Talk:Serbs/Archive 4

message: User Pokrajac continues to revert the Srbs3.JPG image to his own, regardless of the fact that his received no votes.
I agree whit protection whitout picture of Serbs because none of these pictures have majority. --M. Pokrajac 20:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Can someone protect the page image?

message: === Support for Picture 1 ===
This picture was generated after long discussion in which participated admins of sr: Wikipedia, if there is any problem, contact sr: Wiki village pump! --M. Pokrajac 22:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, this is definitive propose of Serbian Wikipedia. You can ask questions on sr: Wiki village pump! --M. Pokrajac 23:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting for picture of Serbs

message: This picture was generated after long discussion in which participated admins of sr: Wikipedia, if there is any problem, contact sr: Wiki village pump! --M. Pokrajac 22:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, this is definitive propose of Serbian Wikipedia. You can ask questions on sr: Wiki village pump! --M. Pokrajac 23:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support for Picture 1 

message: 200px
*Antidote 23:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support for Picture 2 

message: Why was the following reference removed? Barring explanation, I believe it should be restored.
:Federal Statistical Office Germany: Foreign population on 31.12.2004 by country of origin
-- Jmabel | Talk 01:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I said above, some time ago: now that we have three completely independent sources, one of them heavily anti-Serbian, which give 700,000 number, I believe that we may use that number as the only one, especially given that the other source only gives number of people from SCG (not counting their descendants etc.) and it doesn't say which period it covers. No one commented for a while, so I did it. Nikola 19:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, missed that. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed reference 

message: The following wording appears to me to be Croat apologism:
: About 200.000 Serbs left Croatia during the "Operation Storm" (a military operation in which Croatia retrieved its occupied territories ("Republic of Serbian Krajina")) in 1995, although they were invited by Croatian authorities to stay in their homes. Some acts of revenge happened though, and many Serbian politicians tried to present this as a proof of ethnic cleansing.
-- Jmabel | Talk 01:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed other then facts. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 07:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Croat apologism

message: User Antidote permanently doing vandalism on voted image of Serbs. He is changing picture unacceptable. Please, can someone stop this fulish editing of user Antidote? --M. Pokrajac 23:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a point: having a vote does not determine consensus.  En operates on consensus; I conclude from the above discussion that there is no consensus on the appropriate image to use, either here or on List of Serbs.  Edits changing the image on either of these articles are not, in any case, vandalism, unless the image is one clearly inappropriate to the article (such as a collection of Frenchmen, or perhaps a picture of a toilet paper holder).  Even if there were consensus, such edits would not be vandalism as we define it on enwiki.  Please do not make such accusations of vandalism again.  Kelly Martin (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism on voted image of Serbs

message: Would someone finally clean up this page instead of permanently adding to it? It's 42 kB now and raising, and contains a lot of noise.
* Most of the Name section is pure babbling. At most, 2-3 sentences could be devoted to it. Who cares whether it is related with Sorbs and why is it so important? There's 16,000 toponyms, most of which are vukojebine that don't have an article yet. I'm not saying they should not have an article, but why are they so important to be linked from this page?
**I can't agree. Names are important, origin unknown so all serious theories should be listed, relation with Sorbs oftenly mentioned without clear resolution. Where would you put a list of wolf breeding grounds named after Serbs if not in this article? Nikola
***Theories are OK. The world map on placenames is totally useless. I don't think that the complete list of wolf breeding grounds, eh, should be mentioned anywhere; they will ultimatively be linked as placenames in X, X = {Serbia, Okruzi, Croatia, wherever}. Origin of Serbs article already offers a separate list of placenames although mostly outside of Balkans. In this article, the list is IMO pure noise — why should various WBG's have their place on one of central articles about Serbian culture just because of its name? Duja 10:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As Nikola said, "one article at a time" :-). I do mean to move the contents, but I don't have time right now. The text is commented out rather than deleted so it's readily available for moving when the time comes. Duja 15:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not particularly fond of Srb placenames map. All it shows is where Serbia is. Duja 15:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Btw, The Image "Srbi u jugoslaviji.jpg" is scheduled for deletion because of lack of copyright info. Can you do something about it? Duja 15:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup?