Ceha

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Ceha!

First steps tutorial

Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content).

You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.

Getting help

More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks

Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities.
You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads.
Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~.
To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg.
You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account.
There are several tools to upload files.
Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful.

Made a mistake?

Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it.
Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

Tip: Categorizing images

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, Ceha!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Image:Karadjordjevo critisizm.png was uncategorized on 1 June 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Izbori 2008.

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Pozdrav. Ova mapa nije baš dobra, potrebno je ispraviti: Bosanski Petrovac, Šekoviće, Foču i Pale. U tim opštinama je SNSD je dobio najviše glasova. Evo ovdje imaš sve pa pogledaj. Vjerovatno ima još grešaka. Tonka (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

File:Hrvatske_opcine_u_BiH.png

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Hrvatske_opcine_u_BiH.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

LAz17 (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Wolfblue3 (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#user causing problems. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

darkweasel94 21:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

File:DemoBiH2006MunPrecise.png

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:DemoBiH2006MunPrecise.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Lilic (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Commons:Deletion requests MAPS

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Commons:Deletion requests MAPS has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this project page, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

PANONIAN (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

File:DemoBIH2006a.png

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:DemoBIH2006a.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Lilic (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

File:BiH 1739.png

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:BiH 1739.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Lilic (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

File:BiH 1739.png

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Ceha,

Please answer to the issue raised her. --Geagea (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Paganija

