User talk:Amanuensis Balkanicus/Archive2

Philip J. Cohen

G'day 23, I am going to AGF here, on the basis that we seem to be working pretty well together where our interests coincide and have been keeping things balanced on WWI in Yugoslavia articles. I see that (back in May last year) you were involved in some of this utter nonsense on the Philip J. Cohen article, which I have been trying to sort out over the last few days. I have now obtained a copy of Israeli (2013), and the content of the article that is sourced from that book is extremely skewed. Taken as a whole, Israeli, if anything, agrees with Cohen, rather than disagreeing with him. In most cases, if not all, Israeli praises Cohen's work, he really doesn't denigrate it, describing it as (and I'm paraphrasing) as "definitively demonstrating the involvement of Nedic and others in the Orthodox Church as aware and supportive of the German plan to exterminate Jews, and not loathe to lend a hand when asked", for example. I have removed some of the really egregious stuff, which has been cherry-picked from footnotes which have been commented on negatively by Israeli, and do not reflect Israeli's actual conclusions. My sincere apologies if I have misunderstood your edits. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Your recent editing history at Visoki Dečani shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Gjirokastra15 (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Emin Xhinovci

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Emin Xhinovci you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rationalobserver -- Rationalobserver (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Emin Xhinovci

The article Emin Xhinovci you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Emin Xhinovci for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rationalobserver -- Rationalobserver (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Emin Xhinovci

The article Emin Xhinovci you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Emin Xhinovci for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rationalobserver -- Rationalobserver (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emin Xhinovci

Hello,

Your Good Article was nominated for DYK, and has been accepted. Congratulations!

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An invitation to join the WikiProject Republika Srpska

WikiProject Republika Srpska
Project Icon Hi, Amanuensis Balkanicus, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the WikiProject Republika Srpska! WikiProject Republika Srpska is a WikiProject whose aim is to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to Republika Srpska and the Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is chiefly designed to help users collaborate on articles, but also to resolve open questions and disputes, to establish project-wide conventions, and to coordinate work on vandalism clean-up. WikiProject Republika Srpska currently covers a total of 0 articles and 0 other related pages on the English Wikipedia.

We look forward to welcoming you to the project!

--Anulmanul (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Emin Xhinovci.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Emin Xhinovci.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Emin Xhinovci

On 21 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Emin Xhinovci, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Emin Xhinovci was given the nickname "Hitler" because of his uncanny resemblance to Adolf Hitler? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Emin Xhinovci. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you a lot 23 editor, it means very much to me. :) --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia rollback

Hey, I'm inexperienced as how to handle this user: Special:Contributions/77.238.217.48. Recommendations on how to proceed? Stevetauber (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is definitely still banned User:Sevvyan trying to reinsert his edits again. FkpCascais (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, request for an admin to lock the page to prevent IPs from editing. 23 editor (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kidding

Kidding about that last thanks. OK, point taken. Yours, Quis separabit? 23:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian War of Independence infobox

Why are you constantly removing the sources/refs from the infobox? MoS says nothing about us not placing the refs there, and in fact that would be contrary to WP: Verifiability that requires that everything be properly sourced. Doesn't matter if there are already sources in the main body of the article. Those refs are there to source the paragraphs in question. EkoGraf (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(NB:Talk page stalker) - That's incorrect. So long as everything in the infobox is properly cited in the body of the article, there is no need to cite in the infobox. In fact, it just clutters the infobox and is untidy. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with PM67; I've contributed to dozens of Good Articles and helped promote one Featured Article and nobody has ever insisted on cluttering the infobox with citations as long as the assertions were properly referenced in the article body. 23 editor (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first I'm hearing of this. I've been working on hundreds of battle articles from at least five different wars over the last four years and editors always requested the figures be properly sourced in the box. If it cluttered and made it untidy I would perhaps agree, but I'm not seeing that in this particular case. The references are placed with free space left in their respective rows. PS I found the 8,039 RSK dead and 3,600 JNA wounded figure, allegedly per the Mestrovic source, to be incorrect since Mestrovic only cited the JNA dead figure and made no mention of RSK dead and JNA wounded, so I removed those numbers. EkoGraf (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes you feel better, you can leave the references. Agree regarding Mestrovic. Just a couple points of "disagreement" then: The ARBiH part of the casualties section on the infobox should be changed to Bosnia and Herzegovina, since it was the country that sustained civilian casualties. Cumulative casualty ranges should be avoid (i.e. mingling military losses with civilian losses like we are for both the RSK and CRO). If you don't mind, I'll make the changes myself. 23 editor (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request I removed the cumulative casualty ranges (although they were also cited in the sources) and removed the A from ARBiH (Army of...) to indicate Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (RBiH) casualties since we got the civilian figure as well. Didn't even notice the A until you pointed it out just now. EkoGraf (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bijeljina massacre

I am not obliged too explain any edits I make on Wikipedia; and the addition of the infobox was too show the capture of the city as there was indeed a small amount of fighting before the massacre.Citadel48 (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Citadel48: You are obliged to explain any and all edits on Wikipedia, especially when they're as pointless and redundant as this . Adding infoboxes must be discussed with other editors (see WP:INFOBOXUSE), and as far as this one is concerned, it doesn't contribute in the slightest to the reader's understanding of the event. Just because a takeover happened, doesn't mean it needs to be mapped out with an infobox. Also, stop tagging all your edits as minor when they aren't. 23 editor (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the basis of Wikipedia articles is consensus and as any reliable encyclopedia would do so...adding information, so long as it is appropriately and cleanly cited to provide context, a reference of good repute, (multiple is best). If the info box is...not confusing and in line with the first primary paragraphs introducing the article. It is completely unfair to dismiss the "fair use copywriter act." On an English based article, and YouTube, CNN, BBC citations...as "clutter" and not relevant. Precisely the reason teachers ask students to not use Wikipedia. The research and documentation center yes is citing the total number of deaths (though starvation, disease are never included for this war but are for others which I've found fascinating). However considering the events in Bijelina while arguably not the first "battle"...if like cited earlier there WAS fighting (however brief) prior to the take over, a massacre is judicially, academically, and by most media sources cited. Why is it inappropriate for...an info box to be included? If it cites the ICTY death toll of roughly 40-60 which is the best estimate from all sides. Is in fact separately adressed in multiple judicial decisions, according to the documentary "The Fall of Yugoslavia", to be the first major event, a interview with Ron Haviv, at the US Holocaust Museum is used to describe the persecutions in Bosnia as he was in Bijelina at that particular time. It also is cited separately by a history channel documentary on Arkan...there are events in the Former Yugoslavia WITH info boxes that are, yes arguably, but in my opinion substantially less important, with regard to results, perpetrators and media attention. Not having time to argue...doesn't negate everything me and the previous user have just agreed to. Should an event have little or no media citation, judicial application, or Acadamic discussion then it should not have a "box." This specific event has thorough media attention, academic discussion, demographic consequences, judicial indictment and convictions...so if it is a "battle", a battle with a massacre does not negate the massacre. The genocide convention and Nuremberg, ICTY, etc. ALL are fairly consistant in that legal jurisprudence. I don't feel this "doesn't merit" a info box as...it is a very crucial event in Northeastern Bosnia, 5 days prior to the attack on Zvornik and Siege of Sarajevo and is included in the indictment of Slobodon Milosevic. It is disingenuous to dismiss the gravity of this event and not provide simple information in a clean, orderly but factually correct manner. Now the consensus amongst three users, here is that it is NOT, a copywrite violation, it is important with regard to context and timeline, and...really has no reason NOT to have an info box. So, we should consider the consultation. The argument you provided went from "it is clutter and unnecessary.." Which is it's sloppy in presentation I can agree but if neatly done is not uncalled for. Then, "using YouTube would violate copywrite." Which IS incorrect if simply linked to legally. Now is, "I don't have time to argue this..." So, I believe it is appropriate citing the conservative to slightly above most cited death toll and must be neat. It also should not be an extensive info box as not too much information is needed, however consensus here is it IS appropriate and media or YouTube references are just as...if not more appropriate then blogs or individual possibly biased sites with little accountability. I vote to enter a very brief, concise information box, with accurate information. -Ac2204 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac2204 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk back

You are not one too decide whether a edit is "redundant", and it does matter who made the video.

The infobox details the capture, as stated earlier, there was fighting before the massacre.Citadel48 (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you aren't one to decide what is necessary, either. Not every instance of fighting warrants an infobox, and what you're doing is adding clutter—nothing more. Wikipedia articles are built through consensus, not reckless editing. Per WP:RS, Youtube cannot be cited as a source. Videos can be, but you clearly aren't citing the videos, are you? I suggest you read through WP:INFOBOXUSE and WP:RS before making any wholesale changes. If you aren't familiar, Bijeljina massacre is GA and by adding sources contrary to WP:RS and cluttering the article you are considerably degrading its quality. 23 editor (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am citing the video, that's why I placed sources there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citadel48 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you're citing the video, but you can't use Youtube as a medium, as you have here . You've been warned about this before , and obviously don't get it. 23 editor (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems too me you care a lot more about the perceived quality of the article than the factual integrity. The infobox does not degrade the article; and the sources provided are legitimate and have been verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citadel48 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion clearly isn't going anywhere. If you are having difficulty understanding WP rules or policy, go to Wikipedia:Teahouse and consult with the fine folks there, who would be more than happy to answer any questions you might have. 23 editor (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree the discussion is not constructive. You are trying to selectively challenge trivial aspects of the editing process. The fundamental issue is that I and many others who live outside of Bosnia and Serbia and who have no Bosnian or Serbian heritage find documentaries, especially made by the likes of CNN and BBC, a relatively credible source of information. I am citing the documentaries. Coming up with the Youtube argument is disingenuous, you can think and should think of Youtube as a library where copyrighted material is stored and available for public use. FYI the policy states that: "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page."Citadel48 (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously haven't read WP:YOUTUBE carefully enough. What you've omitted is "...copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. Links to online videos should also identify additional software necessary for readers to view the content." What's preventing you from going to https://books.google.com/ and fishing up a few sources there? 23 editor (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to see the trees but miss the forest. I love it how you enjoy lecturing others. But have you ever heard of the fair use doctrine? Fair use is a legal doctrine that says you can reuse copyright-protected material under certain circumstances without getting permission from the copyright owner. To put it bluntly, you have to admit that a claim that Youtube would post a CNN video in a way that infringes US copyrights, or that I would do so by providing a link to that video, is pretty absurd. There are too many controls that would prevent this from happening. Nothing is preventing me from going to the other sources you are suggesting - but it is my choice, remember. I happen to believe that videos are more powerful than words, and CNN and BBC are more credible for the average user than a publication by an unknown and, potentially biased pseudo historian type. Citadel48 (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no time for this. If you have any questions, go to Wikipedia:Teahouse. If that isn't your cup of tea, don't complain when people revert your edits and label them non-constructive. Don't post on my talk page again. 23 editor (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

fair compromise
Thank you, editor interested in military history and its people, for quality articles such as 21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian), Jadovno concentration camp, Šajkača, Emin Xhinovci and The Holocaust in Albania, performed in collaboration with people and projects, for suggesting fair compromise, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I really appreciate it. 23 editor (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1212 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for today's Migration of the Serbs! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voćin massacre

The text whicb is in dispute is not properly or reliably sourced. I would recommend you cool your heels as I must warn you that you will be in violation of 3RR (read) and subject to a block if you continue reverting the text in question. Seek consensus on the talk page and find reliable sources for your claims. Quis separabit? 15:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:WHYCITE: "[P]articularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead." -- so I just added sources to your lede. An unhappy compromise. Quis separabit? 22:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milutin Bojić

Thanks, it's an unusual article for the milhist assessment page and all the more welcome for it.Keith-264 (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I noticed war poets (and Balkan poets in general) needed better coverage on WP and thought expanding the Bojić article could improve on both. 23 editor (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually...

~~Actually it was written by a Croat not a Serb. Quis separabit? 18:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sorry I thought you wrote "Serb" in your edit summary explanation. Quis separabit? 18:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not WP:RS regardless. 23 editor (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to your fellow editors and seek consensus. And be careful not to violate WP:3RR. Quis separabit? 03:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miralem Pjanić

If you persist in adding off-topic material concerning an individual who is not the subject of the biography to the Miralem Pjanić article, I may consider requesting that you be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump: It's not off-topic and it's reliably sourced. Why are you taking the side of a troll who has used socks in the past? 23 editor (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is off-topic, end of story. The article is about Miralem Pjanić, not a cousin that gets no other mention in the article. And I am 'taking the side' of encyclopaedic content. Nothing more, nothing less. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The guy's wife and kid aren't talked about in the rest of the article either yet they get mentioned (and rightfully so, that's what "Personal life" sections are for). The fact that the two men in questions are related isn't in dispute as it is supported by reliable sources (in keeping with WP:RS and WP:BLP). Having said that, it's curious that something as major as having a cousin die fighting for ISIL wouldn't be mentioned even in passing. The other editors WP:IDON'TLIKEIT argument didn't help his case at all, but it's not like yours is any better. 23 editor (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is off topic - though if you insist that this material should be added, I suggest you either ask at WP:BLPN, or start a RfC. Add it again without consensus and I will report the matter. Consensus is against you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

An editor has asked for a discussion on the deprecation of Template:English variant notice. Since you've had some involvement with the English variant notice template, you might want to participate in the discussion if you have not already done so.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait: 3 others or 4 others??

"Four other men were indicted in relation to the officers' mistreatment, but all three live outside of Croatia, and are not subject to prosecution by the Croatian judiciary". Quis separabit? 20:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed . My mistake. Thanks for catching that. 23 editor (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Migration of Serbs

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Migration of Serbs you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist Coord election

G'day 23, I encourage you to nominate for election as a Milhist Coordinator. I believe the quality of your content work and the balance you have displayed in articles under the remit of Operation Bora would be a definite asset to the coord team. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2015 for details. Nominations open soon. You certainly would have my fulsome support. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PM. Thanks for the suggestion. I'll definitely think it over and make my decision by the time the nominations open. Regards, 23 editor (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE Category:Croatian Nazis

See CFD here if you want to participate. Quis separabit? 00:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

G'day 23, I'm working on a series of lists of Partisan detachments, and as you might imagine, some have pretty obscure names. But what I struggle with most is the grammar. Sometimes I can work it out, sometimes not. For example, Bijeljinski odred is easy (Bijeljina detachment), but what is the locality indicated by Bjelimički odred? Is it Bjelimič detachment? I hope you don't mind me asking you these questions. And don't forget to consider nominating for Milhist coord. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, I've never heard of Bjelimič. Do you know what particular area it might be located? Maybe I can track it down. 23 editor (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Bjelimički" refers to Bjelimići, a region (group of villages) in the south-eastern part of the Municipality of Konjic. Vladimir (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that helps a lot. I'd also be thankful for any help either of you could provide locating the districts/villages etc within the Detachment column of User:Peacemaker67/List of Partisan detachments in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13 April 1999 Albania–Yugoslav border incident

Hi mate, I noticed that you moved the title of this article to distinguish it and I think that is a good thing. I don't oppose it but do you think the full date is necessary? In my opinion, I think 1999 Albania–Yugoslav border incident would be a better title as there was only one incident in 1999 between the two countries. Your thoughts? Regards IJA (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to User:Pincrete on Talk:13 April 1999 Albania–Yugoslav border incident. There were several exchanges between the Yugoslav Army and Albanian Army during 1999. For example, on 20 April, the two sides exchanged gunfire for 6 hours at Qafa e Prushit , not to mention about a half-dozen instances of Yugoslav Army mortars falling inside Albania between March and June (killing about 10 civilians total). 23 editor (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Order of Karađorđe's Star

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Order of Karađorđe's Star you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Order of Karađorđe's Star

The article Order of Karađorđe's Star you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Order of Karađorđe's Star for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July to September 2015 Reviewing Award

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you the Wikistripe for your contribution of 1 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA review during the period July to September 2015. Well done! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste `{{WPMILHIST Review alerts}}` to your user space

Your GA nomination of The Migration of Serbs

The article The Migration of Serbs you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Migration of Serbs for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Migration of Serbs

The article The Migration of Serbs you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Migration of Serbs for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Order of Karađorđe's Star

The article Order of Karađorđe's Star you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Order of Karađorđe's Star for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of December 14, 1998 Albanian–Yugoslav border ambush

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article December 14, 1998 Albanian–Yugoslav border ambush you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ErrantX -- ErrantX (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of April 23, 1998 Albanian–Yugoslav border ambush

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article April 23, 1998 Albanian–Yugoslav border ambush you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dawnseeker2000 -- Dawnseeker2000 (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Hello! Your submission of July 18, 1998 Albanian–Yugoslav border clashes at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! - see page for details. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Reference errors on 9 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Battle of Košare page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bijeljina massacre

G'day 23, you and I have made about the same number of edits on this article, and Potočnik has retired. Interested in co-nominating it for Milhist A-Class? Let me know? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: It's already at A . 23 editor (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a goose. Never mind. What about FA? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't think it's good enough to be listed as A-Class let alone FA (especially after User:Citadel48's "contributions"). A lot of work is needed (copy-edits, source and neutrality checks, etc.) I'd get someone from the copy editors' guild to look at it first before going for peer review because I seriously doubt it would pass FAC at this point. Potočnik/PRODUCER's version was decent but in the last year or so the article quality has really taken a beating. 23 editor (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that it would need a thorough going-over before nominating. I have a few A-Class articles ready or almost ready for FAC, but I wanted to do something different for a change. I'll put it up for a guild c/e as a start point. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Once it's been thoroughly looked over, tweaked and polished I would be more than happy to co-nominate. Just let me to know when you plan to start and I'll come to help with the revamp. All the best, 23 editor (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Migration of Serbs/archive1

Sorry, I was about ready to support this, but one support would not have been enough. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll probably re-nominate it in a few weeks. You're welcome to comment then. Best wishes, 23 editor (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would. Please let me know when you do, in case I miss it. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of July 18, 1998 Albanian–Yugoslav border clashes

Hello! Your submission of July 18, 1998 Albanian–Yugoslav border clashes at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23editor, we have not had a response from you in ten days, and time is running out. Please stop by the nomination within the next few days if you wish to pursue this further. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Uprising at Takovo

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Uprising at Takovo you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Miloš Obilić may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

der seitdem in den Büchern zu lesen ist, von obilan reichlich, obilje Fülle, Überfluss.''<br/> [In Ragusa, there was a family Kobilić (one was Viscount in Breno, 1390), in the 14th and 15th
11 September 2013|year=1990|publisher=Zmaj|page=38|quote=Код Мињанелиjа, кнез је претходно заробл>ен и принуЬен да Мурату положи заклетву верности! и тада је један од њих, кажу да је то био Лазар,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Wounded Montenegrin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Naturalism. 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) 09:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Draft for Bijeljina massacre article

Hey 23 editor, just wanted to ask if you wanted to chime in on the discussion of the RfC statement before it goes "live"? Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bijeljina

Just wanted to say there's no hard feelings on my part regardless of the outcome of this RFC. I know some heated words were exchanged, but considering the topic at hand I think it's only natural. We've got the same goal just different thoughts on how to go about it achieving it. Anyway here's to putting the entire ordeal to rest after RFC and getting the article to FA. --Potočnik (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Less than 10 percent of my edits are on talk pages. Needless to say, I'm more concerned with editing and expanding articles than entering into week-long melodramas regarding their content. Given the content at hand, this was one of the exceptions. 23 editor (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ivo Andrić

		The Biography Barnstar
		Having read the complete Ivo Andrić article after your total rewrite, I think this little barnstar is the smallest appreciation I can provide. No such user (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...and, on top of that, you put the petty Balkanic quarreling about his national affiliation into proportion. Thank you. No such user (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, No such user. Much appreciated. 23 editor (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miodrag Tomić, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pontoon. 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) 08:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prevod

Da li bi mogao ovo da prevedes ″Nemačka formacija od 14 aviona je 17. aprila 1917. godine krenula da bombarduje pozadinu saveznika, pa je eskadrila N 523 poletela da ih presretne. Tomić je poleteo na svom Njeporu 21 C1, a sa neprijateljem su se sreli iznada sela Kapinjani i Savrljana. Ustremio se na tri nemačka dvoseda, čiji su se mitraljesci uzajamno branili, pa je njegov avion upao u unakrsnu vatru. Pretrpeo je znatna oštećenja, a jedan metak je prekinuo crevo za dovod goriva nakon čega je motor stao. Nije mu ostalo ništa drugo nego da pronađe teren za prinudno sletanje, što je i uradio kod sela Kapinjani. Tomić je ostao nepovređen.″ Hvala unapred.--Свифт (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of busy now. Try asking Zoupan, Antidiskriminator, Vladimir and the like. Your additions need to be heavily copy edited. 23 editor (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paja Jovanović

Popović, Radovan (2014). "The analysis of formal compositional characteristics of orientalist paintings by Paja Jovanović" (Document). {{cite document}}: Cite document requires |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)

An analysis you might find useable. Cheers.--Zoupan 10:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch. I'll definitely use it in the future. Cheers, 23 editor (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo Liberation Army

The text in the source is presented as accusations from FRY. These accusations can not automatically be interpreted as facts and be presented in that way. Also I did add more info, correct info. Why did you revert that too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fez120 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

I congratulate you for the promotion of Migration of the Serbs. Keep up the good work :) Vladimir (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I intend to. :-) 23 editor (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Wounded Montenegrin

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Wounded Montenegrin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you there? FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of Adem Jashari

Hi, I understand you are Serb, and I am Albanian. All my edits are based on foreign verifiable sources, including fixing ones that have been misrepresented, I believe intentionally. If you find otherwise, please question them individually and I'll be happy to discuss. Otherwise wholesale revert of my work is extremely aggressive behaviour and will be challenged. --Arianit (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of July 18, 1998 Albanian–Yugoslav border clashes

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article July 18, 1998 Albanian–Yugoslav border clashes you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Wounded Montenegrin

The article The Wounded Montenegrin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Wounded Montenegrin for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"revert to original photo"

Firstly, it's the same photo. Secondly, that certainly was a quick reversion. Perhaps you could explain what deficiency you identified in a matter of seconds. Thanks. —David Levy 00:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of July 18, 1998 Albanian–Yugoslav border clashes

The article July 18, 1998 Albanian–Yugoslav border clashes you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:July 18, 1998 Albanian–Yugoslav border clashes for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Vilayet Printing House (Sarajevo)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vilayet Printing House (Sarajevo) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Vilayet Printing House (Sarajevo)

The article Vilayet Printing House (Sarajevo) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Vilayet Printing House (Sarajevo) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vojislav Šešelj

Thanks for the updates. What about this "he remains president of the SRS ahead of the 2016 parliamentary election", which was removed. Is it still accurate? Quis separabit? 15:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was never removed from the position of president to begin with, so the "remains" is a bit redundant. Yes, he will be running in the upcoming elections. Feel free to restore that. 23 editor (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done in lead. Quis separabit? 16:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is this link ([1]) a reliable source? There are four editorials so far which appear to be sourced but have no followers or posts. I came across it but I don't know if it meets RS. Any advice will be appreciated. Thanks, Quis separabit? 16:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a blog to me. So, no. 23 editor (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, You know a lot more about this area than I do. Do you think the blog is worth reading or is the blogger full of you know what? If the latter, I will unbookmark it. Yours, Quis separabit? 16:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can read it and form your opinions any which way you like, just note that it isn't suitable to cite it in Wiki articles. Instead, try Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR, etc. Best, 23 editor (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Proclamation of Dušan's Law Codex

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Proclamation of Dušan's Law Codex you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Conquest of Belgrade

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Conquest of Belgrade you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Conquest of Belgrade

The article The Conquest of Belgrade you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Conquest of Belgrade for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Proclamation of Dušan's Law Codex

The article The Proclamation of Dušan's Law Codex you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Proclamation of Dušan's Law Codex for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vršac triptych.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vršac triptych.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

Zasto uporno srbozirate sve hrvatske pjesnike,pisce,umjetnike navodeći da su rođeni i da imaju državljanstva austro ugarske i jugoslavije,stid vas može biti,uzeli ste si Teslu a sada hoćete i sve ostale Lule123 (talk) 08:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ivo Andrić

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ivo Andrić you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ɱ -- Ɱ (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Hello, I'm VS6507. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Vojislav Šešelj seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Vs⁶ ₅⁰⁷ 06:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@VS6507: Explain. Otherwise, I'm sensing WP:IDONTLIKE. 23 editor (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Milutin Bojić

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Milutin Bojić you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Happy Brothers

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Happy Brothers you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Milutin Bojić

The article Milutin Bojić you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Milutin Bojić for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Happy Brothers

The article Happy Brothers you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Happy Brothers for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Vršac triptych

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vršac triptych you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vuk Jeremić, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Visa. 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) 09:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ivo Andrić

The article Ivo Andrić you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ivo Andrić for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ɱ -- Ɱ (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Vršac triptych

The article Vršac triptych you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Vršac triptych for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Decorating of the Bride

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Decorating of the Bride you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Decorating of the Bride

The article Decorating of the Bride you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Decorating of the Bride for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry about that; I guess it's a hard habit to break. Let's not throw adverbs like "kindly" around; they are usually subjective. Quis separabit? 15:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I pored objašnjenja, ovaj i dalje ubacuje isto [2]. Da li ima smisla više ovde raditi na en.wiki, pored takvih ljudi?--Soundwaweserb (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The text tagged this time around does appear to be unsourced. As for the other instances, I don't know Rms125a@hotmail.com personally, so I have no idea what might lead him to such behaviour and can't comment to that effect. It is what it is. 23 editor (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Abramovic

Marina Abramovic stated multiple times that she is NOT Serbian. She identifies as a Montenegrin. I don't know where you're from, but as someone from Serbia I surely know better. ArtNymph (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Serbian Eparchies

Hi, I saw your latest instruction regarding the list of Serbian medieval eparchies in the page Saint Sava. As you can see, present prose text is full of errors and incorrect links, so I fixed all that and made a detailed list of eparchies under the jurisdiction of Saint Sava. That action was disputed by user Zoupan, with no explanation. The recent attempt of the same user to kill the page Eparchy of Lipljan, created by me yesterday with work still in progress, clearly shows that user Zoupan has some other agenda. I asked him for an explanation, and he din not have a single argument to support his actions. Please, take a minute to look at my page Eparchy of Lipljan and you can judge for yourself. Thanks. Sorabino (talk) 01:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sock

I see you and another user reverted all those edits from yesterday. I've tagged the IP, but it's been idle for a while now, and the IP address is from a large random dynamic IP block from China (it's /14 and has a Spamhaus PBL entry). Since my other typical spam/malware checks don't indicate it's an open proxy, I won't block it immediately as it's more likely they'll just change it within 24h of original IP assignment. If by any chance you notice another abusive edit from there, {{ping}} me and I'll block it, or tell someone at WP:ANI. If they come back from another IP, feel free to list it at WP:SPI so we start building a pattern. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy title : "Patriarch of Serbia"

Hi, I saw that you initiated a process of reverting changes I made today, correcting titles of the pages of several modern Serbian Patriarchs. So please, look at the talk sections of still uncorrected pages Patriarch Pavle of Serbia and Patriarch Irinej of Serbia. My arguments are: We should not use fantasy titles that never existed! Heads of Serbian Orthodox Church are called Serbian Patriarchs, not "Patriarchs of Serbia" ! Such title never existed in history and it does not exist now. No one was ever called "Патријарх Србије" (Patriarch of Serbia). The title is: Патријарх српски (Serbian Patriarch): Патриарх (noun - Patriarch) and српски (adjective - Serbian). Please, just look at the Google Books for so-called title "Патријарх Србије" : 9 (nine) hits :) And real title: Патријарх српски - 3260 hits !!! This pages should have titles: "Serbian Patriarch Pavle" and "Serbian Patriarch Irinej" because they were "Serbian Patriarchs" and not "Patriarchs of Serbia". Same goes for all other Serbian Patriarchs. Please, go to web page of Serbian Orthodox Church in English: there you have an official translation of the Constitution of SOC, look at the article 11 that defines the title of the patriarch as: "Archbishop of Pech, Metropolitan of Belgrade and Karlovac, and Serbian Patriarch"! As you can see, title is: Serbian Patriarch, not "Patriarch of Serbia". (http://www.spc.rs/eng/church) Sorabino (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joint nom?

G'day 23, would you consider co-nominating Yugoslav monitor Drava for Featured Article with me? You've made some really useful additions and have deftly copy-edited the prose. I'd be glad to share the "glory" (such as there is...). Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be honoured. :) Sign me up. 23 editor (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for reviewing a total of 3 Milhist articles during the period March to June 2016. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste `{{WPMILHIST Review alerts}}` to your user space

About Migration of the Serbs

Hi, 23 editor. Recently I began translating some history paintings from English Wikipedia to the Spanish one, starting with Jan Matejko's works such as Constitution of May 3, 1791, and I found Paja Jovanović's Migration of the Serbs right after. I have a concern that I stated here (I have some flags in Commons yet I think I asked in the wrong place): should we wait until 2028 since there is not fair use in es.wiki, or just move it to Commons because it was published before 1973? Migration of the Serbs is still a work of applied art published before January 1, 1973 despite Jovanović died 1957. What should I do? Thanks, ·×ald·^es 20:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thanks for translating the article into Spanish. You're doing a huge service to Spanish-speaking readers. As for the photo(s), I would upload locally, as outlined in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Migration of the Serbs/archive1. 23 editor (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, thank you. Since there are not fair use policies in Spanich Wikipedia, I think we'll just wait til 2028. Best regards, ·×ald·^es 20:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13 April 1999 Albania–Yugoslav border incident adding sources

I know you are serb , but dont undo my editing, its a fatc.The ex-PM of Albania confirmed that have killed serbian soldiers in Albanian-Yugoslavian border, also the Battle of Košare happened those days 9 April – 10 June 1999 , so the serbs who cross the was: Priština Corps units , 549th Motorized Brigade and 125th Motorized Brigade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakuli (talk • contribs) 09:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Direct violation of WP:RS and WP:OR. Contemporary reports say there were no fatalities on either side and that border guards and ad hoc militias confronted 50 paratroopers. The KLA, of course, was present in Albania, but there isn't any evidence it took part in the alleged skirmish. If you have more recent, published, reliable sources, please provide them. 23 editor (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Bridge on the Drina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vila. 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) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Incidents noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Crovata (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

/* Roman Catholic */ Mother Teresa, and clothes of albanian nun.

There are not Indian clothing, when Mother Teresa travels to India she opened the first church in Kolkata, after its actions, the Indians converted to Catholicism, and some became nuns where they dressed the same as Mother Teresa or Albanian nuns. There are photos and video, which shows Mother Teresa before I get back to India wearing these clothes.

I undo your edit

--Hakuli (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hakuli: I assure you the Indians did not convert to Catholicism en masse because of Mother Teresa. They are still predominantly Hindu. The attire, more precisely the religious habit, is based on the Indian Sari, as explained by biographer Rukmini Chawla .

That evening Mother Teresa went to Father van Exem. He gave her three identical white saris with blue borders. These saris were similar to those worn by women in Calcutta who cleaned the streets and did other menial tasks. This was going to be Mother Teresa's new habit. She wore such a sari for the rest of her life, and it also became the uniform for all her Sisters to this day.

I don't doubt some Albanian Catholic nuns have appropriated the attire in recent decades, but it is 100% Indian. Now revert yourself. 23 editor (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asdisis

Hello, I just want to let you know we are not supposed to be editing the SPI archives, which is what you have been doing here. If you want to file a SPI for Asdisis, you can do it by following the instructions located on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, where it says "How to open an investigation". WP:TW can be helpful too. Sro23 (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks. 23 editor (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —DoRD (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to other admins: Besart93 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is a Confirmed match to this account. —DoRD (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DoRD: Huh? I'm afraid there's been a mistake. 23 editor (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Amanuensis Balkanicus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I live in a high density area with a high concentration of Balkan immigrants, particularly Albanians. My IP address changes very frequently, as I have discovered while using other platforms. I have not discussed the issue with my internet service provider because it's never been a problem (until now, I suppose?). While I appreciate CU's ability to pinpoint any spot on the globe, I think it is more than likely "Besart93" is someone living in my vicinity. I don't see any reason why I would sock an account (whom I reverted here ), write semi-literately and vandalize articles that I had previously contributed constructively to. I recently advised another user not to resort to socks , and have helped in tackling the sock-master Asdisis (who apparently felt it necessary to troll this sub-section just now via sock ) for a few weeks now, which makes it all the more bizarre that I would start sock-vandalizing articles only a few days later. If I wanted to use sockpuppets, I would have done so during the numerous RfCs, controversial discussions and move debates I have engaged in over the past 5 years, and not to write stupid semi-literate comments in article space and on talk pages (what purpose does that serve?) This all makes zero sense. 23 editor (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is very clear technical evidence of socking. This isn't someone "in your vicinity", unless the "vicinity" is in your lap typing on your computer. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

For the record, this Troll is not who you think it is. —DoRD (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DoRD: Then who is it? And who on earth is this ? I expect them to be blocked for vandalism. 23 editor (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this SPI. —DoRD (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sajmište concentration camp

Hello, I saw you reverted my changes to the article Sajmište concentration camp and wanted to get your opinion about the possibility of changing it back, or changing the structure a bit. While current subject is the camp, the same territory also pertains to the fair grounds which were active from 1937 to 1941. when it was transformed into a camp. Here - http://beogradskonasledje.rs/kd/zavod/novi_beograd/staro_sajmiste_logor_gestapoa.html is the article in which you can see that officially it goes by as Old Fair Grounds – the Gestapo Camp. As part of a project writing about cultural monuments, I was instructed to, if possible, write about both periods in one article, so would you reckon it would be better to write a new article with a connection to Sajmiste concentration camp (which has less information about the camp, but is all-encompassing), or maybe it's possible to add some information to this one, or something third? Anisja49 (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend writing up a new article. The current article is solely about the camp and the background section is merely to provide context. 23 editor (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niko

Samo ti vraćaj izmjene i pravi se budala. --Munja (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Categorization of SS Skanderbeg

The group was made of Yugoslavian citizens of Albanian descent and operated in Yugoslavia. Therefore, the group's correct country categorization is Yugoslavia, not the Republic of Albania. It has no relation to the Republic of Albania, therefore, please do not revert my edit. 31.18.251.226 (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, 23 editor. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN prefixation

Hi, in this edit you added the prefix "978" to a couple of ISBNs. This made them incorrect, because the check digits are calculated differently for 13-digit ISBNs than for 10-digit ones. In most cases, if the ISBN's correct it's not necessary to convert them to their 13-digit counterparts. If you must, make sure to get the proper converted ISBN or use a converter (I built a relevant ISBN tool). I fixed this case by going back to the 10-digit versions, but I figure it'd be worth noting for the future. Cheers, {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 04:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your copy editing help at And you are lynching Negroes ! I did some major expansion work on it and it's been stable ever since. State before: [3]. State after: [4]. What do you think of it? Sagecandor (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The prose could definitely use a major facelift. Try the copy editors guild. Otherwise, a nice piece. 23 editor (talk) 05:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, put in a request with them. And thank you for the compliment ! Sagecandor (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duško Popov

Please, you should now by now that cut-pastes are not the way we do it. Add your improvements to the Dušan Popov article until it has been technically moved to Duško Popov, as requested here.--Zoupan 02:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 23 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Duško Popov page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

2016 Year in Review

		The WikiChevrons
		For your contributions to Gudovac massacre, which attained Featured Article status in 2016, I hereby present you with the WikiChevrons. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jorgić 2013

G'day 23, thanks for adding that background to Kragujevac massacre. Could you add Jorgić 2013 to the refs please? I'm not familiar with it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]