless it is a proper noun and "Entry for Serbia-Montenegro" does not make sense. Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 23:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I have adopted Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-01 Sveta Gera. There are some questions to help get things underway. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Vassyana ( talk) 15:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Imbris. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#Disruptive_editing. Thank you. Toddst1 ( talk) 22:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
About the percentage table, it should include an explanation of how the percentage of serbs on security forces was much higher than the percentage of serbs on the population. Also, the percentages are from all accross Yugoslavia or only from Kosov? If it's only from Kosovo, then it needs some tweakings like the table header saying "Population of Kosovo" instead of "Population". -- Enric Naval ( talk) 18:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm waiting for your answer on my talk page. Cukiger ( talk) 01:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
If you want to answer, then it would be better if you answered on the talk page of the article 'Coat of arms of the Republic of Yugoslavia', because I moved our discussion there, so others can read it, too. Cukiger ( talk) 02:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I moved the discussion to the appropriate page here, for archiving and historical reasons regarding the article. Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 20:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Grk1011/Stephen (
talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=)
Grk1011/Stephen (
talk) 02:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hey, I saw this in my watchlist today and I don't have the energy or know any of the background as to why it should be reverted. Do with it as you please. [2] Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 15:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)