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments1 person in discussion

U redu, ajde da pričamo otvoreno: koji ti je đavo? Da li stvarno želiš da falsifikuješ granice na mapi samo da bi tvoja fiktivna mapa bila nekakva "protivteža" mapi iz srpskog atlasa? Meni ni najmanje ne smetaju hrvatski izvori kao što je ovaj: http://www.croatia-in-english.com/images/maps/800s.jpg Ako je takvo gledište hrvatskih istoričara, to je jedno od validnih gledišta za vikipediju. Međutim, tebe izgleda gledište hrvatskih istoričara ni ne zanima već sam izmišljaš granice. Na ovoj mapi si zadržao granicu Zahumlja iz srpskog atlasa i onda si samo umesto Srbije na mapi nacrtao Hrvatsku: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pagania9st.png I kao izvor za to si mi pokazao ovu mapu hrvatskih dijalekata koju si ti nacrtao: http://oi59.tinypic.com/i3w1ab.jpg Pa mislim, čoveče, jel to neki vid zezanja ili čega već? Jel postoji mogućnost da se uozbiljiš i da diskutuješ o ovome na normalan način? Odnosno, postoji li mogućnost da pokažeš pravu referencu za tvoju mapu ako iste uopšte ima? PANONIAN (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ako je u pitanju greška, onda u redu. Ipak, ovaj izvor je problematičan: http://free-zg.t-com.hr/Andelko/Slike/DAIzupanije.jpg To je samo mapa nekog lika čiji kredibilitet nam je nepoznat. Zar ne možeš koristiti neki ozbiljniji izvor kao što je ovaj: http://cro-eu.com/galerija-fotografija/albums/userpics/10001/Sl_%202_%20Zupe%20Lika,%20Gacka%20i%20Krbava%20u%20srednjem%20vijeku.jpg Pored toga granicu Zahumlja na tvojoj verziji mape si preuzeo iz srpskog atlasa i ona ne izgleda tako ni na jednoj hrvatskoj mapi, pa čak ni na toj Anđelkovoj. Ako već koristiš neki izvor (pa čak i taj nepouzdan), bar bi trebalo da na svojoj mapi verno prikažeš granice iz tog izvora. PANONIAN (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Što se tiče ovih drugih karata, naša tema su granice u 9. veku. Ne sumnjam da je ovo kvalitetna karta, ali u pitanju je 11, vek, a ne 9: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/hr/a/a0/Krešimirova_Hrvatska_1070.jpg Na ovoj nije definisano na koji se vek odnose te granice: http://www.vrilo-mudrosti.hr/razno/vm-karta-crkva%20uoci%20turskih%20osvajanja.jpg Ovo je moderna geografska karta nevezana za 9. vek: http://asimkamber.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/geografske-karta.jpg Ove sa foruma nisi dobro linkovao, jer linkovi vode samo do stranica na forumu. Međutim, na tom forumu postoji jedna karta koja izgleda ozbiljno, a to je ova: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v690/krilnik/Klaic-PHursv.jpg~original Ako prepraviš svoju mapu da ima granice kao na toj karti, to će biti prihvatljivo sa stanovišta kredibilnih izvora. PANONIAN (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tok Neretve pokriva šire područje. Prema tome, čak i ako je tačno da se "većina povjesničara slaže da je granica Zahumlja bila na Neretvi", ne znači da je tu u pitanju ceo tok Neretve. Isto je i sa granicom Hrvatske. Takođe nije bila ista situacija sa granicama u 9. veku, 10. veku ili 11. veku. Jasno mi je da je tvoja karta "kombinacija raznih izvora", ali to je ono što ne treba da radiš na vikipediji. Zadržao si granice Paganije i Zahumlja iz srpskog atlasa i onda si sa tim spojio granice iz tri različita izvora. Pri tome si sam selektivno odlučio šta je u kom od tih izvora tačno a šta nije. To je originalno istraživanje koje ovde ne treba da se radi. Takvo istraživanje mogu da rade ljudi koji imaju diplomu na osnovu koje imaju kredibilitet i koji su pozitivno prihvaćeni od strane akademske zajednice. Znači, ne možemo ti i ja ovde sami izmišljati ili uklapati granice na mapama već moramo granice nacrtati tako da budu iste kao u nekom kredibilnom izvoru. Ove granice kakve si ti napravio se ne podudaraju sa granicama ni u jednom takvom izvoru. Drugim rečima, napravio si hibridnu mapu koja uklapa podatke iz potpuno različitih izvora, što predstavlja "grafičkog Frankenštajna". Ako o nekoj temi postoji više kredibilnih izvora, onda mi ovde treba da nacrtamo više mapa, od kojih će svaka biti identična samo jednom od pomenutih izvora i onda u člancima možemo koristiti te mape i pisati prema kom izvoru je koja rađena. Pored svega toga, ova mapa se odnosi na period kasne antike i nema veze sa 9. vekom: http://cro-eu.com/galerija-fotografija/albums/userpics/10001/Sl_%201_%20Liburnija%20i%20Dalmacija%20u%20doba%20Borne.jpg PANONIAN (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sa druge strane, ako baš i hoćeš da sprovodiš svoje originalno istraživanje ovde, onda ti predlažem da to uradiš sa nekom mapom čiji ja nisam autor. Meni je bitno da mape koje sam ja radio, kao i njihove derivativne verzije budu tačne i zasnovane na kredibilnim izvorima, jer će u suprotnom sutra neko meni pripisivati netačnosti koje budu na nekoj od tih mapa. Zato bi najbolje bilo da na ovoj mapi budu granice prema mapi Nade Klaić: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pagania9st.png U suštini, te granice prema Klaićevoj i nisu mnogo drugačije od ovih koje si ti nacrtao, ali imaju iza sebe jedan kredibilan izvor, što je veoma bitno. PANONIAN (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ajde da pokušamo naći neki kompromis ovde. Evo da probamo sa ovom verzijom: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pagania9st.png Ubacio sam granice sa mape Nade Klaić i one su veoma slične granicama u tvojoj verziji mape. Jedina je razlika što se te granice potpuno oslanjaju na jedan kredibilan izvor i nisu kombinacija potpuno različitih izvora.

Sada imamo ovakve mape:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pagania.png (srpski atlas)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pagania04.png (hrvatske istorijske karte)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pagania9st.png (Nada Klaić)

To sam imao na umu kad sam na početku naše diskusije rekao da treba da postoji više verzija mape. Svaka od njih treba da bude bazirana na jednom kredibilnom izvoru i onda sve one mogu biti u člancima gde će pisati na osnovu kog izvora je koja rađena. Ako misliš da treba da postoje još i mape rađene prema Goldštajnu i onom Anđelku, možemo uraditi i takve. PANONIAN (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Paganija po Goldštajnu: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pagania06.png (ako ti koristi za neki članak). PANONIAN (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sources for images

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please add reliable sources to your images, with page numbers. Your uploads show intricate detail and should be sourced.--Zoupan (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yemen

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Marib was not completely conquered by the Houthis and some cities are still in black and green when they are conquered. Thank you discuss before importing a new version and return to the consensus version. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

replied

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I replied, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lilic#DemoBiH2006a.png (Lilic (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)). (Lilic (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)).Reply

File:BiHDemo2006.png

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I went ahead and split your newer 'brown' map out to this name, since it seems that nobody had an issue with that. Please fix the information page, I made a 'best guess' about the license that you intended based on what I saw in the history.

Like I noted at File_talk:DemoBIH2006a.png, the 'currently visible' versions are still backwards from what I think is correct (with some understanding, that the version Lilic was fighting to restore is itself old and in error compared to more recent versions based on that data), but I'm waiting to go further until some more people respond. Revent (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Revert on File:Syrian,_Iraqi,_and_Lebanese_insurgencies.png

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, Ceha. I'm reverting your revert of my upload of a map on File:Syrian,_Iraqi,_and_Lebanese_insurgencies.png. I'm using en:Template:Syrian, Iraqi, and_Lebanese insurgencies detailed map for my update. The sources for Syrian edits are found in edit summaries here, and on the talkpage here. For iraq edit summaries talk. As for the differences, I can't account for all of the changes BlueHypercane761 has to the map which made it deviate from the module, and which of them have changed in light of recent information or were right in the first place. It also should be noted that they contribute to the module as well, most recently 5 and a half days ago on their Wikipedia legitimate alternate account, they have said that they will not be able to update frequently during term time, and the map you reverted to is now half a month outdated. Banak (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

File:Sclavinie BiH.png

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What period is File:Sclavinie BiH.png depicting? Why is the word "Sclavinie" used? You can answer here by using {{ping|Zoupan}}--Zoupan (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

MAP update

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you for updating the "File:Syrian, Iraqi, and Lebanese insurgencies.png" map! BlueHypercane761 was doing great but he hadn't updated the map in about a month. I hope all is well! Cheers, MikeR8898 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceha (talk • contribs) 14:55, 06 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Tabqa

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello! SAA moves toward Tabqa. http://www.notiziegeopolitiche.net/?p=63517

Tnx:) http://syria.liveuamap.com/en/2016/6-june-saa-restores-another-10-km-along-the-road-towards --Čeha (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Intervention against ISIS

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hey,

you mentioned something from Affrin or so to Euphrat river.. You mean these Area in the extreme North-West of Syria?! Turks (because you wrote Turks took it) do not even have a color on the map?! I think this "corner" was clear already before? Or was it occupied by Al-Nusra? But even Al-Nusra "officially" left Al-Kaida and tries to get another rating (now they are classified worldwide as terror organization) since they feel that ISIS/ISIL or however you call it is getting kicked in the Ass.. I just do not know if Iraq Special Forces supported by regular Iraqi Forces are "ready" to retake Mossul, it is by far the largest and most important (oil...) city the ISIS holds... far more important than their capital...

So what did the Turks exactly do?! All I read/heard yet was negative, that they bombed Anti-Assad rebels which were fighting ISIS together with the Russians they did their own "Air Support Alliance", Iraq yesterday explained its high oil output (the low price really sucks for them, the US can give training and some infantry weapons together with European States, but the main costs like tanks which during 2003 invasion fell into US hands are active now again, some other "old" used vehicles were sold as oil output was growing and prices were high until 2014... but the strongest and most professional are the Kurds as they showed several times already.. Have a nice evening/day Kilon22 (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey, tanks for your answer and details. Well as I already wrote I see the whole Turkish (together with Russia) start of an own air campaign in Syria only I think (I think neither Turks or Russia are flying missions over Iraq), as I have read many times their bombs, rockets, 20 to 30mm nose gun Machine Cannon in the nose many jets have, or special places to install gatling gunes with a bit ammo... but bombing the Fraction which is against Assad, but also even more against the radical Salifists and does an overwhelming part of their fight against IS/Al-Nusra... I think Russia will call their jets home soon, Russia is being hit also very hard by the low oil price, and such a mission is expensive since a flight-hour in such a jet costs between ~20,000 US-$ and far above 100,000 US-$ for some special large ones... Russia is in a very difficult situation because they calculated the 2015 budget with an oil price of 102 US-$. I think it was not even 50% of it... so the "Wealth funds" were touched, a cut of 10% in every thing, maybe lower wages, or less work for state employees?! However there was 1 single exception and guess what?! 100 Points for Military. But no question it is costly to operate Su-30 or Su-35 in Syria. But next year the IS will be beaten or almost I think, we had some years again to worry about terror, now there will be another short break... I mean if they REALLY wanted to kill or bring these idiots with their black arabish flaggs to running home they could use a massive number of helicopters and jets with exact strikes, the Kurdish soldiers are quite good equipped, but they could make a Rambo out of them :D also they could give heavy artillery, mortars, APC's and even older tanks to the Kurds... Kilon22 (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

