Revision as of 06:17, 8 June 2009 editAradic-es (talk | contribs)2,058 editsm →Recent edits← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:57, 14 June 2009 edit undoSpellcast (talk | contribs)Administrators37,107 edits →Page protected: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Until there appear to be symbols accepted on both sides. .. these ones will stay. Misplaced Pages does not obey not any constituition!! YOU should stop pushing your POV!! here you can not outvote somebody! | Until there appear to be symbols accepted on both sides. .. these ones will stay. Misplaced Pages does not obey not any constituition!! YOU should stop pushing your POV!! here you can not outvote somebody! | ||
--] (]) 09:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC) | --] (]) 09:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
== Page protected == | |||
I've protected this article for two weeks and hopefully a solution can be found. I see the dispute is whether ] and ] should be added to the infobox. I haven't examined this issue in detail, but this seems to be a case of ] vs. ] status. | |||
Infoboxes generally only include official symbols. Since the flag and coat of arms seem to be used as de facto symbols despite being ruled unconstitutional, perhaps they can be taken out of the infobox and put under a section explaining their status. Would this be an acceptable solution for both sides? | |||
] (]) 01:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:57, 14 June 2009
Bosnia and Herzegovina C‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
I originally posted most of this at User talk:193.188.105.17:
If someone wishes for us to change the name by which the canton is referenced, an explanation less silly than "Some bosnian islamic nationalists call this canton "West Bosnia Canton" to make a reference to Greater Bosnia" will have to be provided. The term "Zapadnobosanski Kanton" is widely used, in official institutions too, and in a non-derogatory manner, a simple Google search shows this, so there's little or no point in trying to claim that it's some evil Bosniak conspiracy. Please be rational. --Joy 12:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Herzeg Bosnia.gif
Image:Herzeg Bosnia.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Recent edits
The symbols and name were found unconstitutional stop pushing your pov. PRODUCER (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Until there appear to be symbols accepted on both sides. .. these ones will stay. Misplaced Pages does not obey not any constituition!! YOU should stop pushing your POV!! here you can not outvote somebody! --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Page protected
I've protected this article for two weeks and hopefully a solution can be found. I see the dispute is whether File:Flag of Herzeg-Bosnia.svg and File:Coat of arms of Herzeg-Bosnia.svg should be added to the infobox. I haven't examined this issue in detail, but this seems to be a case of de jure vs. de facto status.
Infoboxes generally only include official symbols. Since the flag and coat of arms seem to be used as de facto symbols despite being ruled unconstitutional, perhaps they can be taken out of the infobox and put under a section explaining their status. Would this be an acceptable solution for both sides?
Spellcast (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Categories: