User talk:Правичност

Talkback

Hello, Правичност. You have new messages at Iadrian yu's talk page.
Message added 00:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Adrian (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I have found another source, I would like to hear your input on this matter. Greetings.Adrian (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1930 FIFA World Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BSK (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited In the Land of Blood and Honey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serbian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adrienne Janic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page All In (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did you know

Hi! Please consider adding new, sourced articles (within 5 days of creation or 5x expansion) to the Wikipedia:Did you know, in order to enlight the community about your articles! If you have any questions, please ask me or Antidiskriminator. Thank you.--Zoupan 15:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Unacceptable

Please comment the content, not the contributor. Comments like this are unacceptable. Please consider not doing this in future.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I will. In that moment of false accusements and personal attacks i reacted too quickly. (Правичност (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC))

Vlachs of Serbia

Hello,

I have reverted your edit (about the Serbian language) because in the infobox we add languages that are related to that ethnic group. I don`t believe Serbian is related to Romanian(Vlach) language. If you do, please provide a valid source. They speak Serbian of course, because they live in Serbia but Serbian language is not related to this ethnic group. Example: To add German language to the Serbs infobox? There is a huge number of Serbs speaking the German language but is it related to the Serbian language in any linguistic way? Just because Serbs speak German it doesn`t mean it should be present in the infobox at the Serbs article. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, yes i perfectly agree with what you have said- Serbian is in no way related to Vlach(Romanian) language, neither would i put German or any other language in Serbs infobox... but would perhaps include it for Serbs in Germany, Austria etc. ; i didnt put a source for it, but the source could be the census 2011 in Serbia itself. I have included Serbian language simply only because of the reason they live in Serbia and therefore speak the language, while a certain number of Vlachs declared speaking Serbian only (which would mean they are descendants of vlachs but dont speak the native language anymore), i thought including Serbian would be neccesary just like for example these articles include country language: Serbs of Croatia, Serbs in Romania. i would also include Serbian for Hungarians in Vojvodina, right after Hungarian language... But ill say your call. (Правичност (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC))

It`s far from my call, we can discuss this - In my head (logic) whatever ethnic group is about, they speak their language (language of the state they live in excluded) because of course they speak the language they live in. I saw the examples you enumarated and this is confusing to me. I would remove all other languages except that ethnic group. I only don`t know what to do with the [Croats of Vojvodina] and [Serbs of Croatia] because of the common history and language similarities (and same language group - South Slavic). I propose removing all other languages? Leaving only Serbian for the Serbs, Croatian for the Croatian, etc? Hungarians for example don`t have, which is correct to me. Slovakians either [1], if you notice they don`t have a infobox but in the language section there is only Slovakian. I saw a couple of examples more... and now I am puzzled. Maybe include them all? What would you do? Adrian (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes i have checked also Slovaks article earlier, also Roma and some others which dont have languages in infobox. In this case i would do same as you, remove all other languages but the one related to the ethnic one, but in this case i fear it would spread another edit war: Croatian editors would continuessly input croatian on Serbs of Croatia, while same would happen to Serbs in Austria article etc... leaving the articles unbalanced... i dont know... (Правичност (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC))

Let`s try to remove all other languages and if problems appear(I will remove them now), then we can always add languages to all other articles. There is no harm in this WP:BOLD, if problems appear, atleast we would get more input from more users and make the changes to clear this problem. Adrian (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok good idea, we can do that. I see you have already done the changes on several articles, i myself have done a change for Serbs in Austria. And if "problems occure" we just change all related articles and add a secondary (country) language to the native one. (Правичност (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC))

Continuously manipulate data

Official source is the U.S. Census! Blic.rs, krajinaforce.com no official data It's POV. Stop increasing the number of Serbs, and reduce the number of other South Slavs.--Sokac121 (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Again you continue to falsly accuse me and attack me; you should be thankful i increased number of Croats on 8,5 instead of 8,4 million per "Your POV source". i just recently reverted someones edit of bulgarians on 7,5 million back to "up to 9 million" as it was before (reached by editors concensuses according to sources)- i suppose thats how you explain my evil number reducing? BTW.. I mainly dont interfiere or try pushing on articles of other ethnic groups, all i do is recommend things if i have reliable sources. There exist official figures, yes.. but there also exist higher estimations and in this case by ministry of serbian diaspora itself. Blic.rs is a source which can be reliaed on, krajina force.rs isnt used anywhere- it simply only served me to gain an online book of one demograph writer; just like your Croats article which even mainly consists of sources out of books and from writers. This explains how much are you actually informed about Serbs article and its sources ... Now please restrain yourself from unreasonable accusements and attacks. (Правичност (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC))

[2] This is an attack User: Antidiskriminator told you, I'm not talking about the Croats and Bulgarians. krajina force.rs ist nationalist page. --Sokac121 (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You dont have to remind me of what Antidiskriminator told me (youve been also warned for edit warring); btw you have atacked me on edit summaries and continuessly accuse me of somesort of manipulation which is nothing but a lie. You also continuessly raid Serbs infobox; delete refferenced citations and reliable sources just like you again recently did. I have already explained to you about krajina.force if you havent understood try reading it 5 times again if it helps. But i dont think anything helps you as it is impossible to talk or reach anything with the likes of you. (Правичност (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC))

Ok. Let`s just focus on the problem. Sokac121 I have noticed your recent edit [3] where you removed Blic source [4] and UsaSerbs [5] source. What is the problem with this sources by you? Why are you changing the higher estimate of the total number of Serbs in the World? Adrian (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Re:warning request

• It takes some time to learn the written rules of wikipedia (and even more for unwritten). If you have intention to productively participate in discussions within ARBMAC scope it may take even more time. In the meantime if you engage yourself in disputes and conflicts without first learning wikipedia rules you risk to violate them and discredit your position in the discussions.
• My advice to you is to learn wikipedia rules better. It will normally result with your edits being more constructive. The total number of Foo presented in the infobox is the least important thing in the world. Why wouldn't you create a new article by yourself? Find some notable topic you are familiar with and which does not have its article and create start class article. We can do it together if you like? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

-...But anyways... he gets away with it calling me names and stuff... okay. (Правичност (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC))

Thank you for your kind idea and offer, unfortunately atm i cant think of any topic, i am into history, sports, serbian stuff otherwise etc... maybe we could make an article about some person who isnt yet on english wikipedia idk... if you come up with some idea for a new article we can decide about it. (Правичност (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC))

Yes, I have a coupe ideas.

1. Šufadaj? A medieval port with marketplace north of Durres.
2. The Battle of Nokšić

I would like to hear your choice or alternative proposal and look forward to our cooperation.

In the meantime, please don't write comments about ethnicity of other editors (like you did here).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Right... well this Šufadaj? was it a medieval port inside medieval Serbia (when Durres was under Serbia)? (Правичност (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC))

Šufadaj belonged to King Milutin, to Emperor Dušan, to Balša, Ivan Kastriot... I guess it could be said that in one period it belonged to medieval Serbia. Shall we start writing the article and researching its topic? Or you have some other proposal?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually these kind of themes dont quite draw my interest much, idk... give me a few days if i manage to find something new or to decide... in meanwhile.. how about Rudpolph van veen? The famous dutch cook from 24 kitchen, who is slowly getting more popular than jamie oliver? http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_van_Veen (Правичност (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC))

Good idea. I like him very much. I will start an article on him at Rudolph van Veen. Please read WP:BLP and join me. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I now saw that it has already been created before and deleted, so I have to first contact admin who deleted it, which means it may take some time. I will inform you about the situation.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this comment of yours. Please have in mind Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines "Do not be critical in headings: This includes being critical about details of the article. Those details were written by individual editors, who may experience the heading as an attack on them." If the dispute can not be resolve trough discussion you should consider WP:DR. There is very illustrative pyramid which I think one should always have in mind during discussions.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Very well i will delete my message i dont actually even care much about "nationalist propaganda" which that is by my opinion. I will take a look at those... and shame for Rudolph van Veen, he certainly deserves a place on english wikipedia. Then please do inform me, thank you. (Правичност (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC))

Rudolph van Veen

Good news. Administrator who deleted the article on Rudolph van Veen approved its creation. I will create it now. Please join me. (remember to read WP:BLP). Do you know how to add his picture?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

that is great. can you give me link for this WP:BLP please? and i will be on to help. I know how to replace pictures or set them in an already created "box" if i may call it that way, but otherwise i dont; however i consider rudolphs picture from dutch article excellent. (Правичност (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

WP:BLP. If you prefer Dutch picture then feel free to replace the existing one. I propose you to first read WP:BLP and then to start expanding the article. Please let me know if I can help.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ty, oh i just realised the picture is same on both articles anyway, so its good. (Правичност (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

OK. Now you can expand the article. Why don't you try to find the source for his year of birth.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I have done some expansions with a help of this website http://www.24kitchen.nl/chefs/rudolph-van-veen, too bad i couldnt find it in english though, was quite hard to translate from dutch. You can check if its ok by now. (Правичност (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

Very good. I have several remarks:

1. This discussion deals with the article and now when this article is created should be led on the article talkpage so I will move it there.
2. You used 24hours kitchen as source. That source is closely connected to the subject and somebody can even consider it wp:sps. I think that it is better to find some other sources about him.
3. You used website as source. In that case I can recommend you to use Template:Cite web which will contain all necessary parameters for citation.
4. "Do not use a flag template." says Template:Infobox person for nationality (and many other) section.
5. Section title is "Early life" (the time when someone is a child) and it deals with Rudolf when he was 27.
6. The tone of the text you wrote shows that it was written against the promotional text on 24kitchen website ("...already knew as a little boy that he wanted to be a cook"... "from that moment he was determined to be a Master chef"). I think it does not completely follow wp:blp which requests "a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement". Nobody knows what he knew as a little boy about his future career and nobody knows what was the moment when he became determined to be something and what.

Any thoughts? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I just want to check if you are still interested to expand Rudolph article? Would you prefer some other topic?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, yes i am still interested to help. I apologize as i dont find much time to explore for sources and edit last days, but if you dont mind .. when careless, i will stop by here shortly eevry time to work on it. (Правичност (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC))

OK. If you need help with some other article, feel free to contact me.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Will do TY :) (Правичност (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC))

Hello there Antidiskriminator (talk) .. After years i came back here again just to retire, the article about Rudoplh van Veen was finished years ago by myself and i also saw other editors made it better, i am proud of that article and thank you alot for helping me out with it, i wish you all the best in life mate. Budi pozdravljen, pomaže Bog. Cheers. (Правичност (talk)

Hello. I am glad that the article about Rudolph is often viewed by many people with average 33 views per day (link), reaching cca 70 views on some days. That is very good number. Anyway, it was a pleasure working with you. I wish you to have a nice life. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you alot! Just mind to ask you, its nice to see these results, but is it possible to view how many viewers saw the article from 2014 to now? Because i can only view it from 7.1.2015 for some reason and it says over 36k overral. (Правичност (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

With pageviews analysis I linked to is not possible because it says "Pageviews Analysis provides data from July 2015 forward. For older data, try stats.grok.se." I tried stats.grok.se but from some reason it does not work on my computer.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I`ve tried and nothing also shows to me, but thank you anways. (Правичност (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC))

Threats to vandalise and edit war on another article in edit summary of Serbs article

G'day Правичност, I've been trying to butt out of the ongoing debacle with the total number of Serbs in the world at Serbs, but your last edit summary is completely out of line. You are threatening to vandalise another article and then editwar on that article because you are in dispute with editors at Serbs. This is potentially very serious given Serbs is included in the scope of WP:ARBMAC (which allows for the imposition of discretionary sanctions), and you are already doing quite a bit of edit warring already. It might appear to you that this stuff is very important, but this is Wikipedia and not the real world, and if you are just getting frustrated with it it's not doing you or Wikipedia any good. I note Antid has suggested you focus on something else for a bit and get more familiar with WP policies and guidelines, and I would just like to say that is a very good idea and I encourage you to take up his kind offer to collaborate on something else. In the meantime I suggest you revert yourself, noting in the edit summary that your threats were intemperate, then make the edit you intended without the threats. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, well i wouldnt quite actually call them threaths but i know what you mean and it wasnt right certainly. Nationalists, Serbophobic people really do get me a bit angry, i cant imagine somebody can get so irritated because there is "too much Serbs for his own taste" or can not live with something that shows the serbian side greater than his own... alot of such complexed people i also sometimes meet in real life, as i also live in diaspora; believe me being a Serb is not easy, so no wonder so many Serbs in diaspora started to declare as rather something else or forgot who they were... when whole world media represents your people as "agressive maniacs and the other sides as poor harmless victims" but nevermind all that... i am actually willing to get these articles closer to truth eventough its just wikipedia. but nevermind... i did what you suggested, i reverted the summarie and stuff, was the only right thing to do too. However demographic history facts are: when there were lets say 2 million croats, there was 4 million serbs; 4 million croats, 8 million serbs etc... always 1x times higher number than the croats... this is why reducing number of serbs from 12 to only 10 million and leaving croats on 8,5 million i consider as "falsifying history and rewriting it" and as a history fan, also a serbian patriot like i am i really cant let that happen, wikipedia may be only wikipedia, but this is the place where a huge portion of the worlds population comes to read about stuff. (Правичност (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC))

I have also agreed on idea of Antidisk; we will do article on Rudolph van veen the famous Dutch tv cook :). Greetings (Правичност (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

Ako za Čehe, Austrijance, Hrvate i ostale koristimo jedan izvor nevidim zasto da ga nekoristimo i za Srbe. Ako broj Srba od službenog popisa utrostručimo, koliko tek Poljaka ima u SAD-u 50 milijuna, Čeha 5 milijuna. Pola stanovnika Amerike su Irci. A vjeruj mi sigurno cemo naci i takve POV izvore. Također imamo i izvore Ministarstva dijaspore u koje je broj Srba u dijaspori puno manji od onog kojeg ti hoćeš nametniti. Uporno pokušavas povećati broj Srba vidiš kako je završilo s Srbima u Turskoj fijasko, potpuno neutralan i nerelavantan izvor pokušavaš staviti. Ako stavis neke realne izvore nitko ti ih nece maknuti, stoviše to je za pohvalu, al ostalo nije dobro.--Sokac121 (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Imaš odgovor na svom talk page-u (Правичност (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC))

Popis iz 1965. pa možemo onda stavit i popis iz 1941. da u Vojvodini živi 250.000 Njemaca, u Hrvatskoj 100.000 u Poljskoj par milijuna :) Od 1965. se puno toga promjenilo. Ako broj Srba u četverostrucis onda prema tome Hrvata u SAD-u ima 3 milijuna www.hia.com.hr/iseljenici/iseljenici01.html to je po tvome‎ ja to neću staviti. Srbi u Njemačkoj sedma po veličini skupina ti ih stavio kao treća otprilike, za Dansku stavis izvor joshua project koji nije pouzdan. Na istoj stranici ti piše joshuaproject 993,000 Srba u BiH, France 25,000, Austria 21,000 no naravno tu se praviš slijep i neces stavit te manje brojke. Što se tiče Hrvata u Novom Zelandu pogledaj na googlu Maori and Croatians, Tarara Croats vidim da se sad o tome vodi rasprava pa si me potako da nesto napisem:)--Sokac121 (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ništa mogu te pozvati da budeš realan i prestanes s svojim nacionalistickim nastupima koji ce biti uklonjeni. --Sokac121 (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Правичност. You have new messages at Iadrian yu's talk page.
Message added 15:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Adrian (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Ej

Nešto mi je iskrslo, tako da moram da odložim ono za neke, verovatno, dve nedelje. Do tada možeš vratiti onu drugu sliku, koja je svakako bolja, dogovori se sa drugim urednicima. Imate tri, četiri verzije iste slike. pozdrav :) Mm.srb (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Dobro, videću šta mogu. Hvala, pozdrav :). (Правичност (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC))

Vezano za ono, reč je o Milutinu Milankoviću. Mm.srb (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Правичност. You have new messages at Iadrian yu's talk page.
Message added 20:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Adrian (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The right flag

You don't seem to know the difference between a state flag and national flag do you? Doesn't matter, here's what you need to know. And I know my history quite well, thanks... Buttons (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

And this is suppose to be a reliable source by you? As i can see that page can be modified by anyone... I know very well what the flag of Kingdom of Serbia was thank you. (Правичност (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC))

Konstantno radis na tome da broj Srba povećaš, na cijelom infoobox-u si prikazo najveci broj Srba u pojedinim zemljama. Ideš po internetu i trazis svakakve sulude izvore i stavljas ih kao pouzdane, dok u drugu ruke neces da stavis one koje tebi ne pašu. Za broj Srba u Njemačkoj, BiH, JAR, Austrija.... se neću miješati iako bi i tu imao sto za reci, ali ovo u SAD-u je nerealno. Također kršiš pravila wikipedije i služiš se Canvassingom gdje zoves suradnike da podrzaju tvoje ideje. Dakle budi malo realan. Laku noć --Sokac121 (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

-Smešno... naravno dok bi ti sve te brojke smanjio kako bi ukazao da Hrvata ima više od Srba- (mada znaš da to nije realno) heh. Ako bi kršio neka pravila za to bi bio upozoren, pogotovo za taj tvoj canvassing, ja ne tražim podrške nigde već samo upiam za pomoć ako mi treba. "Druže", nacionalan si i to mnogo. Laku noć. (Правичност (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC))

Hello, I noticed that you two communicated on Serbian language. There is a guideline (WP:SPEAKENGLISH) which says: "Use English: It is preferable to use English on all talk pages so comments may be comprehensible to the community. If using another language is unavoidable, try to provide a translation of the comments.". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello!.. allright... I I Sir. (Правичност (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC))

WikiProject Serbia collaboration - Serbian monasteries

Would you be interested in creating and expanding Klisina Monastery to start-class, or higher, in line with the current WikiProject Serbia collaboration on Serbian monasteries? If you accept, once you're finished, let User:Zoupan or User:Antidiskriminator know, and you will be assigned new tasks.--Zoupan 18:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You can use article on sr.wiki if you feel like it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings. I am sorry to inform you that i am a bit twisted with time and wont probably have enough time to create articles, but i can surely help out with edits and will try to help out as much as i can and as much as time will serve me if that is okay?. (Правичност (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC))

Take all the time you need to create Klisina Monastery. If you don't have time or will, that is perfectly ok. Wikipedia is voluntary project. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Well i will help as much as i will be able to. Greetings! (Правичност (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC))

insulting edit summary

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you.

Telling another user to blow you while reverting them is asking for trouble. Please don't do it.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Joy [shallot] (talk) I am aware of that certainly, but i thought imposing false accusements on me over and over again (also during reverts) and during any debate, talk... (like a muscito going for the skin) is also a personal attack. This is why i suggested the user to take a meer relaxing blow. Eventough "puši" also means "to smoke" ... going for a smoke is another way to relax frustrative obsession from within; blowing out the bad air and breathing in the good one :). (Правичност (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC))

I don't find that clever or amusing, Правичност, and I'm reasonably certain others won't either. Kindly strike your, personal comments from Talk:Kosovo, otherwise I'll have to report your activities and request sanctions. Thanks -- Director (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

AFAICT Sokac121 said you were doing something disingenuous in their earlier edit summary, and while that's also improper, he could support such an assertion with proof which would make it less of a personal attack and more of a factual statement. On the other hand, a trivial insult has no real excuse - just don't do it. I have also warned him not to edit-war. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I recently got to know wikipedia more and did some useful contributions Joy [shallot], all was good until Shokac tasted too many Serbs (in numbers) for his own stomach,, he is now increasing numbers of Croats on the Croats article in return... I call that complex and frustration and anti-Serb obsession.... BTW ... his proof proves nothing much (maybe some of my edits 1 year old when i didnt know what wikipedia was about, but thats not important at all anymore), all i ever did recently was present ideas, if not that i did changes with reliable sources, refferenced my changes with relaible sources... he saw that his own way.. his problem, he always sees it the other way... on alot of Serbian talk pages you can see him arguing or being the only one, forcing his own ideals and ideas, anything that would be the opposite to the ideas of Serbian editors... I dont bite anymore what he does, but i sure know i have enough of him. It was my mistake to tell him what i did, but i simply found any more clever arguments simply uselesss... This one however as bad as it looks seemed to help :) ... oh and btw... you can check out Shokac history too... he was constantly decreasing number of Serbs despite reliable sources which were aprooved by all editors except for him, thus, he still continued to do so... now he is on his way to increase number of croats in return... how pathetic :)(Правичност (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC))

This comment was also basically an insult aimed at some other user. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

For the one and only croatian nationalist internet warlock Sokac121, none other. (Правичност (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC))

A "warlock" is a wizard, Правичност. -- Director (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No way, .. and what, that was suppose to be a joke? You could teach Shokac some english, he lacks knowledge for it... but doesnt lack knowledge for how to do everything opposite of the serbian editors and ideas :) (Правичност (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC))

Boban Rajović

The article quotes him as saying he is Montenegrin. Why would he say he's Montenegrin when he was born in Denmark? Because he is ETHNICALLY a Montenegrin. Leave it at that.--DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Dont fully agree on that, people also say they are bosnians and born in other countries... whilst Bosnian is not an ethnical affilation, nor can a Montenegrin or a macedonian always be for example. (Правичност (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC))

The Bosnian situation is entirely different. Bosniaks are the Bosnian ethnic group no matter how much Serbs want to make them believe that they aren't.--DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I was talking about Bosnians, not Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) and im not trying to make you believe you arent... or whatever... (Правичност (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Republic of Serbia (1992–2006), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serbian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Violation of rules 3RR

Four contributor are told that there are 10 million Serbs. Unfortunately, I will inform administrators that you constantly break the rules. Stop breaking the rules of Wikipedia. Thanks! --Sokac121 (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Did they? They just told me to use sources... so i did.. and after that you came to edit warre. You are illusioning again. And Yes please do, you are making me laugh :) (Правичност (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC))

August 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Slavs. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Wifione ^Message 04:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Oprem Dobro! :) (Правичност (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC))

SC

Look, Pravičnost: we have a source that says the 1990 constitution introduced Serbo-Croatian. If you believe Serbia changed its constitution very soon then please source that. -- Director (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Director (talk), .... FR Yugoslavia (later Serbia and Montenegro) started to exist from 1992 onwards...and you are placing a source from 1990, when SFR Yugoslavia still existed.... WHERE IS THE LOGIC? I have a book at home called "Države sveta 2000" ... there its clearly written that Serbian is the official language of the country... Serbo Croatian was quickly replaced with Serbian after the war ended.... there is no logic they would keep serbo-croatian after independence anyway. This is nonsence and false writing of history. How would you like if i would place a source from 1990 for Croatia... it would write Serbo-Croatian aswell. (Правичност (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC))

Just source it and I'm happy. -- Director (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I dont even need to present a source, since your source is outdated (from 1990) and non-legal for a new constitution of a new and independent country of FR Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) (from 1992) which is no more part of SFR Yugoslavia as your outdated source also says. (Правичност (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC))

Yes you do, you do need to present a source that Serbia changed its official language statement in 1992 from Serbian to Serbo-Croatian. If not, then we use the last language we have a source for. If you don't know how to source this, or don't care enough to search, or don't really have any sources at all - you really shouldn't be discussing or editing such issues.

Furthermore, both the Serbian and Croatian standards of the Serbo-Croatian language (see articles) are equally official in Vojvodina, therefore the language itself (Serbo-Croatian) is listed. If you disagree, do not edit-war, but instead discuss in the relevant thread on Talk:Vojvodina. -- Director (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Some things are rather stupid to discuss at all.. why dont you write Serbo-Croatian language is official in Croatia or Vukovar, or Federation of BiH and see what happens then ;). I have used sources for all matters, so problem solved and no further discussions are needed. (Правичност (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC))

"In Croatia or Vukovar, or Federation of BiH"? How about the Serbian language article? :) You're correct about the FBiH article [6][7], though, and Vukovar (but Vukovar has nothing to translate). And no, I'm not afraid of what will "happen", though I agree its stupid to even discuss such nonsense. So here's my position:

• Republic of Serbia (1992-2006). Do not remove SC until you can source the supposed change.
• Vojvodina. There's absolutely nothing to discuss. The Croatian standard of the Serbo-Croatian language is equally official with the Serbian standard of the Serbo-Croatian language.

I wonder if you're even aware that no linguist outside the Balkans considers Serbia and Croatian "languages", but rather "standardized varieties" of the Serbo-Croatian language. Edit-warring will be sanctioned. -- Director (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Who cares what they consider or what not? Your goal is to input that "...-Croatian" part onto every article that has something to do with country Serbia or Serbian people or language. That is YOUR personal opinion, that it should write Serbo-Croatian - but YOUR personal opinion doesnt effect what the source says, especially not what is written in the laws for Republic of Serbia or Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian are all official languages of BiH. Serbian is official language of Serbia. Serbian and 5 other languages (and yes Croatian too among them) are official languages in Vojvodina province- and this province is part of Serbia - where Serbian is the main official language. There is NO official Serbo-Croatian language for any of these countries. Especially not in your Croatia ;) where Serbian cyrillic tablettes are being removed in Vukovar every day. You cant use wikipedia to change the laws of the world, Reliable OFFICIAL sources dont let you ;). . . And stop nagging about the Republic of Serbia (1992-2006)- because i already presented a source there. There is absolutely no logic in YOUR edit-warring.. trying to input that "...-Croatian" part on every Serbian article, 1.) using wikipedia sources and 2.) using outdated sources from a former country which doesnt exist anymore to "explain" how its the only reliable source to use- well guess what - its not. In your wikipedia source it says SR Serbia is part of SFR Yugoslavia - well guess what ... from 1992 to 2006 - and till today - it WAS NOT.. and it WAS NOT SR Serbia anymore- because "socialism" was replaced with "democracy". Its all written already on the wikipedia articles... i dont even have to explain it. You are well aware of that. its just interesting how a croatian editor like yourself is so much interested into Serbian articles editing them by disclaiming existence of Serbian language, trying to input Serbo-Croatian ... but the Croatian articles are left untouched by you. Verry, verry interesting. And i am not afraid of your threats "Mr. wikipedia serbian-article revolutionist". (Правичност (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC))

I'm not a standard-issue nationalist loon like some other people on this talkpage, so NO, my goal is not to add "-Croatian". You could have figured that out from the Vojvodina article, where I'm not adding any "Croatian" where there wasn't any before. My goal is to use the actual language wherever there is more than one relevant official standard. This is always done all over Wikipedia [8]. Whether you can understand that or no - you will in either case NOT have your way through edit-warring.

Not to boast, but I've spent 10 times more effort and time on Wikipedia than you ever will, and have edited Croatian and Serbian articles against the wishes of nationalist POV-pushers from both sides. You give me a Croatian article where both standards of Serbo-Croatian are relevant, and I'll gladly introduce the same change, thanking you for pointing it out to me.

You clearly do not understand how to find sources or properly post references, so I shouldn't be surprised when you post CIA factbook for Serbia and Montenegro(!!), not Serbia. And that with only one entry that doesn't really deal with official languages at all. Get me the constitution that states Serbian was the official language, or an equivalent source. -- Director (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It is shamefull that you dont seem to know in what time we are living in then. I have seen your efforts of imposing Serbo-Croatian on kosovo and Metohija even... but you were gladly "stopped". We arent living in SFRY anymore... You have no good argument - why have you removed "official government of Vojvodina" source for official languages... you just removed it.. who are you to denie that Vojvodina has 5 official languages instead of 6 ???. And there is absolutely no sense in what your trying to do with history of Serbia-Montenegro country. Trying to forcely use official laws of a non existing country for a new independent country ??? Claiming there is no better source ??? ... If source is no good, outdated, totally useless, thus has nothing to do with a certain coutnry.. I cant use laws of Kingdom of Yugoslavia to refference the SFRY... for example... such sources shouldnt be used at all. CIA factbook is way better in this case. . . I wont let you twist and present false facts about Serbia to the readers of wikipedia in any sense at all, neither will i let you do same to any other country which i am informed with to a certain extend. We can go like this forever. (Правичност (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC))

What is "shameful" is being ignorant of anything outside your own country. No scientist of linguistics outside of the (primitive) Balkans region maintains that Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin or whatever are "languages", but rather standard varieties of one language. This is not "communism", it has nothing to do with Yugoslavia - its simply the consensus of the science of linguistics, and common sense - prijatelju.

It is not I who denies Croatian and Serbian are separate languages - its every single scientist on the planet. I am a doktor, and I care very much about science and what it has to say - especially when contrasted with nonsense nationalist ravings. Read the disclaimer atop Talk:Serbian language if you need someone else other than me to explain things to you.

And noone is changing what the "official laws" are on the Vojvodina article - it is clearly stated that the Serbian and Croatian standards of the Serbo-Croatian language are official. Its very sad that the CIA factbook is the only source you can find for Serbia changing its official language to Serbian. -- Director (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I know history well and dont have to be thought about what Serbo-Croatian is today or what it was.. and how it is recognized... i am just saying... that you STILL CANNOT write.. that a "Serbo-Croatian" language is an official language in some country, city, province or whatever... because it simply is not... of neither state, province etc... its the so called "standards" that are official. I would rather call only Bosnian and Montenegrin primitive (as they are languages with no history whatsoever) ... Serbian and Croatian have their own histories separately... but thats my personal opinion (and also a fact). I cannot however denie that Bosnian is not one of the official languages of BiH just because of what i think or what some "western-world imperialist nations" or their super-linguists think about it. And for your info... i have gotten Serbia census 2011 documents for certain articles my self... its not sad for finding such a rare document on what was specifically "Republic of Serbias official language during FR Yugoslavia or SCG" .. its a shame that you cant find (or dont want to find) a source that is not from SFR Yugoslavia laws, but from FR Yugoslavia laws.

Wikipedia already explained what Serbo-Croatian and "its language standards" are.. (nowadays.. sadly) ... -so there is no reason to write nonsences like - serbo-croatian language is official in vojvodina or serbia or kosovo or whatever.. that is complete nonsence. However i ask you again .. who are you, to claim that Vojvodina has actually 5 official languages instead of 6- as the reliable sources (you removed) say? (Правичност (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC))

History is one thing, linguistics another. "Montenegrin" could have fifty times more history than Serbian and Croatian combined - it would still be no more of a separate language if linguists say it isn't. Serbs and Croats could hate each-other's guts, but we still speak the same darn unintelligible gibberish (which noone on Earth understands besides ourselves). Whether we are the same nation, and what you want to call that nation, those are much more subjective issues that are separate from the language question. The crazed fossils of the HAZU no doubt actually realize we all speak the same language, and that's why they continue to publish absurd "dictionaries" based not on how Croats actually speak - but how they think we should speak to separate ourselves from Serbs: with ridiculous new words nobody says, like "šport" and "strijelica".

You fellas over to the east are apparently not much better, in needlessly giving prominence to Cyrillic again. Though, being familiar with Serbian history (and understanding Cyrillic), I can stomach that much more easily than the actual invention of fake words. Though its not Serbs that were (arguably) threatened by absorption into Croat culture, but rather vice versa, so our positions are not reciprocal.

As regards "official", read Talk:Serbo-Croatian and you'll see people explaining over and over again how Wikipedia is not written in accordance with government decrees and what is "official", but is rather written first and foremost in accordance with what scholarly sources have to say. The only reason this isn't universally applied all over Balkans articles is that nobody wants to deal with hordes of angry, annoying, repetitive, ignorant Balkanites. Yet. -- Director (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR, i respect your experience and your knowledge on wikipeida, i would agree on alot of things you have said. Ofcourse we speak the one and same language and yes we Serbs always predominantly used cyrillic to write, because we are used to write that way centuries ago... while latin script came in popular with formation of SFRY, and especially nowadays with modern technology, but we are still managing to keep our tradition - our identity and i dont see anything wrong with that. Eventough Croatian has some minimun differences from Serbian, (some rare ones - i must confess really need google translate, but those are verry rare)we still speak the same language and can understand eachoder 99%. And i verry much respect and support an idea of calling "The ex-Yugoslav languages" SERBO-CROATIAN altogether.. rather than naming 4 or even more different languages apart.. or even more rather than a dumb so called "BHS" (Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian)... But however if you write that serbo-croatian is "an official language" in Vojvodina, or BiH or idk where... it will present a false fact to the readers -1... and 2- it will start off fire with nationalism as many serbs wont accept that, neither bosniaks who would insist on bosnian... nor croats because of the SERBO-croatian and not Croato-serbian or whatever.... so its quite a complicated thing... If every start of the text on wikipedia articles for Croatia, Bosnia, Monenegro, Serbia... would say "Serbo-Croatian: Bosna i Herc.../Босниа и Херц.., Србија, Црна Гора, Hrvatska... sure that would be fine -IF- all parties would agree and want that... but i HIGHLY doubt that this is possible... For Bosnia it may work because of all 3 langauges being official there... but for other states i DOUBT.. it would rather make a sparkle into new arguments and haterede on wikipedia... for starters even this is a problem... not to mention if we would write that serbo-croatian is official in all of these states... - eventough i dont support this idea, because my opinion is it would write exactly which langauge/languages are official in those states... and in anyway... i dont see a big deal... if it writes Croatian is official in Croatia.. if anybody is interested.. into Croatian and what is Croatian.. he will click on it.. and the next link will obviously explain that it is part of the Serbo-Croatian.. and that way readers get to know it ofc. So i dont see a big deal with it.. everybody has a free will to discover any of these "language standards" and everyone will get to know its part of Serbocroatian ofcourse. Regards (Правичност (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC))

Look, stop revert-warring. Serbian and Croatian have equal status in Vojvodina... -- Director (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Its not quite that equal. Croatian among Slovak, Rusyin, Romanian and Hungarian are used only in minor institutions and regional parts where native speakers of these minorities live (Hungarian is an exception as its minority is most numerous of these) .. But Serbian is used everywhere in the province ofc.. you must know laws of Vojvodina exist only because laws of Serbia exist.. ther eis nothing separate concerning Vojvodinas laws and those of Serbia. We cant write Serbo-Croatian just because 25.000 people in Vojvodina speak Croatian among 1,5 million who speak Serbian.. What about Hungarian which is native to about 240.000 people in the province or Slovak - 55.000. . . Just like all Croatian counties-provinces on wikipedia who have Serbian majority in Croatia have only "Croatian" intro text written... lets leave Serbian provinces as that also. (Правичност (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Republic of Montenegro (1992–2006) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Serbian

Republic of Serbia (1992–2006) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Serbian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vojvodina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serbian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Serbs

Hello Pravičnost!

First of all, let me tell you that I find the way you adressed me/summarized your undoing of my edit (using words as "vandalizing" and "foolish edits") as very inapropriate and offensive. Let's not be pretentious and acting like you are a supreme arbiter of Wikipedia. It is not the point of this project, but cooperation and sharing of different information in order of creating more reliable and credible artciles. My only intetnion has been and still is to improve and made article more accurate.

I didnt want to be offensive, but i have called it so, since alot of sources (that were accepted by alot of editors) were removed. Yes, this is why i suggested taking it to the talk page. (Правичност (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC))

You rightly pointed that Wikipedia is about sources but I would modified it and say it is about reliable sources. Reliable sources are not randomly picked articles on the Internet, which credibility cannot be proved and examined. I take it as my fault putting an obscure source for the number of Serbs in the New Zealand in the absecnce of the official data - I was driven by that "better something than nothing" policy so I tried to find any source whatsoever (since that country has become a significant destiantion of Serbian emigration in last two decades). However, when there are reliable sources such as the case with the United States, putting any other but official sources and data is simply not credible. That estimate of 1.8 million Serbs in the U.S. is ridiculous overstating found on some obscure site. Only source we can rely on when talking about number of Serbs in America are official data of U.S. Census Bureau form 2010 Census, and there are only two figures that can we rely on: one is for people who delared themselves as of Sebrian descent (187,731) and that of people of Yugoslav descent (327,131), for later is adequate to mention it in the footnotes. Same goes with Canada and Australia figure: for both of these countries official figures are available (72,609 and 69,544, respectively) and there is simply no need to put any other unofficial and arbitrary figures, no matter what sites they are reffered from. Those higher estimations should be putted in the footnotes but not on par with official figures in the table itself. On the other side, I think it's appropriate to reffer to unofficial sources in case of the country which doesn't have official data on ethnicity (such as France, Sweden, etc.). I also noticed that even the figure of Montenegro's speakers of Serbian language as a mother tongue on the table found its place - in presence of official data of people who declared their ethnicity as Serbian, putting that figure of Serbian speakers is nonsense and should be removed to the footnotes where it has been located previously.

As well, I undestand Wikipedia as place which is not about the game of making higher figures and putting some nonsense numbers just to make the point to the others (in this case Croats who you pointed as ones playing those games). We Serbs need to stick to real numbers, and let Croats drown in their own idyocies.

Well these sources and figures were reached as i said by a concensus of multiple editors, i spent alot of energy on discussions over it, especially with some croatian editor who wanted to change and downgrade the figures using "no-good arguments", most of the discussions are on the talk page directly, while other agreements with other editors can be found in separate discussion boxes such as like "Total number of Serbs" section. The sources and figures were also checked by other "older members to wikipedia" and none have complained about it, i did however get newer ideas on how to make the infobox better with other editors. Removing old sources, unneccesarry groupings, unneccesarry filled explanations in the footnotes and some coutnries from the table which had less than 10k or 5k population- simply to make it look more simple, modern, intact with other ethnic group articles and not as complicated as it used to be. Higher estimations were also added yes, it is perfectly okay to use higher estimations next to those official ones in the tables like loads of other articles have (check for example: Bulgarians,Greeks,Poles,English people,Croats, Macedonians (ethnic group)) .. then at Romanians you can see they are basing their world ethnic population on number of native Romanian speakers.. alot of editors think this is perfectly okay in such cases as the Romanian ethnic group. Lets not forget that the "Montenegrin ethnicity idea" is still quite fresh and is a political case- some people say, declare they are Montenegrins but also claim they are Serbs, some people claim to be only Serbs, some to be only Montenegrins, but we know that Montenegrins were always a regional affilation and not an ethnical one.. the ethnical one is and still will be for many years one of the main disputes considering the Montenegrin national identity and their roots to Serbdom, this is why i find perfectly okay to list Serbian maternal speakers as a higher estimation on possible more Serbian population or a Serbian-oriented population of Montenegro, on the census some people dont even declare and is therefore impossible to know the real exact numbers, also some people in Montenegro declared Serbo-Montenegrins, or Montenegrin-Serbians or some similar ways.. with a majority of whom declared spoke Serbian... and those were because of the specific names listed under "Other categories" of ethnic groups... so lets just say this is all one big political dispute, that is my opinion. (Правичност (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC))

As for grouping of the regions with significant population, I don't get your a priori negative attitude towards that possible modification. That grouping has not been my invention but something that has proven useful and adequate in the number of articles for other peoples (article about Hungarian people, for example) where table is organized that way. It provides for better visibility and easier overview of the figures. It does groupings in four directions: one is for Serbia itself as mother-country of the Serbian people, second is for neigbouring countries where Serbs are autochtonous people (either as the contituent people such as the case in BiH, or recognized minority in the other countries, or something in between which is the case for official status of Serbs in Montenegro), and the others are for diaspora destionations.

I was grouping my self until i got a propose from some admin to remove them and make them make it more modern.. intact to other articles, thus i also agreed that is unneccessary but oh well... Surely Serbia is mother-coutnry but Bosnia might be also called like that to the Serbs as they are constituent nation like you said yourself. (Правичност (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC))

You also mentioned, "self-handed calculations". I don't get how you find arbitrary and manipulative simple summation of the available numbers such as the case of that grouping of Serbia's neighbouring countries, when all data is available and official (with exemption of so-called independent Kosovo, which census has been largely boycotteed by our people downthere). Same goes for some other groupings ("North America" for example, where there are official figures for both the US and Canada, and simmply summing those two figures I don't find manipulative at all), for others there is an approximative figure based on data from respective countries (such as the case for "rest of Europe" category, where you can give an approximative figure based on individual figures and common-sense fact that 95% or even higher percentage of Serbian diaspora is found in the countries listed on the table).

I simply find those completely unneccesary; since every country and the total population itself all have multiple sources for that. Some editors also tried to remove sources and make calculations themselves.. but a good argument or agreements of other editors for removing them were never found, this is why the sources and its figures stood intact. (Правичност (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC))

I am looking forward getting a feedback from you and I hope you find this as a constructive discussion of making the Serbs article better and more accurate. I will restrain from making any edits before I get that feedback and see your opinion. I hope we find some common ground, if not, we can bring this to some higher Wiki instances and let them decide...

Pozdrav i svako dobro, Klačko (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Surely new ideas to wikipedia are always welcome, if others agree on your ideas why not. Mada hteo sam te upozoriti na to, da sam ja i još neki editori dosta napora uložili u pronalaženju izvora, da bismo mogli napraviti veću estimaciju Srba u svetu, jer mnogo je bilo onih (pa i ja) koji se nismo slagali sa time da Srba ima samo deset miliona - kad je samo u SFRJ živelo 9 - 9,5 miliona Srba + i tadašnja srpska diaspora bila je ogromna, a kad već postoje dobri izvori i mnogo njih za veću estimaciju, zašto ih ne bismo iskoristili, nelogično mi se takođe činilo da Hrvati na eng. vikipediji broje duplo više ukupno u svetu od onoliko koliko ih je na Balkanu, dok Srbi samo za neko milionče više, a zna se da nas ima samo u Austriji i Nemačkoj milion, gde je još preostao svet. što se tiče SAD-a, izvori su dobri i naučni, jedan izvor je iz knjige Tim Judah-a. Treba znati i da je na kraju 19. veka u SAD-u npr. živelo oko 20,000 Srba a danas taj broj iznosi samo 187,000? ili ~500,000 sa Jugoslovenima. Dok je Norvežana npr. koji su u istom periodu tada brojali oko 17,000 ljudi u SAD, danas tamo gotovo 5 mil. koji se tako izjašnjavaju, dakle psotoji tu nešto.. treba uzeti u obzir d aje mnogo naših ljudi koji se nisu izjasnili uoošte, ili nisu imali mogućnost na to (ilegalni emigranti, studenti), ili se izjašnjavaju drukčije (kao jugosloveni, sloveni, istočni europljani, amerikanci itd.) .. a treba i znati , da američki cenzus nije vršio popis direktno baziran na nacionalnoj pripadnosti, nego već na "Race" - dakle rasi... pa tu su s eond aljudi izjašnjavali takođe kao i "white-caucasian, black african, african-american, asian, east european, west european"... kako god je ko po svoje tumačio. Dakle po meni je irelevantno brojati Srbe u SAD-u po njihovom cenzusu, jer SAD je već kao zemlja poznat akao "melting pot"... dakle tu se ljudi raznorazne nacije i gube u amerikanizaciji. Srdačan pozdrav, Regards (Правичност (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC))

---

Ok, mislim da napredujemo u našem međusobnom razumevanju. Prihvatam tvoj argument oko grupisanja po regionima, iako i dalje mislim da bi to itekako doprinelo preglednosti tabele. Imaš primer članka o Mađarima pa sam prosudi, jer su oni dosta slični nama posebno po činjenici da su poput nas dosta prisutni u okolnim zemljama. Ipak, i bez te modifikacije, treba poraditi na preglednosti tabele, mislim da je dobra ta ideja koju si pomenuo za brisanje iz tabele zemalja koje imaju manje od 5 ili 10 hiljada Srba, s tim što bih se ja tu ipak zadržao na neevropske zemlje, jer imaš primer jedne Mađarske na čijoj su današnjoj teritoriji Srbi autohton naraod već više stotina godina i bilo bi neozbiljno brisati tu stavku samo zato što je naših sunarodnika danas tamo tek 7 hiljada. Sa druge strane, vodeći se tim kriterijumom "uljez" na tabeli su mi Emirati, jer em u (po meni) nekredibilnom izvoru se navodi broj Srba od 5 hiljada em za ovu višu cifru od 15 hiljada se koristi potpuno neodređena sintagma "sa naših prostora" što nužno se ne mora odnositi na Srbe.

Ja sam do sada video samo Mađare i možda Albance da imaju infobox uređen po starom sistemu (dakle grupisanju) inače. Slažem se u tome, da ne treba ukloniti Mađarske ili sličnih zemalja, no lično bih takođe ostavio Emirate jer su jedna od retkih ne-evropskih zemalja u infoboxu, Luksemburg bi takođe ostavio s obzirom da je to mnogo mala zemlja i prava je privilegija imati dosta svojih sunarodnika u takvoj specifičnoj zemlji. Mislim da bi bilo dobro da ostavimo kako jeste (dakle do 5000 i ništa više ispod).. a što se tiče Srba u Emiratima, pa umalo tih 5 hiljada (ili makar pola) si mogao skoro da vidiš na stadionu u Emiratima u fudbalskom prij. meču između Srbije i Rusije prošli mesec, a upravo ta "sintagma" može biti istinita - ionako se ide samo za veću procenu. (Правичност (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC))

Oko nekih suštinskih stvari i dalje se ne slažemo.

1. Ne mogu da shvatim i prihvatim princip stavljanja nezvaničnih podataka tik uz zvanične podatke dobijene na regularno odrađenim popisima. Zvaničan podatak i nezvanična procena prosto ne mogu imati jednak tretman, to je ono što pokušavam da objasnim. Ako već postoji potreba za stavljanjem nezvaničnih procena, one bi trebale biti navedene u fusnoti, nikako drugačije. I tu kontra-argument s pominjanjem prakse kod Hrvata, Bugara i ostalih nije relevantan, jer isto tako postoji drugačija praksa poput članka o Slovacima gde se sledi princip koju zagovaram da ga se držimo i kod nas. Druga je stvar kod zemalja koje ne vode statistiku o etnicitetima (poput Francuske) i gde je stavljanje nezvaničnih procena opravdano.

Žao mi je što se ne slažeš u tome, višlje procene su samo višlje procene- one postoje i kod stranih zvaničnika... npr. sama ambasada SAD-a u Srbiji i sam Washington pomenuo je Čikago kao drugi najveći srpski grad na svetu sa 350-500.000 ljudi srpskog porekla... dakle oni i dalje tako tvrde iako cenzus pokazuje samo 187k Srba u celoj Americi. Uostalom mogu ti samo preporučiti da ostaviš svoju ideju na talk-page-u pa videti da li će se neko složiti sa njome i podržati, da bi došlo do promena, do tada i dalje stoji konsenzus ipak. (Правичност (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC))

2. Ne mogu se takođe složiti sa stavom da se treba staviti u tabeli staviti cifra govornika srpskog jezika kao maternjeg u Crnoj Gori. Adekvatno mesto za to eventualno može biti fusnota kao što je bilo do pre koji dan (u međuvremenu je i to pomerneo u tabelu), mada je i to svojevrsno natezanje iz razloga što ovo nije članak o jeziku niti je tabela u ovom članku tabela o jezičkoj statistici. Takvim statistikama je mesto u članku o srpskom jeziku a ne Srbima kao narodu. Složiću se s tobom o genezi crnogorske nacije, tu su stvari jasne, ali statistika i cifre nisu stvari preko kojih se to treba prebijati. Opet za to postoje prikladni članci na Vikipediji, od članka o Crnogorcima pa nadalje... Kategorija "Srbi-Crnogorci" i "Crnogorci-Srbi" su statistički zanemarljive, jedna ima hiljadu i nešto a druga par stotina tako izjašnjenih, mogu se i oni navesti u fusnoti, ali ne vidim neki preterani razlog. Prosto, ne treba se gubiti i ići u širinunego se fokusirano držati cifre onih koji su se etnički izjasnili kao Srbi, bez ikakvih dodataka i odbitaka, prosto i jasno kao Srbi. Sve ostalo je zaglibljivanje u mulj proizvoljnosti i ličnih tumačenja.

Mogu se složiti u ovome, ali ipak te pozivam da još jednom promisliš, da li svaki Crogorac koji se izjasnio kao Crnogorac srpskog maternjeg jezika na popisu misli za sebe da je Crnogorac po nacionalnoj pripadnosti ili po regionalnoj; to mi ne možemo znati (iako postoje zvanični podaci na nac. osnovu) ljudi i dalje kao što rekoh drugačije to tumače jer i dalje je mnogo Crnogoraca većih Srba od samih Srba Srbijanaca. Zato sam veću estimaciju samo uradio po uzoru na Rumune. No svejedno tu se možemo složiti oko promene. (Правичност (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC))

3. Bojim se da upadaš u proizvoljnost kad dozvoljavaš sebi da pored lako dostupnih statistika licitiraš sa brojem Srba u Jugoslaviji od 9-9,5 miliona. To naprosto nije tačno! Srba je u SFRJ 1991. bilo 8,527 miliona (taj i svi raniji popisi su rađeni po staroj metodologiji, koja je ubrajala i nerezidentno stanovništvo tj. privremeno odsutna lica; stalno prisutnih Srba je verovatno bilo koja stotina hiljada manje, verovatno oko 8,2 miliona; imaš podatak RZS-a da je Srba u Srbiji bez Kosova stalno pristunih bilo 6,054 miliona 1991. godine iako je po tada važećoj metodologiji popisano 6,252 miliona, znači samo u Srbiji je po tom osnovu razlika od 200 hiljada, a gde su druge republike!?), 1981. 8,136 miliona a 1971. 8,147 miliona. Znači za jedno milion do milion i po manje od pretpostavki na osnovu kojih ti i kolege koje navodiš temeljite svoje procene o ukupnom broju Srba u svetu (jednako preterivanje kao i ovo sa sa Srbima na prostorima Ex-YU, gornja granica svih Srba u svetu je svakako 10 miliona, a verovatno danas bliža cifri od 9,5 miliona). I opet kao svojevrsno opravdanje za tako nešto navodiš šta rade Hrvati?! To nije nikakav argument šta rade drugi, pa ako oni rade krivo, ajmo da ih sledimo u tome. Na stranu moje lično mišljenje da Hrvati kao takvi od nas Srba treba da dobiju samo ignorisanje a ne pridavanje (nepotrebne i kontraproduktivne) pažnje, ili još gore ugledati se na njih. Meni to deluje pomalo detinjasto, prosto neozbiljno za projekat kakav je Vikipedija.

U ovome ne mogu nikako da se složim. brojku od 9 i 9,5 miliona nisam sam izmislio, već za to postoje naučne tvrdnje (navodno zbog broja Jugoslovena i Crnogoraca). Ne znam kako nisi uzeo u obzir (kad si već spomenuo 1971 i 1981), da je broj jugoslovena ogromno narastavao u odnosu na broj Srba koji se "gle čuda" odjednom posle toliko godina odjedanput smanjio. No tu situaciju već su odavno rešili već priznati demografi istoričari, mada bi i bez njih to bilo logično. isto tako te upozoravam da je broj Crnogoraca od 1981 do cenzusa 2003 upao za gotovo 200,000 -razlog jednostavan, određen broj Crnogoraca konačno je posle komunizma počeo da se vraća svom pravom identitetu iz veštačkog identiteta kojeg su stvorili upravo komunisti u SFRJ.. kada sve te brojke zajedno skupimo dolazimo do okvirnog broja koliko je zaista Srba bilo u Jugoslaviji a taj broj se kreće do 9,5 miliona zajedno sa Crnogorcima ako se ne varam.- dakle broj Srba bi bio jedno 9,2 ili 9,3 mil. (najmanje pola miliona Jugoslovena + Crnogorci koji su danas Srbi). A što se tiče Hrvata, ja nikakvog opravdanja nisam našao u Hrvatima, samo sam naveo kao primer ako si dobro pročitao... Da je Srba odnosno ljudi srpskog porekla daleko više od 10 miliona tvrde i mnogi dobri izvori, kako institucije tako i priznati demografi.. naime naićeš na dosta procena da Srba ima 12 miliona sa diasporom. Ja bi se složio sa tobom da "pravih Srba" ima danas do 10 miliona (nikako 9,5), no ljudi srpskog porekla sigurno ima do 12 miliona, tako kažu izvori i zato i postoji veća estimacija. Inače sam dolazim iz diaspore i znam da na žalost mnogi Srbi misle kako mi u diaspori zaboravljamo svoj identitet- naravno ima takvih dosta, ali ipak dost amanje od nas koji iz kolena na koleno prenosimo srbstvo i pravoslavlje našoj deci.. mnogi iz Srbije takođe zanemaravaju brojeve bosanskih Srba u diaspori, pa tkao po anvici broje samo ljude koji su otišli iz Srbije, kao da ne znaju da samo Srbi poreklom iz BiH, CG, Hrv i ostalih zemalja čine gotovo polovinu ukupnih Srba u diaspori. Dakle ja ne mislim d aradimo bilo šta krivo, jednsotavno koristimo izvore za veću estimaciju, pa ko hoće neka veruje da na sima ili više ili manje kada vidi brojku 10-12 miliona.. uostalom t ebrojke ne bi ni koristili ia kamoli izmišljali da ne postoje dobri izvori koji tako tvrde. (Правичност (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC))

4. Izvor za S.A.D. može biti samo i isključivo Popisni biro S.A.D. a oni imaju dve, za nas, relevantne cifre: oni koji su se izjasnili da su srpskog porekla i oni koji su se izjasnili da su jugoslovenskog porekla (za koje se opravdano može smatrati da većinski jesu srpskog etničkog porekla). To su zvanične cifre, svaka čast Timu Džudi ali on nije demograf po profesiji nego novinar koji je u svojim knjigama imao porpilično neobjektivan (prema Srbima, dabome) i nenaučan pristup materiji ratova na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije. Relevantnost - nula, zero, nada... Takođe, ne znam koliko si upoznat, ali na američkom popisu imaš rubriku "ancestry" (etničko poreklo) i to je potpuno druga stvar od stavke "race", dakle američki popisi su itekako zasnovani i na etničkom poreklu. Melting pot za ovu našu priču nije relevantan, jer dok postoji nečija svest o svom etničkom poreklu on je i vidljiv za ovakve statistike - onaj koji nema takvu svest i ne može se po bilo kom osnovu smatrati ili uopšte na naučan način utvrditi pripadnikom neke nacije, u ovom slučaju Srba. Isti princip važi i za Kanadu i Australiju.

Da... ali za Australiju je poznato da su uglavnom popisivali "iz koje zemlje ljudi dolaze" pa tako se lako moglo obrisati dosta Srba koji su tu upisali BiH ili Hrvatsku ili nešto treće. Za SAD uporno mislim da živi makar milion ljudi našeg porekla i da veću estimaciju treba staviti sa pouzdanim (mada ne zvaničnim izvorom) jer ni to niko ne zabranjuje, kao što rekoh imati veće estimacije na vikipediji je sasvim okej.. i Englezi pa i mnogi drugi imaju upravo izvor census bureau 2010 kao prvi izvor ali odma tu stoji i veća estimacija s anovim izvorom. video sam i debate oko toga, i editori su se složili da ostave veću estimaciju kod Engleza npr. .. Da ti napomenem da se na tom cenzusu gotovo 4 mil. ljudi izjasnilo kao Eastern European, Slavic ili jednostavno European te na milione je ljudi koji žive u Americi ilegalno, ogromno... dakle nemoguće je čitav broj Srba utvrđivati samo na onima koji su se izjasnili kao Srbi ili Jugosloveni (u većini verovatno da ili polovini ali ne u čitavom broju). Samo naše ministarstvo za diasporu već odavno i dandanas tvrdi i iznosi procene da najviše Srba u diaspori živi u SAD i Nemačkoj gde u obema zemljama živi negde između oko 800,000 i 1 milion Srba odnosno ljudi Srpskog porekla.. zbog svih tih razloga čini mi ne-fer statistiku za SAD podbaciti čak ispod jedne Austrije ili Švajcarske u infoboxu.. Po drugoj strani, veće estimacije stavljene su u tabelu da budu bolje vidljive i da ne zauzimaju podaci previše mesta u Footnotes, jer footnotes većina čitaoca uopšte i ne vidi i ne mari, pa je kraćenje footnotes rubrike jedan dobar način da se poveća preglednost čitave tabele. Inače.. nadam se d aćemo naći neki kompromis što se tiče ovoga. (Правичност (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC))

Eto, toliko za sad, ja ću se i dalje suzdržati od uređivanja, čekajući da vidim tvoj odgovor i procenim da li eventualna nova argumentacija je dovoljno dobra da bih je prihvatio (kao što sam prihvatio tvoj stav o regionalnom grupisanju). Čekajući tvoj odgovor, imaš pozdrav Klačko (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Zaboravih da se osvrnem na dilemu oko Srbije i BiH. Srbija je u Ustavu definisana, osim kao nacionalna država srpskog naroda (u "Osnovnim načelima") i kao matična država srpskog naroda (u jednom od članova koji se odnosi na saradnju sa Srbima u regionu i dijasporom). Dakle, u njavišem aktu zemlje. BiH istorijski jeste srpska zemlja, ali danas je to država u kojem su Srbi konstitutivan narod, tako piše u Ustavu. Treba se toga držati i u tabeli, bez izjednačavanja sa Srbijom ipak.

Sad videh da je u međuvremenu neko vratio one moje izmene, istomišljenik verovatno:)

Klačko (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Nisam imao u vidu izjednačavanje dveju zemalja, nego jednostavno da se da čitaocima do znanja, da Srbi u BiH uživaju gotovo isti status kao u Srbiji. Tj. da je razvidno da Bosna nije samo jedna zemlja u kojoj živi "eto narod iz komšijske države - kako bi neki neupućeni smatrali". A ironija je baš u tome što je tvoj istomišljenik bio hrvatski editor :) (još jedan u nizu), no uvideo sam, da je promena i ubrzo nazad promenjena na moje izmene (i to od stranog editora) zbog nepojašnjenog uklanjanja referenciranih brojki i izvora (dakle tu se pokazuje poštovanje onoga konsenzusa kojeg sam ti spomenuo). Pozdrav :) (Правичност (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC))

---

1. Neozbiljno je kao argument navoditi primer utakmice u Emiratima. Nije isto "5.000 Srba" i do "15.000 ljudi sa naših prostora". Prvo se može odnositi samo na Srbe, a drugo može uključivati narode na širem prostoru, pre svega ex-YU za koji se danas najviše i koristi ta sintagma "naši/ovi prostori". Izvlačiti iz toga zaključak da se pretpostavlja da su Srbi je prosto neosnovano. Iz izvora koji stoji može se izvući zaključak o 5.000 Srba i ništa više. Sve ostalo je puka špekulacija.

Dao sam ti samo primer.. 5-15k Srba u Emiratima je inače poznat podatak koji ćeš naći na dosta izvora, ne samo na ovom. Evo kako piše: "U Emiratima, Dubaiju i Abu Dabiju živi između oko 5000 Srba, mada procene sežu i do 15000 ljudi koji su sa našeg prostora". Nemoguće je zaključiti, da se "drugo" definitivno odnosi na sve ljude sa Balkana, kada već u početku teksta se spominju Srbi- živi između 5,000 Srba i (procene idu do..) 15,000 ljudi sa našeg prostora.. Pre bi se reklo da se Srbi drugi put jednostavo pominju kao "naši ljudi" , ljudi "sa našeg prostora"... jer ja nisam još doživeo takve "gramatike", da bi neko pričao u celom tekstu o Srbima i na kraju naveo da u "toj " državi živi IZMEĐU 5,000 SRBA ... i 15,000 "Balkanaca, južnih Slovena -šta god". (Правичност (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC))

2. Šta konkretno znači "sam Vašington je pomenuo da je Čikago grad sa 350-500 hiljada Srba"? Šta podrazumevaš pod Vašington, gde je taj izvor, jel može neki link? O našoj ambasadi tek ne bih, i inače slušajući našu vladu i zvaničnike ne bih ništa uzimao zdravo za gotovo. Istima su puna usta o Beogradu kao dvomilionskom gradu, iako administrativno ima 1,6 miliona a sam grad-naselje 1,2 miliona. Stoga se treba držati zvanične statistike i popisa. Suštinski, ovde vidim sukob dve koncepcije, dva poimanja. Jedan je moj, restriktivniji i konzervativniji, koji je za to da se držimo samo kredibilnih izvora (gde postoje, a u slučaju S.A.D. postoje, to su popis i Popisni biro S.A.D.), a drugi je tvoj liberalniji i fleksibilniji, koji prilično nekritički preuzima izvore koji se mogu naći na netu. A ako bi nekritički se držali izvora na netu, mogli bismo odmah napraviti i infoboks u članku o vanzemaljcima gde bi naveli da ih ima nekoliko hiljada koji trenutno obitavaju na planeti Zemlji, ili u članku o Kenediju da izbrišemo da je Kenedi mrtav jer ima mali milion članaka na internetu gde se tvrdi da je živ, itd. Nadam se da razumeš moju poentu.

Stajao je izvor, ne od naše ambasade, nego od američke ambasade i pomenutih 350-500K ljudi srpskog porekla u Čikagu i okolini, ali neko ga ukloni, ne mogu da ga nađem više na žalost. No ne bih se složio, da su neki stranački izvori odnosno tuđe reči tačnije od naših, smao zbog toga što su strani. 1,66 miliona ljudi je popisano u BG, ali koliko ima onih koji ilegalno žive u njemu, koliko ima stranih studenata i radnika itd. ? Oni se ne popisuju, a zna se da ogromno ljudi ilegalno boravi po takvim gradovima odnosno privremeno nekoliko godina... još više važi za Čikago i čitavu SAD od 310+ miliona ljudi. što se tiče izvora sa neta, nijedan izvor nije prošao "nektirički" do sada.. uvek je bilo argumentacije, ali nisu ni baš "svakakvi izvori" korišćeni. (Правичност (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC))

3. Moj otac je rođen u Crnoj Gori i vučem poreklo iz tih krajeva i dobro su mi poznata ta nijansiranja i laviranja, i nastanak nove crnogorske nacije 1945. godine. Ali da ne bih širio previše priču, sve se svodi na ono o čemu sam i u ranijem odgovoru pisao. Jedno su Crnogorci koji se nacionalno osećaju kao Crnogorci, a drugo su Crnogorci koji se regionalno osećaju Crnogorcima a nacionalno Srbima. Prvi za sebe ne misle da su Srbi, jer da misle ništa lakše nego da se izjasne Srbima. Oni to nisu učinili i tu prosto nema prostora za bilo kakvu proizvoljnost u vidu veće procene/estimacije. Drugi za sebe misle da su Srbi, a Crnogorac im je regionalna odrednica, kao što je Šumadincu regionalan odrednica Šumadinac a nacionalna Srbin, ili Hercegovcu, Krajišniku, Vojvođaninu, itd.

Neka bude po popisu onda kako su se izjasnili nacionalno. (Правичност (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC))

4. Za ukupan broj Srba i dalje se ne slažem, ne može se kao osnov uzimati proizvoljni zbir Srba + ljudi koji su se izjasnili kao Jugosloveni i Crnogorci. Dobar deo Jugoslovena i skoro svi Crnogorci jesu srpskog porekla i korena, nesporno, ali nisu Srbi jer se tako ne osećaju, da su se osećali izjasnili bi se kao Srbi. Prosto ne možeš nijednom naučnom metodom opravdati njihovo pridodavanje Srbima, možemo samo pretpostavljati i tu bih se složio sa tobom da se radi o ljudima srpskog porekla (mada se uglavnom radilo o ljudima iz mešanih brakova, pričam za Jugoslovene), ali ako se čovek tako ne izjašnjava - tu je kraj. Demografija je slepa naučna disciplina, za nju postoje samo suve cifre, sve ostalo se treba ostaviti istoriji gde se treba objasniti geneza i Jugoslovena i Crnogoraca kao nacije koji su nesumnjivo nastali od Srba. Ponavljam, to je za istoriju koja bi objasnila i protumačila te procese prelaska iz srpske u neku novu (veštačku) naciju, to nije stvar demografije koja treba samo da prezentira cifre. S druge strane, prihvatam tvoj argument za korišćenjem izvora sa većom estimacijom obrazlaganjem da se ostavi svakom na izbor za koju cifru i izvor će se opredeliti i verovati, neka se navedu svi. To je ok, s tim što bih donju cifru korigovao na oko 10 miliona jer je to najpribližnije stvarnom stanju.

Ali ovaj članak se i radi o Srbima i takođe ljudima srpskog porekla takođe... zato i postoje te veće procene o ljudima srpskog porekla, do čijih brojeva se ne može uvek doći preko popisivanjem na papirima. ALI može se metodom utvrditi za mnoge Jugoslovene i Crnogorce u SFRJ, da su bili Srbi.. jer se broj Jugoslovena dosta menjao u odnosu na Srbe do danas, tako su se mnogi počeli kansnije izjašnjavati kao Srbi, drugi su se selili kao i dobar deo ostalih Srba tokom 90ih (kad je samo 500k ljudi otišlo iz Srbije, da ne kažem koliko je Srba otišlo iz Bih, Hrv itd...) Za Crnogorce postoji još bolja metoda, pa jako je razvidno da se na popisu 81`pojavljuje ako se ne varam tek ispod 20,000 Srba pored gotovo 500,000 Crnogoraca a na popisu 2003 broj Srba narašta na gotovo 200,000 dok se broj Crnogoraca vidno smanjuje.... Slažem se, može biti ukupna populacija 10-12 miliona, jer izvori kažu 10, 10,5, 11,5, 12 pa 12,5 mil. itd. (Правичност (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC))

5. Ne slažem se ni za broj Srba u Americi. Prosto imaš dve cifre: oni koji su se izjasnili srpskog i oni koji su se izjasnili jugoslovenskog porekla (koji su većinski Srbi). Mislim da bi se mogli naći na tome da se u fusnotama stavi ta cifra koju pominješ od našeg Ministartsva (sada kancelarije) za dijasporu od 800k-1 milion ljudi srpskog porekla u S.A.D. sa ili bez ove cifre za ljude koji su se izjasnili da su jugoslovenskog porekla. I dalje mislim da je taj izvor nekredibilan jer ne vidim na osnovu čega i kojim metodom su uradili tu procenu, al ajde...

A možda smo mogli staviti broj Srba i Jugoslovena u jedan broj (oko 500,000) i navesti pod fusnotu (including Yugoslavs).. šta kažeš na tu ideju? (Правичност (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC))

6. Srbija je u svom ustavu definsiana kao "nacionalna država srpskog naroda i drugih naroda koji u njoj žive". BiH je u svom ustavu definisana kao "država Bošnjaka, Srba i Hrvata i svih ostalih građana koji u njoj žive". Primećuješ razliku? U Srbiji su Srbi jasno izdvojeni i naglašeno je da je to nacionalna država srpskog naroda, a u BiH konstitutivni status Srbi dele sa još dva naroda. Uz to Srbija je u svom ustavu definisana kao "država-matica Srba u regionu", tako nešto nema u slučaju BiH. Ali na stranu suvoparni paragrafi (iako sam pravnik po struci), realnost je da Srbija je danas država u kojoj živi 80% Srba na prostorima gde smo autohtoni (to su prostori Balkana), da je to jedina država gde smo kao narod većina (apsolutna). Sve to preteže da Srbija bude jasno izdvojena u odnosu na druge u infoboksu, pa i BiH. Uostalom, kad se već pozivaš na praksu kod drugih članaka, onda ćeš videti da je i kod maltene svih izdvojena jedna država, država-matica. Eto i ti Hrvati koje uzimaš za primer, i oni BiH ne izdvajaju iako i njihovi sunarodnici imaju nominalno isti status u BiH kao i naši ljudi tamo.

Dobro, no ja bih pored BiH stavio u zagradi (inc. Rep. Srpska) po uzoru na neke druge članke gde se spominju Transnistria, Jermenski deo Azerbejdžana itd. , jer mi se čini bitno predstaviti Rep. Srpsku čitaocima koji u velikoj većini ne znaju za nju. (Правичност (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC))

7. Stalno se pozivaš na neki konsenzus, ja sam pažljivo isčitao Talk stranicu i nisam to primetio, niti tako nešto uopšte može postojati - postoje istiniti i relevantni podaci i neistiniti i nerelevantni podaci. Izvori su se dodavali i brisali, cifre su se menjale, bilo je oko toga diskusije ali nisam video da tu postoji neka šira saglasnost. Prosto, kako je ko uređivao, tako je dodavao/oduzimao nešto svoje. Vikipedija-članci nisu zamišljeni kao nešto što je od sad pa zanavek uklesano u kamen, nepodložno izmenama, jer da jeste, ne bi postojala opcija "Edit". Ako neko iznese drugačije podatke i iznese valjanu argumentaciju koja to potkrepljuje, to nije suprotno već u skladu sa pravilima ovog projekta i doprinosi poboljšanju kvaliteta i verodostojnosti članaka. Primetio sam doduše pojačanu aktivnost Hrvata na ovoj stranici, tu se slažem, doduše nisam znao da je onaj lik na kog sam se referisao Hrvat. On je vratio moje izmene (sa sve regionalnim grupisanjem), a Ruby Murray mu je izbrisao ne zbog nekog konsensuza na koji se ti pozivaš nego zato što ovaj nije dao objašnjenje i argumentovao svoje izmene.

Pa zato jer je postojao i naravno da može postojati. Kad se vode silne rasprave pa čak i svađe oko nekih stvari, potraži rešenje koje nije za nikoga idealno, ali je u svim granicama "OK" i tako ok za sve, te na taj način postigne se konsenzus kako prihvatiti neke izmene na nekom članku a da se ne ide više na stare i iste rasprave, osim ako je u pitanju neki bolji argument... Ako si to primetio, mogao si da i primetiš, da su sve njihove aktivnosti svodene na jedan jednostavan cilj - a taj je smanjenje brojki Srba u svetu. Već sam lično vodio i lične rasprave sa nekim korisnicima, koji nisu mogli da iskažu boljeg argumenta od "Nije istina, ne može vas biti toliko, to su velikosrpske - agresisjke ideologije blabla" i ostale bljuvotine. Sa dobrim argumentima i izvorima uspeo sam da diskreditujem već nekoliko takvih pokušaja a bilo je čak i pokušaja da se koristi "Serbo-Croatian" umesto "Serbian" kao jezik u uvodnom tekstu za sve gradove na KiM, odnosno čak kao zvanični jezik KiM i zvanični jezik Vojvodine, dok bi sa druge strane zbog sličnog edita na nekom članku o nekoj hrvatskoj pokrajini možda čak i neko glavu izgubio zbog vikipedije (da ne preterujem :)). Dok će na drugoj strani na članku "Croats" uskoro kako je počelo rasti od pre godinu dana (sa 6-7 miliona pa na 8,5 danas - a bilo je i 9 mil.) brojka stići čak i do 10 miliona :) ... iako je uopšte poznata stvar da Srbi okvirno broje negde - do jedanput više od Hrvata - kako u SFRj/ex-SFRJ, tako i u ukupnom stanovništvu... no ne bih previše da se bavim njima, hteo sam samo opomenuti na to što se dešavalo sve, a veću estimaciju Srba podržavamo editori zbog nas samih (da smo jasni) i zbog istorijske demografije i stalnog brojčanog iseljavanja Srba s aBalkana tako i zbog mnogih izvora koji tako procenjuju. (Правичност (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC))

Sve u svemu, oko nekih stvari smo se na kraju složili, oko nekih ne, pa da se više ne bi vrteli u krug, ja ću u narednih par dana editovati infoboks na način za koji smatram da će poboljšati kvalitet i relevantnost istog (prihvatajući neke od tvojih argumenata i držeći se kompromisa do kojih smo došli, a za ostatak tj. stvari oko kojih se nismo složili, ću te zamoliti da se suzdržiš od editovanja mojih unosa, bar na neko vreme dok ne vidimo rekaciju ostalih). Svoje izmene ću detaljno obrazložiti na Talk-u i svako će imati priliku da iste pobije i ponudi bolje, pouzdanije i relevantnije podatke i izvore kao i metode preko kojih su do istih došli. Rado ću prodiskutovati o svemu na Talk-u članka Serbs. Prosto da dozvolimo i čujemo mišljenje drugih, možda ljudi bolje prihvate te izmene, a ako budu bili protiv, to će se jasno i vrlo brzo videti. Ja sam u vezi ovog spreman da idem do kraja jer zaista verujem da članak Serbs tj. njegov infoboks ima prostora za boljitak, što sam spreman da podrobno argumentujem, a ako situacija postane problematična, treba videti i sa administratorima i uključiti ih u celu priču.

Pozdrav! Klačko (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Dobro, gledajući na naše kompromise, mogao sam i sam to da uradim ali ostaviću tebi, zamolio bih te, da pre nego što kreneš u akciju još jedanput pročitaš moje zadnje odgovore... pogotovo moji ideju što se tiče Srba u Americi, tu ću sačekati tvoj odgovor i mišljenje. Povodom istih ne očekujem neke drastične promene, već manje izmene. Pozdrav u nadalje! (Правичност (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC))

Napisao sam ti par stvari na mojoj stranici. Pozdrav Klačko (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Croats talk page

We will just go round and round.I don't have a problem with you.You can leave 10-12 mil if u ask me.I'm not reverting anything on Serbs article because i will just get into a war with someone ove a few stupid things.That's why i don't like that way Sokac sometimes act but i can't do anything.Just don't go to Croats article if you have problems with Sokac on Serbs article.That is not the way.We will never come to conclusion over something that is related to Serbs and CroatsScrosby85 01:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs)

Okay we will leave everything as it is then. (Правичност (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC))

There is no other way im afraid Scrosby85 (talk. Šokac is playing a fool, starting same edit wars with same arguments over and over again, as he did whole past year. He is clearly fighting for a smaller number of Serbs by his violent forcible acts. If he continues to canvass other croatian editors to attack Serbs article and defend Croats article and act blind or depth just as if nobody didnt aproove his actions or sources or arguments in the past and continues to do same thing over and over again with the "rape" of numbers. I am afraid i will be forced to do something in return and we will have a real edit war going on both sides, because there simply is no therapy for this deasese of his, which is called the "anti-Serbian syndrom". (Правичност (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC))

Sarajevo

Hello. Due to the constitution of Republika Srpska (http://skupstinabd.ba/ustavi/rs/ustav_hrvatski.pdf), capital city of Republika Srpska is Sarajevo, not Banja Luka!--Munich 2013 (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi,where is that exactly written? I didnt find it. (Правичност (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC))

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hi. This message is being sent to inform you that there is a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - here, regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Serbs". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 07:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Shokatz (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Shokatz (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Violation of rules 3RR

Please stop breaking the rules of Wikipedia 3RR [9] in Article Serbs.--Šokac121 ℗ 20:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Didnt break any, you Serb hater, you should learn them yourself. (Правичност (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC))

Serbian diaspora

Hello Pravičnost. I saw you worked at articles about Serbs. I added some famous people into infobox on pages Serbian American, Serbian Australian, Serbs in Germany and Serbs in the United Kingdom. Plus, i made some pages about their other diaspora countries: Serbian Argentine, Ukrainian Serbs and Serbian Russians, and if you have some info of their history, add it. --MisterBean (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Bean im sorry for a several years late reply, i stopped working on wikipedia long time ago, came here just to "retire", and yes i saw those articles and edits, you`ve done a good job :) Pozdrav (Правичност (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC))

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Правичност. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)