File:DemoBIH2006a.png

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:DemoBIH2006a.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Lilic (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

odgovor/reply

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Onu kartu nikad nisi trebao da stavis na wikipediju. Uzeo si da preuredjujes tudju kartu, sto nije fer niti uredu. Namucio sam se da izbacim originalnu karu da bude "van" te tvoje derivatske (dali je to rec? - ipak jasno je da si pravio drugaciju). Mislim, menjas stvari kako ti se vidi, to nije uredu. Uzmemo ovaj primer: [1] , cemu to vodi? Bez izvora i icega uzmes da menjas stvari kako odgovara tebi/tvojima. Ne moze tako. (Lilic (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC))Reply

Onaj admin je ostavio kartu. Znas sta to znaci? Znaci da i te kako moze sad da se menja na bilokako. Da se najveca gupost stavi na nju. Jel to zelis? (Lilic (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC))Reply

Ti si taj koji vodi rat, ne ja. Ti si uzeo da menjas druge karte.

A za kartu od 1921 si namerno bahat. Lepo sam napisao izvor podata za 1921 i to nije dovoljno, nesto pricas o drugim godinama - karta nije o tim drugim godinama nego je o 1921. Vise nego dosta mi je tvog ultranacionalistickog licimerluka. (Lilic (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC))Reply

Please do not edit war

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ русский ∙ 日本語 ∙ +/−

You currently appear to be participating in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, and once it is known that there is a disagreement should discuss the issues on the relevant talk page rather than repeatedly undoing other users’ contributions. If necessary you can ask for more input at Commons:Dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to ask for temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing – even if you are right about the content issue.

Ankry (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

De facto cantons of Rojava

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Helllo Ceha! I noticed that you regularily update "De facto cantons of Rojava". Thanks for that! I just wanted to notify you that the eastern countryside of Raqqa appears to be no longer under the civil administration of the Kobani Canton, but instead under control of the Raqqa Civil Council (source here). Furthermore, Salih Muslim Muhammad said that he considers it likely that Raqqa would eventually join Rojava, so that I think it is only a matter of time until a new "Raqqa region/canton" is announced. Because of that, it would be awesome if you could add a new color to the map for the Raqqa civil council (possibly blue?), and for now color the eastern Raqqa countryside in that color. As it is not clear where the current boundaries of the Raqqa civil council are, best leave the borders to the other cantons fuzzy. Thank you very much! Applodion (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Slavic tribes

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Ceha, please source your recent edit in my map, do you have any reference for your claim that: "there were more slavs in the Balkans" ? Otherwise your edit should be reverted. Thank you for your answer. Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

ok. Puted some sources :) --Čeha (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Karte Srbije

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Ili kako se već može nazvati ovo tvoje ponašanje: [2]? Ako se tako krene taj "fact" se može staviti i na svaku mapu hrvatske istorije na vikimediji. uozbilji se malo i ponašaj se konstruktivno. PANONIAN (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

U redu. Vidim da su baš sve slike sa eksternih linkova koje sam koristio u referencama tih mapa prestale da postoje na internetu. U tom smislu, slediću smernice vikipedije, odnosno pretpostaviću tvoju dobru nameru i pretpostaviću da te slike nisi ni video (umesto da pretpostavim da si ih video ranije i čekao da one nestanu sa interneta, pa da onda pokreneš pitanje tačnosti mojih mapa). Meni nije ni najmanji problem da pronađem nove reference na internetu. Evo ih ovde:

Ova mapa je ista kao mapa iz ovog istorijskog atlasa koji sam koristio kao glavni izvor: Istorijski atlas, Geokarta, Beograd, 1999. PANONIAN (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Da, to je zvanično viđenje srpske istoriografije bar od 1990-tih do danas i mape sa takvom zapadnom granicom Srbije na Vrbasu se nalaze u novijoj srpskog literaturi, uključujući onu za školu, školske istorijske atlase itd. U starom istorijskom atlasu koji je objavljen u Beogradu 1970-tih granica je bila malo drugačija, naime, u tom atlasu zapadna granica Srbije je išla samo do izvora reke Vrbas, a odatle se pomerala do reke Bosne, pa išla tokom Bosne do reke Save. U novijim mapama u Srbiju je uključen ceo tok Vrbasa do Save i područje između Bosne i Vrbasa. Na osnovu kojih izvora i podataka je napravljena ta promena ja ne znam. Ja sam samo precrtao kartu iz atlasa. PANONIAN (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Lisbon agreement map

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I wonder if you could specify the source for File:Later carrington cutillero.png and add the date when it was updated. Thanks in advance. --178.252.126.70 18:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Source is http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=20pvy9j&s=8 (as specified in file data). It is later phase of negotiation about that plan.. --Čeha (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I've seen the link and wondered where was it taken from. Link to an image hosting is as good as no source by the rules. --178.252.126.70 23:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's prety credible, those lines are very much ethnical... You can google other versions of plan, there are more of it... --Čeha (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

But there must be a source where it is taken from. And only the "older version" maps can be found via google. --178.252.126.70 15:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability --178.252.126.70 15:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

It has a source http://oi57.tinypic.com/20pvy9j.jpg , we could discuss it's crediability, but it has a source, ther is no problem with that. --Čeha (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:I Love You Too, film.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:I Love You Too, film.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:I Love You Too, film.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Smooth O (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Smooth O (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:Zašto su došli vlakom, film.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Zašto su došli vlakom, film.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Zašto su došli vlakom, film.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Smooth O (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Percentage BiH

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Ceha, thank you very much for the map with the distribution of Croats in BiH. Could you perhaps add the percentage points (up to one decimal) at least on the blue-toned municipalities (perhaps the number in white or black, depending on the shade)? I think it would also enrich the information here. Really a great map, I highly appreciate it! See these two interesting representations (1 and 2) as well.

Regards, --Bojovnik (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Ww1 germany goals.GIF

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Ww1 germany goals.GIF has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

File:Croatian dialects in RH and BiH.PNG

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Ceha! I was wondering, do you have access to the sources you used to compose this map? The link http://www.matica.hr/media/uploads/knjige/kapovicpha038.pdf seems not to work anymore. Thanks!

Anarhistička Maca (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Bosanska krajina

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Vratio sam ovu mapu na staru verziju:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bosanska_krajina01.png

Ne ulazim u to koja je verzija tačnija, ali ja sam za mapu koristio ovaj izvor:

https://i.ibb.co/3cGCbxp/Jajacka-banovina-sa-granicama-Bosanske-Krajine.jpg

ako ti imaš drugačije izvore, onda svoju verziju mape ubaci pod drugim imenom na Commons. PANONIAN (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Izvor je takav kakav je, ja pravim mape koje su iste kao one u izvorima. Nije problem da se napravi i više verzija mape Bosanske Krajine ako se izvori razlikuju. Lično ne znam šta je tačno u vezi Glamoča, ali volim da izvor uvek potpuno podržava ono što je nacrtano. PANONIAN (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Banovine 1370

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Vratio sam ovu mapu na staru verziju: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Koh_administrative_1370_01.png

Ako želiš, ubaci svoju verziju mape na vikimediju pod drugim nazivom, a ovo su razlozi zašto sam vratio - koristio sam ovaj izvor: http://lazarus.elte.hu/~mihalyi/proba/Hungary%201370.jpg nažalost, taj sajt nije više dostupan, ali sam originalnu mađarsku mapu iz tog izvora sačuvao u svom računaru i možeš je videti ovde: http://pasteall.org/pic/show.php?id=ab6e3c10b9ce7e6a31e868d0e6e2870e dakle, granice na mojoj mapi su nacrtane isto kao u tom izvoru i smatram da to ne bi trebalo menjati. što se tiče samih banovina soli i usora, one su u tom vremenu bile pod upravom vladara bosne i zato su na mnogim istorijskim mapama prikazane kao deo bosne. dakle, ni moja ni tvoja verzija mape nisu suštinski pogrešne, samo je u pitanju drugačija prezentacija. međutim, mapu sam crtao za prikaz istorije vojvodine i centralne srbije, tako da je pitanje kako će tu biti predstavljena teritorija bosne od drugorazrednog značaja. u svakom slučaju, smatram da je mapa kvalitetnija ako se u potpunosti oslanja na izvor, bez izmena koje si uneo. PANONIAN (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please do not edit war

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ русский ∙ 日本語 ∙ +/−

You currently appear to be participating in an edit war (at File:Hungary 13th cent.png). Users are expected to collaborate with others, and once it is known that there is a disagreement should discuss the issues on the relevant talk page rather than repeatedly undoing other users’ contributions. If necessary you can ask for more input at Commons:Dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to ask for temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing – even if you are right about the content issue.

This is a one and only warning for edit warring, your next instance of edit warring will involve a block. ~riley (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your account has been blocked

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a week.. The reason for the block is edit warring in File:Balkans925.png (block log). If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Per this report and conclusion. Taivo (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Request

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since you created it, I have one request, could you make a version of this map: https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datoteka:Oslobadjanje_zapadne_Slavonije.png also with these territories: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cro-occup-lines-Jan92.svg DarkoRatic (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

File:First Bulgarian Empire before the Magyar invasion.jpg

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:First Bulgarian Empire before the Magyar invasion.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Targatron (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

File:NezavisnaDrzavaHrvatskaDistricts1943.png

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments2 people in discussion

Hi @Ceha. I see you have edited the map NezavisnaDrzavaHrvatskaDistricts1943.png. You have a number of requested changes to the map, one of which you have made yourself. I am always willing to consider changes that are backed up by credible historical sources so please can you supply evidence for your requested changes. If you cannot provide any evidence for your claims I will have to revert the map back to my last version. Thanks! XrysD ^TALK 09:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

for Boka; https://biramdobro.com/16-prosinca-1943-boka-kotorska-znate-li-da-je-ndh-nakon-pada-italije-ozbiljno-nastojala-pripojiti-kotor-i-boku/

here is also a good map of Kotor province; https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/ProvinceOfCattaro.png

for Međimurje; https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upravna_podjela_NDH (sporni teritoriji)

for Istria; https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velika_%C5%BEupa_Ra%C5%A1a Čeha (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've had a look at your links. It's clear that NDH aspired to rule in the areas you mention, particularly Boka Kotor. The first link goes into detail about how they tried to achieve this, but as the article states "Not only was the NDH government not established in Boka Kotorska, but also a dispute arose over Gruda because the Germans do not recognize that it belongs to the NDH, and in that place various orders started to arrive sent by the Montenegrin administration to Cetinje." NDH as a state was only recognised by some of the Axis powers and its principle guarantor was Germany as the controlling power in the region. So it is clear from that article and contemporary German maps (see for example this map) that neither Gruda nor Kotor was considered part of NDH by them. This map shows the NDH as recognised by Germany, it does not show NDH's own territorial aspirations - that would be a different map. As such your changes to the map do not agree with contemporary sources and your own links so I'm sorry I am going to revert it to the last version. If you would like a map that shows what territory NDH itself aspired to control then let me know and I can create something for you. But please don't change this map as it shows the de-jure boundaries as established with Germany. XrysD ^TALK 18:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi@Ceha, further to the above, I think this map may be what you are thinking of for NDH territorial claims? The map's provenance is unknown, but it looks to be contemporary and of Croatian origin. It shows NDH administrative control in Gruda and the whole of the Istrian peninsula and Dalmatia which as I have established was not the case in reality. But if you wish I can create a derivative version of The Map based on it. Let me know if you would like this. XrysD ^TALK 09:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

This map is wrong, look at Budva in the south. Those territories were only aspirated and should be made in shaded colors?

As for Gruda; chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/76380

Page 58.

Korčula and Gruda were anexed and ruled. Kotor was only formaly anexed. Čeha (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi again @Ceha, I've looked over your latest references. First of all looking at Gruda - important parts I have put in bold. Your reference says on page 58: "The Great Zupa of Dubrava, with its seat in Dubrovnik, covered eastern Herzegovina and the Dubrovnik coast. The district of Korcula and the municipality of Gruda in Konavle were added to it. The district of Kotor with the cities of Kotor and Herceg Novi was formally annexed to Zupa, although during the entire existence of the NDH no forms of Ustasa government were established in that area." Then again on page 72: "Unlike Zadar, which was officially Italian since 1920, the municipality of Gruda just east of Cavtat came under Italy only with the Treaty of Rome from May 1941. At the end of September 8, 1943, the Ustasha propaganda assured the local population that "The whole of Konavli, all our white Kona villages belong only to the Independent State of Croatia and your feelings can be fully expressed!" But in the telegram that Nardelli sent to Bulat at the end of March 1944, it can be seen that the municipality still remained under the German military and Cmogor civil administration in Kotor" Like with your previous references, these contradict your claims that Gruda was under formal Croatian control and so part of NDH. Korcula is mentioned on page 74 under the section "Harassment of the German army in Dalmatia". "By the end of March, around 3,700-3,900 people were evacuated from the islands of Korcula, Hvar, Mjet, Brac, Sipan and Lopud (of which 837 were taken as labor force), and 1,094 people from Peljescajos." The reference for this last statement is given as "M. Colic: German occupation of the island of Korcula in 1943-1944." This refutes your claim that Korcula was under NDH control. Finally, your assertion that the German Map is wholly incorrect because of Budva not quite being inside the boundary of "Kotor". It is a small scale map of an unsurveyed area so the exact boundaries are not going to be that accurate. But I will look for a larger scale map that shows Kotor. But even if the map is wholly discounted, none of the references you have presented have shown any evidence that Gruda or Korcula was under NDH control, either military or civil. XrysD ^TALK 16:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

