Talk:Central Bosnia Canton

problem

Living mostly does not implay ethnical majority. It implies just that that nation lives in that municipality. And if Croats make more than one third of population in Fojnica and Uskoplje why shouldn't they be mentioned? Ceha (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, you have the right to be mentioned in Fojnica and Gornji Vakuf since you make 30-35 % of the population. But how about Vitez and Busovaca? Since we bosniaks make up 45 % in Vitez and Busovaca. Then it should also be named? Bosnianjustice (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that should be proper.Ceha (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And what about Kiseljak? We form 33 % there too. Bosnianjustice (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there is smaller percentage of Bosniacs in Kiseljak, but it is certanly bigger than a quater, so they should also be mentioned... Ceha (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you know, there are procentually exactly the same amount bosniaks in Kiseljak as croats in Fojnica and Vakuf. Bosnianjustice (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no official data to confirm that. But as I sad, feel free to put Kiseljak in the list of municipalities wich contains significal number of Bosniac people. Ceha (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Kiseljak is part of a bosniak majority canton, yes and in Kiseljak each 3 person is a bosniak despite the fact that Kiseljak is almost everything croats got in central bosnia. Bosnianjustice (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Your name must be Mujo. The one from the joke:D Ceha (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but this still isnt going to change some well known facts. Bosnianjustice (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Than go to some forum and study those facts. This is an encyclopediae. If you don't have some sourced proofs, you don't belong here. Ceha (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Says who? Mr "Croat are majority here and there but sources isnt required since we already are this and that" Bosnianjustice (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipediae policy. Try reading it for a change. You were given ampfully occasions to do it. Also, wikipediae is not a place for insults of any kind and particulary not one based on someone's nation. If you want to prove your nationalistics tensions go somwhere else. And you've broken 3 rv rules on Žepče pages. As basic NPOV rules. If you are short on some evidence go to bosnian encylcopediae and ask them for help, perhaps they could be of some use to you. If you continue this kind of behavior your profile will be deleted and you will be blocked from further editing this encylopediae. Ceha (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

@BOSNIANJUSTICE, dont pretend to be a Bosniak, and follow the rules! Your false info is not welcome here, and if I have to do that, I am going to stop you per WP policies. --Grandy Grandy (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ceha, you are starting to piss me off.

Just admitt the truth once and for all. Bosnianjustice (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment your mental state:) Just stick to the rules. Ceha (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You stick to the rules.

I dont think creating own municipality maps belong to the criteria "on rule" Bosnianjustice (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Think again. Or better read from those links I gave you. The big picture which you are trying to delete is made from the sorced data. No one is holding you back to put your own maps on wikipediae. As long you've got copyright and those maps are made from sourced, reliable and verifable data. Read wikipaedia policy. Then it should be clearer to you. Ceha (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Census 1991

Laz, it is very simple. You've got 1991 census, don't you? Add all of municipalities on that census, add Dobretići (data can be find on wiki) and Vlasinje (small village in 1991 Mrkonjić grad municipality which was added to CB in Dayton) and Subtract Jezero (data can also be found on wikipedia. May excell be your friend :) In the mean time, do return that data >:) --Čeha (razgovor) 16:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

1991 census is on serbcrobos wikis as you know. The problem here is that municipalities are split up, so it's not so simple by just adding them all up. Jajce is split. As is the other thing beside there. Not sure about part of sipovo. It's not so easy. (LAz17 (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)).

Laz, do read what I wrote, please? 1991 municipality of Jajce is now divided in two municipalities: Jezero and Jajce. Village of Vlasinje (1991 in municipality of Mrkonjić Grad) is added to current municipality of Jajce. Part of 1991 municipality of Skender Vakuf(today's Kneževo) which entered Federation BiH is organized as Dobretići municipality. Where is the trouble here? These are sources and they are very transparent, official, and can be easily checked. Do check the addition (excel is good for that) and return the data back. It is very simple. Or there is something wrong with it? --Čeha (razgovor) 22:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is so simple then you do it. I clearly do not know what settlements belong in a few of the municipalities today. The borders changed. (LAz17 (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)).

I did it. And you deleted the data :) --Čeha (razgovor) 16:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Look again:

Jajce 45.007 17.380 15.811 8.663 2.496 657 [1]

Vlasinje 1.133 975 149 1 2 6 [2]

Dobretići 158 4.720 158 3 19 42

Jezero (subtract from Jajce settlments Borci, Čerkazovići, Đumezlije, Jezero, Kovačevac, Ljoljići and Perućica)

Donji Vakuf 24.544 13.509 682 9.533 593 227 [3]

Bugojno 46.889 19.697 16.031 8.673 1.561 927 [4]

Uskoplje 25.181 14.063 10.706 110 158 144 [5]

Novi Travnik 30.713 11.625 12.162 4.097 2.132 697 [6]

Vitez 27.859 11.514 12.675 1.501 1.377 792 [7]

Travnik 70.747 31.813 26.118 7.777 3.743 1.296 [8]

Busovača 18.879 8.451 9.093 623 510 202 [9]

Fojnica 16.296 8.024 6.623 157 407 1.085 [10]

Kreševo 6.731 1.531 4.714 34 251 201 [11]

Kiseljak 24.164 9.778 12.550 740 600 496 [12]

Simple addition. I do not se why anybode would disaprove sourced information?

I repeat, not all of jajce was in there. I do not know where the official border is ,as certain settlements in included and excluded depending on the border. (LAz17 (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)).

I repeat again, part of Jajce municipality which did not enter the federation is today's municipality named Jezero. You have the list of the settlments in Jezero up there, don't you? And Jezero is a very small municipality. So please don't stall. Add those figures, or return the data I'm posted. The choise is yours. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You clearly are not aware of the border changes of municipalities. [13] for more information. (LAz17 (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)).

Again,all of Jajce which is in RS is in municipality of Jezero, and all of Skender Vakuf which is in Federation is in municipality of Dobretići. As can be seen in this map, there was some change of borders of Travnik and Donji Vakuf municipalities, but it is on mountainous(Vlašić) or forrest ground.

Hower if you wish to count those also, you should:

subract village of Ljuša[14][15] (Donji Vakuf, poulation of 172(169 serbs and 3 yugoslavs)

and add village of Kruševo Brdo II [16] (Kotor Varoš, population of 399, 395 serbs, 1 yugoslav, 3 others)

That should be it. Clear and simple. Do it. --Čeha (razgovor) 21:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop trying to force me to do something that can't be done. I do not have a settlement map, without which I can not know which settlements are where. So, please stop harassing me. (LAz17 (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)).

Laz who is harrasing you? You removed sourced data. I gave you the list. Return the data or add the figures yourself. I do not see what the settlment map has to the with the census? --Čeha (razgovor) 10:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You are harassing me, telling me "Do it.". Without a settlement map with clear borders and settlement locations it is impossible to know exactly which villages are where. If you can provide this then please do. I get the feeling that you feel that BiH is not an ethnically complex region. (LAz17 (talk) 06:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)).

Your POV here is not important. You can not just remove sourced data, and when given the sources claim that you can not see something. That is not good enough.

I putted sourced data on the page [17]. If you wish you can check it (my excel is not working so checking the ms calculator would be ok:) Anything else than checking the numbers will be considered vandalism (removal of sourced data) and will grant you a notification to admins. Have a nice day.--Čeha (razgovor) 16:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The data that you added now was different from the data that you initially added. Only because of that would I be willing to keep it as it is. (LAz17 (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)).

Your highness I am delighted that you argee with me. And that I, as a mearlly ordinary wikipedian have your approval. I'm sincearly happy for your pleasure. But please do notice that that was the data which I originaly uploaded [18]. If you were not so lazy you could have checked that eons ago. Also this discussion was pretty much pointless because, for every my suggestion you invented an explanation which did not have nothing to do with reality. I'm pretty much certain that you didn't even once watched the numbers, or for God sake made an effort and tried to add them up, because your only intention of editing this page for the first time in your life(which can be seen in the article history) was to argue with me. Please do not repeat this ever again. I'm pretty much certain that on wikipedia exists some rule against stoking and following user edits just to provoke edit wars. Please stop with this behavior. It is uncivil and worst yet it is completely unwikipidian. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You changed the data from 131 thousand croats to 135 thousand croats. I simply reverted it. Your actions for all this commotion explains you nicely. Have a good day. (LAz17 (talk) 06:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)).

I made a wrong addiction. If you made just that what you claim in the upper post there would be no problem. However you stalled discussion for a few days inventing things up, and going to other users asking for help in blocking me. Your unwikipedian behaviour is a problem. --Čeha (razgovor) 13:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

no, the problem is that you attacked me for undoing your fraud edit. The least you could do is apologize for bumping up the croats to 135 thousand. (LAz17 (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)).

Laz, it is obvious that you do not have a bit of shame in you. Please do not talk to me ever again. I'll try to avoid your fraud and anything to do with you or your edits. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I this topic I undid "your" 135 thousand croat fraud. If you can't control yourself because of that, I am sorry. Forgive me for improving wikipedia, by cleaning up your error. (LAz17 (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)).

I this topic you claimed that the population of CB Canton in 1991 can not be calculated. This is still your stand? I made hole of the calculations and I checked the numbers. In first, second and third time. And dear Laz, only thing which is Fraud here is you. Nothing more, nor nothing else. --Čeha (razgovor) 00:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

In this here I claimed that you fraud editing was wrong, and indeed it is, you agreed to that. As for the final data, I feel that it might not be 100% correct, but I am willing to compromise to say that it is close enough. You yourself have included that there might be difference in divided settlements. As there was no such entity before the war we can not say 100% that this is so, like you were saying. In fact you were saying that there were thousands more croats than there were. You have two options now, A) stop pursuing the discussion, or B) apologize for your fraud and then stop pursuing this senseless discussion. (LAz17 (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)).

Or c) apologize for using the words like fraud(do you know what that word means?) and stalking another wikipedian as staling the discussion. I made an error in addition. It could have happened to anybody. There was nothing deliberate in that. And that was an error which I fixed. Nothing more, or nothing less. A senseless discussion. --Čeha (razgovor) 01:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Who has ever apologized for removing fraud? That's what I did. And you did it deliberately. If you did not you would fix the same fraud that you did on the croatian wikipedia. Yet you keep it. It means that this is done with intention. You probably won't change it no matter what on the cro wiki. Well, maybe you will, now that you have been exposed again. (LAz17 (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)).

I think that your goal is to see how narrow this page can get, with all the ":". There is no more point to type here, really. It's pointless. Yet you continue. (LAz17 (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)).

Laz, the only thing wich is fraud here is you. You and your stalking. But it is obvious that I'm not going to get an apology for your behaviour, stallment and name calling. Nor that you'll quit this discussion. It is mission impossible. --Čeha (razgovor) 02:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You should appologize for this [19] and should say thank you for this [20]. But you are angry because of this. The only reason I can think of is that you are angry at me or did it on purpose. (LAz17 (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)).

L:No comment. It is obviously you live in some parallel word. You did not even tried to add the data I gave you, and you came here with mall intention (provoking edit war). As for the error, sooner or later I would have found it. Without fraudmintator. What a guy. --Čeha (razgovor) 02:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What you say has no logic. Undoing a mistake, for the normal world, should not be a provocation. Afterwards you tried to force me to say that current data is "exact" data. Well, no, it is probably not 100% exact because of split settlements. I don't get what your problem is to keep harassing me here, for fixing your mistake. Leave it be. This talk page is ugly enough as it is. (LAz17 (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)).

Intentions are the issue. I do not think you did it in good faith, and I'd like that does not happen again. --Čeha (razgovor) 08:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I told you that the intention was to remove the wrong data. This is in no way a problem. Your intentions are the ones that are bad - you fixed the data here but left it wrong on the croat wiki until I told you. I would also like that it does not happen again. I do not like to have to fix mistakes. (LAz17 (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)).

Fairytale. This discussion should stand as a remainder to obvious POV. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Your POV. Yes. I helped improve the article, and you attacked me, because "supposedly I had band intentions". What??? What kind of moronic reply is that? Intentions have been labeled when I edited, they were immediately addressed. Intentions for imrpoving are obvious. (LAz17 (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)).

Not realy. You staled the discusion with words like moronic and similar. You even addmited stalking at user Toddst1 page. But ofcourse, confession and appology (wich any other normal wikipedian would do is to much for you). This discussion is meanless. I do not have nothing to more to say to you as your words and acctions describe you the best. --Čeha (razgovor) 08:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not stall this discussion at all. You were complaining that what you put was correct. I was telling you no, and explained why it was wrong and how it is difficult to check. The discussion here was about the settlements/borders that make up this canton. You clearly are very problematic, for putting up fraud and for attacking those who remove the fraud. (LAz17 (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)).

As I previously said, you are not a man with who a normal discussion can take place. Sorry. --Čeha (razgovor) 19:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Many times normal discussions have taken place with me. You are the problem. In fact you are the only such user that has such issues with me. (LAz17 (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)).

Dispite the fact that you are the only one with fraud theories here? I find that hard to belive. And I'm on this wiki longer than you, and did not had anything similar to this until you :) A fraud theorieser. No discussion possible. --Čeha (razgovor) 00:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Your fraud stuff has been deleted in the past. You have a bad reputation for nationalist pov. People have had problems with you often. How long one has been on wikipedia is totally irrelevant. The point is that you probably hate me or something. (LAz17 (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)).

Laz, all the persons which were on wikipedia could work with me. At the end, there was always some kind of solution. Well, I gues that a fraud theoriser is not such a person. --Čeha (razgovor) 09:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That explains your balkan sanction. Have a nice day. (LAz17 (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)).

Which you should have gotten. 10 times at least. Fraud theoriser :) --Čeha (razgovor) 18:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)