User:Imbris/archives1

Slušaj bre, imam pametnija posla nego da odgovaram na tvoje gluposti ovde. Mislim da je vreme da napustiš Vikipediju i da pređeš na stormfront forum gde će tvoje fašističke ideje biti tolerisane. Ovo ti je samo upozorenje, ali ako se ne smiriš i ne počneš da radiš nešto korisno bićeš banovan, jer se takve nacionalističke provokacije i podjebavanje kojima se baviš ne tolerišu na Vikipediji. PANONIAN (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

From where I am standing your discussion is the one that is provocative, if I am guilty of anything that is trying to communicate with someone who is constant in declaring of ones own truth, and not open minded. See my lattest Vojvodina-1848-1.png - are you happy now, just 19 kB. Imbris 02:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ne, nisam zadovoljan sa tvojom slikom, jer mojoj slici ne fali ništa i nema ni jednog razloga da je crtaš ponovo. I ne radi se o "mojoj" istini već o banalnim stvarima prihvaćenim od većine istoričara, koje se tebi ne sviđaju zbog tvojih političkih ideja. A veoma je lepo što si sada te svoje političke ideje i objasnio na mojoj stranici za razgovor, tako da je potpuno jasno da tvoj cilj na Vikipediji uopšte nije nauka već politika. Inače za razliku od tebe, moji politički ciljevi su da živim u miru, da imam posao i normalan život u zemlji u kojoj nema političkih i ratnih sukoba - a upravo ljudi kao ti izazivaju te sukobe i time mi onemogućavaju da živim normalno. I prema tome, nemoj misliti da je Vikipedija mesto gde ćeš moći da širiš mržnju i da izazivaš takve sukobe - cilj Vikipedije je da postigne nešto sasvim drugo. PANONIAN (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is spreading hatred and causing conflict. Not me. Speak in English on English Wiki. Everything about you is funny. Some kind of a hipocrat, I don't know yet. But I will find out. Imbris 02:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Не морам да пишем енглески, јер ме одлично разумеш и овако, а само за тебе као провереног србофоба ћу писати ћирилицом (ја иначе углавном пишем латиницом, али само због тебе ћу користити ћирилицу). А конфликте стварају људи као ти који желе да изазову нестабилност и нове ратове. Међутим, управо за тебе као припадника мањине ти ратови могу да буду и најпогубнији, јер ако будале као ти сутра и изазову рат у Војводини, немој да сумњаш да ће тај рат најпогубнији бити управо по хрватску и мађарску мањину, и зато ако наставиш да лајеш као пас и шириш мржњу према Србима, онда ти је боље да на време купиш и један трактор, јер на чему ћеш јадан бежати кад и Срби почну да лају, а богами и уједају - ваљда не на својим нејаким ножицама? Ајде ме сад остави на миру и не смарај више - што је много, много је. PANONIAN (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Panonian, just FYI, anyone with good knowledge of any Slavic language can read Serbian well enough to know what you are saying. So first of all, it's not a very effective "secret code", and second of all, quit the personal attacks, will you? You probably wouldn't get into so many fights if you would be civil. K. Lásztocska 17:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I hide nothing here - I wrote in Cyrillic simply because user Imbris does not like it. And it is not me who is not civil here but him - he insulted both, my personality and my nationality, not to mention that he constantly lie about historical facts - so what you expect from me - to like him? He is disruptive user because most of his edits are trolling, provocations and insults, and not only that he do not do useful work here, but also stopping other users like me to do something useful instead having long discussions with him about basic historical facts. PANONIAN (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You insult people too, on a very regular basis. In your time you've insulted just about everyone on wiki who is not Serbian. If you hope to keep contributing to Wikipedia, I would respectfully suggest that you clean up your act. K. Lásztocska 20:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is just ridiculous - I really have no problem if somebody is not Serbian, the only problem that I have are people who have no good faith on their edits and who come to Wikipedia to spread "speech of hate". The main problem is that administration of Wikipedia cannot deal with those people so they come to "edit" articles that are on my watch list, so I have to deal with them. And, K. Lásztocska, do not try to theat me because you are not angel as well. PANONIAN (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, nobody's perfect, but at least I don't call everyone who disagrees with me a fascist or a "Greater (insert country here) nationalist". I'm also not the only one who is disturbed by your belligerence. You can ask around if you like.K. Lásztocska

I am not guilty because those people are Greater (country) nationalists and I do not see why they would be disturbed if I tell them the truth about them. PANONIAN (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is not true, I have learned it school, but I'm not good at reading it. So I will not even try to decyfre it. For one page of cyrillic script I would have to have an hour of spare time.
• Most of my edits are not trolling, provocations and insults, whenever I edit something of Panonians interest I firstly open a discusion about it. I am not disruptive, someone else is just that.
• Basic historical facts, I don't think so because someone I know does not even know them.
• The workload of someone can't be a measurment for she's or he's usefullness. Even if someone is new here - he or she can be very old and serious.
• I have not insulted him, not in a way he insults me.
• Someone who is against borders - and - just loves to draw them.
• I have not even once offended his nationality - just the opposite I think he is a hard-core national, but not in a good way. I am affraid not.

Imbris 18:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Pa ako ne znaš ćirilicu onda znači da i ne živiš u Vojvodini, pa odakle ti onda pravo da nekome iz Vojvodine soliš pamet u kojoj državi treba da živi? Samo me zanima odgovor na to pitanje, a na ostale gluposti nemam nameru da odgovaram. PANONIAN (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have read it, don't woory be happy. And I have conections in Vojvodia, but have not heard that a war is just going to start. Shameful. Please do not write on my talk page, unless you have a problem of the encyclopeadical nature. You don't have intention to answer. You will talk even if you have not anything to say. Imbris 20:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: advice

Hi Imbris. Don't leave Wikipedia! I can see you've had a pretty bad few days, and that's tough especially since you are a newbie. :) I would suggest for now you just avoid controversial political issues and give everyone a chance to calm down. What are some of your other interests? Are you a literature person? More of a science type? Know much about music? Work on articles about those kinds of things for a while. You will meet nice people on the Wiki, I promise. :) For now, just leave the Serbia map alone. It's not really a big enough issue to get too worked up over. Explore the Wiki, work on other topics, make some friends. :) Good luck! K. Lásztocska 04:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Very good advice: I would also suggest to him to edit articles without controversial anti-Serb political agenda and he will not have objections from me as well. PANONIAN (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Stay cool, Panonian, we agreed to peace, not just a cold war. :) How about just "keep away from politics altogether for a while," as we all know that "anti-Serb agenda" is a rather subjective thing, and what might seem atrociously biased to you might seem totally normal and acceptable to someone else, and vice versa, and on and on like that... K. Lásztocska 00:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, as for mediation and things like that, I've found that these sort of "comrades' courts" usually just degenerate into a he-said, she-said kind of nonsense, strengthening old enmities and alliances and not ever really providing any fresh perspective or resolution to a debate. If you don't want to try and come to an agreement with Panonian, well, you're on your own. Don't expect me to get involved anymore in fights between two angry former-Yugoslavians. K. Lásztocska 22:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I have some more advice: leave Panonian alone. At first it looked to me like just an ordinary wiki war, but now I see you are continuing to be aggressive even as he has tried to calm things down and compromise. That is against Wikipedia policy and general community manners--see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. K. Lásztocska 13:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

official welcome

Oh my goodness, you poor neglected newbie. You got into a fight before anyone even officially welcomed you to Wikipedia! Here is the official greeting:

Welcome!

Hello, Imbris, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

K. Lásztocska 04:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

calm down...

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

K. Lásztocska 18:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Specifically regarding this. K. Lásztocska 13:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Imbris, I'm serious. STOP IT. I never thought I could be so firmly on Panonian's side, but you are being very mean and unreasonable to him. STOP, or I'll notify an admin. K. Lásztocska 15:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Your problem is you are being rude and harrassing Panonian even though he has asked you to leave him alone. I don't care which of you has the "correct" political view, or what some average Ivan Ivanovic in Novi Sad or Belgrade might think about the exact specifics of Voivodinian history. Believe me, I've had my fights with Panonian, we aren't exactly best friends, but at least he is a prolific and usually useful contributor to the encyclopedia. He does have a temper and sometimes he's too quick to assume the worst about people, but he's still a productive Wikipedian. You on the other hand appear to have come here with the primary motive of shouting at the top of your lungs about nasty political topics, and the secondary motive of picking fights and making enemies. There are plenty of other websites you can go to if mostly what you want to do is debate politics, but Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, and the first duty of a Wikipedian is to contribute to a compendium of human knowledge, as neutrally and in as non-biased way as possible. I don't know enough about Vojvodina to say which of you is correct on some issue, but I can say that you are not behaving in any way appropriate for a Wikipedian. Ask some admins if you want a second opinion. K. Lásztocska 01:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

category

The reason it's a good category is that "Hey, Slavs" has been important in Serbian cultural history just as much as it has been important in Slovak, Slovene, Czech, Russian, or whatever kind of Slavic culture. It should probably have categories for Slovak, Russian, other Slavic cultures as well, but there isn't really a good reason to remove the Serbian category. K. Lásztocska 21:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Grb SR Srbije 2.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Grb SR Srbije 2.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo: country vote

Hello. There's a vote going on Talk:List of countries as to whether or not Kosovo should be included in that list. You have an interest in Serbia-related articles and I thought you might be interested. The articles List of countries and Annex to the list of countries (where the inclusion criteria reside) are both relevant. Cheers. DSuser 15:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Image talk

Discusion about a map

Neutrality of this map is non existent. Why? Because the author used blue for Serbian Dukedom with Temeser Banate which were a administrative unit of Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. Notably he used blue as well for Semi-independent Principality of Serbia (autonomous Otoman Empire principality). It is not in the best interest of truth and the facts to portray a certain statehood links between these two teritories. In this discussion I deliberately use the term Serbian Dukedom and Temeser Banate because it is an English translation of the meaning of the name Die serbische Wojwodschaft und das Temeser Banat. That was the name of present-day Vojvodina that was used when the emperor gave some autonomy to the people of the Dukedom. In the dukedom there were two official languages: German and Illyric. Please look this up. Die serbische Wojwodschaft und das Temeser Banat from 1849. to 1860. is not to be mixed up with the self proclaimed Serbian Wojwodina in the revolutionary 1848. Imbris wrote this before 16. Feb 2007.

You are wrong: the English translation of the name of the province that existed from 1849 to 1860 is Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat. Serbian Voivodship is a name of another province that existed before this one in 1848-1849. These two are not same thing. As you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Grosswojwod.jpg the German version of the name of the province was Wojwodshaft Serbien (Voivodship of Serbia), which is same name used in German for modern Serbia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbien Second: both, Principality of Serbia and Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat were not independent states, but autonomous territories within two empires. Blue colour was used for both of them because both had name Serbia and both are histirical predecesors of modern Serbia. PANONIAN (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I am still going to complain that the map PANONIAN constructed is bias. There are over 255 colours that he could have used, but he did not. Blue for Principality of Serbia and blue for Serbian Voivodship and Temeser Banate is not a neutral point of view. Imbris 22:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not see reasonable explanation why usage of same colour for both is not neutral. Please provide one reasonable explanation that could gain an reasonable answer. Your personal dislike of certain colours is certainly not an reasonable thing. PANONIAN (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Everyone can see that your map is not neutral. Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat (as you call it) was an Austrian Crown land. It have not had any political conection with Principality of Serbia (autonomous part of Ottoman Empire). This is why those two political entities must not be represented in a way that would arouse suspicion that any conection were present. Saying that Voivodship was a nothern part of Serbia in sr.wikipedia or speaking of there were Austrian Serbia and Ottoman Serbia in en.wikipedia (Serbia article) is a historical fabrication. Colours do matter. You understand it very well, but you lie to the English and to the World. Spreading one learning of history - one angle. You know what that angle is - radical greater Serbian politics. Imbris 22:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I just explained to you that both territories were called Serbia and that they indeed were Austrian Serbia and Ottoman Serbia. Both of them were part of something, so I see no any difference between them. I do not see how same colour used for both could be "not neutral". My intention with this map was to present both territories there. and therefore I painted them with same colour - I really do not understand how same colour could imply political connection between them. The purpose of the map was to show political connection with modern Serbia since both territories are political predecessors of modern Serbia. And please do not insult me with your "radical crap" accusations because from your post I can coclude that you are radical Greater Croatian or Greater Hungarian nationalist - and it is not nice to accuse other people for your own political views. PANONIAN (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you lie to your self. Serbian Vojvodina proclaimed in 1848 an aliance with the Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia. Vojvodina was to be governed by the duke (native: vojvoda) elected by the Parliament in Zagreb. Even in that map you portray almost same colours for Serbia and Serbian Vojvodina. And they were polliticaly tied with Zagreb.

Serbian Voivodship (not Voivodship of Serbia) and Temeser Banate (not Tamiš Banat) were Austrian crown land that was created as a result of revolutionary 1848. They were not Austrian Serbia, nor Austrian Serbes, because historical lands of Bačka, Banat and Baranya were Ungarisch by the grace of God. Those lands were populated by very mixed population and there are not suficcient data to show Serbian majority. Colours must be changed, and it is not permissable to corrupt historical facts by todays purposes. So if you want to disscuss about creation of Serbia, you disscuss that in another article, not in the article for Vojvodina, not in the article for Serbia, but in the article History of Serbia. Finally in todays world there are a small nummber of Croatian and Hungarian greater-nacionalists but a great deal of Serbian ones. Imbris 00:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I will repeat: Serbian Vojvodina existed in 1848-1849 and Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat existed in 1849-1860. The sources that use name Serbian Vojvodina for 1849-1860 province simply mixing the two. Also, Serbian Vojvodina did proclaimed union with Croatia, but the duke of Vojvodina was elected by the people of Vojvodina at the May assembly in 1848 in Sremski Karlovci, not by the parliament in Zagreb - the only thing that parliament in Zagreb decided is to recognize Syrmia as part of Serbian Vojvodina. Of course I speak here about Serbian Vojvodina from 1848-1849, but Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat from 1849-1860 did not had any connection with Croatia. Also see again this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Grosswojwod.jpg This text in German clearly use name Voivodship of Serbia for the province, so what exactly you do not understand here? It was Austrian Serbia whether you like this fact or not. And you totally mixing the two provinces because Baranja was not part of Voivodship of Serbia, but only part of the Serbian Voivodship. Also, Voivodship of Serbia was not part of the Kingdom of Hungary, but was completelly separate crownland in which both languages Serbian and German were official and therefore usage of name Tamiš Banat is very correct (it was one of two official names). Voivodship of Serbia was indeed ethnically mixed, but Serbs were relative majority there (of course, both, Orthodox and Catholic Serbs are counted here). So, to conclude: I do not see a reson to change colours only because one Greater Croatian nationalist with very poor knowledge about history want it. Of course I will be happy to explain to you any part of the history of Vojvodina that you do not understand or do not know, just ask me. Regarding creation of Serbia, you should go to bookshop to buy geographical atlas where you will notice simple fact that Vojvodina is part of Serbia and that this article is very good place where creation of Serbia should be discussed. Also, the question of greater Serbian nationalism could be discussed in connection with lands outside of Serbia but certainly not in connection with lands inside Serbia, therefore you have no reason to mention this here. PANONIAN (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Current - not yet concluded

I will repeat: Serbian Vojvodina existed in 1848-1849 and Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat existed in 1849-1860. The sources that use name Serbian Vojvodina for 1849-1860 province simply mixing the two. PANONIAN (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Who said so, namely Serbian Vojvodina existed only in revolutionary 1848. Not 1848-49. Serbian Voivodship and Temeser Banate existed from 1849-1860. What sources use the name Serbian Vojvodina for 1849-60 period. Serbian Voivodship - that is an another pair of sleeves. Imbris 02:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

My point was that official name of the 1849-1860 province was Voivodship of Serbia not Serbian Voivodship. PANONIAN (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, Serbian Vojvodina did proclaimed union with Croatia, but the duke of Vojvodina was elected by the people of Vojvodina at the May assembly in 1848 in Sremski Karlovci, not by the parliament in Zagreb - the only thing that parliament in Zagreb decided is to recognize Syrmia as part of Serbian Vojvodina. Of course I speak here about Serbian Vojvodina from 1848-1849, but Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat from 1849-1860 did not had any connection with Croatia. PANONIAN (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Duke of Vojvodina that had been selected by the people was a temporary one. He may have been legitimate, but legaly he would have been elected by the Parliament of the Land in Zagreb. Parliament in Zagreb decided to give Syrmia to the autority of the Peoples commitee (what was the temporary governoment for Serbian Vojvodina). They decided so at the promisses made by the Ban of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia, gubernator of Rijeka, Capitan of Croatia, commander-in-chief of Military Border, and concqueror of Medjimurje, barun Josip Jelačić; promisses that Serbian Vojvodina would be a closely tied territory with Croatia.

Duke was not "temporary one". He was the only duke, but he died during the war and no other duke was ever elected. And I will repeat: he simply was not and had not be elected by anybody in Zagreb. He was recognized as a duke by the Habsburg Emperor. Also, ties between Vojvodina and Croatia was union based on "perfect equality", which means that Vojvodina was not subordinated to Croatia in any way. PANONIAN (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed Serbian Voivodship and Temeser Banate had not direct connections with Croatia, but thruogh the joint ruler (king and emperor) they did. Imbris 02:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

But it had no more connection to Croatia than to Galicia or Moravia - there was simply no direct special connection betweem Voivodship of Serbia and Croatia. PANONIAN (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also see again this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Grosswojwod.jpg This text in German clearly use name Voivodship of Serbia for the province, so what exactly you do not understand here? It was Austrian Serbia whether you like this fact or not. PANONIAN (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The name of the crownland was Die serbische Wojwodschaft und das temeser Banat. You know that in German language adjectives are written in lower capital. King and Emperor could have titled himself Grosswojwod der Wojwodschaft Serbien but the land was called Serbische Wojwodschaft und das temeser Banat. It was not Serbia, it was a dukedom of the Emperor. Imbris 02:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you are wrong - the German spurces call it Wojwodschaft Serbien and Serbian sources call it Vojvodstvo Srbija and both names could be translated into English only as Voivodship of Serbia. PANONIAN (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

And you totally mixing the two provinces because Baranja was not part of Voivodship of Serbia, but only part of the Serbian Voivodship. PANONIAN (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not mixing anything. You are. Baranya was a part of self proclaimed Serbian Vojvodina. Imbris 02:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but was not part of Voivodship of Serbia and you claimed that it did in your previous posts. PANONIAN (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, Voivodship of Serbia was not part of the Kingdom of Hungary, but was completelly separate crownland in which both languages Serbian and German were official and therefore usage of name Tamiš Banat is very correct (it was one of two official names). PANONIAN (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about Kingdom of Hungary. Territories that comprized Serbian Voivodship and Temeser Banate were parts of Hungarian counties (Bodrošku, Torontalsku, Tamišku i Krašovsku county). Imbris 02:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Term "Hungarian" in this historical context could be used only to apply to lands that were under administration of the Kingdom of Hungary. If something was not under administration of the Kingdom of Hungary, it was not "Hungarian". Also, Voivodship of Serbia was divided into districts and these counties did not existed in that time. PANONIAN (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Languages. You are mistaken, official status had German and Illyric (not serbian). Imbris 02:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Illyric is simply another name for Serbian, and if you like more "Tamiš Banat" is Illyric name. PANONIAN (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Voivodship of Serbia was indeed ethnically mixed, but Serbs were relative majority there (of course, both, Orthodox and Catholic Serbs are counted here). PANONIAN (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a provocation of the greatest kind! Slavic people were majority, not Serbes. And this majority is quesionable. Imbris 02:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What kind of provocation? Orthodox Serbs together with Catholic Serbs (Bunjevci and Šokci) were majority. Many sources mention Bunjevci and Šokci as Catholic Serbs. PANONIAN (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So, to conclude: I do not see a reson to change colours only because one Greater Croatian nationalist with very poor knowledge about history want it. PANONIAN (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Another provocation. There is nothing great in beeing a fashist. Counterfiting history! Imbris 02:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not provocation but only observation - the real provocation is your presence in Wikipedia and if you want to see a real fascist buy yourself a mirror. PANONIAN (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

We will change the colours if you do not. And your knowledge of history is not neutral - you know. Imbris 02:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You will change nothing because I will revert all your changes. This is not place for nationalists, so the place where you can writte your crap is stormfront forum, not Wikipedia. PANONIAN (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course I will be happy to explain to you any part of the history of Vojvodina that you do not understand or do not know, just ask me. PANONIAN (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you were the last man in the whole wide World (and Universe) I would have not asked any question about any historical matter. Imbris 02:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Your problem... PANONIAN (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding creation of Serbia, you should go to bookshop to buy geographical atlas where you will notice simple fact that Vojvodina is part of Serbia and that this article is very good place where creation of Serbia should be discussed. PANONIAN (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Atlases from England and the US of A. Edited by such as you. I don't think so! I confer to idea that creation of Serbia should be discussed in the article about Vojvodina. Vojvodina is an autonomous part of Serbia. Remember that. Imbris 02:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As you say, it is "part of Serbia" and it is you who should remember that. And since I am native Vojvodinian whose ancestors live in Vojvodina for hunderds of years, I do not need that one Greater Croatian nationalist tell me anything about Vojvodina. PANONIAN (talk)

Also, the question of greater Serbian nationalism could be discussed in connection with lands outside of Serbia but certainly not in connection with lands inside Serbia, therefore you have no reason to mention this here. PANONIAN (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Vojvodina is an autonomous part of todays Serbia. It was not before 1918. There are bunch of reasons to mention that here because of the same colour for Serbian Voivodship and Principality of Serbia. Imbris 02:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, Vojvodina was officially called Serbia in 1849-1860 and long before that it was unofficially called Rascia (Serbia) - this name is showed on many maps from the 15th to 18th century: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Rascia01.jpg PANONIAN (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Shame on you! Using only Serb authors for citation. And you call yourself a historian. Pih! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Imbris (talk • contribs) 23:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Please refrain from personal insults and provocations. If you read the references better you will find many non-Serb sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Vojvodina#References Also, we speak about Serbia here, so I do not see why Serbian sources cannot be used if we writte about Serbia. PANONIAN (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Those words cannot be characterized as personal insults, but remarks about your historical aparatus. OK. You have citted some non-Serbian sources, but no Hungarian, and Croatian ones. And you are writting about Vojvodina, autonomous part of Serbia - which is defined as multiethnic and multiconfesional autonomy of its citizens. No one said you should not use Serbian authors. Use them, but use the original documentation.

Die serbische Wojwodschaft und das temeser Banat in German language is Srpsko Vojvodstvo i Tamiški Banat is Serbian Voivodship and Tamiški Banat in English (with partly used orriginal name). Not Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat. Correct english translation is Serbian Dukedom and Temeser Banate.

Authors that supports this are

• Tadija Grosinger in his book Zemaljska uprava za Srpsko Vojvodstvo i Tamiški Banat, Novi Sad, 1989.
• Privremeni gradjanski postupnik za Ugarsku, Hervatsku, Slavoniu, serbsku vojvodovinu i tamiški Banat, Beč, 1853.
• Slobodan Radovanović and Mira Derušek, Zemaljska uprava za srpsko vojvodstvo i tamiški Banat; Analitički inventar I. deo, Arhiv Vojvodine, Sremski Karlovci, 1978.
• Tadija Grosinger, Zemaljska uprava za srpsko vojvodstvo i Tamiški Banat, Analitički inventar II. deo, Arhiv Vojvodine, Sremski Karlovci, 1983.

They had orriginal documents in their hands because they are archivists of the Archives of Vojvodina.

Imbris 23:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And the picture should be called Serbian_Voivodship_and_Serbia.png

Computer are no longer limitted to eight character names plus three characters for extension.

Imbris 23:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As I already said, there are books that use name Serbian Voivodship instead of Voivodship of Serbia, but since original documents mostly use version Voivodship of Serbia it is name that should be used here. I do not see a point of mentioning authors who "had in their hands original documents" because we have one original document right here and it use name "Voivodship of Serbia": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Grosswojwod.jpg The only thing that we can done here is to writte in the article about voivodship that some sources also use name "Serbian Voivodship" instead of "Voivodship of Serbia", but we should not change name of the article or description on the map - both are very correct and I can quote many sources that mention name "Voivodship of Serbia". Regarding Croatian or Hungarian sources about Vojvodina, it is hard to find non-biased sources about Vojvodina published in these two countries, but if we find any I have no problem with their usage. Regarding name of the picture, I do not see any reason to change it because shorther name is always better. PANONIAN (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Original documents do not use Voivodship of Serbia, but Serbian Voivodship or in English Serbian Dukedom. You have one document in which the Emperor added to it's title the title of Grosswojwod der Wojwodschaft Serbien but the land was called Die serbische Wojwodschaft und das temeser Banat to which Privremeni gradjanski postupnik za Ugarsku, Hervatsku, Slavoniu, serbsku vojvodovinu i tamiški Banat issued in Vienna in 1853. is corroboration. Your sources are biased. Documents that I reffer to are stored in Archives of Vojvodina i Sremski Karlovci. Your (one) document is from Landesregierungsblatt für Die serbische Wojwodschaft und das temeser Banat, which was the official gazette for Serbian Dukedom and Temeser or Tamish Banat(e) in English. That is not a sufficient proof. Shorter is not better if it does not describe the map correctly. Imbris 18:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand what is wrong with you - I just showed to you an original document ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Grosswojwod.jpg ) that DO MENTION version Voivodship of Serbia, and yet you still claim that "original documents do not use Voivodship of Serbia". I am sorry, but I really do not understand how can I talk with somebody who deny even what he see with his own eyes. The source that I showed to you is not the only siurce that use this variant - I already told you that both variants are used in sources and both are correct, but variant Voivodship of Serbia is more used in sources than Serbian Voivodship. And my source is not biased - the only biased source here is you, so please stop this history twisting and trolling. The only problem here is that you do not like name Serbia used here, but that is only your personal problem and certainly not a problem of Wikipedia. PANONIAN (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The document to which you reffer to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Grosswojwod.jpg) contains a title added to the titles of the Emperor, and the name of the Austrian crown-land in English Serbian Dukedom and Temeser Banate or better yet Temeser Bandom. en.wikipedia.org is a open encyclopaedia written in English, and not some other languages. Title of the Emperor is not the same as the name of the land. And you know it, and you still refuse to change it. Why?

The title of emperor IS SAME as the name of the province: the emperor added to his title "great voivod of the Voivodship of Serbia" because Voivodship of Serbia was a name of the province. If the official name of the province was Serbian Voivodship then emperor would have title "great voivod of the Serbian Voivodship" and not the title "great voivod of the Voivodship of Serbia". Exactly this title of the emperor show which of the two names was official - remember that this title was adopted by the emperor in 1849, the same year when the Voivodship of Serbia was created. Now, if you want to prove that you are correct please try to explain why would emperor had title "great voivod of the Voivodship of Serbia" if Voivodship of Serbia was not a name of this province. There is no any logic in your claims, and as I already said, the only problem here is that you personally do not like word Serbia here - but that is your personal problem. Regarding your proposed name "Temeser Banate or Temeser Bandom", word "Temeser" is not English, but Hungarian (and you said by yourself that this is English Wikipedia), so there is practice in English if there are no proper English names for something then English language use names from local languages - in this case the voivodshop had two official languages, Illyrian (Serbo-Croatian) and German, of which speakers of Serbo-Croatian were more numerous, and therefore it is logical that English language use Serbo-Croatian name for it in the name of the article. PANONIAN (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Lattest on the name

NO, IT IS NOT the same, namely in that same period 1849-1960:

Küstenland (in English Coastland) was founded in 1849 (consisting of three autonomous länder (lands) of Görz (Gorizia) and Gradisca, Istria, and Triest) they have been governed by Statthalter (chief of state of Coastland).

• 1848 - 1861 Görz a Crownland of Austria. Emperor of Austria had a title Gefürsteter Grafen von Görz und Gradisca and the land was governed by Landeshauptleute (chief-man of the land). There was no discrepancy between the name of the land and the name of the land USED in the title Emperor had. But still Görz is a Crownland not a County (Grafenland) nor a Principal-county (Gefürsteter Grafenland).
• 4 Mar 1849 Crownland of Istria (Istrien). Markgraf in Istrien (Margrave in Istria, interestingly enough not of Istria) and we have the same problem. Istria was a Crownland, not a Margraves land.
• 4 Mar 1849 Crownland of City and Land of Trieste (Stadt und Gebiet Triest) from 12 Apr 1850 Reichsumittelbare Stadt und Gebiet Trieste. Emperor had a title of Herr von Triest (Italians translate Signor of Trieste, and en.wikipedia.org falsly Lord of Trieste - he was the Sir of Trieste; Gentleman of Trieste would be an understatement). Crownland of City and Land of Trieste is very different from Sir of Trieste. One is the name of the land, the other is the name of the title of the Emperor.

We could debate on, and on. Why does nobody notice that you removed the destignation "Neutrality of the map should be checked". You had no right to do so, that is why debate is beeing not visited.

Back to the nameing: We could show you information on all lower than kingdom or markdom entities that discrepancy exists. Discrepancy is most cleary seen in the last item Serbian Dukedom and Temeser Bandom. Why? Because PANONIAN deliberately interpreted that Voivodship was a super translation, and that English speakers understand it very well. That is not true. In English language there is a better word - that is Dukedom. Why Temeser? Look it up, when Emperor issued his first civil code for the land it was called in German Die serbische Wojwodschaft und das temeser Banat, that name was the name of the land even when the Emperor added Grand Duke of the Dukedom of Serbia to his long list of titles.

• Official gazette (official herald - official newspaper of the land) was called Landesregierungsblatt für Die serbische Wojwodschaft und das temeser Banat.
• In Illyric language (that you proclaimed Serbian) Krunska zemlja serbska vojvodovina i tamiški Banat.
• Administration of the land was called Zemaljska uprava za srpsko vojvodstvo i tamiški Banat (notice the lower capitals in the name srpsko and vojvodstvo and in tamiški - that is what the originall documentation states and this PANONIAN does not).

Imbris 00:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The examples that you mentioned are not relevant for this case because in all those examples only ruling title is different, but not name of the land - the name of the land is same in all those examples proving my point that if empreror used in his title name for the land "Voivodship of Serbia" then it was official name of the land. Regarding neutrality of this page, you did not proved that its neutrality is disputed and therefore you have no right to post this tag here. Also, word voivodship is used in English, so read that article before claiming that it is not in use. Regarding name "Temeser", it was just name used in German, but the main language spoken in the province was Serbo-Croatian (and both, German and Serbo-Croatian were official). And again: I already told you that both names, Voivodship of Serbia and Serbian Voivodship were used, so you have no reason to quote sources that mention one of the two variants because I do not dispute claims of those sources - I can quote many sources that mention other name variant, but it would be futile in discussion with you because your obvious political Greater Croatian goal here is to remove word Serbia from the title. PANONIAN (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

More, and more deliberate mishmash from you. Neutrality of Image is in question here, not of this page. Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat was not a official name of the land. Official languages were German and Illyric (not Serbian, nor Croatian). Both names were not used. It was not Voivodship of Serbia, because it did not have connections with Serbia as a political entity, it was not even Serbian Voivodship because that is not a good translation of Serbska vojvodovina i tamiški Banat nor a good translation of Die serbische Wojwodschaft und das temeser Banat. The words serbska and serbische are adjectives not nouns, and describe the name of a nation (Serb) - not the name of a statehood or political entity.

Therefore the correct translation to English is Serb Voivodship and Tamiš Banat, geneorously from my point of view. More correct would be Serb Dukedom and Temeser Banat or Srpsk Dukedom and Temeser Banat.

Did you hear such information that the name for Serbian state (orriginaly) was Srpska not Srbija (in English Srpsk as in Republic of Srpsk or Srpsk Republic or Republic of Srpska), Serbs in Bosnia and Hercegovina told that story. I have not yet confirmed it.

It is well known that people of Serbia usually call them selves Srbijanci and refere to their governoment as Srbijanska Vlada (Serbianer governoment). It is the case here. Serbs in Vojvodina are just Serbs and Serbs in Serbia are serbians. So Vojvodina is not serbian but serb. Imbris 04:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, let quote some sources that use name Voivodship of Serbia:

• 1. Istorijski atlas, Geokarta, Beograd, 1999. - written by several proffesors and doctors (all of them are stupid according to you, right?)
• 2. Sima M. Ćirković, Srbi među evropskim narodima, Beograd, 2004.
• 3. Lazo M. Kostić, Srpska Vojvodina i njene manjine, Novi Sad, 1999.
• 4. Drago Njegovan, Prisajedinjenje Vojvodine Srbiji, Novi Sad, 2004.
• 5. Dr. Dušan J. Popović, Srbi u Vojvodini, knjiga 3, Novi Sad, 1990.

So, I qouted just a few sources (I could quote more of them), but the main question here is: do you claim that all those historians and professors are stupid and only YOU are smart??? I certainly do not think so. If Voivodship of Serbia was not official name of the land, why all those authors used it? Or why Habsburg emperor had name Voivodship of Serbia in his title? (I already asked you this question, but you did not answered - perhaps Habsburg emperor was stupid too?). So, the question here is not a neutrality of the image - there are two possible questions here: 1. either your lack of knowledge, in which case I suggest that you read those books that I mentioned or 2. your nationalistic political goal to remove word Serbia from the name simply because you do not like it. In both cases, it is not map that you should change, but you should change only yourself. Also, if Illyric language was not Serbian, what was it then? Was it in fact language of ancient Illyrians who rose from their graves only to make their language official in the Voivodship of Serbia? Really, tell me what language that was according to you? Regarding political connections between Voivodship of Serbia and Principality of Serbia, so what if there were no political connections between the two - the map does not claim that such connections existed. However, both territories had name Serbia and both are important for the Serbian history as predecessors of modern republic of Serbia and therefore both are coloured with the same colour - the purpose of the map was to show both of them. Regarding term Srbijanci, Serbs that live in Bosnia and Croatia use term Srbijanci to designate Serbs in Vojvodina too, so please stop this ridiculous story that Vojvodina is different from Serbia because you insult the majority of citizens of Vojvodina (including me) with such story. PANONIAN (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

...

Accusing someone for spreading one learning of history - one angle. "You know what that angle is - radical greater Serbian politics" as done by Imbris is far from labeling someone to actually be a Greater nationalist, and accusing to have political views of a greater nationalism. We are speaking about historical era of 1849-1860, when Bačka, Banat, Baranya were not a part of Serbia, neither was Syrmia. We are not talking about present-day Vojvodina (within Serbia). When someone - like you - tries to connect with the two (the past and the present) then it is obvious what we are talking about. And in the article about Vojvodina, you can publish information about it's present status, who is stopping you. Reverting history and publishing constructs and constructions is not permissable, although you have done that and continue to do so I will not go into an editing war with you but continue to debate until someone neutral comes in and instruct you to stick to the facts. Not forget the colours... Historical constructs are information in which the author looks from a point in time into the past, or future and construct some information to show some agenda. They are permissable in historical debates, scientific articles, but not in an encyclopaedias, where we stick to the facts in a condensed and accurate way. Imbris 01:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Mention of "radical greater Serbian politics" in the case when we speak about Vojvodina (a territory INSIDE SERBIA) is very big provocation, and as a citizen of Vojvodina, I do not think that I have to say how much that insults me. I already told you that Voivodship of Serbia was official name of Vojvodina from 1849 to 1860 so WE DO SPEAK about time when Vojvodina "was part of Serbia" (the capital of that Serbia, however, was not Belgrade but Timisoara). It is historical fact, no matter if you like it or not. In another words, it is you who want to construct history and to deny this connection of Vojvodina with name of Serbia - you already sais why: the nationalism!. PANONIAN (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you recognize facts. The name was Serb Voivodship and Temeser (Tamische) Bannate (Banat). The period 1849-1860. Voivodeship (in Illyric lang.: Vojvodovina) was not Serbia. It could only have been called (by the slightly thin majority of Serbs in Vojvodovina) Serb Voivodeship (in Illyric lang.: Serbska Vojvodovina). When someone denies facts of history and constructs something, even just a name (like in this case), then it is clear what we are talking about, someones that is chauvinist and jingoist about a topic. That person may not be completely chauvinist and jingoist, and can be like that regarding some topics (in this case Vojvodinian agenda). A person can be a good nationalist a.k.a. patriot, or in case of some bad or bigott nationalism a.k.a. chauvinism or jingoism or a great-nationalist where we have another division of good and bad, weather someone occupied someones others land. And we have history-chauvinst and jingoist.

Why you do not read books that I told you where you will see that name Voivodship of Serbia was also used, and not just in any books but also in the best and most complete book ever written about history of Vojvodina by the well known Vojvodinan historian D.J. Popović. If D.J. Popović use name Voivodship of Serbia in his book, who are to say that thgis name was not used? Both names, Voivodship of Serbia and Serbian Voivodship are used in various sources and this is just end of our discussion - as I alredy said, the only problem here is that you just want to remove word Serbia from the title because of your own nationalism and serbophobia. So, please stop your trolling and your attempts to delete Serbian history. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We are speaking about Serb Voivodship or less common Serb Voivodeship (in some sources named Voivodeship of Serbs (in Illyric lang.: Vojvodovina Srpska and not Vojvodovina Srbija) not Voivodeship of Serbia.

See my previous post. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You are a citizen of Serbia (formally Republic of Serbia), there is no Vojvodinian citizenship, norrmaly you mean a citizen of the City of Novi Sad (although it is of an average size and deserves more the label of a town, we should look at the official web-page and see), the same town which is the provincial capital of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina. en-4 my xxx.

What this has to do with anything? PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not hate anybody that have not done me wrong, but a person that deliberately disinformations is clearly disinformed. I am the person that like facts, and the person that uses Serb instead of Serbian in the name of Vojvodovina, so I am clearly the person that dislikes the word Serbia nevertheless I speak of Serb Vojvodina.

Funny. Imbris 02:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"so I am clearly the person that dislikes the word Serbia" - Very nice that you recognized that and this speak everything about your intentions and your credibility here. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Theme about Serbian Vojvodina -

• A person that acknowledges historical ties of Zagreb with Sremski Karlovci in 1848, and not publish it in an article about Vojvodina, but only in this discusion.
• He acknowledges a union, and talks about "perfect equality", which is not true because when The Peoples assembly in Karlovci decided of an union in 15^th of May 1848. they decided that the Serb Duke would be elected by the Croatian Parliament in Zagreb. When someone elects you your prince, you are subordinated, but more important polliticaly tied (of course in 1848-49).
• Colours are a problem here also, there is no Croatia on the map, borders, etc.

Imbris 01:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vojvodina03.png proposing the use of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vojvodina-1848-1.png Imbris 02:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Man, the duke of Vojvodina WAS ELECTED ON THE SAME DAY AS ASSEMBLY IN KARLOVCI WAS HELD. It simply DID NOT HAVE TO BE ELECTED BY ZAGREB - it is an outrage lie invented by you. I do not understand what seriuos discussion I can have with people who invent such lies. Regarding map, the first map is just fine, and there is no reason to replace it with your own. PANONIAN (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Assembly that took place in Karlovci (todays Syrmian Karlovci) proclaimed the union with Zagreb, and also proclaimed that the Voivode of Serb Vojvodovina (not a duke, because ducal honours are much greater and the term is not to be mixed up with the Serb Voivodship, this is why the term is not completely translated. Serbian Vojvodina is a bad translation and we should use Serb Vojvodovina. I have stated that the Peoples Assembly of 15^th of May 1848. decided that the Voivode would be in the regular way elected in the Parliament in Zagreb (Note: The full name of the parliament was Parliament of the Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia, and under that name the parliament acted, issued decres, etc. Members of the Parliament have never acknowledged the creation of Kingdom of Dalmatia outside the motherland). Because Serb Vojvodovina was short-lived it never came into action (meaning the decision). Nevertheless an objective encyclopaedia cannot publish information of "perfect equallity" and not even mention the powers of Parliament of Zagreb in the matter.

Sorry, but voivode just did not had to be elected by the parliament in Zagreb - it is just a lie and you know it. The "perfect equallity" is just a word that is used at the May assembly in 1848 and parliament in Zqgreb did not had any power over questions in Vojvodina. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I repeat. Never did I say that the Voivode were elected by the Parliament in Zagreb, Not to accknowledge the fact that the Voivode elected by the Peoples Assemby in Karlovci was a temporary Voivode until he was given the approval of the Parliament of Zagreb. Parliament of Zagreb could have decided otherwise and elected someone else, because it had the power to elect the Voivod of the Serb Vojvodovina. You do not accknowledge facts because in your article Serbian Vojvodina you do not publish information that is complete.

Lie again. Voivode was not temporary, but permanent, and he needed approval from the Austrian emperor (and gained one), not from the anybody in Zagreb - Zagreb did not had power to decide anything about Vojvodina, so just stop lying. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I repeat again WHEN you let someone elects your prince, even if the election never came into place, you are subordinated, you do not have complete control over yourself. Please publish information that is complete an not only parts of information. There were not perfectly equall, and the Voivode was obviousely nomminated by ban Josip Jelachich (orriginall name is Josip Jelačić). Glina and Petrinja are very close, etc.

Please read more carefully in the future. Imbris 02:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And I will repeat again: Zagreb did not had power to elect voivod of Vojvodina and therefore Vojvodina simply was not subordinated to Zagreb in any way. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Theme about Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat

I am very sad when you do not understand why the Emperor of Austria styled his ducal title of Grosswojwod der Wojwodschaft Serbien (Grand Duke of Voivodship Serbia) (interestingly not of Serbia as you report here - title was not Grosswojwod der Wojwodschaft auf Serbien). He has done so to emphasize the Austrian claim on Serbia. Do not forget that Austria occupied Serbia in its Ottoman era three times

• 6^th Sep 1689 - 10^th Sep 1691
• 22^nd Aug 1717 - 4^th Sep 1739
• Aug 1789 - Sep 1791

and then in the I^st World War from:

• 11^th Aug 1914 - 21^st Aug 1914 Northwestern Serbia
• 2^nd Dec 1914 - 15^th Dec 1914 Belgrade
• 9^th Oct 1915 - 1^st Nov 1918 Whole Serbia
  • Vranje to 5^th Oct 1918
  • Nish to 11^th Oct 1918

I have explained that the name of the crown-land and the title of the Emperor of Austria is not the same thing. Especially I have explained this for allmost every part of Austrian Emprire of the level lower than Kingdom. I will now explain another, and very important fact. In The Austrian Empire, the Emperor was the centre of power, and the ruler of the land. He didn't have (as in the British Monarchy) jurisdiction over the nations of his land, he shared jurisdiction with them thruogh the instrument of parliaments. He was not the Defender of Faith and chief priest of some kind like his British counterparts. In his title (title of the Emperor of Austria and in accordance with the practice set by his predecesors have names of the nations, but names of the lands, check. In the one periodical (of that time) that you presented (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Grosswojwod.jpg) there are clearly listed the name of the periodical - Official gazette for The Serb Voivodship and the Temeser Bannate (DE:Landesregierungsblatt für Die serbische Wojwodschaft und das temeser Banat) containing the name of the crown-land and the title of the Emperor of Austria eg. Grosswojwod der Wojwodschaft Serbien. They are clearly different. Predecesor of The Serb Voivodship and Temeser Bannate was The Serb Vojvodina in pollitical union with Croatia-Slavonia.

• Colours are a problem here also, there is no Croatia on the map, borders, etc.

Imbris 01:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Serbia02.png proposing the use of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vojvodina-1849-1860-2C.png Imbris 02:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So you lie again with your claim that Austrian emperor had title "Grosswojwod der Wojwodschaft auf Serbien", Check this image again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Grosswojwod.jpg You will not see word "auf" there. Also the claim that Austrian emperor used this title to "emphasize the Austrian claim on Principality of Serbia" is ridiculous especially if we know that he done that in the same year when Voivodship of serbia was created. It is unveliable how you twisting history here - why you do not go to library and read those books that I told you. Also, you did not "explained that the name of the crown-land and the title of the Emperor of Austria is not the same thing" because in your examples names of the crownlands WERE SAME in the title of the emperor and other documents. Regarding name Serb Voivodship and the Temeser Bannat used in the image, I already said that both names were used, so I do not understand why you mention this. But I will repeat: both names, Voivodship of Serbia and Serbian Voivodship, were used for the province and if you read those books that I told you, you will see that name Voivodship of Serbia is used in them. So what is problem here? mIs problem because you do not want to read or what? Tell me, really, I do not understand you. Also, the map: colours are not problem and there is no reason to chenge them. PANONIAN (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I said, and I quote "...(interestingly not of Serbia as you report here - title was not Grosswojwod der Wojwodschaft auf Serbien)...". His title should be translated only as Great Voivode of Voivodship Serbia, not Great Voivode of Voivodship of Serbia. He took the title because he wanted to rule the of Serbia proper (nowdays Central Serbia). I deliberately reported that there were not the word "auf" among the words of the title of the Emperor of Austria. I have showed that even the translation of the tiltle made by you is not the correct one. He created EN:Serb Voivodship (Illyric lang.: Serbska Vojvodovina or Vojvodstvo which was the same e.g. territory ruled by Voivod), not EN:Serbian Voivodship and (Serbian: Srpska Vojvodina).

No, he did not took the title "because he wanted to rule the of Serbia proper (nowdays Central Serbia)", but because he ruled territory known as Voivodship of Serbia, and in English word "of" is used in such cases. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would every reasonable beeing on this World think and know about the interest of The Emperor of Austria on Serbia's proper. Haven't you seen the periods in history in which Austria (later Austria and Hungary) occupied Serbia. Why did they do that. They wanted to liberate the people of Serbia? No. They wanted to occupy Serbia because they wanted a part of the East of Europe, and the root thruogh it to Solun (Thessaloníki), and they wanted together with Germany to rule the most of Europe possible. Latter their plans were called Dragen nach Oesten. This is why the Serb Voivodship was created, to steal the land from the Kingdom of Hungary and to use its population in their wars and as a base to "go into the East". Remember, Austian diplomacy created Albania in 1912. and 1913., even after the I^st World War, the situation remained the same. Who is the deputy of a certain former Finish President in his new mediation job.

This is just ridiculous, off the subject, and no worth of commenting. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Very important note: I use the term Serbska Vojvodovina to show respect, the orriginal word was serbska. The word serbska is an adjective (in todays form srpska), and can mean a number of things. In this case it means a part of something that is of Serbs as a nation (people, group of people, individuals), and not Serbian which means something that is of the State. Because it is the first word in the name of the territory it should be and must be written with the first letter of that word in capital-lettering.

As I said, there were several variants of the name (vojvodina, vojvodstvo, vojvodovina), and it is not you who should decide which of them is most correct, but relevant historians whose books you did not read. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Simmilar thing is in the name of Serb Republic of The Bosnia and Herzegovina. In modern Serbian language the name is Republika Srpska which means Republic of the Serbs. The practice in modern English language is not to translate the name of Republika Srpska, to show that there should not be connection with the term (people may connect, states too, but term does not) Serbian which is reserved for The Republic of Serbia (orriginal: Republika Srbija). Of course this is only the fact in the names of State/Entitiy/Territorial unit of the second level.

See my previous post. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's articles should have its names (or headlines) written arround the orriginal name, there is only one in this case. Other alternatives, or names that people use, can be stated in the same article, but not as a completely new ones (not for such a small period of time, and such little relevance). Wikipedia uses completely factual and truthful information and not paliative constructions. The term Voivodship of Serbia has not been used, not until present times when someone wants to fabricize history.

Please do not lie - term Voivodship of Serbia is used by many historians and your claim that "they fabricated history" is just ridiculous because you are very well known for history fabrication and you are not even a historian. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Official were (had officiall status):

• German language: Die serbische Wojwodschaft und das temeser Banat.

And also: Woiwodschaft Serbien und Temescher Banat. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Illyric language: Serbska vojvodovina i tamiški Banat (in the name of Zemaljska uprava serbska vojvodovina i tamiški Banat = Administration of the Land of serb Voivodship and Temeser Bannate

And also: Војводство Србија и Тамишки Банат / Vojvodstvo Srbija i Tamiški Banat. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Today:

• Serbian language: Srpsko vojvodstvo i Tamiški Banat (from the translation of Illyric term: Zemaljska uprava za srpsko vojvodstvo i Tamiški Banat). Mostly referenced as Srpsko Vojvodstvo i Tamiški Banat.
• English language: Serb Voivodship and Temeser (Tamische) Bannate (Banat

More correct (translation from the book of D.J. Popović and other relevant historians): Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

On the books, either the authors were biased or you misinterpreted them.

Neither of the two, which show that either you are biased or uninformed. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Both names had not been in use. Serb Voivodship and not officiall term Voivodship of the Serbs were. (orriginal Illyric: Srpska Vojvodovina and less commonly Vojvodovina Srpska), (nowdays, Serbian lang.: Srpsko Vojvodstvo and on the lesser account Vojvodstvo Srpsko) or (nowdays translation in Serbian lang.: Srpska Vojvodina i Tamiški Banat, on the smaller count Vojvodina Srpska i Tamiški Banat

Imbris 02:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Both names had been in use and still are used by various historians - just read their books. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

English language is a germanic indo-european language

So when the crown-land of The Austrian Empire is in German language named "Die serbische Wojwodschaft und das temeser Banat" then because of the relations between the two languages in Wikipedia in English we should have English language or the closest one. There couldn't be any reason that historical crown-land should in it's name have Tamiš Banat, when the name in German is Temeser Banat, and in English Temeser Bannate. British historians use orriginal document, and not someones translations, i am sure that they use the term Temeser Bannate or even Tamische Bannate. Imbris 01:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The "relations between the two languages in Wikipedia"??? In Wikipedia or in the linguistics? LOL English lamguage use LOCAL NAMES if ENGLISH names do not exist. It is irrelevant which of the local languages is more "close" to English linguistically. The most common local name should be always used for such purpose. PANONIAN (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The most official name, the most correct one, the most historically proven one. If you wish use Simple English for most common English, and not en.wikipedia.org You yourself used the name Voivodship of Serbia and Banate of Temeschwar for a period of time.

Speakers of Illyrian were more numerous than speakers of German and therefore Illyrian name is much more suitable for usage. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is very relevant which of the local language were closer to English, and at that time Governor in Temeschwar used German language, Illyric has not been in most of official purposes. The only authonomy the territory had was that it was governed by a (most of the time) Austrian governor from his seat in Temeschwar rather than directly from the Palace in Vienna, and some Emperor's official there.

No, it is not relevant "which of the local language were closer to English" - English is an World language and it borrow words and names from all other languages, no matter how "close" to it they are. As I said, the Illyrian language was the main language used in the province and therefore Illyrian name is most common local name that is used in English translation. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So there is even historical unjustice to the language of the governor as a representative of the Crown-land.

Imbris 02:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

See my previous post. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

On the sources

Only legitimate source in a historical case, infact any case is coroboration (confirment), (strangely enough corabolation if a very simmilar word). When there are two different sources who state different statements, and we must decide for one of them, is tourning to source, to document not to the derivatives of document - publications that only refer to them. Not all documentation is important eg., bills, cheques; but important documents are kept as archival materials and stored in archives or simmilar institutions. When an Archives (as in archival institution) receve archival materials they in accordance to international norms of archival work create fonds (archive group) (DE: Bestand) (ES:sección). All archival fonds must have a name, the name is determined as the last known name of the institution (administration, person, group) based on the one rule. To give the fonds name under which it is most widely referenced and which should be used to reference the archival material in that fond is an obligation. Authors that do not obey that rule can be denied access of the archives, and are in the least biased. I have produced in the discusion a document created by archivists of the Archives of Vojvodina (Arhiv Vojvodine). This kind of a document is called in English cataloge, in French inventaire analytique or registre d'écrou, in German analytische Inventar in Spanish regesta/catálogo. The documents names are:

• Slobodan Radovanović and Mira Derušek, Zemaljska uprava za srpsko vojvodstvo i tamiški Banat; Analitički inventar I. deo, Arhiv Vojvodine, Sremski Karlovci, 1978.

• Tadija Grosinger, Zemaljska uprava za srpsko vojvodstvo i tamiški Banat, Analitički inventar II. deo, Arhiv Vojvodine, Sremski Karlovci, 1983.

There are the lists of individual document to the individual pages of documents with brief description, dates, etc. When we are talking about regesta individual document up to the individual pages are brought in full text. Analytical inventaries (EN: catalogs) for a particular fond are published only by the name of the fond, that is also the case here. Translation of the name is Lands administration for Serb Voivodship (Dukedom) and Temeser (Tamische) Bannate (Banat). Archives of Vojvodina has a web site, there is a telephone, so because you are in Vojvodina, Serbia you call them at local cost so I would not have to call internationaly. Imbris 01:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This claim that you said is crucial here: "When there are two different sources who state different statements, and we must decide for one of them". It is just that it is not WE (you or me) who must decide about this, but some much more relevant persons, and I have just have two most relevant sources that use Voivdship of Serbia: 1. Istorijski atlas, Geokarta, Beograd, 1999 (a historical atlas for school), and 2. Dr. Dušan J. Popović, Srbi u Vojvodini, knjiga 3, Novi Sad, 1990 (D.J. Popović is a considered a historian with best knowledge about history of Vojvodina and since he used name Voivodship of Serbia in his book, I do not see reason why we should not use it). In another words, D.J. Popović had much better knowledge than YOU (what possible importance Wiki user Imbris could have for the historiography???), and HE certainly had very good knowledge about which sources are relevant and which are not - HE did visited archives and read many documents and from all those documents that HE read and used for his books, HE decided that name Voivodship of Serbia is most accurate for usage. So, to repeat: the term was used as most accurate by best Vojvodinian historian, not by Wiki user Imbris or Wiki user PANONIAN. PANONIAN (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Not true. The relevant Wikipedians will decide, and when did I name those who will "WE" be consisted of. When have I included myself into the now famous "WE". On the other hand I am going to receive the information very soon, in a matter of days Analytical inventaries will be in my hands, then I will write the crutial piece of information.

What exactly is not true? And who will decide what? There are no "relevant Wikipedians who will decide" - the only thing that Wikipedia administrators do is to help parties in dispute to find compromise, so you have to convince me in your opinion, not somebody else, you know... And I also do not care for your "crutial piece of information" because you proved who you are and why you are here long time ago and what kind of "information" you can provide. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This will be a nummber (nummerical) that represents the archival fonds and the cattalogue of the archival fonds.

That still cannot deny facts that exist in the book written by D.J. Popović. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that someone could write without political intervention in those times in Vojvodina. Remember, Yougurt Revolution in Novi Sad in 1989. Miloshevich came to power in 1986. - of course in the Central comitte of Comunist Party of Serbia, his visits to Kosovo. Simmilar violent revolutions in 1989. in Titograd and Priština. I think that even Dr. Dušan J. Popović has not written Vojvodstvo Srbija or Vojvodina Srbija for the period of 1848-49 or for the period 1849-60. I will look at some of those books and if I don't find some combination in which the word Srbija is used in connection with Vojvodina - I will launch a formal protest to Wikipedia about you and the need to examine all of your work, firstly I would find some other persons who came in contact with you here and in the World that are willing to testify about your true nature, then all will fall as a house of cards, and the name Panonian would have no such bearing as it has today. People today look up to you, while I don't know what tomorrow will bring I am certain that it would not bring anything nice for those who missinterpreted the history, who copy that was copyrighted and who think that they got away with it.

"I think that even Dr. Dušan J. Popović has not written Vojvodstvo Srbija or Vojvodina Srbija for the period of 1848-49 or for the period 1849-60." - I do not care what you think, just read the book and see for yourself: Dr. D.J. Popović, Srbi u Vojvodini, knjiga 3, Novi Sad, 1990, name Vojvodstvo Srbija is on the page 306 written exactly for 1849-1860 province. When you read that, I will woute other books to you. And do not try to threat me that you will protest against me if "YOU don't find some combination in which the word Srbija is used in connection with Vojvodina" because, unfortunatelly for you, one of the Wikipedia administrators (User:Duja) live exactly in Novi Sad and he always can go to library to find those books and see is there word Serbia in them or not - so do not even try to lie and make false accusations against me. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

One time in one book and in your elementary or highschool atlas. Funny. And what about Brochure of the Executive commitee of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina. There two x and one y wrote your POV. Did he or did not he used the term Srpsko Vojvodstvo more often. He did. Yes. Imbris 02:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not ONE book. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Vojvodina#References Now, the following books from this list mention name Voivodship of Serbia: 1, 4, 5, 9 (this is book written by 4 Hungarian authors and they also mention name Vojvodstvo Srbija), 12, 13, etc. I did not mentioned also other books that mention this name because they are not listed here, but it is cetainly not only one book - numerous authours use name Voivodstvo Srbija (Voivodship of Serbia) for the province, and not only Serbian, but Hungarian authors as well. Also, the link that you showed also use name Vojvodstvo Srbija i Tamiški Banat and I do not see that it use other name for the province at all when it speak about 1849-1860 period: http://www.sluzba.vojvodina.sr.gov.yu/SEKRETARIJATI-V/MANJINE/manjine-koliko-se-poznajemo/web-tekst/Brosura-ceo-tekst.htm#Bahovo_doba_-_Vojvodstvo_Srbija_i_Tamiški_Banat PANONIAN (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

One person can be very important if she or he has the power of the truth. Someones else's decisions are not my problem. The only problem is if you deliberately and knowingly with the sanity in both mind and body translated in the wrong way or even worse fabricated Dr. D. J Popović.

D.J. Popović is widely regarded as best Vojvodinian historian and who are you to claim that he fabricated something? PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I will always listen to the documents and critically analyse them to get to the truth, no one is permited to missinterpret them. Imbris 02:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, no one, especially yoo - therefore I will closelly watch your edits here. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Geographical maps in historical science

Geographical maps in historical science are important, but an auxilliar part of methodology. Very well known are auxilliary historical sciences: heraldy and vexicology, but one of these are historical geography. As mathematics may be crucial for physics, it is still an auxiliary science to physics. And another thing in mathematics you can't prove a thing by geometry, the only proff in mathematics are equasions and nummbers. In historical science, or better yet sciences the only acceptable proff is a document, achival document, not periodicals (however formal they can be), nor book and magazines, or daily newspapers, not Internet, but only documents coroborated with archival science - archivistics. Imbris 01:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Read my answer in previous section. PANONIAN (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing new under the sun, you are clearly not a histoian. Imbris 02:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not historian, but I have large collection of books written by various historians and therefore, you cannot trick me about history - I am able to check every information that you post here. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Diplomatics (FR: diplomatique, DE: Diplomatik, Aktenkunde, ES: diplomática) is never going to forget this.

Both names may have been used by authors of book, maps, etc., their information could have been corrupted, and in this case it is. The name under which Serb Voivodship and Temeser (Tamische) Bannate (Banat) should be represented in English Wikipedia is the one written in English language not Illyric or any other. So Voivodship is a long word that is not the word of the English language but a word borrowed by the English language to better describe somewhat different meaning from the word Dukedom (in English language Duke is the title of a higher level received by the greatest nobility beside the Royal titles), so it wouldn't be fair to translate Voivodship as Dukedom. So Serb Voivodship and Temeser Bannate is the best choice of translation of the orriginal name of "Die serbische Wojwodschaft und das temeser Banat" in German language or "Serbsku vojvodovinu i tamiški Banat" in Illyric language or "Srpsko vojvodstvo i tamiški Banat" in Serbian language. I will repeat. Article in English Wikipedia should be changed from Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banate to Serb Voivodship and Tamische Bannate. Sources to the limit. You are not a historian, are you. See you can quote for scientific purposes everything, but you must stick to the facts, after long searching I found only once the name of The Voivodship Srpska in English in Serbian Vojvodstvo Srpsko, but not Voivodship Serbia nor Voivodship of Serbia. Your authors are mainly opted to use something that is not based od archival documents (documents from the time we are talking about, nor orriginal documents). Publication is not an archival document but librarian, and libraries store mish mash, everything and nothing. In America libraries store even archival documents, but separately from books and other materials. Know why? Funny someone have said that I do not like the name Serbia, but I allways talk about Serb Voivodship instead. What is the difference, someone would ask. The difference is that Voivodship of Serbia is a fabrication, and Serb Voivodship is the truth written in archival documents in the Archives of Vojvodina. I have citted only authors, and documents that are Vojvodinian and one Vienna civil code for the crown-land, I have not citted authors from Hungary nor Croatia. Shameful is to not recognize ones own misstake in time, that is in time to save us all from this discussion. Someone has proven PANONIAN wrong and he is mad as hell about it - he will fight to the death. Imbris 01:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Voivodship IS A WORD USED IN ENGLISH - there is voivodship article here and English dictionary entry that prove that voivodship is English word. I also already told you (why I have to repeat same things over and over?) that if there is no English word for something that English language use most common local nam e - the current article use it, so there is no reason for name change in that article. Regarding name of the province, I already told you that name Voivodship of Serbia was used by best Vojvodinian historian D.J. Popović, who is much more relevant than you or me to say which of the two names is most common. And yes Imbris, I am not historian, but YOU ARE NOT TOO. However, D.J. Popović is a historian and name that he used in his books is best choice for usage in Wikipedia. So, if D.J. Popović used name Voivodship of Serbia in his books, WHO ARE YOU to say that it is fabrication??? PANONIAN (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not reading closely. Namely I have held myself accountable for the mistake of using the word Dukedom because it has a greater nobbility meaning than Voivode.

You repeat because you do not read carefully.

I am not against the word Voivodship or the Voivode, but I am against the word Tamiš, and the word Banat because English sources use Temeser or Tamische and Bannate.

What English sources? Even if so, the origin of the name in those sources could be questioned - it is obvious that those sources used German name simply because they did not know Illyrian one, but since we know Illyrian name, there is no need to use German. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It was Serb Voivodship - more easily for understandment Voivodship of the Serbs.

It was only of the names used for it. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But I have more than secondary school training in History, you have only highschool training in History.

That does not mean that you are objective or that you have good faith or that you speak the truth about your training or about your age... PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You presume that You know what is the best choice for Wikipedia, Panonian The Great, hail to the Tzar. Funny. Imbris 02:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I just can recognize users with bad faith when I see them. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In your mirror? K. Lásztocska

You suggest that I have bad faith? Prove it. :) PANONIAN (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was mean. :) K. Lásztocska 00:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you be kind enough to prove your claim - perhaps showing just one my Wiki edit that was in bad faith? PANONIAN (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I retract my claim. As I stated above it was rude and unhelpful. Sorry again. K. Lásztocska 01:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Insult of the greatest kind made by "peaceful" Panonian

Shameful. In former Kingdom of Yugoslavia there were 90% of all public officials of Serb nationality, 80% of postal, rail, and other essencial parts of administration, allmost all of the generals were Serb, before the II^nd World War one general was promoted into the lowest of the rank among generals, the rank of Brigadier General (US), Major-General (UK), in that suroundings there was a movement of Black Hand militia that consisted of Serbs. Their motto was: to the investigation - theirs or ours. PANONIAN's remark to the death - his or of yours trully, that is myself is exactly equall to that remark to the investigation - theirs or ours. You can understand it more easily if I describe. Namely the word investigation means that if there were no Croats, no investigation would confirm their existance - and they didn't calculate to lose the fight. I mean terrible, just terrible to say such a thing, and so covertly like the CIA. Imbris 01:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The something that I said on other talk poage as a joke is just a joke and nothing else - it is your own problem if you do not understand it... PANONIAN (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Shameful, horrid Imbris 02:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"Opinion" of user Imbris

Serbs in Austrian Empire called Serbs in Serbia - serbianer (Serbian language: Srbijanci), it's an another story today, when Vojvodina is an Autonomous Province of Serbia. You are often refering to Vojvodina as an region to diminish ist authonomy. Correct translation to the word "pokrajina" is province. Terrible. They have regions in Italy, but they are simmilar to the counties or (Serbian language: okrug), not provinces. And I am still convinced that most of Vojvodinians think of them self as Vojvodinian first, and then nationwise second, and that they do not call them self "Srbijanci" - serbianer, but they think so for the people of central Serbia. The word has a neutral meaning it is not an offence for those who don't know.

Illyric language was the language of south-slavs in the Austrian Empire latter Empire and Monarchy. As a note "Srbijanci" - serbianers didn't accept the language that Vuk proposed, not at first, there was a big discusion over that (AT THE TIME) and Serbian Ortodox Church still uses some, but not many of the Old Churc Slavonic language - Serbian variant called Slav-Serbian language (orriginaly Slavljanoserbski).

Imbris 01:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I consider myself both, Vojvođan and Srbijanac, so, what you will say to that? And regarding Illyrian, nice that you said that it was language of South Slavs - I just want to ask you: was it same as modern language known as Serbian or not? Be careful what you will answer. PANONIAN (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I stated that the Illyric language is the language of the South Slavic orrigin and has been used by the majority of Slavic nations in the Austrian Emprie. In that time all of the Slavic names for their nations were forbiden in Austrian Empire, and Illyric was the name of the language used in literature of the time (poetry e.g.). It was not a name for a nation of any sort.

You may feel as Vojvođan and Srbijanac, but most of people regard them self firstly and foremostly as Vojvođan (English: Vojvodinian, German: Vojvodiner or Wojwodiner). Imbris 02:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But what exactly language is Illyric? Is that language extinct today or it is still spoken in Vojvodina with official name Serbian? Regarding citizens of Vojvodina, you really have no idea what you talk about here. PANONIAN (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

New political pamphlet about the history of Vojvodina

In 1918. King of Serbia had not any right in the legal sence of the word to declare unification, because Serbian Constitution of the time gave the right to the Peoples Parliament of the Kingodm of Serbia. Peoples Parilament of the Kigdom of Serbia didn't sanction the decision made by the King of Serbia. Elections for the new Constitutional Parliament were held under the greatest protests and not in the democratical way, as did every elections in Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (latter Kingdom of Yugoslavia). Another fact is that old rules and regulations including almost all of the laws created before 1918. continued to be laws of the historical land of which were Yugoslavia consisted. Some of new laws were passed and became law in january 1929., but the civil code of the Austrian time lasted up to 1941. Up to the year 1928. people of land that were parts of the Austrian empire payed more taxes, and funnilly enough taxes on personal income were payed only in the land that were mentioned above. The income tax has not been implemented in Serbia with Kosovo and Malo Kosovo and East of Metohia and Macedonia around the river Vardar and in Montenegro with West of Metohia. Look this up, and ask yourself which is first - the authonomy of Vojvodina or government in Belgrade. Most of the lands that were part of the Austrian-Hungarian Dual Monarchy which entered in Kingdom of Yugoslavia mentione in theirs constitution that they were created on the basis of Peoples liberation movements in their land during the II^nd World War. The Peoples liberation movement condemned everything that existed in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. I think that the decisions of Antifashist council of the national liberation of Jugoslavia are more important point in time for the Authonomy of Vojvodina within Federal Serbia. Vojvodina was called Autonomical Vojvodina (bad translation of Autonomna Vojvodina) and Serbia was called Federal Serbia or more correctly Federal State of Serbia (1944-11-01 - 1945-11-29) or from 1944-11-11 to 1946-01-31. This is when true authonomy was born, and this is when in 1945-07-31 the First Parliament of the deputies of the People of Vojvodina legally brought the Decision of the connection of Authonomical Vojvodina with Federal Serbia. We can use the words like link, attach - the orriginal word was priključiti se, priključujem, priključenje, we cannot use words like join or worse unite. This decision was accepted by the Antifashist council of the national liberation of Jugoslavia on 1945-08-10. That is the birthday of modern Vojvodina, and not 1918-11-24 or 1918-11-25 or 1918-12-01. Know that for all eternity 1945-07-31 is the day to celebrate the day Vojvodina legally and freely atached itself to Serbia, history begins there I meant history of Vojvodina within Serbia. You can stick borders of the Treaty of Trianon in the paper waste basket. Imbris 02:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Many words, but no meaning in them...do you have something concrete to say and just to writte political pamphlet? PANONIAN (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you two!

You do realize, Panonian and Imbris, that you've been expending all this energy and anger and fiery national passions in a huge fight.....over what COLORS to use on a map?!?? You people have too much spare time! BOTH OF YOU, calm down, take a deep breath, stop flaming each other! It's turning quickly from drama to farce! K. Lásztocska 16:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have started the proces of reaching the Archives of Vojvodina. I hope that this will decide this case. Books are just a secondary source that everyone of us can write. I this case documents must prevail. Imbris 01:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but if your personal interpretation of the archive documents is different from the interpretations made by seriuos historians (you are not even a historian), then the most logical choice would be to trust to them and not to you. PANONIAN (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You are the only one in here who are still in high school. And you are the only one who makes personal interpretations and historical shit of a constructs in which there is not a single fact in sight. You are the one who has no proffesional experiance with documents of historical value, and not know anything about history, historical methods and archival science. People in archives use international standards to name the institution, person, or a entire state - territory, they are not liars but you who pulled some obscure fact from one book and deliberately formed an entire theoretical POV of history of Vojvodina. You are a liar, you are a counterfiter of history. You are going down, and I am not going with you. Imbris 04:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, mister Imbris, I make no personal interpretations, I just have many books in my home, so I read those books and writte in Wikipedia what I read there. So, please stop those personal insults. I have bad temperament myself and I could insult you even worse, but you becoming very booring and you are not even worthy of insulting - you are just poor frustrated kid and I just feel sorry for you - I really do. Finally, if you go to library and find those books that I told you to find and that are listed in the references section in "History of Vojvodina" article, you will see that everything that I told you is in those books. PANONIAN (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I will very soon have in my hands the documents, book's are not equall to them, they have been written by some individuals who for all we know expresed POV of their own. Archives of Vojvodina - I told you. Imbris 00:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The only person that want to "express POV of his own" is you. Do you think that those authors wrote those books from their head or they also saw documents from the archieves. The second one, of course. And as I said, since both kind of documents obviously exist there (those that use name Voivodship of Serbia and those that use name Serbian Voivodship), it would be very nice that you see those documents that those authors used and then you will see that you are wrong. Of course, if you present only those documents that use name Serbian Voivodship and not present those that use name Voivodship of Serbia that would be a forgery. PANONIAN (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OFFICIAL NAME is what is of importance on Wiki, not your extracting of some particularities. You have only citted one author and in one page . Imbris 19:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

OFFICIAL NAME is name that can be found in the books of RESPECTABLE HISTORIANS like D. Popović, S Ćirković, D. Njegovan etc, not name what YOU propose. And I cited to you much more authors than one - just find that my post and read it again, I cannot repeat same thing over and over to you. PANONIAN (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Intresting. P, the problem is that the voivodship of Serbia nad Tamis banat, is A: slavic, but it should be in german. (Serbia and Temeschwar). B: it looks like (because of the same color) as the V and PoSerbia were together. This is wrong and misleading, therefore history falsification. Voivodship was not part of Serbia untill 1920. (in fact it became part of the (Kingdom of Serbs-Croats-etc/Yugoslavia) It must have a different color, and a clear sign, that it was a part of a different country, than the Principality of Serbia. --195.56.14.113 23:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Both languages, Slavic and German were official in the voivodship and therefore any of the two names is historically correct. However, since speakers of Slavic were more numerous than speakers of German, Slavic name would be the most common name that should be used. Regarding same colour, the same colour is used with purpose to show two territories that were predecessors of modern Serbia. The map do not claim that "Voivodship and Principality of Serbia were together", so I do not see what falsification you speak about. And Voivodshop was part of Serbia between 1849 and 1860 (the capital of that Serbia was Timisoara). PANONIAN (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Solution

Just color the damn entities map with different color. D

I already explained why they are painted with same colour and there is no single reason to paint them with different colours. PANONIAN 13:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This solution is misleading because users which look this map will think that Serbia and Habsburg province Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat are 1 state. --Rjecina 15:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would they think that? There is clear explanation that these are two territories and two different capitals are shown. There are also two other maps of Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat where only voivodship is shown without principality of Serbia, The point is that this specific map was made with a purpose to show two territories that had name Serbia in this time and that is why they are painted with same colour. PANONIAN 00:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleting

I agree with comment of user from 31. march 2007 that this map is wrong and misleading because of what I have writen demand for deletion. Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat must have different color of Serbian principality. Blue color for Austrian province and Serbian principality is misleading because of that map need to be deleted. --Rjecina 3:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The map is not wrong. It is irrelevant whether YOU agree with something or not - you have to provide PROOFS that something is wrong, not just to say that. And here is proof that map is not wrong: http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/185915BK.GIF Second, if you object only to colour, you have no right to claim that entire map is wrong and to ask for its deletion. Third, article named Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat already have a map that show only voivodship without principality of Serbia, so your suggestion is already fulfiled. This specific map was created with purpose to show two territories that had name Serbia and that is reason why they are in same colour. Historically, there was no difference between these two territories - both had name Serbia and both were autonomous regions within Ottoman and Habsburg empires. PANONIAN 03:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Map for which you have shown link is OK because Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat is having 1 color and Serbia another. You have confirmed my point that this your version of map is misleading because of which she need to be deleted. On any your comment that this is not true I will again write this words. --Rjecina 4:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not misleading - it was created only for specific articles related to Serbian history and that is why it show in same colour two territories important for Serbian history. PANONIAN 04:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC