User talk:Asim Led

Welcome

Here are some tips to help you get started:

If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
Read the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!
Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Thanks Jrdioko, I'll do all those things eventually.

Asim Led 16:14, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Image of Bosnian cantons

I was wondering about Image:BosniaGradSarajevo.PNG, do you happen to have a template source file that could be used for easier creation of images for all the other cantons? (BTW, the work on Sarajevo and related pages looks impressive.)--Shallot 11:37, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. The BosniaGradSarajevo was based on the picture on the Zagreb page. As for a template for all the other cantons, feel free to just copy the image into paint, and switch the colors around.

Asim Led 16:14, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Welcome, pt 2

Just thought I too would welcome you to Wikipedia. →Raul654 16:15, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

I'll second that! I've added an external link for Bosnia & Herzegovina that may lead you to numerous useful websites. Enjoy! Robin Patterson 01:05, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

History of Sarajevo

I thought that was a brilliant article. One or two copy edits but you will see them yourself when you re-read it for the 499th time. Well done User:Conte Giacomo

Well, Bosniak's version of the article is a copyvio from Encarta. Everyking 05:19, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

the annoying links

What was your intention when you added those links to the Sarajevo article? RickK 06:09, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

The green ones? I didn't. I'd never add stupid crap like that to an article... they just keep popping up on certain words whenever I click "edit this page", and I can't take them out. It's some sort of problem with my computer.... except it's not mine. I want to download something to get rid of it but I was warned not to download anything onto this computer. It's a sticky situation. Others can take them out though... and if someone would do that it'd be great. I think I'll stop editing wikipedia untill it is resolved. If anyone can recommend something to help me get rid of this, that'd be good too. Asim Led 06:12, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Try lavasoft.de. RickK 06:20, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Okay... let's see if it works now.... spam! job! travel! computers! Asim Led 06:35, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'M SAVED!!! THANK YOU! Asim Led 06:35, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

i added sarajevo

I added Sarajevo on the list Featured article candidates. You might wanna vote and discuss image copyright, because some users have doubts.

[[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 18:03, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for adding Sarajevo. Regarding the images, I am currently taking a closer look at copyright and trying to find better ones along the way. If I cannot find better pictures to replace these in the next month, I am planning to go to Sarajevo for two weeks in August and I will make sure to take all necessary private photos while I'm there. Once that is done I'd be happy if someone nominated Sarajevo. As it is I don't want to get the article in any big mess. Thank you though. Asim Led 22:54, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

template for the cantons

You can edit the template, if ever need be, at Template:Cantons of Bosnia. --Shallot 12:06, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Asim Led 21:42, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sarajevo

I just wanted to thank you for the excellent job you've been doing on Sarajevo. It's so much better now. Ambivalenthysteria 10:12, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I left another comment for you at WP:PR - Taxman 20:30, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

template for the cities

You should create a template for the Bosnian cities, e.g. Template:Bosnian cities or something like that, and thereby reduce duplication in the articles by using simply {{Bosnian cities}}. --Shallot 22:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's my pleasure :) I'll stroll through the Ilidža article like all others, no problem. --Shallot 09:06, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Image:MortarShellImpact.jpg

Hi. I was going through images and applying copyright tags when I noticed that image contained a source but didn't explicitly state how it was licensed so I added {{unknown}}. Since you have permission to use the image, you should change the image description to indicate that and add the tag {{copyrighted}}, which states "This image is copyrighted, and used with permission. The terms of the permission do not include third party use." (Wikipedia:Image copyright tags idicates "these images are deprecated, and will eventually be deleted" although I am not sure if this will ever happen). In the future, when asking for permission to use images, it would be better to ask if they agree to license their images under the terms of the GFDL. Images which are not public domain or GFDL can cause problems for use of content (because while the text is GFDL, images might not be) so they others may not be able to reuse them. Image use can be complicated and I thank you for taking the time to properly source your images. If you have any questions, let me know. Maximus Rex 19:26, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

minor edits

Several of those edits you made to history of Bosnia and Herzegovina aren't minor... it seemed as if your browser forcefully checked the minor box in fact :) Whenever you e.g. remove a paragraph or noticably change/add a paragraph, it's not minor, regardless of how small it looks compared to the rest of the (admittedly rather large) page. --Joy [shallot] 23:05, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

regions of RS

Please see Talk:Regions of Republika Srpska. The maps may very well be wrong... --Joy [shallot] 13:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi, you have made a listing at WP:PR. Other editors have made comments that could use your help in resolving. The new peer review policy is to remove listings with suggestions that have not been responded to after a reasonable time. This is to make room for better discussions and more collaborative editing. Thank you. - Taxman 23:37, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Your uploaded image

