Jump to content

User talk:Santasa99/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 < Archive 5    Archive 6    Archive 7 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  ... (up to 100)


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.

List of bridges in Bosnia and Herzegovina
added a link pointing to Eiffel
List of dukes of Bosnia
added a link pointing to Ostoja

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Is this some sort of sarcastic joke ?--Santasa99 (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was unintentional. Since your talk page didn't have a whole lot, I assumed that you were a new user.
Had I known that you were experienced, I would have written a message saying that the tagging you did here was unwarranted. There is an entire section on Identification theories, and plenty of citations given. If that doesn't satisfy you, please raise an issue on the talk page instead of doing drive-by tagging. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright - fringe and mythomania trying to pass as legitimate sci.article has always captivated my full attention, so if I get more interested further into issue, I promise, don't worry, I'm terribly stubborn and know wikipedia all too well.--Santasa99 (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Santasa99. 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]

December 2016

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Fake news website does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history. Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Tick Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Sagecandor (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I have to express appreciation to this nice editor, who spend his valuable time on moi.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Santasa99 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaaaaaaaand, by the way, who edits Wikipedia since 17 November 2016 ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santasa99 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Hi Santasa99.
I suggest it might be more useful to actually try using edit summaries (and signing your comments) rather than, AGF, apparently making fun of an editor trying to give you good advice, eg where you have altered a templated 'warning'. It's probably better to remove it entirely, rather than change it. Just a suggestion, regards, 220 of Borg 05:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:TPO 220 of Borg 05:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Template:Genocide topics does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Tick Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have already been asked to use edit summaries, yet failed to do so even after you were asked to do so by editors following WP:AGF. Make it clear what your changes are, and do not use edit summaries breaching WP:CIVIL as you did here. Please familiarise yourself with WP:SHOUTING and try to modify your behaviour in order to treat others with the same respect that you expect to be accorded to you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Anachronism in title

Template:Anachronism in title has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Santasa99. 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)[reply]

Category:Destruction of mosques by communists has been nominated for discussion

Category:Destruction of mosques by communists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Batalo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Turbe

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Please add clear references to all articles you create, including Dubravko Lovrenović. Other Wikipedias aren't reliable sources. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2011 Sarajevo embassy attack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serbian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Subterranean river, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Žabljak (Livanjsko Polje)

Hello Santasa99,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Žabljak (Livanjsko Polje) for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, Žabljak (river).

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Xevus11 (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC) @Xevus11: You are right, no objections what so ever, I copy/pasted this new Infobox to combine with an old one - I will vest much more time in article, like in all river-stubs in the area, sometime in the future. And I was really puzzled with it, since I was absolutely sure that page exists but I was unable to find it, so I concluded that maybe I was referring it to Commons. Anyhow, sorry for inconvenience.--౪ Santa ౪99° 16:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is odd, this new Infobox that I created, maybe an hour or so ago, is also inserted into old page ? Is that your edit? Nevermind, it looks OK.--౪ Santa ౪99° 16:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its cool, and yes, I moved the infobox over. It was a nice infobox, figured there was no reason to have it deleted. Xevus11 (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I lost it, completely - I just checked history on the "old" article and realized that I was editing it just prior to creating this completly new one, crazy huh!? But it happens, I guess. And thanks on your intention to preserv infobox - I always first create and place nicely put together infobox on those river-pages I want to work and expend on it later on.--౪ Santa ౪99° 17:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Santasa99. I've deleted the article. I considered WP:REDIRECT-ing it to Žabljak (river) but that wouldn't have followed the Wikipedia:Redirects from foreign languages guideline. Please let me know if you'd like to recover it, and I'll move it into your userspace. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Shirt58:, is this ping working at all - thanks for your input. I don't see need for any of that, it was only infobox worth saving, also I am considering to change title from "Žabljak (river)" to this deleted "Žabljak (Livanjsko Polje)" later when, and if, article gets little bit bigger (the reason for that is that in this particular area all the rivers are "sinking rivers" that go underground beneath Livanjsko Polje, and all the article created about these rivers are titled that way). Thanks again, and see you around.--౪ Santa ౪99° 16:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bistrica (Livanjsko Polje), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kamešnica (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Miljacka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Pale, Stari Grad and Novi Grad
Blidinje Nature Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Grabovica

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Čude Canyon) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Čude Canyon, Santasa99!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please add your sources.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ca you please respond? Boleyn (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Balkana Lake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vrbas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Vilina Pećina

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 Vilina Pećina 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 an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://devonkarst.org.uk/Cernicko%20Polje/CP3.Karst%20Springs_hp.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken 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 use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy 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 deleted 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. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mithraism

- please don't edit war - if you disagree with another editor's edits, please discuss it on the article Talk page - Wikipedia:Edit warring - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Santasa99. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ćeveljuša (waterfall) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Ćeveljuša (waterfall), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Novotel Sarajevo Bristol moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Novotel Sarajevo Bristol, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 11:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Rosensaft M photo Page 1 Image 0001 (cropped).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Rosensaft M photo Page 1 Image 0001 (cropped).jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Santasa99. You have new messages at Whpq's talk page.
Message added 22:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Whpq (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Santasa99. You have new messages at Whpq's talk page.
Message added 01:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Whpq (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emptying valid categories without explanation

Why have you been blanking categories such as Category:Islamic terrorism in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina Muslim Brotherhood members. Categories should not be blanked without good reason and preferably after prior discussion. You also have not given any reason why you are emptying these categories. Please explain Inter&anthro (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019 Admin noticeboard

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Inter&anthro (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention to edit war with you, please read Wikipedia's guidelines concerning categorization. There is a discussion started on the notice board concerning this which you are free to participate in. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Desilo article

Hi! I am in a Technical and Professional Editing Course where our current project is to edit a couple Wikipedia pages. One of my pages is Desilo, which I noticed that you created a few years ago, and I just wanted to let you know that I'll be working on the article for the next couple of weeks. It seems like the article currently has a lot of content directly from one of the citations, and my current plan is to reorganize the article and give it more of an encyclopedic, neutral perspective. If you have any insight or editorial suggestions for me, it'd be great to hear your input. Slaurensk (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An barnstar for you !

The Bosnia and Herzegovina Barnstar of National Merit
For your tenacity and perseverance to do what is right against the odds. Keep it up! Resnjari (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina historic noble families

Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina historic noble families has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hrvatinić

You wrote "first log into the project with account, second don't remove contemporary research ref's, & stop resorting to double edits to make undo more complicated because these moves can be viewed as "bad faith" & edits & even as vandalism, last but not least, Ferdo Šišić's work is sound historiographically but is loaded ideologically - again, first log-in with your account unless you want your significant edits to be viewed as vandalism".


First, I have no obligation to Log In to edit an article since it's a project open to everyone regardless. If it wasn't, they wouldn't allow an unregistered user to edit it in the first place. Secondly, I never removed any reference on the article since I started editing. You're the one removing references (the Pal Engel one) and seem to be downplaying information you do not like. What I'm adding in the article is represented in WP:Reliable sources, and I merely reverted it back to how it was before you started making changes to it, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hrvatini%C4%87&oldid=855529021 Thirdly, you can't revert someone purely on your perception of "bad faith", and you should probably check Wikipedia:Vandalism. Moreover, you charging Šišić with being "ideologically" loaded, yet he's merely one of several sources used to support what I'm adding to the page. Is Pal Engel, who claims Bosnia (which Hrvatinić formed a part of as stated in the article) was part of the Šubić domain until 1322, also "ideologically loaded"? Is Nada Klaić, who claims Hrvatin (founder) was a vassal of Šubić, also ideologically loaded? Is the Croatian Biographical Lexicon (http://hbl.lzmk.hr/clanak.aspx?id=89 Hrvatinići), which claims "Nakon toga, odigrali su važnu ulogu na poč. XIV. st. u svezi sa širenjem u Bosni vlasti Bribirskih, s kojima su više puta sređivali svoje vazalne odnose. Ban Pavao I. Bribirski s braćom izdao im je više isprava (1301, 1304. i 1305) kojim je potvrđivao sve njihove posjede, jamčio njihovu cjelovitost i obećavao zaštitu ako ih tko napadne." also ideologically loaded?

You also state: "Opinionated edit based on personal conclusion from cherry picked lines of text in one book - Hrvoje was no vassal to any of Šubić's, he was vassale to Sigismund of Luxembourg and Ladislaus of Naples Ladislaus of Naples"

Except the article is about the Hrvatinić noble family in general, not Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić specifically. And it's not "cherry-picking" when it's explicitly supported by other sources. 141.138.39.174 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, Sisic's and naturschik Engel's ideologically loaded language becomes palpable when you decide to use it to reinterpret and reformat article in such a manner to appear that Hrvatincs were somehow Croatians after all. Everything you want to write about vassalage in the first paragraph is already placed in second, and is formulated in pretty neutral fashion. More importantly, there is a sense that you are deliberately shifting gravity from most notable member of the family to nearly unknown predecesors of Hrvoje, just to make a point with Subic and his significance. But, as it is visible from second paragraph that issue is resolved, so there is no need to repeat in every paragraph that he was vassal to Subic, that Subic controlled this part and that part, and especially, there is no need to cram Infobox with titles (particularly those family never acquired) and references.--౪ Santa ౪99° 21:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And, you continue to remove claims which are represented in reliable sources. I don't think anyone, including Fine, disputes the fact that the person in question used the title "ban". Using your metric, we can also dispute John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. (who is extensively used in the article) as a Yugo-centric political ideologist, see: http://hrcak.srce.hr/49246?lang=en (especially pages 3 and 4) And again, the article deals with the Hrvatinić noble family, whereas Hrvatin is considered its founder, making him important for the article's subject. There is already a seperate article dedicated to Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić, rendering your "complaint" irrelevant. Nobody is claiming they were "Croats", but that they were vassals of Šubić of Croatia. It makes about as much sense as claiming they were Hungarians. So, I'll keep rv-ing. 141.138.39.174 (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, this shows that you actually understand very well this entire matter, when it suits your perspective. To expend on it I will say that historiography, although academic discipline, still isn't exact science, so historians are allowed to have their many different view-points. However, we don't use J.A.Fine to manipulate and reinterpret some of his points to prove that Croats are "invented" ethnicity, or that Croats and Bosniaks are just Catholic and Muslim Serbs. Similarly, we don't cite directly out of Sisic's and Nada's Klajic own grandfather Vjekoslav's works to prove that Bosnians are just "Croatians" and that, by extension, Bosnia is just one of "Croatian lands" ("hrvatske zemlje") to which Croatia should extend its "Croatian state right" ("hrvatsko drzavno pravo"). Also, as I said already, members of the family never acquired title "ban", even if some, and I don't know which, 19th-20th century historians tried to interpret titles that way, they were "knez" (of Donji Kraju), "dukes" (of Split) and "grand dukes" (of Bosnia), and yes, Ladislaus gave Hrvoje office of sort of "viceroy" which Fine calls "Ladislaus deputy in the region".--౪ Santa ౪99° 22:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Grbavica (song)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Grbavica (song).

