User talk:F382d56d7a18630cf764a5b576ea1b4810467238

---

---

Images

Jel imas kakav prijedlog da rijesimo ovu situaciju sa slikama? Ja sam spreman surađivati.--Sokac121 (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Have you got any suggestions to resolve this situation with the pictures? I am willing to cooperate.--Sokac121 (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC) (translation by WhiteWriter^speaks)

I will speak English so that EdJohnston can understand this too. I oppose your opinion, WhiteWriter. People in the Balkans are in bad situation because religious and ethnic questions were not respected and because Balkan nations attempted to create enlarged countries in the areas that were mainly populated by other ethnic groups. I made little experiment and placed picture of Serbian church into article about town Vukovar in Croatia to see what will happen with this picture: [1]. And what I expected did happened because picture not remained there more than two days: [2]. So much about tolerance and standards in Wikipedia. I also checked some older edits of user Sokac121 and I noticed this: [3]. So, user Sokac121 who was engaged in deletion of Serbian names from articles about towns in Croatia where Serbs are in majority now claim to be a protector of minority rights and attempt to force pictures of Catholic churches in articles about villages in Serbia where Serbs are also in majority. The only thing that I see here is that rights of Serbs are violated here in both groups of articles – about Croatia and about Serbia. So, should we also discuss what to do with picture of Serbian church in Vukovar article? And I am sure that I can find in Wikimedia Commons few more pictures of Orthodox churches in Croatia that are not used in English Wikipedia. About infoboxes: let see article Sonta. It is village in Serbia where majority of population are Croat and Catholic and picture of Catholic church should be there in infobox because it represent majority of village population. There is also picture of Orthodox church in this article and by my opinion this picture should not be in infobox there because it does not represent majority of village inhabitants. It is same with other villages: if Orthodox Christians are in majority in some village then infobox of article about that village should not have picture of Catholic church. In both cases, if picture of Orthodox church is placed into infobox of village with majority Catholic population or if picture of Catholic church is placed into infobox of village with majority Orthodox population, religious feelings of inhabitants of that village will be violated. So, I do not agree that infobox should use just any image. If usage of image is POV or if image is very ugly then it should not be in infobox. But, if you agree that maps that I uploaded can be used there, then we should consider this problem solved. My point is that policy of Wikipedia about neutrality should be respected and that infobox should not use image that violate neutrality. Image size: I can accept that picture of Catholic church which is used in text instead in gallery is in same size as picture of Orthodox church, but that picture should not be bigger than picture of Orthodox church in infobox. Let forget pixels for a momment and let check reality of your version of this article: [4]. In that article version size of picture of Orthodox church is 7,5cm x 5,5cm and size of picture of Catholic church is 9,5cm x 7cm, so it is bigger without any doubt. In this case, I can accept that Catholic church is big 7,5cm but not more than that. CrnoBelo (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

But, please, who cares how big images are? Why is that important? I cannot agree on smaller images of different churches. Only the same as others. Also, it is not important what do we think, but what wiki guidelines told us. I dont think that image should present religious majority, but the most important or most recognizable mark of the place, or something what is the most recognizable monument of the town/village. Image of Orthodox church in Vukovar article was displaced. Maybe it can be in Cultural heritage section, but we dont have any new picture of the reconstructed Eltz Manor, which is one of the main landmarks of that town. Maybe it should be added in that section, that may be good addition. I propose to solve one question at the time. Please, Sokac, write here several articles that you question still, and we will solve those first. And by that example, all others will be done. :) --WhiteWriter^speaks 15:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

To me it does not matter which religion is majority in the village. Villages do not have castles, old bridges, town halls, have only church. Some villages do not have a picture of religious majority. Image size should be equal, until arrival CrnoBelo I was not paying attention to size of image. First question Vladimirovac what do you think about this map in infooboxu? Is there anything like this on wikipedia? --Sokac121 (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

One interesting data. That is ONLY CHURCH existing in Vladimirovac. Therefor, it is obvious that local population must use that church same as Romanian, also Orthodox citizens. So, this is also Serbian church, same as Romanian. Next, after minor research in my basic interest on wiki, it looks like that Vladimirovac is home to the one Cultural Heritage of Serbia. Set of eight wells from XIX century are the most important data of the village, so i suppose that image of some of those wells should be in infobox. But, we do not have even one image of those... :( Therefor, if you ask me, we should use image of the Romanian/Serbian church, as that (by the way, nice) image is the best representative of the village in question. CrnoBelo? --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately we only have a picture of church. I suggest that images be in infobox, map is unreadable, unintelligible, vague, for geographical position we have coordinates →[5]→[6].--Sokac121 (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

And this. Images are now the same visual size, so instead of minimalism, try to expand images up to the same size, CrnoBelo. --WhiteWriter^speaks 08:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with sizes of images in Stanišić article. My objection to all this was that images of Catholic churches were bigger than images of Orthodox churches in villages where Orthodox Christians are in majority. About Vladimirovac: there is no evidence that local Serb population use Romanian church. It is more likely that they use Serbian church in some other settlement nearby if there is no Serbian church in Vladimirovac. I would rather keep map in infobox there. Is there Wikipedia rule that say that we should not use map in that infobox? Use of map is not POV like use of image of church. Everybody can find image of church in other part of article. CrnoBelo (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes there is, we should not use map per WP:IMAGE LEAD and that entire section. I dont see any real strong reason except national agenda for using wrong map instead of useful image. If you dont like this image per your attitude, find some more relevant image, upload it to commons, and we can use that. Without new image, church should be used, as one of the most important objects in town. This is encyclopedia, not nationpedia or religionpedia... --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

WhiteWriter do you agree with this [7], [8]? --Sokac121 (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, i do, as we do not need in the infobox maps of several other neighboring villages, instead of one image highly related to the subject. --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

OK we have a deal:) I hope that CrnoBelo not mind.--Sokac121 (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Sokac121, I do mind and I do not accept tendentious POV pushing that have no any base in any guideline of Wikipedia. WhiteWriter, I do no t see any base in WP:IMAGE LEAD guideline that can support your views. Here is what WP:IMAGE LEAD says:

• It is very common to use an appropriate representative image for the lead of an article. (Image of Catholic church is not an appropriate representative image for village vwhere Orthodox Christians are in majority).
• Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic. (Again: images that two of you are pushing are not examples of this).
• Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. (I then choose this solution since this guideline apply to our dispute 100%). If POV pushing and violation of Wikipedia guidelines about this problem continue I will ask some administrators for opinion about POV nature of these images of churches because use of these images in infoboxes insults religios feelings of majority of people who live in those villages. Popularization of such ethnic or relugious insults in Wikipedia is unacceptable. CrnoBelo (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

CrnoBelo, if you try to make ethnicity or religion become the basis of selecting images, that is troublesome. If you follow the advice of Sokac121 and WhiteWriter you are on safer ground. Admins will probably ask if you are violating WP:ARBMAC if the matter is brought to them. ARBMAC mentions "long-standing historical, national, and ethnic disputes in the region." We do not want to see ethnic reasons for selecting churches. If the church is in the village it should be a candidate for consideration for an image in the article. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

• From the editor: Signpost adapts as news consumption changes

• Op-ed: Fixing Wikipedia's help pages one key to editor retention

• In the media: Author criticizes Wikipedia article; Wales attacks UK government proposal

• Featured content: Not a "Gangsta's Paradise", but still rappin'

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Fungi

• Special report: Two Wikipedians set to face jury trial

• News and notes: Researchers find that Simple English Wikipedia has "lost its focus"

• Technology report: Mmmm, milkshake...

• Discussion report: Closing Wikiquette; Image Filter; Education Program and Momento extensions

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

• From the editor: Signpost expands to Facebook

• WikiProject report: Action! — The Indian Cinema Task Force

• Featured content: Go into the light

• News and notes: Tens of thousands of monuments loved; members of new funding body announced

• Technology report: Future-proofing: HTML5 and IPv6

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)