Razgovor s korisnikom:WizardOfOz/Arhiva13

S Wikipedije, slobodne enciklopedije
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Pozdrav[uredi izvor]

Da li mi možeš reći gde je dogovoreno da se u šablonu Srbija koristi mapa bez Kosova, iako Bosna nije priznala kosovo... Ne mogu da nađem nigde... Hvala! :) --WhiteWriter 15:14, 31 maj 2011 (CEST)

Dogovor admina ne putem wiki nego drugih komunikacijskih sredstava. --WizardOfOz talk 17:26, 31 maj 2011 (CEST)
Aaa, ok, ali kako običan urednik može da postavi taj off-wiki dogovor u pitanje? --WhiteWriter 21:43, 31 maj 2011 (CEST)
Kada je dogovor pravljen, ni ja nisam bio admin. Sto se tice karte: Ovo je samo Wikipedija na bosanskom jeziku a ne neka ustanova vlade Bosne i Hercegovine tako da nam je svejedno kakvu politiku vlada vodi i da li je priznala Kosovo ili ne. Kosovo je priznato od velikog broja drzava, Srbija osim u dvije enklave nema egzekutivnu vlast, nema kontrolu nad teritorijom, Kosovo je politicki nezavisno od politike Srbije itd. Ergo ne znam kako neko moze vidjeti takvo stanje kao "dio Srbije" kada na granici izmedju Srbije i Kosova postoji granicna i carinska kontrola. Po tome, Kosovo je nezavisna drzava koju Srbija ne priznaje i gotovo. --WizardOfOz talk 06:32, 1 juni 2011 (CEST)
Pa ništa je ne kažem protiv toga, nego samo kažem da takvo stanje stvari jasno podržava Kosovo kao de fakto državu, ali ničim ne podržava Kosovo kao de jure Srpsku pokrajnu. Encikopedia mora proiazati sve strane, bez obzira kako one bile postavljene, tj, samo je de facto i de jure - celo. ? Šta kažeše, šta bi mogli da uradimo na tom pitanju, da de facto stanje ostane isto, ali i da se prikaže de jure? --WhiteWriter 14:11, 2 juni 2011 (CEST)
De facto si i sam shvatio. Sto se tice de jure, pitanje je sa koje strane jurisdikcije gledamo: Srbije ili Kosova. U Srbiji je nezavisnost osporena (i to je koliko se sjecam navedeno u clanku), dok je sa strane Kosova sve ok jer su nezavisna drzava priznata od velikog broja drzava itd, da ne ponavljam ovo iznad. Sad se postavlja pitanje koji zakoni su za nas mjerodavni: zakoni Srbije, zakoni Kosova ili zakoni drzave u kojoj se nalaze serveri Wikipedije i koja je Kosovo priznala kao nezavisnu drzavu? Ne znam zasto bi zakoni i politicki pogledi Srbije bili mjerodavni? Samim tim, na ovoj Wiki je Kosovo nezavisna drzava koju Srbija nije priznala (moje misljenje). Mozda se neki drugi od admina ne slaze sa ovim mojim pogledom, ali koliko vidim niko se do sad od njih nije izjasnio drugacije, a kako sam naveo i prijasnje sporne diskusije su vodile na isto rjesenje. Tako da ne vidim smisao u diskusiji. Poz --WizardOfOz talk 18:30, 2 juni 2011 (CEST)
Ja uopšte nisam video da si mi odgovorio, izvini! Da, sasvim se slažem, samo je moje mišljenje da je stav Srbije legitiman stav druge strane u sporu, i samim tim, politički pogled Srbije, (i većine članica UN) predstavlja nešto što se prikazuje u neutralnoj enciklopediji koja obuhvata sve poglede (NPOV). Takodje, mislim da vikipedija ne prati ničije zakone, pošto ima svoje sopstvene. I još, Kosovo jeste nezavisna država, ali istovremeno i jeste autonomna pokrajna i sporna regija. Te tri stvari ne treba da isključuju jedna drugu, pošto to ne čine ni u stvarnom životu. Sve koegzistiraju zajedno (uz netrpeljivost, naravno), i sve su tu, htela to druga strana ili ne. Videćeš da su na svim ostalim vikipedijama te tri stvari tako predstavljene. --WhiteWriter 20:27, 20 juni 2011 (CEST)
Nisam ni ja sada vidio da si mi ti odgovorio :D Izgubilo se u ovom moru ispod :D Sto se tice stava Srbije zar nije naveden time da Srbija Kosovo smatra svojim dijelom i da ne priznaje nezavisnost? Sto se tice neutralnog pogleda, ne vidim vecu neutralnost od: nezavisna drzava, cija prijasnja (?!?) maticna drzava tu istu nezavisnost osporava? Mislim... ponavljam se, ali ako kao drzava nemam kontrolu nad nekom regijom (bila sad to pokrajina ili anektirano podrucje Izraela van kontrole komsija, ili anektirana BiH za vrijeme Austro-Ugarske ili sta ja znam), a istovremeno je to podrucje pola svijeta priznalo kao nezavisnu drzavu, ima svoju upravu van sistema Srbije itd. kakvog smisla ima naglasavati da je to dio te drzave ako je to samo subjektivan pogled Srbije? Ako idemo po tome, onda smo svi jos uvijek u Jugi, samo smo se malo... kako da kazem... zanijeli u vremenu i prostoru. Poz --WizardOfOz talk 01:39, 21 juni 2011 (CEST)
Ne želim da te smaram, i samo još ovo da kažem, pa neću više. :) Stav da je Kosovo zvanični deo Srbije nije samo subjektivan pogled Srbije, već i preko 60% populacije celog sveta. Takav stav se nigde ne presentuje u ovoj vikipediji. Takodje, Republika Kosovo nema kontrolu nad celom teritorijom Kosova. Sve države u bivšoj Jugi su zvanično priznate i ravnopravne, 100%, i njihovu nezavisnost, i titulu "država" niko ne spori, a tu titulu Republici Kosovo nije dalo, pored Srbije, 115 zemalja sveta, u ime skoro 5 milijardi ljudi. Trenutno, Bosanska vikipedija u pogledu Kosova potpuno zanemaruje politički i zvanični stav 60 % čovečanstva. U okviru toga, znajući da si aktivan na meti, i da znaš kako zaista funkcionišu smernice vikipedije, molim te vidi ovde da pronadjemo zajedno neko lepo rešenje, koje će biti prihvatljivo za sve. Hvala ti što si mi posvetio pažnju, pozdrav! :) --WhiteWriter 20:03, 24 juni 2011 (CEST)

Answer[uredi izvor]

Hi Oz,

Thanks for your answer! You see, this is exactly the problem! One deputy administrator (Flopy) on the Croatian Wiki was blaming me that he does not believe that I do not speak Croatian. (I really do not!) This is just pure prejudice. And he knows it. It is offensive and provocative. You are blaming me that you do not believe that I am newbie in Wikipedia. I am telling you, it is really tiring to communicate like this... That is really offensive if you do not realize it.

I like to be part of any community, if it is a friendly community, without prejudice. This Wiki is full of prejudice. Really full! So sorry if I loose my patience on it. I am not used to work with people who are constantly challenging the validity what I am saying. Because that can drive any sane person sooner or later nuts!

Now, one thing I learned in life: That I should never trust anyone who does not trust me. Why? Because if a person supposes that I would be dishonest with him it is because he knows that in similar situation (if he would be in my place), he himself would be dishonest. Maybe it is not very popular that I say this, but I learned it by life experience: When you ask 10 bucks from a guy, and he says he does not trust you that you will ever give it back to him, then you know that if it would be the opposite way around, he would never give you back your 10 bucks.

Or your girlfreined comes up to you and says that she thinks you are cheating on her... You know you did not, but at the same time you also know that most probably she is doing it... She thinks you are cheating on her, because she knows it very well, that in your place she would do it, no doubt. So if somebody does not trust me, I do not trust that person either. However the basic building block of human relations is (or would be): trust. Usually trust is missing, because there is prejudice instead. Now, I do not have a huge amount of prejudice, otherwise I would have never come to the Wiki at the first place. But it is getting very very complicated and time-consuming to get something changed in the Wiki and I take it as an offense against me when people suppose (without any real basis) that whatever I say is not true.

So let me be clear: I do not plan to have a professional career on the Wikipedia. I have no time for that. It is not my purpose in life to become a Wikipedia guru either. I wanted to contribute to the Scientology page according to my best knowledge, because as it is now, it is very very unprofessional. But I want to contribute only if it is easy to do, and if I get some help. I can see now that it is much much more complicated and bureaucratic than I thought...

First you have to make a logon, then you have to study the rules, then you can post something on the discussion page that nobody cares even to answer or comment on, and probably will never make it into the article anyway. If you directly edit the article page, then it gets 100% sure reverted, and then you have to edit your own logon too, like on a social network ... and so on. And still not a single letter made it to the change in the article. Then let's say something makes it into the article miraculously (it did not happen yet, but let's suppose), then anybody can come an overwrite it or revert it again. Potentially 7 billion people can come at any time of the day and revert my work. And then SpeedyGonzales writes me that there are sometimes even edit wars. Heh! Great!

No, this does not worth the effort...

So if you are interested about me, here is my old page from: the Technical University of Budapest. Here is my e-mail: freeszaniszlo@gmail.com, and I am will answer to you anything you want to know about me. I will never say that it is not your business. It is not my style. I answer every questions honestly.

But right now, I am a Scientolgist (full time), since 13 years. So I am not going to spend a lot of time with Wiki. I used to be a computer guru, more than 15 years ago (all kind of UNIX-es & Internet). I was one of the best in Hungary. I was the system manager of the first IRC server of Hungary, one of the first web pages in Hungary was mine (few days after the Mosaic browser was released in CERN), and I have been running Linux server on my 486 computer which had 150 users just form hobby. I have been UNIX system manager on several computers at two universities. But that was long long time ago... Now I am doing different things. And I only invest my energy into things that I consider worthwhile.

The other thing is that you are threatening me with banning me. That is the most remarkable threat. You know why? Because so fare not a single letter made to any article from me, even though I was trying hard to my best abilities. So let's say I am banned... Then what did I loose? I cannot post any edit any more. Right? But I also cannot do it now, when I have a logon. At least so fare I could not do it. So what will be the difference? What am I loosing actually? So you are trying to threaten me that I will loose something that I do not have. As well you could threaten me that you will take away my private jet, or my Ferrari. But I also do not have any of these... Same way as I have no right to edit anything in the Wiki so fare. You can take away also all my edits. :-)

You have a beautiful Muslim page. That is really nice. The Croatians have a beautiful Catholic page. I really like it. It is informative. It does not start with: "according to critics" ... and it gives a lot of information that you want to know about the church. You can see that it is written by the members of the church, not the enemies and attackers and "critics". Nice pictures are included.

Then the Scientology page is a disaster (on both sites). And you know this guys. Then the Tom Cruise page is really a shame both in Bosnian and Croatian. The worst journalist would do a better job in 5 minutes. If you like it like that, then keep it like that. But do not call then yourself "neutral" or "impartial", because it is not. It is definitely not! And if you say that your job on Scientology is a high quality job, than anybody who even vaguely studied the subject will laugh in your face. And there are more and more people studying up on it, despite the best effort of some Wiki editors to discourage people from it. If I would write something on the Muslim, first I would probably read the Koran. Or if I want to write on the Catholic, I would read the Bible... The guys editing the Scientology entry, however, do not even have a clue what Scientology means, could not give a definition for the most basic words in Scientology.

If you want to know hat the experts say about Scientology, read these appendixes:

These are real religious experts. One of them used to be even direct adviser of the pope in Rome. I do not know if I should post this on the Scientology page, because so fare nobody cared. But if you are personally interested, you can check it out.

Freeszaniszlo 03:59, 20 juni 2011 (CEST)

Encyclopedia Britannica[uredi izvor]

Hi Oz,

I am just rereading what you wrote me. This point about Encyclopedia Britannica I do not agree. What I wrote on the article and in the Discussion page, you do not find it in the Encyclopedia Britannica anywhere, because it is not my source. I just wanted to point out that the Encyclopedia Britannica is neutral on Scientology and did a real quality job of research, and it is not journalistic at all, probably their scholars read a couple of Scientology books too, and if you want to see what is really neutral, then you can look inside the Britannica. If you would do that, you would also see immediately the obvious, that it is not my source of information. It cannot be, because I have information that Britannica does not have. I do not have to have an Encyclopedia (whether Wiki or Britannica, or anything else) to tell me about my own religion, when I am an ordained minister of my church since 10 years, and I am studying my religion since 20 years.

Freeszaniszlo 14:35, 20 juni 2011 (CEST)

Fair and equitable treatment for everyone[uredi izvor]

Dear Oz,

Going back to the basics: I want fair an equitable treatment for myself as a person and respect, tolerance and fair treatment for my religion (meaning not to have any worst page on the Wiki, than Catholic on the Croatian site or Muslim on the Bosnian side), because it is not fair, neither neutral and it is just really not OK.

The first problem I have is that you and Floppy are bullying me by keep challenging the truthfulness of my words. That is not OK! You should treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. If you would implement just this attitude only, we could reduce our discussions with 90%. Because most of my upset is about this discriminating, unfair behavior, bullying and prejudice from the very first moment, starting with Floppy. And now you are continuing it. Would you like if you would be treated like that? What comes next? Are you going to also attack me with stones and tear gas as the guys were attacked in Split?!

OK, there are positive guys too, for example SpeedyGonazales. I have to say, that his messages were very helpful, and he truly wanted to help me. I could feel it from his advices and the way he communicated to me. And he never questioned the credibility of my words. He just saw that I had some difficulties and questions and he wanted to assist me. That is for example how I imagine an ideal community.

By the way, it is probably him who invited me to this Croatian Wiki, after I created the English logon for myself, because honestly, I do not have a clue until know who this account joining is going at all. But he wrote me something or did something and when I wanted to respond, I was automatically on the Croatian Wiki. There was no special thing that I had to do to make it happen as fare as I remember. But it is besides the point now ... What I want to say, this SpeedyGonazales was friendly and helpful and treated me with respect, trust and human dignity, this is how everybody else should behave.

But the biggest problem is that your site on Scientology or on Tom Cruise is not neutral and not objective at all. Not even trying to be. But it is at least very controversial. Now, creating controversy is the very foundation that journalism is built on. Journalists look for controversy as a principle, and if they do not find any, they invent one. Because journalism is basing its principal philosophy in dialectic materialism, where they say that the only way new ideas can be born is to get two posing ideas and clash them against each other. This is of course saying that nobody can have any original thought. That is dialectic materialism and journalism. So if you see a controversial subject, you know immediately that journalists have a hand in it.

So you should read the Croatian Catholic article and compare it with the Scientology article. Or you should read the Muslim entry (Not the Catholic!) on the Bosnian site, and compare it with the Scientology site. Compare the pictures, the style of writing, the type of information they are sharing on it, the ratio of the positive and the negative statements on the religion, the quality of the research made, etc. I can bring up 100x much more negative statements against the Catholic religion, than they ever can on Scientology. I am just not interested in it, because I respect them. But I want to stress it that Scientologists never created a war in the name of their religion, never took part in any war, never burned witches, never slaughtered people, because they have different beliefs, Scientologists stay away from politics, and I can say many more of these noble statements that I cannot say on Catholic or Muslim at all. Still they have the beautiful, absolutely not controversial pages that promote them as they themselves want to be seen, while the Scientology page is a total disgrace. Tell me, where is it fair or neutral, or where is the equitable treatment, or anything like that?!

I can only say that this subject is majorly biased, and until Catholics are editing the Scientology page, it will always be biased and full of disinformation. Because Catholics are not neutral on Scientology in Croatia. They do have propaganda on Scientology in Croatia. Very vicious black propaganda in fact, one of the worst kind. They are covert hostile with Scientology. I checked their web pages they created specifically to warn people against Scientology. Very democratic, pluralistic and neutral and so on ... Well, it is not!

And then Flopy tells me that his religion is irrelevant. Not it is not, because Scientology is under constant attack by Catholic web pages on the net. And yes, there is conflict of interest, because the Catholics get a lot of money from the state, and they are very much against sharing it with anyone. Scientologists do not care about the money of the state. We do not take money from the states. We just want fair and equitable statement, some true democracy, where individual rights and human rights are respected, and there is not religious bigotry and discrimination, no prejudice and not stoning of people, like in Split last weekend. I am not pro gay or anything like that, but when you are doing this, I am just thinking that probably I am going to be the next, because I am also in Split and I am also different form the people here, because I am Scientologist and I am Hungarian. Is that enough reason in Croatia for stoning me?

ML, István Freeszaniszlo 15:22, 20 juni 2011 (CEST)


Thank you very much for your answer![uredi izvor]

Hi Oz,

Thank you very much for your calm and civilized answer! I just did not see that you answered, because I was on the Croatian Wiki and did not realize that you wrote me on the Bosnian. So then I have a few questions again:

1. Who are responsible for the Croatian and Bosnian Scientology pages?

2. How can I see that without asking you?

3. Can I be also responsible for these?

4. This notable source stuff is a bit strange: Let's imagine somebody is writing a page about me and this person has no clue what is my favorite color (just as an example) and he can run around to find "notable sources", but let's say I did not tell it to anyone yet, so the easiest is to ask me, because I know it and I can tell it. But this is forbidden by Wikipedia, as I understood. Right? OK. Then let's continue the example: Let's say that my favorite color is blue, but my ex girlfriend is very angry at me and she will go to a very famous newspaper, and she tells them that she knows for sure that my favorite color is red. Then it gets printed in the notable newspaper with a notable journalist giving his name to it and this then makes it into the Wikipedia. Then I complain that this is not true, because I know very well that my favorite color is blue, and I do not need to learn it from a newspaper or Wikipedia what is my favorite color and I ask for correction. Then the answer of Wiki would be that the color red stays, because I cannot do my own research, and I anyway have a conflict of interest, so my favorite color is red and that stays in the Wiki with the reference to the notable newspaper, and such is life: if I do not like it, it is my problem. Am I correct?

5. Regarding Tom Cruise, the first thing should be probably mentioned that he made some films. After all, he is an actor. Trying to show him as crazy, is not neutral. It is intentional, but not neutral. The placenta thing is for example totally out of context and INTENTIONALLY twisted story. There were some nasty reporters trying to give him hard time with their provocative and stupid questions. And one of the way he fended off the questions was to tell them an exaggerated example something in this stile: "Yes, sure, of course, and I will also eat the placenta of Katy ...". But if somebody wants to show that Tom is crazy, I can show it to the person that Tom Cruise is more sane than any other actor in Hollywood. :-) Do you know where is this "Tom is crazy" thing originally coming from? He (as many other Hollywood starts) spoke out against the vested interests of the multibillion dollar pharmaceutical industry, that are drugging 20 million children for profit, with tragic results (dozens of school shootings and estimated 46000 suicides/year). So the propaganda that "Tom is crazy" is coming from them. "Do not listen to Tom, he is crazy!", "These drugs are very safe and very beneficial for all the 20 million children who take them!" They have to discredit him as a trustable source of information, otherwise they had it. That's the campaign. It is very simple. I just do not understand why the Wikipedia has to be on the side of these pharmaceutical companies and forward their vicious campaign trying to show Tom as "crazy". Now here is the pharma industry:

So Tom says in several TV shows that it is not OK to drug the children and lie about the effects of these drugs:

  • Pfizer: $2.3 billion fraud fine
  • Eli Lilly: $1.4 billion fraud fine
  • Allergan: $600 million fraud fine
  • AstraZeneca: $520 million fraud fine
  • Bristol Myers Squibb: $515 million fraud fine
  • Novaris $422.5 million fraud fine
  • Forest Laboratories: $313 million fraud fine

Reference

The answer back from the Big Pharma: "Don't listen to Tom, he is crazy!" They start a campaign against him to discredit him. They hire people to make him look "crazy".

You see, the article page shows only one side of the "Tom is crazy" campaign. What is behind it is completely missing from the page. So then at the end it really looks like Tom would be crazy. He is definitely more sane tan any other Hollywood star who does not care what is going around them in the world. Fortunately, there are some more who care. But none of them cares about it so much as Tom.

Do you still think that it is neutral to continue the campaign of these guys, who want to put the whole planet on psychiatric drugs, for the only reason that they get more profit?! Think it over again!


- Freeszaniszlo 04:27, 21 juni 2011 (CEST)

Potvrda korisnika[uredi izvor]

Možda glupo pitanje, ali zašto pod statusom nemam "Automatski potvrđeni korisnik"? Račun mi je aktivan već od 17. januara 2011. a na drugim Wikipedijama sam potrvđen automatski? Hvala, unaprijed. Xskydevilx 11:05, 21 juni 2011 (CEST)

Zdravlje[uredi izvor]

Kako zdravlje? Kako leđa? Kad ćeš južnije? Kažu Sana plitka a topla, samo čeka... na reumatičare ;)--CER@ (ask) 12:04, 21 juni 2011 (CEST)

ledja su se smirila :D a dole vjerovatno tek u augustu ili septembru. ako je oplicala onda i nije dobro jer nema ribe :D --WizardOfOz talk 12:14, 21 juni 2011 (CEST)
Dobro onda, ako je tako pripremiću poslije Bajrama baklave i janjetine ;) ;)--CER@ (ask) 12:19, 21 juni 2011 (CEST)
Uh! Eto mene odma! --WizardOfOz talk 12:25, 21 juni 2011 (CEST)

Thank you very much for your answer! (II)[uredi izvor]

Dear Oz,

I understand. Then it looks like "Jungle laws".

At least in real life for example if a newspaper publishes something derogatory on you that is not true (called "defamation" or "libel"), theoretically you have the right to get it corrected. They have to publish your version, without changing a letter in it. This is called "right to correction" in the law. But with that it ends the cycle. Then the newspaper is not publishing again his version and you again your version till infinity ... They published something on you that was not correct, you get them to change it by providing the correct information, and that's it. It ends the cycle. I did this recently with a newspaper in Crotia, and with a magazine in Slovenija. It is pretty time consuming, but can be done. You have protection from the law.

Do you know why is this real life version of the law much better than the lawless Wiki version? Because in Wiki a team of people can start to write something negative on you. You might not even realize it first. Then you start to correct it, but this team starts to write back everything as it was ... then you either let the incorrect information in the Wiki, or you get involved in an infinite editing contest, which eats up your time an energy completely with an end result that you neglect you job, your family, and all your life goes in pieces. That's a trap. And some people can become sometimes very evil in distributing false information, or half truths, or twisted facts, or omitted information (only saying the bad on you, but not the good) or altered importance (only mentioning unimportant details, leaving out the totally important ones out), or even outright lies that they invented with the only intention to completely destroy the good reputation of someone or something. Intelligence agencies, politicians, and any people very low on the emotions love to use these methods. Technically it is called "black propaganda".

Now, I have another question: Where should I answer your communications? On my talk page or on your talk page? Which is the better?

Freeszaniszlo 14:28, 21 juni 2011 (CEST)

Updated my language Babel[uredi izvor]

Dear Oz,

Look, I updated my user page for you.

Freeszaniszlo 14:45, 21 juni 2011 (CEST)

Slike[uredi izvor]

Mislim da je tasko odrediti autora slike koja je nastala u ratnim okolnostima, tako da nemogu navesti tacnog autora slike a ni godinu njegove smrti, tako da postoji mogucnost da je mozda dan nakon nastanka slike i samo autor poginuo, umro ili nesto slicno :), zato stavim da je starija od 70 godina jer to je jedina stvarna cinjenica. A vecina slika je skenirana iz knjiga koje mozes vidjeti na clanku Bosanskohercegovački pješadijski regiment, tako da ne mislim da postavljanje ovih starih slika moze krsiti neko autorsko pravo ili da moze doci do neke eventualne tuzbe. Jer kako ja to razumijem zbog potencijalnih tuzbi se i peglamo sa slikama. Ako nista onda je bar slika pod postenom upotrebom koja opisuje dati calank. Al et od sad cu gledati da to malo bolje licenciram i opisem, jer kad radim clanak, nemam bas vremena toliko paznje posvetiti slici, koliko tekstu, Pozzz (Dino hattab 00:50, 22 juni 2011 (CEST)).

Ime[uredi izvor]

Ej Wizarde hvala ti sto se nudis da mi pomognes oko ovog problemcica, pa eto onda ti to odradi za ove wikipedije, a za hr.wiki cu sam ipak tamo nepostoji jezicka barijera pa im ja mogu objasniti situaciju. pozzz (H@ttab 23:24, 22 juni 2011 (CEST)).

E de vidi jesam li dobro odradio ovo, sta je ovo SUL sto trazi, ako treba daj da ti posaljem password pa se ti loguj i rijsi ovo, posto meni ne ide od ruke ??? pozzz [1] pozzz (H@ttab 23:57, 24 juni 2011 (CEST)).

Eto potvrdio sam, i hvala ti na pomoci ;) (H@ttab 17:47, 26 juni 2011 (CEST)).

Šablon[uredi izvor]

Pa nisam video, gde ima? Šablon nema nikakve propratne kategorije... Možda nisam video, pokaži mi, molim te, znaš bolje od mene. --WhiteWriter piše 13:39, 26 juni 2011 (CEST)

Ali ovo je šablon, nije kategorija? Mislio sam da dodam kategorije u sva tri entiteta, da bi bilo svuda ravnomerno, vidi kako negde ima samo jedna kategorija a negde sve relevantne... Šablon ne isključuje kategoriju. -WhiteWriter piše 13:45, 26 juni 2011 (CEST)
P.S. Lepo je ovo "Ostavite novu poruku", uzeo sam ti. :) :) :) --WhiteWriter piše 13:49, 26 juni 2011 (CEST)
Kako nisu, pa jesu. sr:Категорија:Општине Војводине. Ali u pravu si. Kategorija ne treba da bude samo Republika Srpska, Federacija Bosne i Hercegovine, itd, nego Općine Republike Srpske, Općine Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine, i Brčko Distrikt. Na kraju krajeva, za to i služe kategorije. Šta kažeš? Evo, ja ću sve volonterski! :) :) --WhiteWriter piše 14:07, 26 juni 2011 (CEST)
Evo i ovo. sr:Категорија:Општине Србије A i nije svakako samo na sr, vidi en wiki za bosnu! en:Category:Subdivisions of Bosnia and Herzegovina Uvek je na nivou država sve podeljeno do entiteta u kategoriji članaka. Jasno je da ne treba da bude kategorija države ispod svakog grada i gradića. Zamisli to za Ameriku, Francuski, i sl.. Potpuno zagušenje. --WhiteWriter piše 14:13, 26 juni 2011 (CEST)
Pa vidi, vi do sada niste delili. Pravila vikipedije kažu da takve stvari treba podeliti u subkategorije kada postoji mogučnost, a ovde svakako postoji mogućnost. Ja želim da unapredim ovu vikipediju, i rekao sam ti da ću ja da uradim taj posao, nije to tako komplikovano, ioanko ima samo 135 opština. Nigde na celoj internacionalnoj vikipediji ne postoji jedna kategorija za sve gradove jedne zemlje. A ne sekiraj se za posao, ja ću sve odraditi. --WhiteWriter piše 14:24, 26 juni 2011 (CEST)
Napraviću zasebno kategorije da vidiš. Ne znam šta je tu pitanje, to je rutinska stvar. Pogledaj na en viki, mesta su podeljena po opštinama okruga njihovih država. 4 nivoa podele. Ovde ćemo imati samo jednu, onu glavnu. --WhiteWriter piše 14:29, 26 juni 2011 (CEST)
Tooo drugar! :) Sad ćeš da vidiš, ima da bude ko luče! -WhiteWriter piše 14:30, 26 juni 2011 (CEST)
S'tim što nije "Općine u tu i tu" nego "Općine toga i toga" Vidiš kako ovde imamo ostale kategorije... Radim! --WhiteWriter piše 14:33, 26 juni 2011 (CEST)
A možda bi bilo dobro da mi daš da budem automatski autoriziran, imaćete gooomilu da pregledavate. Ionako sam autoriziran na svim wikipedijama koje radim. --WhiteWriter piše 14:44, 26 juni 2011 (CEST)
OK. A vidi ovu sliku, od 2005 stoji bez ikakvih licenci, treba je obrisati... --WhiteWriter piše 15:02, 26 juni 2011 (CEST)
Ovo je gotovo, ali ne znam za Brčko, Brčko nema opštine, nije plural. Da li dodavati uopšte opštinu, novu kategoriju, ili samo iskoristit već postojeće Kategorija:Brčko? --WhiteWriter piše 16:47, 26 juni 2011 (CEST)
Pa da, rekoh ti gore, samo nisam dodao u Brčko, ne znam da li da pravimo novu kategoriju, Brčko nema opštine, možda samo treba obeležiti glavnu kategoriju. Sve je gotovo, još u pet bilo! :) -.-WhiteWriter piše 21:42, 26 juni 2011 (CEST)