Thanks for uploading Image:Opcinavogosca.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks so much, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 16:57, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Edit summary

It would be useful if you left some sort of edit summary when reverting such articles as Sarajevo - "rv vandalism" will usually do well enough. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 00:38, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tinkel

OK. I think I know this guy from usenet. He was administrator of boshnyak.net or something, used a codename "tvinkelminkelson" from Alan Ford, and tried to establish a weird scriptory reform. As I recall, Đinđić was written as "Jinjiq" and Karadžić as "Karaxiq". Well-if I'm correct, he must not be judged too severely, since he's a bit mentally disturbed. Mir Harven 22:56, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

Image:Ilidzasuburb.PNG

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the imagesand I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 23:42, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Also:

Image:Bascarsijskenoci.jpg RedWolf 19:33, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

And:

Image:Centarmunicipality.PNG -- Kbh3rd 05:48, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And:

Image:Universitysarajevo.jpg -- Kbh3rd 01:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Different opinion is not vandalism

Kojim pravom zoveš razilaženje u mišljenima vandalizmom?Sve moje promjene stoje. I.Srpsko-hrvatski II.Ono da vas razumije 30 miljuna ljudi je nepotrebno III.Sanđaklije, Gorani i Muslimani u Makedoniji nisu bošnjaci. IV.Meša Selimović se smatrao Srbinom i prezirao je pojam Bošnjaštva kao nacije.Zato se i zvala Meša Selimović dragovoljačka brigada Vojske V.Srbija i Crna Gora su jedna država a ti ih pišeš u tabeli odvojeno;zašto Republiku Srpsku nisi napisao odvojeno?

I.U svjetskoj lingvistici spominje se Srpskohrvatski i njegove standardne inačice. II.On je Bošnjak isto tako kao što je Ivo Andrić Hrvat.Upravo tako ni Ivo Andrić se nije smatrao Hrvatom.U vrijeme građanskog rata postajala je dragovoljačka brigada Meša Selimović Vojske Republike Srpske. III.Ono da razumiju slovenski i bugarski je to totalno nepotrebno i zvuči dosta djetinjasto. IV.KOJIM PRAVOM MOJE IZMJENE NAZIVAŠ VANDALIZMOM!!??uSER:Jugoslaven

Sarajevo article: football

"The two football clubs, FK Sarajevo and NK Željezničar Sarajevo, both have a long tradition of competing in European and World Cups tournaments." - but the World Cup is for national teams? Something's wrong here, not sure what it should be corrected to though! --VivaEmilyDavies 07:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright

Thank you for uploading Image:Begovica.jpg and for stating the source. However, its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. If it is open content or public domain, please give proof of this on the image page. If the image is fair use, please provide a rationale. Thank you. --Ellmist 06:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bosna, Travunia, Zahumlje, Duklja

All four pages were edited by the same anonymous user, adding a bunch of semi-coherent stuff based on De Administrando Imperio. It is borderline vandalism given how it fits into the whole pan-Serbian myth, but I couldn't force myself to just roll it back everywhere. --Joy [shallot] 17:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vidio sam članak-tipično vs smeće. Ostavio sam nekoliko poveznica na stranici za razgovor, i ako se ništa ne promijeni-akcija. Šteta što se gubi vrijeme na ganjanje ovakvih idiotarija...Mir Harven 19:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know anything about De Administrando Imperio but I know that the map is corect.

There is no such thing as pan-Serbian myth - from middle ages to the Napoleon times Serbs where majority in Dubrovnik, still Napoleon wars are 200 years far away so this today can not be used politicaly. --Milan Tešović 17:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hajd...

Pogledaj prvo podugacku pricu na svojoj strani na bosanskoj Vikipediji, a molio bih te da me kontaktiras na mojoj strani za razgovor na srpskoj Vikipediji. --Millosh 16:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Srebrenica Massacre

According to Wikipedia's naming conventions, only the first word of the title should be capitalized, except in special cases. Would you object moving Srebrenica Massacre to Srebrenica massacre? --Eleassar777 my talk 05:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Photo

Bonjour !

J'ai trouvé une photo que tu as téléchargée sur Wikipédia : Image:Sarajevoview.PNG. Je suis intéressé pour utiliser cette photo sur Wikipédia en français. Peux-tu me donner plus d'informations, une licence... Merci beaucoup.

Weft 18:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) You can answer in English.

ARD and Jwalker

Please consider weighing in at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ARD and Jwalker. --Joy [shallot] 2 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)

.ba wikipedians

It occurs to me that you might wish to list yourself at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Bosnia and Herzegovina :) --Joy [shallot]

Srebrenica massacre

You recently added the following to Srebrenica massacre, on the number of victims of Orić's raids: "Serbian media have since reported much higher numbers, with 3,287 being the latest widely agreed upon number. However, only about 1000 of these names were proven to be civilians. The remaining 2000+ alleged casualties were soldiers and military police killed in combat." I reformulated it a bit, but later I got some doubts whether I understood what you meant. Do the last two sentences ("However ... combat") refer to the opinion of Serbian media, or of others? I'd be grateful if you could clarify. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. I changed the article slightly in an effort to clarify. I don't think it's necessary to protect the article. Actually, I was expecting something to happen in the run-up to the anniversary, but it hasn't been too bad. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VreloBosne.PNG

Image deletion warning

Image:VreloBosne.PNG has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

Image:VreloBosne.PNG

Please add Image:VreloBosne.PNG to an article. By, policy (See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not), Wikipedia is not a repository of images. Orphan photos are still candidates for deletion. Thanks. Nv8200p 13:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vozdra :)

Pa idem nekad i na bosansku wikipediju i razne druge samo sam obično na engleskoj wikipediji. Zec 23:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sarajevo Love of Mine

Hi, we've deleted that article, becaiuse the original lyrics are probably copyright. If the translation is yours we could add it to the recently created Kemal Monteno page (stub). If the lyrics are for some reason public domain, let me know. Rich Farmbrough 11:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can look at the bs: page. Rich Farmbrough

Lion Cemetery

Zdravo,

Pokušavam da popounim linkove u članku Romeo and Juliet in Sarajevo i ostao mi je prazan link za Lion Cemetery. Ne znam da li ste Vi iz Sarajeva ili ne ali bih Vam bila zahvalna ako bi mi dali malo šire informacije o groblju kako bih završila članak. Hvala unapred!

Svetlana

Svetlana Miljkovic 04:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What was the medieval border between Serbs and Croats Cetina-Una or Cetina-Vrbas? HolyRomanEmperor 19:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Bosniaks hate to call for History and get nearer to Serbs or Croats, but which would, by your opinions, be closer? HolyRomanEmperor 19:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you will probably hate this question, but I wish to know; what is by your opinion the origin of the Muslim Bosniaks? Serbs, Croats...? HolyRomanEmperor 19:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I heard some theories that they are descendents of Bogumil Heretics; but the Bogumils have come to Bosnia in 1191 from Serbia, meaning that they are Serbs again... HolyRomanEmperor 19:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is my personal thought that they are Serbs by origin, since Bosnia remembers the Serbs as the first settlers in Bosnia, and they constituated a majority there for around 1,500 years until the late 70s when the new Muslim nation got high numbers... HolyRomanEmperor 20:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mapa Bosne

Asime,Postavio sam mapu koju vec dugo godina imam i konacno sam je izvadio iz naftalina.

Posto vidim da bolje poznajes davnu historiju BiH prepusticu tebi da odlucis sta da radis sa ovom njom. Vjerujem da sigurno moze posluziti na clanku o Historiji BiH. Pozdrav --Dado 03:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asime provjeri email, povodm situacije s onim sumnjvim autorskim pravima. Ubjedjen sam 99% da se radi o laziranju. U mejlu sam ti sve objasnio. --Emir Arven 10:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are deleting the rich Bosnian history? HolyRomanEmperor 12:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

