User talk:Santasa99/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions with Santasa99. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| < Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 > |
| All Pages: | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - ... (up to 100) |
Re: Bosnian League
Essentially, yes. This change was proposed a little over a month ago, and the consensus was that the league is not fully professional. See WT:FPL. If you wish make this change you must demonstrate that consensus on the issue has changed. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Essentially, yes? Help me to understand - are you saying that you derived your conclusions from the facts, and reached consensus by deliberation, as you dwell upon the documents or other source of facts and informations for some period of time ? Or you are simply confirming that you reached the decision by vote, indeed, based on a hunch and your personal preference ? Are you saying that I have to outmuscle you with more votes ? Despite the fact that I know the league is professional, that it's based on identical statut and regulations as Serbian, Croatian and Montenegrin, and that, most importantly, you can read it for yourself in the documents given in refs ?--Santasa99 (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I read through these documents, hanged on each FA website, respectively. I also know that Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian, Montenegrin and Bosnian statute and regulations are identical. They all inherited the old statute and the old regulations, which gave "Prva Savezna Liga Jugoslavije" professional status - they all inherited same regulations, not just Serbian FA.
That create problem here - if these leagues are all professional, as their documents show, then they must be, since they are bound by UEFA regulations, and they have to meet them in full, not as they chose.
But as always, what's important here is consensus, and in such manner that number of votes supersede fact(s). This is Wikipedia, after all.
Nonetheless, some of these editors, and that is painfully obvious, confusing economical prowess and financial strength of these smaller leagues with professionalism. Instead of drawing conclusions from the facts and informations, or any kind of sources, they vote if league is professional or not. Not to mention that it's generally accepted that if four or five people show up to vote and reach consensus, it's considered enough, as if that's somehow representative of general public - mention of facts is pointless at this point. Anyway, this gives them impression that they are doing something absolutely correctly, and that decision reached on the basis of personal preferences, personal opinion and hunch is still OK, as long as it's resulting in consensus.
However, these leagues exists and operate as professional under UEFA umbrella, they are bound by FIFA/UEFA regulations, which gives them credibility.
And yes, froward removal of Bosnian league from the list, as it is completely baseless, seems to me troubling--Santasa99 (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Statutes and Regulations in all six FA, in six countries emerged from Ex-Yugoslavia (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia), are the same to the letter !
All six FA retained the same Statute and Regulations, which they all inherited from their once common organization "FSJ", or as it was called Ex-Yugoslav FA, and only those changes which FIFA/UEFA specifically initiated and ordered since then are today in place in every of these organizations, respectively.
Those of you who are able to read Serbo-Croatian should visit following links and find and read specific articles, regarding this issue, in documents given in pdf. You will notice that all these leagues are based on the same Statute and regulations, almost identical in language and formulations - which, basically, brings us to the following dilemma: are these leagues, all six of them, all professional leagues or not, and if one of them is "voted" here in discussion as "not-so-professional", then non of them is !
Disambiguation link notification for July 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Orphans of the Sahara, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conflict. 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) 08:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
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) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Teoman Alibegović, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bosnian. 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) 09:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
May 2016
Hello, I'm TJH2018. 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 Islamophobia 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. TJH2018talk 23:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Islamophobia 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 are 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. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elektroprivreda HZ HB, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HVO. 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) 09:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 23
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.
- Elektroprivreda HZ HB
- added a link pointing to Prozor
- Ugar (river)
- added a link pointing to Vlašić
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hrvoje's Missal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Slavic. 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) 10:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Herald of the National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.zemaljskimuzej.ba/en/herald-national-museum-bosnia-and-herzegovina. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Randykitty (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Herald of the National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina
The article Herald of the National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Non-notable journal. House organ of a museum, being routinely exchanged for the house organs of other museums. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)