User talk:Rjecina/Archive 1

Well you're welcome to fix mistakes, but I don't think anyone is ignoring Mystras or Trebizond. I don't know where you are from, but in the English-speaking world, 1453 is the conventional date for the end of the Empire. Without Constantinople it is obvious that Trebizond, Mystras, and any other territories were not going to survive much longer, even if they themselves were not conquered in 1453. Adam Bishop 16:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for editing John VII and Thomas and Demetrius. There is one more change needed in John VII. Byzantium has received all "city" on sea between Gallipoli and Constantinople + Thessalonica latter ( don't know name of that sea on English ). Ulmost all has been lost latter in war of John VIII against Turks. I like hardfacts. My thinking is that historian need to write what really happened not what they think. Good example for that is roman emperor Marcus Aurelius which is considered good emperor. Before him Roman peace has lasted more of 25 years, but all his rule has been war. In his reign first time after 250 years barbarian soldiers has entered Italy, and he is looking in normal historian standard good emperor !!!! One historian has writen in VI century that Romulus Augustus has not been last "Roman emperor" ( because in west de facto that has been Julius Nepos ) but his name is too good. My help to you Tiberius II : if I not making mistake he is crowned buy Justin II with support of Justin II wife Sofia. Constantine IV is crowned with brothers on people demand because if in Bible if holly trinity then is need for that in reality ?? Crazy but truth.

I reverted it because I understood the old version and but had trouble understanding the new version. Sorry. Everyking 14:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Valerian

Dear Rjecina, In response to your query the deleted sentence is in poor English: "It has been destroyed because of peace making process only after Roman Empire crushing victory against Persia in AD 628". Also, the victory over Persia in 628 was, more accurately, Byzantine.

Following up your point on dating I am relying on the article Byzantine Empire. --Ian Pitchford 17:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers of Croatia

Hi Rjecina! I see you removed the Croatian Banovina (1939-1941) and Ivan Subasic as ban when you added NDH as kingdom. Thus, no rulers are listed between 1939-41. Why? Hvala. --Koppany 18:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are partly right. The map on my userpage represents the personal union of Croatia-Slavonia and Hungary under the Crown of St. Stephen according to Pacta Conventa. Nevertheless, the lands of the St. Stephen Crown contain also Bosnia, Dalmatia, Galicia, Lodomeria, Wallachia etc. Maybe I will rename the map on my userpage Hungarian-Croatian Kingdom. --Koppany 19:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morean brothers

Please keep the old article for one of those brothers. We should thus save at least some resemblance of edit history. Arrigo 16:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC) - We made a shuffle, according to my wishes. These guys are now in places where they reasonably can continue to be. Shortly what to do in future: Demetrius Palaeologus is the address of the final article. There you can continue to edit. Your previous edit for Demetrius' page (I did not want to take your work, i.e to insert it in my name) is saved at Talk:Demetrius Palaeologus and it woould be quite natural that you take it fully to the article itself, insert, and then continue work Arrigo 19:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you have more despots to add, put them on the list at Mystras. Otherwise, I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Adam Bishop 15:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Osman I

I am not sure I understand your suggestion that presence of Osman I in the Byzantine Empire would lead to interpreting the rather complex Ottoman-Byzantine relations as a civil war. The two states had little actual interaction until the fateful alliance of John VI Cantacuzenus and his son-in-law Orhan I against John V Palaeologus. During the struggle Orhan gained a foothold in the Balkans. His successors became competitors in the power struggles of the area.

Osman I was the father of Orhan. He was ruler of Söğüt since 1281 but had sworn loyalty to Kay Khusrau III, Sultan of Rüm (reigned 1265 - 1282) and his successors. (Söğüt was just east of Nicaea.) He declared himself an independant ruler in 1299 and captured Eskişehir in 1303. Till his death in 1326, Osman was one among many rival Turkish rulers of Anatolia, each trying to establish rival states by warring against each other and preying on the eastern borders of the Byzantine Empire. Byzantine sources of the time reflect little actual knowledge of what was going on and who their raiders actual were. User:Dimadick

Andronicus V

Unfortunetely my books only comment on John VII not having living descedants at the time of his death. No mention is given about any possible descedants who predeceased him. I have never previously heard of "Andronicus V" User:Dimadick

Survey on the use of Latinized/Greek names for Byzantine rulers

Hi. There is a survey on a proposed standard for the names of Byzantine rulers at Talk:Constantine XI. As a contributor to such articles, I think you may be interested to contribute your point of view. Best, Imladjov 01:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aetius

Greetings! You need to list your sources on the claims Aetius was responsible for reactionary attitudes in the Empire, et al. It is so contradictory to the established histories that it needs citing. Thanks! I am in the process of rewriting the article, and don't want to delete anything that can be substantiated by accepted histories and historians. old windy bear 22:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move request for emperors of the Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty

Hi. There is a move request for several Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty emperors at Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. I tought you might be interested in.--Panairjdde 22:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine names: suggested moratorium

On Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors I've suggested a limited moratorium because I don't think the current discussion is leading to, or can lead to, consensus. I hope you'll vote, for or against! Best wishes Andrew Dalby 13:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Six-Day War

Yes, the article is absurdly unbalanced..but if you addition shall have more than a snowball in hells chance of surviving, then it must be sourced. It isn´t. Some interesting Dayan quotes are here: http://www.ussliberty.org/orenbook.htm I am currently editing them into Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. Thought of starting on both the Six-Day War and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (equally bad!) when I have finished that. Regards, Huldra 15:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No? (btw; I´ve added a ref. to the Dayan quote ;-) It´s still there! ) Regards, Huldra 09:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia

Hi Rjecina! Thanks for your constructive approach. Regarding your comment: If you can find reliable sources that state that there has always a majority of Croatians opposed to NATO membership, you can (and should!) add that in the "debate about membership" section. Note however that NATO never forced Croation government to apply for membership, but invited it to do so. Note also that "propaganda" is a heavily connonated term since WW II, which should be avoided until it is absolutely sure that Croatian government is deliberately misleading public opinion. If you find reliable (preferably academic) sources that prove that this is the case, you can add this. As far as the source tells, Croatian government wants to demonstrate NATO benefits, which isn't the same as misleading or manipulating public opinion. Also, the source never mentioned that NATO forced the Croatian government to start this new strategy. Considering WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V, we better use neutral terms, supported by facts and sources. I suggest that we expand together the "debate about membership" section about Croatia. :-)Sijo Ripa 10:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rjecina! I've read your example text. I cannot read the second article's language, so I can't judge the quality and the content of that article, but it seems clear to me that NATO membership is currently a controversial issue in Croatia. You can use sourced comments of certain notable parties or movements (such as NGO's) to highlight that the government policy towards NATO is not popular among these groups and a majority of the population. You cannot however use words as propaganda or formulate these comments as truth, as Wikipedia should remain neutral

Hi Rjecina! I don't want to be annoying, but the provided sources don't state that (1) support in 2003 was high because of NATO's response to the Kosovo crisis. This can be the case, but the source doesn't say so; and (2) the source doesn't state that support dropped due to the demand for the arrest of the war general. Note also that NATO was only one of the international organizations which demanded the arrest, which is a possible indication that the demand was not a significant or crucial factor in determining NATO support. Also, there doesn't seem to be a page about NATO benefits and I think it's best to avoid such a page, which could be "original research" or "POV" by the nature of the title. Do you mind if I revert your text, or do you prefer that I give you a day to find the sources? Anyway, I think we'll soon come to a very good text about the debate in Croatia. :-) Greetings, Sijo Ripa 21:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rjecina. I edited the part a bit. Also, I personally think that you should avoid the creation of an article about the benefits, as it seems quite clear to me that it will result into a WP:POVFORK (especially because your proposed version of such a page is from from neutral). The debate in Croatia can perfectly be mentioned and expanded in the current NATO article under the "debate about membership" section. Sijo Ripa 02:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Razgovor sa suradnikom:Rjecina/NATO propaganda

This page, with the above title, was in article space, not user space. To create a page in user space, start it with User:Rjecina/ (whatever). NawlinWiki 21:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rijeka terror attack

Thanks for checking out the page on the Rijeka terror attack for me. I tagged it for a Croatian expert because I didn't want to alter the meaning of the article by cleaning up the English. I went ahead and copy edited the page to make it more understandable in English. --Strangerer (Talk) 20:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I went and cleaned up some more of the English. It was missing a lot of articles like "a" and "the". I also wasn't sure if "parking" meant "parking lot" or "parking garage," so I assumed it meant a parking lot. The meaning of a lot of things wasn't clear, so I'm not sure if I cleaned it up accurately. Thanks for adding some information to the page. :) --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 08:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Six-Day War article

Rjecina,

My issue is not with your opinion about pre-emptive attacks. The problem is that you are not following Wikipedia policy. I'm not going to argue with you about international law; the only law that's at issue here is that of Wikipedia. -- Mwalcoff 05:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will refuse to take the bait and argue with you over international policy. Your edits to Six-Day War violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOS. This is my last note to you on this matter. -- Mwalcoff 22:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Just to let you know, the 3RR means that an editor will be blocked if they make more then 3 edits in 24 hours. An editor who makes 3 edits in 24 hours has not broken the rule, however such an editor could still be blocked for disruptive editing Nil Einne 00:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]