20% of the Montenegrin population speak the Montenegring language; other speak the Serbian. Under international status, it is a dialect of the Serbian just like the Zlatibor language. Ironic, isn't it? The whole world except Croatia and Serbia recognizes the Bosnian; and only Serbia recognizes the Montenegrin :))) HolyRomanEmperor 14:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Montenegrin history is one with the Serbian history: for 600 years (no 400 as I previously stated) the two were in union. When Montenegro became the last free Balkan state (1492), it also became the craddle of Serbian national ideologies. The two remaining with close ties (closer then they are now) until Montenegro's joining with Serbia prior to the end of the First World War (1918). Although Montenegro today isn't a part of Serbia, it remains in political union with it to this very day. HolyRomanEmperor 14:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for tradition, culture and religion: there is nothing evidently more different, and Montenegrins are followers of the Serb Orthodox Church. I hope that this clarifies a bit... HolyRomanEmperor 14:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However, the Montenegrin people's right of self-determination cannot and should not influence those facts. Nor should those facts influence the population censi made in Montenegro. Nor should anything change the Muslims from the 1991 Yugoslav census... HolyRomanEmperor 14:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the font size of the caption. I usually like to have the legend bellow the map as usually users don't go to the next page to read it. I will not object if you still want to remove the legend. --Dado 16:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bosniaks intro

Certainly Asim, thanks for your trust. Go ahead and give it a try. Duja 09:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen many people argue about something (this is regarding what you said about Montenegrins) You see, I am not interested if Tvrtko was a Mongolean or not; or if Montenegrins are "ethnicly" Croats. But if it says King of Serbs and if it says Serbs in a trust-worthy document; it's pointless not state it truthful. I believe that nations and ethnicities are non-existant; and from that point of view, I only consider data (knowlegde over ignorence) :))) In translation, if someone doesn't have clear arguements (like Novak Kilibarda, claiming that the Petrovic dinasty were Serbs that "occupied" Montenegro) I simply don't read those sources... HolyRomanEmperor 16:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question on "Bosniak". The term was (I axcept, not invented, but promoted) for the first time officially used in Bosnia in 1882, Benjamin Kallay, the hungarian historian wanted to name all citizens of BiH Bosniaks regardless of their nationality, since the majority of the Bosnian population were Serbs; and had desires to secede from the Dual Monarchy and join Serbia. I hope that this clarifies...

To answer your question on "Bosniak". The term was (I axcept, not invented, but promoted) for the first time officially used in Bosnia in 1882, Benjamin Kallay, the hungarian historian wanted to name all citizens of BiH Bosniaks regardless of their nationality, since the majority of the Bosnian population were Serbs; and had desires to secede from the Dual Monarchy and join Serbia. I hope that this clarifies... HolyRomanEmperor 16:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you silent? When you are already making unexplained changes like that, please do explain them. HolyRomanEmperor 20:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see that you and Emir Kotromanich are assisting in spreading propaganda on Bosnian wikipedia :))) HolyRomanEmperor 22:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

University of Prishtina

Hvala vam puno! I really thank you for being objective in case of University of Prishtina. Let's make the Serbs face the facts.--Epirus 23:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that we could make compromise :) Since we're doing good by now; why not deal with the History of Bosnia and Herzegovina article. The discussion about Tvrtko being King of Serbs rather then King of Serbia was long ago finished. Why did you return the (possibly incorrect) data back? HolyRomanEmperor 17:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sarajevo

Sorry to see that you've had to put an accuracy tag on Sarajevo. Would it be hard to find the last stable version to revert back to? Ambi 22:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry to hear that. I'll try to keep a closer eye on it in the future to try to make sure these things don't creep in; you did such a good job with this article that it'd be such a shame to see it ruined. Ambi 02:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image replaced and up for deletion

Hi, I've replaced the image Image:Bosniaks.JPG, uploaded by you, with Image:Bosniak flag.svg because SVG is a more suitable format for images with no photographic content. The original image has been listed for deletion—hope this is OK. –Mysid 07:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this will be my last post. Nikola didn't even bother that part I and several other users changed that. I think that you should ask yourself you is ignoring the evidence and see the talk page. The discussion was long ago resolved that he was the king of Serbs. Even the Rama administrator agreed that my statements make the most sence... HolyRomanEmperor 17:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

University of Prishtina

Hi Asim, I'm afraid you've misunderstood my intentions. I'm not trying to solve the dispute, nor do I actually care what the location of the article should be, according to the university itself, the Serbs, the Albanians, the UN, or even the Wikipedia naming conventions. My only purpose is to stop the edit war, and I believe that my actions will have that effect. I fully believe that an edit war about the title of an article is far more harmful to Wikipedia than an article that has a slightly incorrect name. Eugene van der Pijll 20:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian Bosniak?

As can be seen on your presentation page you have the inofficial Bosniak flag present where you have written "Bosnian Bosniak". This is just unlogical to me since most educated people should know that Bosnian has the same meaning as Bosniak, there is just an n separating them two and the meaning is the very same, so what you have written is by other words "Bosnian Bosnian" or "Bosniak Bosniak". Please don't reason in this way when editing various articles on Bosniaks and Bosnia.

The bosnian people is the bosniak people - enough said and explained

One question not connected: Why did the Lisbon Agreement Peace (which would've effectivly stopped any conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina) fail? HolyRomanEmperor 15:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prijedor

On 14:37, 15 December 2005 u edited article Prijedor totally erasing previous text and copy-pasted text from Cazin article. Cos of this I will report for vandalism. Luka Jačov 11:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but could u explain yourself why u ve done it? Luka Jačov 21:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But my version was essentially the same as the one you reverted to, with Bosniaks instead of Muslims, but also lots of spelling and translations fixed. I don't mind if the sentence of ethnic composition is reworded, but please merge instead of blind revert. Regards, Duja 07:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniaks site.

Hello Asim Led. Its easeier for me to write in Bosnian so i hope it´s okej. Postovani, na stranici o Bosnjacima ja sam napravio manje izmjene na simbolima o cemu bih htio pitat. Naime, ljiljan-zastava jeste najstariji bosnjacki simbol jer je bio simbol srednjovjekovne Bosne a onda i Republike BiH i njene armije. Ovo je zato prirodno popularan simbol medzu Bosnjacima. Polumjesec je prihvacen kao simbol u osmanlijsko doba i bio simbol Bosnjaka kroz cijela 4 stoljeca pa i simbol nezavisne Bosne iz 19 stoljeca i pokreta Husein Kapetana Gradascevica. Tako je to isto prirodno popularan simbol plus sto je i simbol IZ BiH. Ali na stranici se predstavlja ljiljan kao nesto sto se samo nekad upotrebljava a polumjesec kao pravi tradicionalni. Ja sam za oba simbola napisao odakle poticu i da su popularni i nadam se da je okej. Ja sam i cuo od urednika Bosnjaci.net da je zastava sa Kotromanic-grbom usvojena kao narodna za Bosnjake poslije skidanja nje sa mjesta drzavne zastave jer su je Srbi i Hrvati odbili kao i sve bosansko. Zato sam privremeno skinuo SDA-zastavu jer 1992. godine Bosnjaci jos nisu bili nacioanlno priznati nego su se morali vodit pod vjerskim imenom pa je neznam da li je ona zastava koju ja bas nisam ikada vidio kao sto jesam ljiljane i ovu sa polumjesecom na zelenoj podlozi stvarno jeste narodna zastava Bosnjaka? Hvala unaprijed na odgovorima i nadam se da promjene nece biti mjenjane. Vjerovatno znas da je i neki hrvatski vandal pisao stvari kao da su Bosnjaci teroristi i neznam sta ali sa srecom izbrisano je... POZDRAV/SELAM

Mesa Selimovic

The current article on Mesa Selimovic is obscure and according to me full of lies. The serbian users told me that "the Bosniak users accept the article as it is". Now is this true? For example the quote where Mesa "states" that he's of serb nationality lacks sources and sounds like something made up by serb nationalists. I am very familiar with Mesa and he is my most beloved Bosnian author after Mak Dizdar, and I can insure everyone that Mesa never stated he was serb! Mesa counted himself as Bosniak (Musliman) to the very end of his life even he's serb wife said this in an interview recently shown on HRT channel. So please inform me about the current situation on the article do you really accept it as it is? to just remind you mesa is even in the list among the 100 most famous serbs and he has been removed from bosniak writers list. Damir Mišić 18:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well Asim I could need some help on the article, however I will try to change it somewhat. Damir Mišić 17:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provjeri email. --Emir Arven 18:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samo mi jos javi da li se slazes s prijedlozima vezanim za Hareta i EmirA za grupu, jer im necu slati pozivnice bez tvoje saglasnosti. --Emir Arven 19:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your move of University of Priština

Please do not move pages by copying their contents to a new location. This separates them from their edit history. Always use the "move" button on the top of the page. Thank you. Eugene van der Pijll 12:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!!

I know that we were at cross ends in the past several weeks; but you have not objected a single compromise that I forged in the disputes between you and me, and have solidarized with my NPOV-ness at Lika.

As much as I know that I am not welcome at your talk page; please let me at least apologize for any inconvenience that I caused thee before (regardless if you don't accept it) and to simply say = Thank you! :-) --HolyRomanEmperor 19:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hi Asim Led. I've just discovered the range of articles on which you (and others) are determinedly editwarring.

Can I encourage you please to stop this now, and engage on the various talk pages? I can find very little evidence of this having been tried with any determination. Edit wars, especially the dry, sterile type here are disruptive to the usual functioning of Wikipedia and when conducted on so many fronts at once cause an unnecessary degree of wasted time and effort by all involved.

You seem to stay carefully inside the three revert rule, but I'd like to encourage you, in the strongest possible terms, to stick to a much higher standard than that. I wonder if I can help those you disagree with reach any kind of agreement? Warring on so many articles has got to stop, and pretty much immediately. Thanks. I'm going to leave similar notes with Elephantus and Nikola Smolenski too, as they also appear to be reverting on more than one article — I hope it does not come to me having to construct electric fences with blocks, but we should be clear that such an option must be considered, and considered very soon. Thanks. -Splash^talk 23:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed at least several editors involved, but I decided only to leave message about large-scale edit wars with those who appeared to be doing it on more than one article. I can see pretty clearly that one editor above all is being stubborn, but by way of being fair, I decided against singling him out alone. Having now noticed the scale of the problem, I'm of the opinion that it needs fixing. So I'll try seeing what happens in response to my message, and will try handing out blocks if my message doesn't work. Then, we can try page protection but, if discussion isn't forthcoming there's not much hope. If none of that works, then I suppose an RfC and Arbitration will be necessary. But Nikola Smolenski is going to have to stop edit warring, and those who edit war with him will, too. In the same way that editwars take two, stopping them does, too. -Splash^talk 00:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

an article

...in immediate need of thy attention - Bosniak nationalism! --HolyRomanEmperor 21:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbophobia

Hey, thanks for bringing that article to my attention, but I haven't really got the time to read it. Why did you contact me about it? JHMM13 (T | C) 22:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I understand now. Well I will see if I can vote on it if I have some time, but right now I'm pretty busy :-D. Thanks again for the message! JHMM13 (T | C)

22:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on this AfD and voted for its deletion. I can assure you that my vote is, at least, unbiased, because I normally don't really care about the conflict between Serbs and Croats since I'm too busy with my own life :-D. Talk to you later, JHMM13 (T | C)

21:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi Asim Thanks for clarifying and I don't mind your contacting me about this. Listen, I am fairly sympathetic to your aims here. It is an obvious neologism and the article itself is a clearinghouse for fairly partisan ethno-political views. But be reassured that the only people who will ever give a damn enough to read the (truly awfully written) article are people who already firmly believe in the concept. So in the face of determined opposition, I would say let it be. Eusebeus 16:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Make your e-mail function operable, or, else, leave an address of your own choice so that one can mail you without writing on the talk page. Mir Harven 17:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regions of Republika Srpska

Asim:

On the talk page, I have asked for an official confirmation that these exist. Perhaps you might have it as the editor who started the article. Have a good day --Dzordzm 00:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniac Bogomilism

Please read The Bogomil churches in Bosnia and the Herzegovina. --HRE 19:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Identified_Victims.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Identified_Victims.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asim Led

Why don't you come and help us with Srebrenica Massacre article? It is currently under attack by Serbian and pro-Serbian genocide deniers. Bosniak 22:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:History of Sarajevo2

A tag has been placed on Template:History of Sarajevo2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just want to thank you

For all your hard work on the Bosnia wiki pages. Svaka ti cast, pozdrav iz Atlante. Haris145 (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarajevo FAR started

Sarajevo has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 20:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Sarajevo6.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Sarajevo6.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 file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:BosniaGradTravnik.PNG

Thank you for uploading File:BosniaGradTravnik.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Sarajevomagazines.PNG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sarajevomagazines.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:GreaterSarajevo2.PNG

The file File:GreaterSarajevo2.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned map.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:SarajevoinBosnia2.PNG

The file File:SarajevoinBosnia2.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]