The phrase no forms of Ustasa government were established in that area goes for district of Kotor with cities of Kotor and Herceg Novi, not municipalitiy of Gruda.

NDH didn't have military control, but had civil one over Gruda. That is near end of ww2, large parts of NDH were not under NDH control, we are talking here just about borders which NDH claimed and Germany recognised.

Korčula should not be the issue here, it is this island....

And Budva was part of Boka, look this; In 1941, with the beginning of World War II, Budva was annexed by the Kingdom of Italy.

You can see that in this map. Čeha (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

For the case of Korcula the Germans considered its civil administration as part of NDH so not an issue agreed. The exact eastern boundary of Kotor is still not clear. Kotor lists 15 communes that were part of it (coming from Rodogno, p420) and Budva is not one of them. But as you say the Budva WP page says it was. This map is based on this map which has no first hand source so is unverifiable. In any case, this concerns the Eastern Border of Kotor, not Gruda. You say "NDH didn't have military control, but had civil one over Gruda. That is near end of ww2, large parts of NDH were not under NDH control, we are talking here just about borders which NDH claimed and Germany recognised." You still have not produced any sources that back up the claim that Germany recognised Gruda as part of NDH. As I have covered above, the sources you have given are clear that although NDH laid claim to Gruda, it remained within Kotor and was subject to German Military administration and civil administration by Montenegro. XrysD ^TALK 14:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, no.

Kotor was first (in 1941.) part of Italy itself, not Montenegrin vasal kingdom, and than in 1943. part of german military administration (to which NDH had claims). It was never part of civil administration by Montenegro.

As for Budva that wiki page says that; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budva

In 1941, with the begining of World War II, Budva was anexed by the kingdom of Italy.

As was Kotor and the rest of the bay....

As for Gruda; Uprava NDH uspostavljena je u Grudi 15. rujna 1943. godine.

https://narod.hr/kultura/16-prosinca-1943-ndh-ozbiljna-nastojanja-i-zelje-da-se-boka-kotorska-prikljuci-ndh

https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/62401 Čeha (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

You have also this; Konačno je 26. travnja njemačka vojska dio Konavala koji je do tada držala pod svojom vojnom upravom službeno predala vlastima NDH. on page 903. --Čeha (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

OK, I have now read the whole of Nikica Baric's paper and the full facts for Gruda are finally clear. The NDH laid claim to Gruda on 15/09/43, but this was not practically realised until April-44 when the Germans finally acknowledged NDH civil administration in the area. So I have re-rendered the map from the hi-res source to include Gruda in Dubrava. I have also added Gruda to the list of districts on English WP article along with a note saying it was not fully realized until 1944. Thanks for taking time to find a verified academic source (Baric, 2008) for this. I will leave the Kotor Eastern Boundary issue for now until more information is found. Thanks, XrysD ^TALK 14:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

No problem, thank you also for your time :) Čeha (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Deletion request commentary

Latest comment: 11 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, seems you're still active here. You participated in a discussion almost 15 years ago, related file(s) are requested for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files showing Serbian lands in the 9th century. Please give your opinion. Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tnx for info, how can I vote fore deletion, what is the code for it? :) Čeha (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Found it,

Delete --Čeha (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Kingdom of Montenegro - Border

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

About your Kingdom of Montenegro Map https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yugoslavia_Montenegro.png I think there might be an slight mistake about the borders of your map of the the Kingdom of Montenegro, since it didn't have any parts of the Foca municipality but party of the Serbian municipality Prijepolje https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Montenegro_territory_expanded_(1830-1944)-es.svg DarkoRatic (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic