User:Imbris/archives2

Re: advice

Hi Imbris. Don't leave Wikipedia! I can see you've had a pretty bad few days, and that's tough especially since you are a newbie. :) I would suggest for now you just avoid controversial political issues and give everyone a chance to calm down. What are some of your other interests? Are you a literature person? More of a science type? Know much about music? Work on articles about those kinds of things for a while. You will meet nice people on the Wiki, I promise. :) For now, just leave the Serbia map alone. It's not really a big enough issue to get too worked up over. Explore the Wiki, work on other topics, make some friends. :) Good luck! K. Lásztocska 04:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Very good advice: I would also suggest to him to edit articles without controversial anti-Serb political agenda and he will not have objections from me as well. PANONIAN (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Stay cool, Panonian, we agreed to peace, not just a cold war. :) How about just "keep away from politics altogether for a while," as we all know that "anti-Serb agenda" is a rather subjective thing, and what might seem atrociously biased to you might seem totally normal and acceptable to someone else, and vice versa, and on and on like that... K. Lásztocska 00:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, as for mediation and things like that, I've found that these sort of "comrades' courts" usually just degenerate into a he-said, she-said kind of nonsense, strengthening old enmities and alliances and not ever really providing any fresh perspective or resolution to a debate. If you don't want to try and come to an agreement with Panonian, well, you're on your own. Don't expect me to get involved anymore in fights between two angry former-Yugoslavians. K. Lásztocska 22:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I have some more advice: leave Panonian alone. At first it looked to me like just an ordinary wiki war, but now I see you are continuing to be aggressive even as he has tried to calm things down and compromise. That is against Wikipedia policy and general community manners--see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. K. Lásztocska 13:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

official welcome

Oh my goodness, you poor neglected newbie. You got into a fight before anyone even officially welcomed you to Wikipedia! Here is the official greeting:

Welcome!

Hello, Imbris, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

K. Lásztocska 04:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

calm down...

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.

K. Lásztocska 18:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Specifically regarding this. K. Lásztocska 13:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Imbris, I'm serious. STOP IT. I never thought I could be so firmly on Panonian's side, but you are being very mean and unreasonable to him. STOP, or I'll notify an admin. K. Lásztocska 15:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Your problem is you are being rude and harrassing Panonian even though he has asked you to leave him alone. I don't care which of you has the "correct" political view, or what some average Ivan Ivanovic in Novi Sad or Belgrade might think about the exact specifics of Voivodinian history. Believe me, I've had my fights with Panonian, we aren't exactly best friends, but at least he is a prolific and usually useful contributor to the encyclopedia. He does have a temper and sometimes he's too quick to assume the worst about people, but he's still a productive Wikipedian. You on the other hand appear to have come here with the primary motive of shouting at the top of your lungs about nasty political topics, and the secondary motive of picking fights and making enemies. There are plenty of other websites you can go to if mostly what you want to do is debate politics, but Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, and the first duty of a Wikipedian is to contribute to a compendium of human knowledge, as neutrally and in as non-biased way as possible. I don't know enough about Vojvodina to say which of you is correct on some issue, but I can say that you are not behaving in any way appropriate for a Wikipedian. Ask some admins if you want a second opinion. K. Lásztocska 01:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

category

The reason it's a good category is that "Hey, Slavs" has been important in Serbian cultural history just as much as it has been important in Slovak, Slovene, Czech, Russian, or whatever kind of Slavic culture. It should probably have categories for Slovak, Russian, other Slavic cultures as well, but there isn't really a good reason to remove the Serbian category. K. Lásztocska 21:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Grb SR Srbije 2.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Grb SR Srbije 2.PNG. 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 02:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo: country vote

Hello. There's a vote going on Talk:List of countries as to whether or not Kosovo should be included in that list. You have an interest in Serbia-related articles 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 15:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Crnojeviccoa.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Crnojeviccoa.jpg. 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) 21:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:GrbRep.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:GrbRep.jpg. 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) 22:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Serbian flag

Plenty of countries have seperate state and civil ensigns. An infobox does not give preference to one flag or the other, despite the fact that one is above the other. And, by the way, two giant pictures of flags in the middle of the text do not make a "table".CharlesMartel (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)CharlesMartel

Well, the infobox, which is more informative and more organized than just slapping the flags in the middle of a block of text, is here now, and it's unnessicary for the same flags to be pictured twice with the same information in their captions.

And no, I won't explain that the flags are equal to users who change the infobox, and neither should you--Wikipedia is utilitarian, but that doesn't mean you should gear it to the lowest common denominator.CharlesMartel (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)CharlesMartel

Pa sta ti mislis da ce za nas da zakace dve zastave ispred zgrade UNa samo sto smo srbi. --User1389 (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Serbian Imperial Stag

First of all, you are being very rude, impolite and not at all constructive. Please read WP:CIVIL in order to maintain a substantial level of 'coolness'. :)

The Serbian Empire did not exist during the 1200s, but during the 14th century. I must truly say that I don't understand at all your complaints and arguments; could you please offer some elaboration? It really doesn't make any sense. All I did was amend another image to create this one, and there is nothing wrong with that. Thanks. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It hardly seems you're trying to be civil at all. You constantly talk about my agenda, put me in the same basket of a declared nationalist and POV-pusher and constantly write about my fabricization of history - seems to me you are somewhat emotionally angered right now, and frankly I do not see the reason why. There is no Original Research here at all - this did really exist. This is especially hurts my personal feelings because I'm a historian and have studied the heraldic and vexilologic symbols of the past deeply (among other). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not know anything at all about the Serbian Heraldry Association.

I use, next to a bunch of others, these two sources as supreme and primary for my research on Balkan vexilology and heraldics:

1. History of the Serbian Coat of Arms and Other Heraldic Works by the Slavist Russian historian Alexander Soloviev

2. Coats of Arms, Flags and Anthems in Montenegro by Montenegrin historian Jovan B. Markus

Er, Imbris, that is the Royal Standard of King Nicholas, introduced after 1910. :) See the regal crown for instance. The first semi-official flag was 'sanctified' in Black Kuk on 5 July 1876, under it Montenegro was recognized for an independent country in 1878, that is 1880, and it was formally changed with the introduction of the first truly official flag in 1905 (with the Constitution - the Light Blue to differ from the Serbian flag). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You're really being pushy over here. :) I'll get the scans of the two books ASAP, but you should keep in mind that I am only doing this to endulge your impoliteness, hoping it will stop.

..I'm sorry, but what does this historical subject have to do with modern laws? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

UK's flag ever since its creation in 1801

Red Ensign of the British Merchant Navy

White Ensign of the British Royal Navy

Regal Stag of King Nicholas Petrovic of Montenegro

File:Montenegro-1881-civil-ensign.jpg

Old Naval Ensign of Montenegro

OK now you really do have to stop with these totally baseless and completely unfounded accusations. They are not helping anyone at all and not contributing the situation at all. Firstly, let me show you where you're wrong (hey - everyone makes mistakes) and teach you how to study sources.

Firstly, you should've taken a very close look at that 1892 book. It AFAIK doesn't collide with any of my work - but IMHO further supports it. You should've judged it as a whole before making harsh judgments. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland that had existed from 1801 to 1927 had had it's own flags. As you can see, I have posted the UK's long-term official state flag. Now the two flags presented over at that book are the following (taken from the List of British flags#Ensigns article) below it. As you see, the first (the Red Ensign) is the flag of the Merchant Fleet, and the later (the White Ensign) is the Royal Fleets flag. Now what does it tell you? Well, that those are Naval Ensigns of course.

The flag depicted over there indeed is the Naval Ensign of old Montenegro. Additionally, it is not the flag that you put over at the Flag of Montenegro article. I've posted here the two flags so that you can compare yourself. The first flag (the one you posted) is a regal standard of King Nicholas I Petrovic of Montenegro, created during the later part of the second decade of the 20th century. The second flag is the Naval Ensign of Montenegro from 1881-1916. It was in 1881 changed the crewmembers were Muslims - the Cross was removed from the flag, and the center replaced replaced with Nikola-style standard, his initials and an islamic-style crown on top of them. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Screenshots

File:Page79.jpg

page 79

File:Page 69.jpg

page 69

Here is to the left page 79 of the book's "Naval-Trading Flags in the Princedom and Kingdom of Montenegro" Chapter of the "Flags" part. The lower-left bottom shows the Naval Ensign used since 1881. And to the right is page 69. I worked them out just for you. Now will you please admit your errors and calmly draw back, letting me clean up the mess you've created, after you've put me through all this? Your practical propaganda on Wikipedia against me for 'POV pushing' and 'agenda' is completely shocking, considering that you yourself have had a record of personal insulting and incivility. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Serb clans cut & paste move

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. Specifically, you copied the contents of Serb clans This is what we call a "cut and paste move", and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming articles is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Keith D (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:NemanjicCrnojevic

File:Page 59.jpg

Page 59

Look, I don't know if you're trying to delete my creation in bad faith or not; I do not know if your plan is to tag it so that it gets deleted on 6 March 2008 no matter what or there is some other reason, but that is against Wikipedia's policy and actual wording of the template. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have just remembered that I also promised scans & direct evidence for the Nemanjic-Crnojevic stag, sorry for not including them at once. You can see it on page 59. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't simply say something's dubious because it's a reconstruction - the flag I created recently is a reconstruction, and it's not quite dubious. And finally, Wikipedia practically demands rendered reconstructions of Flags. I don't understand how you can object - please, let me quote you:

1. Here: "Delete. This flag is not described anywhere but in the minds of some current inhabitants of present times. Likewise administrators deleted the abomination and historical fabrication of the Coat of arms of Tzar Dushan - so this wouldn't have to be any problem. You reminded me that we should delete the fabrication of simmilar flag with yellow background and red double headed eagle."

2. on my talk page: "Fabrication, there is no evidence that this particular flag ever existed"

3. personal attack on another user's talk page: "It is a clear agenda of such people like Paxequilibrium.", "Both of those images were created on the basis of fabricization of history using a portion of this map.", "Now they have set their minds to a new adventure - creating exactly the same (design wise) flag for Montenegro. Because they do not want to contribute encyclopeadical content, they want to stirr up troubles and fabricize history to meet their agenda." and "Clearly you can see that their agenda is showing that Montenegrin people and Serbian people are one of the same. And to colaborate that (by their account even for this day and age - fact) they go to the deepest history where anything could exist or couldn't exist."

4. on a Wikipedia:Namespace page: "Both of those images were created on the basis of fabricization of history using a Image:Flag of Serbia on the map of Angelino Dulcert.jpg (this map). They said to themselves, wouldn't it be nice to create something that has never been created. A Serbian Empire Flag from 1200ies. Nikola Smolenski supplied that small and unrecognisable portion from God knows where and they started firstly with that yellow flag. Now they have set their minds to a new adventure - creating exactly the same (design wise) flag for Montenegro's Crnojevic Family. Because they do not want to contribute encyclopeadical content, they want to stirr up troubles and fabricize history to meet their agenda. Please take this matter under consideration because this is a blatant hoax."

5. again on my talk page: "Where are your sources, in some medieval festivals perhaps. An for that matter unsupstaniated material is unencyclopaedical".

6. again: "There is abundant reasons for speedy deletion of both images."

7. and again: "..and then stop your POV."

8. here too: "- that showed you for who you are."

9. ...and here: "Easy, isn't the flag yellow with red eagle or you are changing your mind very quickly. Today you say that it is red flag with a white eagle and tomorow you will realize that either hadn't even existed)".

10. this odd reply here

11. a little here: "..but cannot stand your clear fabricizations. You are not a historian and claim to be one, real historian would know that you should have way more evidentiary material and sources."

12. Here is your crown jewel, even after I have supplemented sources to you: "Stop your deliberate disinformation crusade, when something is a civil ensign you should not put it into the main flag article, when something is unsourced - delete, clear your mind from politics."

Now, if you really think that n. 3 and n. 4 are OK, I think you don't really know what is civil & polite.

And why should it be deleted? Also, why should the other one be deleted? You haven't given any reason sensible and reasonable so far.

Right. After I indulge your demands and ask you politely to clean up behind you, you asked me to step back in favor of you and again threw personal attacks in the edit summary, again implementing erroneous edits. Please, I beg you, stop with this. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Serbian Empire

Imbris, please stop inserting the incorrect flag. That is not the Serbian Empire's flag. It was (and only partially) used in the Serbian Kingdom. Despite the fact that I have explained it to you, you again returned. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "still untitled"? It's the "Coats of Arms, Flags and Anthems of Montenegro" I told you about.

You do realize that 65% of Wikipedia's flags will be challenged? This is a reconstruction, as I carefully pointed out on Wikipedia - but hence there is no reason to delete it. Please check out the Flag of Denmark article for instance.

But just why do you insist on deleting the two flags, especially since the first one is based on no reconstruction?

Nikola Smolenski's flag has a primary source - Angelino Dulcert. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Aha, so this book that seems to mix up all kinds of flags of nations is supposed to be a primary source for State Flags just for one state? Isn't that picking that which you like and discarding other relevant facts? I don't understand, where's the logic? Also the Serbian flag is a bit incorrect too. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

File:Page59II.jpg

Page 59

You are again getting out of the line. How can it be fiction, fabrication, fantasy and Unsourced, Unencyclopaedical when it's based on then's age's source? Angelino Dulcert (did you even check this article?) drew the flag as the flag of the Serbian Kingdom in 1339, a flag on top of the capital of Skopje. He lived back then and drew up Europe (he was a cartographer you know). I've written this to you countless times. What do you not understand? Nikola Smolenski is not my friend. We don't even get along at all. He has an extremely nationalist agenda of POV pushing, and shares the stubborness of thee. :)

P.S. I have just once again put my fingers and patience to strain, and uploaded another part of page 59. What is thy response to this? :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is from that very same work. Didn't it cross your mind that Nikola Smolenski made the flag in accordance to the sources? Just like me? :) Please tell me how is it non-clear? It's high resolution. How "funny" does it look? Please elaborate? If it bothers you, I have another book ("Serb Dynasties" from Rados Ljusic and Andrija Veselinovic) which also contains images of Serbian & Montenegrin flags. I will scan it and supply to you ASAP, to prove to you that Markus didn't mess with it.

I am defending him in placing where he's right. Haven't you ever seen bad people do good things? Tito is bad for political persecutions and dictatorship, but of course I will "defend" him as our liberator and cherisher of brotherhood and unity of our peoples. Smolenski is right in this case.

And? Mine's just a reconstruction, so it doesn't matter.

"..where is a fact behind it.." I am really sorry, but what on earth are you talking about? The book explains the event; there are other sources which also define the fact that the Moslem crewmen had a problem with the cross - so it was replaced with Islamic-style ornaments.

What? Yes they are. They are from the 2nd book (as I have written to you twice in the meantime, I do not understand how you could've missed it). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I have just also realized that the first book I had mentioned (Soloviev's) also has a picture of the Serbian Kingdom's flag, so I'll scan & upload it ASAP too. I hope that this will (finally ;-) satisfy you.

I have also just found out that the flag Nikola Smolenski updated was most probably made by a web site developer with interest in heraldry called Ivan Sarajcic, in 2000. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

3rd Table from Soloviev's book

I have just scanned and uploaded Table III from the book by Alexander Soloviev. I hope that this will satisfy you. If not, I will then upload the 3rd book that also claims the flag (by Ljusic & Veselinovic). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:PrincedomMNEdi.PNG

This puts me in the same situation you were a while before. :D Lol, but I'm not going to react that way.

To my knowledge that flag never existed. Perhaps you know otherwise? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I am close to getting convinced that you're not neutral at all and that there is something personal regarding this, because you yet again enforce this abusive tactic and use double standards with inventing your own [Image:PrincedomMNEdi.PNG] which is really unsourced itself and seems original research. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This version is. Not the one you uploaded (false color of the eagle). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I am know giving you your last warning. If you resort once more to your old habits, I will be forced to request intervention. There is no source for the map you've upload and is plain violation of Wikipedia:Original research. The color of it fades over time. When creating rendered flags, we return to the original.

Never, was on any Montenegrin flag an eagle that wasn't white. Never. Any Montenegrin will tell you that. What is here shocking to me right now is the fact that this means that actually you don't know anything about Montenegrin vexicology. Stefke uploaded a correct banner of Prince Danil, and all you did was change the double-headed eagle based on speculation. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol, there is already an original. You don't need to vector-create copies of originals, but of their true original depictions - especially if there is no original. :D I can't believe you're accusing me of "obvious construction", when you're the one who's doing that. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You have no source. It is simple as that. The original was white, and that's the way it should be.

"..and continued to use yellow eagle,.." Lol, you're now contradicting over 'ere. Does this mean that you agree with me? :) And yet another personal attack over here: "to bad yours is so negative and greaterxxxxxxx." You're only making your situation a whole lot worse with these kinds of statements, concerning the fact that you have accumulated quite a bunch of them (a dozen only dedicated to me ;), and especially concerning your record of tenacity to attack other users. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

---

That's it. Even after I warned you numerous times and gave you the chance over and over again, you have repeatedly continued to conduct personal attacks. This (Stop your POV pushing and greaterxxxx politics.) is the last drop. I'm afraid I am forced Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continuous_incivility_by_User:Imbristo report you. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, page 59 already is on this very talk page, to the up. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Please explain your harsh claims at [[1]] --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Here you have falsely claimed in the edit summary (quote: You havent discussed and continues to POV your own Stop writing SDP and 2/3 and we shall see.), when in the talk page of the article in question it is seen that you are the one who haven't discussed. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. We could as Duja, he's fairly a neutral editor - but the problem is he's mostly inactive these days. What is clear POV? What precisely seems to be the problem over here? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not want you blocked (but if that's the only way to calm you down, yes I do want; as an act of good will I'd also request my own block). My sole aim is to calm you down, so that we can, afterwards, continue peacefully and in a normal manner this hotted discussion. I have warned you repeatedly and tried to reason you over and over again, so I now ask foreign intervention - frankly, do you see anything wrong? You seem a bit far too over-stressed, I really did everything in my power not to lead this to here, but you have simply strained all possibilities. I'm sorry, I really am. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

For the seriousness of your allegations here, I am forced to demand an explanation. One of the few things I pride here on the Wikipedia is my non-national cosmopolitan pursuit, a consequence of my links across all of former Yugoslavia and the fact that I have suffered much through the actual horrors. I have never ever been interested in anyone's nationality at all. Your outrageous accusations have hurt my feelings deeply. Please supply evidence that supports this claim of yours. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

New bad faith editing at the edit summary over here: "This is nonsense. His source is a colouring book for the spreading of minute ideas which are unsupstantiated." --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Sorry, that was not aimed at you at all (still, the reason is the frustration that user keeps causing, despite admins parole and revert his edits. ;) BTW, when will you respond to that question I keep asking you? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I have no intention to create a "net" of users against you or any kind of it - and I have no special attitude aimed at you other than at any other Wikipedian. And if you notice - I'm not doing anything at all. PPNjegos asked Prevalis. I may be of Montenegrin descent, but I don't live in Montenegro - so I invited PPNjegos (who does) to shear his thought. I also invited my good friend Prevalis, to show you the general view of Montenegrins on this matter. Prevalis is a representer of sovereignist Montenegro and PPNjegos of pro-Serbian, so we have both "covered".

One or two sources are better than none you know.

Me and User:Rjecina have different arguments across talk pages, which we'll calmly sort out. Even when the discussion gets heated, we maintain a level of calmness - and that separates Rjecina (or me) from you. I am very fond of Rjecina, who has done immense contributive work with the Wikipedia.

I still don't understand why you keep addressing me, but continually over and over again avoid to answer my question regarding that accusation. I'm also sorry that this argument might seem exhausting to you, I'd like to meet you in real life and drink a cup of coffee. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're referring to - nor what you again didn't clarify that accusation. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no, I merely want to know what does Your tactics is to ask eveyone about the nationality mean? What did you want to say in this accusation? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

..which is? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant what's lost meaning. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

AN/I Discussion

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 can be found under the topic WP:AN/I#Continuous incivility by User:Imbris. —Travis^talk 23:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:20080304162853791 0001.jpg

Image:20080304162853791 0001.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mnecoadaniloi.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Mnecoadaniloi.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

PLEA TO END YOUR INCIVILITY

Hello, Imbris. I've noticed your incivility here on Wikipedia and have just wanted to plea to you to stop. Your facts about flags are practically historically incorrect. I, as a neutral party, have actually been following your constant bickering with PaxEquilibrium about the history of Montenegrin flags and have even called here to stop your nonsense by PPNjegos, another faithful Montenegrin editor.

I haven't been making any intentions on stopping your arguments but this has just gone too far. So please, just comply with my plea before you get banned permanently from Wikipedia, which is something I, nor anyone else, wants. Cheers! --Prevalis (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. Pax indeed has been fabricating the fact that the flag of the Serbian Empire was the semi-mythical Stag of the Crnojević dynasty. I know this very well, actually, but I couldn't stop him because I have very limited sources, unlike him, who lives in Belgrade and has access to the vast libraries in Belgrade. And I am also aware of his claim that the current Flag of Montenegro is based on DPS's flag or something. I know this very well, but how can I stop his claims. He is more superior than I am and I just can't handle to see two Wikipedians bickering on and on about Montenegro's flags. Indeed, he does go overboard sometimes with his claims and evidence to prove his claims, but arguing with him won't work. The guy has been contributing on Wikipedia since 2004, you and I, only since 2007.

Imbris, I respect what you are trying to do and all, but please, you are only making a fool out of yourself to the rest of us fellow Wikipedians. You don't have to comply with my plea, but at least just take the time to listen to my opinion. Thank you. Cheers! --Prevalis (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I have recently become aware of how rude and uncivil PANONIAN has been in the past. The Hungarian WikiProject even issued a community ban on him, right before his "retirement", which was the only thing that saved him from getting banned. Kudos for actually escaping from PANONIAN's biased arguments alive at least. And as for your goalkeeper question, LMAO, never have I heard such an amusingly ridiculous question ever! No offense, of course. As far as I know, the Goalkeeper wears the same uniform as any other football player in the national team. The national football uniform is all red with a gold trim on the shoulder cuffs. And here's an answer to your Prince Danilo Flag issue, I don't ever recall Prince Danilo's flag ever having a pink/purple-ish background. --Prevalis (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You are very good in finding interesting users for discussions. First PANONIAN and now PaxEquilibrium . All in all second is OK but he has kidnapped small number of articles in which all users who are writing against Pax words are reverted. --Rjecina (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Kidnapping" relinquished. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If you any contri on Bosnia on this article once more i will be forced to list you as a vandal...if you have any objections to this part of article, before deleting it you should clarify your position on discussion page.and after you get NPOV then you can delete it. until than it stays. the project of Herzeg bosnia is not dead. there is parties and circles that still pursue that idea, either in Bosnia and in Croatia. People sould know what problems Bosnia face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanticm (talk • contribs) 11:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for comments. Pax is, as always, wrong. 2007apm (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad most people would disagree. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal insult?

Most of the stuff Pax writes is unsourced, he belives he is NPOV, the greates NEUTRAL beeing on the world. There is no such stuff. That fact is written on his user-page on Wikipedia. He thinks that sourcing is a loosing of time.

Could you please elaborate what were you thinking when you wrote that? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Mount Wilhelm

Sorry Imbris, but the source you give does not support your claim that Mount Wilhelm is the highest point of a continent. In any case, the continental division of the island of New Guinea makes no geographical or cultural sense. The people of New Guinea are of the same Papuan stock on both sides of the political division of that island. If Russia and Turkey can cover two continents, why can't Indonesia? Viewfinder (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputes

Please, you have again abandoned any and all form of discussion. Edit summaries are for edit summaries, and not discussions - you have talk pages for that. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I admit that I do constantly peek over the same arguments over and over again - and those are sources. Something that I, as, I will give myself the credit to call me the person with most knowledge on Montenegro and the Montenegrins on the Wikipedia, consider blatant nonsense and clear falsification of Montenegrin history - to which any Montenegrin would probably laugh, or even get insulted. That's why I cannot let this go without any source whatsoever. To add more fire to the heat, you have falsely claimed three sources back up your claims - when, after checked, it turned out that none of them does so.

I cannot see any sort of compromise to not presenting anything concrete to back you up. For instance, if I just now put on the Flag of Vojvodina article the Nigerian flag and claim that it was used - would it be normal and just to attempt to orchestrate a compromise which would finish with its inclusion?

You maybe not like it, but I see no other way - as you continually avoid any form of discussions, or at least start over new sub-sections, starting the discussion over and over again - rather than continuing the discussion where it stopped. We can lead this normally, but have really got to stop braking it.

The real topics of our dispute over here are the two alleged flags that you adopted, both deeply dubious. This is the bigger fish, because that's the only thing I disagree with you. I do not see anything wrong in that one.

Yes, you have claimed that you have provide sources - but if the relevant talk page is investigated, one can see none at all. To add more trouble to the whole situation, on the other talk page you have falsely presented several sources, which in the end turned out as not backing up your claims.

The Wikipedian community will also not understand your nonexistent or false sources, you'll have to agree.

I also endorse a compromise, and it shall begin with the similar treatment to our dispute I gave upon your personal requests - and that is scanning and uploading sources. Thank you in advance. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Clear repeated violation of Wikipedia policy

You have engaged multiple times in WP:Canvassing. This is a breach of Wikipedia policy, please stop now. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Canvassing: "...messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process."

Here is your message:

"Some users requested a move to Aimone, Duke of Aosta. I opposed that and invite you to do the same. We have successfully opposed the move once before - we will do the same - but we need your help. -- Imbris (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)"

This is quite clearly a breach of policy, I'll inform an Admin...

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The previous stance is completely irrelevant, you engaged in sending messages to multiple users in which you clearly tried to persuade each and every one that they should vote in accordance with your own personal beliefs. This is WP:CANVASSING. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What can I say? You messaged various people and asking them to help you achieve a poll result in accordance your own personal view, do you deny this? It is strikingly clear from your messages. Did you message the people that voted for the move, btw?

I can't understand why you keep denying that you violated policy when its plain obvious?

"...I opposed that and INVITE YOU TO DO THE SAME. Imbris 00:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)"

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Imbris. I've taken a look at things per the ANI discussion here. While it is permissible to message people who have been previously involved in a discussion, those messages need to be neutral. "Invit[ing] people to do the same" as you is far from neutral, and is considered campaigning. Since consensus is built by users reviewing the situation and coming to their own conclusions about things, this can be disruptive, particularly in controversial situations like this. If you wouldn't mind, please stop sending notices around for this discussion - if you'd like to bring in some more opinions, you can open an WP:RFC or get a third opinion on something.

Direktor, thanks for bringing this up, however please try to calm down a bit (which goes for both of you). There's no need to get frustrated at each other - remaining calm and civil is what's going to ensure this works out amicably. Ok? Either of you please let me know (or post on the ANI thread) if you have any questions. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Often experiencing problems

Ah! You must be using Mozilla Firefox...right? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well what? Opera, Internet Explorer? I must know.

In any case there is considerable trouble with using the Wikipedia if you have ZA installed (e.g. can't view images on wiki). That's why I simply don't use it. The very best thing you can do is - uninstall ZA and get this, and it should work as if on ice. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Compromise

Because your edits remove ends of sentences, making them blank (for no apparent reason) and remove the ! commented out comments I put while writing the article, later to find the professional English language words for them. You also keep replacing the correct Naval ensign with an odd (probably false) one, and keep changing the double-headed eagle on that flag from white to gold, and when I just ask you for sources - you continuously personally insult me, abandoning the subject and concentrating on me, rather than the content. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

...and keep removing the Italic without apparent reason and asking me nonsensically and in an ugly manner to stop returning it! --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh. I have told you over and over again that Italic for Cyrillic is banned, and that this is standard practice used everywhere else on the Wikipedia!

Why?

That's just the problem. We have none.

If you recall, you had presented falsely three sources, as if they support it (calling this open lying would be insulting, but I don't see how to call it other way - since you haven't still explained yourself).

What compromise you propose? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but are been overly irrational. Let me repost here, in an attempt to refresh your memory:

SOURCE NUMBER 1: Roberto Breschi. To the up you had claimed he is the source for this flag, helped to be created by Diego Bonazzi and Valentina Velimirović. There is nothing such in the link, claim disproven.

SOURCE NUMBER 2: The official website of the Republic of Montenegro on Montenegrin national symbols. However, when the link is observed, there is nothing related to this matter; claim disproven.

SOURCE NUMBER 3: You claimed that this was the color of the Montenegrin National Football team's goalkeeper. Patent nonsense to be applied as a source.

SOURCE NUMBER 4: A. Ziggioto Armi e bandiere del Montenegro: molte ombre e poche luci, Archivum Heraldicum. The reconstruction was made in 1998 by Mario Frabrinetti. It [which you have yet to scan and upload to the Wikipedia] doesn't support this flag; claim disproven.

After this, just how can you even think you can claim that? All what is needed is reading your comment and then clicking the link you provided - and one can easily see that you were false, and just once - over and over again. I mean, just what explanation do you, can you have for this?

And here you repeat your false claims yet again. "I have quoted to you that there has been a golden-yellow double headed eagle from that official site of Montenegro." Neither did you ever quote that, nor does it write in there at all. The Italian website you shows does not depict the violet color anywhere at all. What other sources are there? What non-ex Yugoslavian Wikipedians are you talking about?

I am not the one who keeps adding the Serb flag - you keep removing it.

I delete nonsensical repetitions of flags, yes. That is more than justifiable.

Nonsense three times in a row...please drink a cup of coffee, you're not helping me, the Wikipedia - or yourself. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Greater Slovenia

Spying? Honestly, you are getting out of line. All I did was check out that post to the up warning you about violating the WP:CANVASS wikipedian rule, and that's how I found about that.

I have checked out that article and voted because it obviously lacks verifiability, therefore is for deletion (see the Google search results for example).

why do you accuse me of OR when the majority of your work has not been referenced, sourced or even produced a link.

Oh? Which are those? Please point out one. As far as I see I even scanned and uploaded pages of sources after you demanded, which you yet have to do for your own claims. I also see the dubious Violet flag and the Red with Golden eagle violation of WP:NOR lacking any source whatsoever.

Really? My "motto"? Where did I write such a thing, please do tell me? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Province of Ljubljana

The Province of Ljubljana was an administrative unit of the Kingdom of Italy and later of the Operation Zone Adriatic Littoral. As such, it had no official insignia. If you find otherwise, please cite sources. The flag you used was the official insignia of the Slovene Home Guard, not of the province. Viator slovenicus (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My attitude is not general disbelief: I am quite convinced of it. I am amused by your habit of asking people to prove that something did not exist, but unfortunately I can't satisfy you in that. I'm afraid the burdian of proof is on the one who claims something exists, not on the one who negates it. Please provide reliable sources for your claims. (To spare you the efford, I can tell you in advance you won't find them). Best regards, Viator slovenicus (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything you have to say in defense of your claims is phrases such as "this must have been the case". Well, if it's so obvious, you would certainly be able to provide reliable sources. Until then, I see no need to discuss this further. Btw., if you want to have an idea of what kind of "insignia" were used in the Province of Ljubljana during the Italian occupation, you can take a look here: it:Provincia di Lubiana. Anyway, both the article in Italian and English wp are still very much incomplete and rather inaccurate and they would certainly need a serious edit. Viator slovenicus (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Serbian National Assembly is not the government!

Imbris/Rainman, you said earlier that the Croatian parliament is the only reliable source for the flag. You made note that you found your source from the Serbian parliament. Now you are saying that my source, directly from the Serbian National Assembly is no good because "the assembly is not the government". Then what is the government? Who makes their decisions? A while ago you said that the Croatian parliament was the only reliable source and that the webpage of the Croatian government was unreliable. Why are you being hypocritical?--R-41 (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are you posting two versions of the flag, I thought you said there was a consensus. Yet you upload a version for the article Serbia infobox and another version with different colours for the Flag of Serbia article. Which one do you support? Like I said, if you are so confident of your position, then be consistent, put the version you have put in the Flag of Serbia article onto the infobox in the article Serbia. User:Suradnik13, who was a former Wikipedia administrator knows that you are Rainman, and as Rainman you have been highly uncivil to him, you accused him of being dishonest. I asked him if you were Rainman and he said yes. Your account on Croatian Wikipedia is Goran, you were banned in the past for uncivil behaviour. I highly suspect that you are Rainman, Suradnik13 supports this. If it is proven that you are Rainman, then you have lied when you denied it, which means that you a manipulative user. Call it uncivil as you wish, I had hoped for some time that you would change your ways, I tried to be courteous but you didn't return the favour, you accused me of preaching, "seeing ghosts", etc. I know that I should change some of mine, perhaps I should discuss my proposals, but I realize that with your opposition, any of my proposals will never see the light of day, they'll be debunked by you instantly. I have hoped that others would comment in support but not enough people are actively participating in evaluating the colours of the flag of Serbia. I have listened to some of your suggestions, I have given the Yugoslav flags standard red as you are right in that there is no way to prove what the actual colours of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia's flags are. But you have never listened to my suggestions, nor those of others who oppose you. I will not bother editing the flag of Serbia page anymore, you just will revert all of my edits and those of users who oppose you, it's up to Suradnik13, he and I are now reccomending that you be banned from Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. Is important that you know this so that you can make your defense at this link, [2].--R-41 (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Zscout is pro-me (R-41)!?

Imbris, what are you talking about? You are now accusing an administrator of being "pro R-41"! I don't even know Zscout!!! You should apologize to Zscout immediately.--R-41 (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, you accuse me of reverting your edits in bad faith. Did you just look at what I did for the Serbian flag. I accepted a shade of red that is like that of the earlier compromise agreed upon by other users. I have abandoned the Serbian government's version of red, which you asked to not be used. I recently have AGREED with you that the red proposed by the Serbian government doesn't match up with that on real flags. I have uploaded that shade of red for the coat of arms of Serbia that is not the government-stated one and is like the red that was agreed upon. You are the one who reverts all my edits in bad faith, you smashed down my edits for the flag of the Independent State of Croatia without hearing me out. I have been harassed by you, I have been made frustrated by you, and statements by you saying you will "never compromise" with me until I submit to your demands, is further evidence of you trying to push me to submission to your idea. I know that you will never ever accept my compromise, you will always find a way to reject it, and that is because you have a personal dislike of me. I tried to work with you in the past, I agreed with you that my upload of a state flag of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was incorrect and that it was an unofficial flag. At your request I removed that flag. Recently I changed the colours of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia flag to shades of colours which I thought you would accept. But you aggravated me, so I admit that I may be being somewhat hostile, but I am not usually hostile, I get along fine with users like the Italian Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons User:F L A N K E R who has had differences with me over some issues, such as the crown on the flag of the Kingdom of Italy, we still do not agree with the colour shades of some of the jewels on the flag, but for the most part we have worked out our differences, and he does not disagree with everything I do.--R-41 (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine I'll revert the colours back.

Alright, I'll revert the colours back to the discussion colours which you uploaded. But I will begin a new discussion with my proposal for the flag. I do not expect you to be cooperative to me at all, so when you oppose my work, don't just say things like you have in the past like "R-41 always presents dubious colours", I've seen you write that repeatedly. I am no genius by any means but I do know that the compromise is no where close to being correct, it has a blinding computer-screen glowing red and an overly dark blue. I will call for a review of the compromise but from this point on I will not change any flag image without having posted a discussion version on a discussion page, I hope this satisfies your demands, but I still am concerned that whatever I post on a discussion page in the future will just be ridiculed by you. I expect that you will do that, I would be pleased if you didn't and instead made suggestions, and if no firm sources exist for your edit, propose a compromise.. I personally think that despite your flaws you can improve. You have found some useful material such as the Coat of Arms of the SFRY on WIPO that you uploaded under your other profile as Rainman which I have based the SVG version on, though other sources show a lighter blue in the arms, which you dispute. I recognize that I have angered you, and that I have been too pushy with the flags, I have been too overconfident in government sources for flags. I like to find sources for flags, but upon examining what you have said, you are correct that the Serbian flag typically has a more standard flag red than the purplish red that the government shows. But the red is not the same as that shown on the compromise version on Wikipedia, as it is impossible to print a practically glowing red, such a glowing red usually prints out far darker than it appears as there is no such glowing red in the real world. But you have been just as pushy with me, it has aggravated me as well. We have both made mistakes and I don't expect that you will ever cooperate with me, but more importantly it appears that you have aggravated a number of people in your uploads of flags, I have seen in the flag uploads you arguing with users such as PaxEquilibrium, Suradnik13, and you have accused an administrator of being biased towards me when he banned you. The negative attitude that you have towards a number of other users has not helped you at all and if you continue it, you will continue to be banned. I will change my approach as of now as you have asked, but you should change yours as well.--R-41 (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice

Hi, there are some concerns about your editing being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Imbris. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Croatia at the Olympics

This is a fairly bold edit to make to a featured list without any references. Can you name any specific athletes? Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

FRY in Eurovision SC

You're being absolutely ridiculous, dissruptive, and unreasonable. All the stuff you're claming about FRY considering itself the sole successor to SFRY is your own uncited invention. And even if that wild invention was true (which it isn't) how does any of that apply to Eurovision!!!? SCG and FRY are the same country that changed its name at one point. It is abosultely the same as FPRY changing its name to FPRY in 1963. That's not even up for debate - it's a hard fact - so why do you then insit on this sharade is beyond me.Zvonko (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced image

If you uphold that it is a "..Thoroughly sourced file...", could you please back up your claim with a source? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the title of your post is highly erroneous. The flag of the Serbian Kingdom from Angelino Dulcert's map is, unlike the other flag, not mythological. It is oh-so-much real. Second of all, how can you say that something which has got seven sources:

   1. "History of the Serbian Coat of Arms and Other Heraldic Works" by Alexander Soloviev
   2. Gordana Tomanovic in the "Monumenta Cartographica Jugoslaviae II"
   3. Angelino Dulcert's Map of Europe
   4. "Serb Dynasties" of Andrija Veselinovic & Rados Ljusic
   5. "Coats of Arms, Flags and Anthems of Montenegro" by Jovan B. Markus
   6. Ivan Sarajcic of the Serbian Heraldry Society
   7. CRW Flags of the World Catalog

...is better sourced than that which has none at all?

If you think that my behavior borders harassment, than the felling is mutual.

You mention "those sources", however, you have failed to present a single source. Yes, I'd gladly see the reaction from other administrators.

Funny. Maybe the problem is in me, but I have clicked Image talk:PrincedomMNEdi.PNG and continually, over and over again, failed to see any source on the talk page. My view is not POV, it is blatant fact that Montenegro had never ever had a golden eagle on its flags, but a white one. It is even outrageous and totally ignorant to claim the other way around. You are conducting a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)