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Discogs is not a reliable source (see WP:RSP), please replace citations to it with citations to reliable sources.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hrvatinic

Before you start deleting categories on Hrvatinic family article and Hrvoje Vukcic Hrvatinic, you should actually discuss these changes and explain your rationale. What you are doing is a textbook nationalist POV pushing, I am not sure you are aware of this but those two articles fall under the WP:ARBCOM and POV-pushing on Balkan related articles can result in severe consequences for you on Wikipedia. Shokatz (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seem to me you are the one who only appears when you see something you don't like, and remove other editors contributions - always without discussion. This is the very first time that you tried to write something, and only after my explicit request, but even this time you didn't explain any of your moves, you just came to make a threats and complain. Problem is that it seems to me that it is you who try hard to push certain ethno-national and very anachronistic POV. Than, you reverting edits which you don't like, and doing so in one sweep move, sometimes two so that it becomes impossible to undo your revert. Categories pasted on this article don't belong there simply because you can't use loop-hole in naming categories to exploit it in anachronistic manner - and just because you are using my own argument of ethno-national POV, it doesn't mean you are using it in proper context at all. There is lots of noblemen who held possessions or ruled certain places in what is today Croatia, but you don't categorize them as "Croatian people" of this or that century, "Croatian nobility" of that or this era - after all, it was Ladislaus of Naples who ruled most of what is today Croatia and I doubt you would dare edit-war over putting him or Sigismund under category "Cratian people" or "Croatian nobility". Hrvatinic are not Croats nor Bosniaks in contemporary sense, they were nobility of Bosnia, with vassalage to different rulers in different times and different places - and just because they were vassals of Capetian House of Anjou or House of Luxembourg we don't categorize them as French, Neapolitan or Hungarian nobility, because they were not; just because Subic was once a ban of Bosnia we don't categorize him as "Bosnian people of 13th and 14th century", and so on. If you want to somehow squeeze Hrvatinic family and individuals of that family into Croatian ethno-national category, you will certainly have difficulties. The other edits that you are reverting also fall into the same category of ethno-national POV pushing.--౪ Santa ౪99° 22:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First of all it doesn't really matters what "appears to you". Second, you are removing categories without any proper discussion or even rationale on your edits so you will be reverted and finally reported if you persist. Third, the person in question and his family held extensive land in both medieval Croatian and Bosnian kingdoms i.e. political entities and defining them as both at the same time is not contradicting nor anything unique in the region that had fluctuating borders....see numerous Croatian and Hungarian families who are defined as both at the same time....and again it has nothing to do with "ethnicity". And last, as for Subic family goes they were in fact Bosnian magnates so defining them as Bosnian nobility as well would be factually correct...but the issue here is Hrvatinic family. As for Ladislaus he is mentioned as titular King of Croatia. Shokatz (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I am really sorry if you are troubled by all this, that was never my intention, but I am going to follow sources - primarily J.A.Fine as a fine scholar and the utmost expert on Balkan's history. By the way I read WP:3RR guideline long time ago and I really think it is you who does reverts in complete disregard of that guideline --౪ Santa ౪99° 22:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And what sources would those be? Was the person in question not a Croatian magnate? Was he (and his family) not in possession of various feudal estates in Croatia (Dalmatia and Slavonia)? Was he not appointed Ban of Croatia? I am really curious now...what makes you define this person as specifically Bosnian and Bosnian alone when he was obviously a vassal of Croatian (and Hungarian) king at one time and of Bosnian king at another which is clearly state in those same sources. Explain it to me. And as for 3RR goes we both broke it now, but not only that you were edit-warring with another user previously as well so if we are going to talk about disregarding Wikipedia policies I'd say you have shown much greater disrespect for them. My mistake was that I decided to revert you in first place involving myself this pissing contest which I utterly detest, instead of just outright reporting you as you are clearly POV-pushing there, deleting categories that were in the article for years now...and all without proper discussion or even rationale in your edits. Shokatz (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you just said can be referenced with sources if such exist. I mentioned J.A.Fine as utmost expert on Balkan, he's contemporary, reliable and neutral source. I understood from the beginning that your intention is motivated by your anachronistic point of view, which is based in ethno-national sense of identity - that's all OK, but you need proper sources for that. All your talk about how this person was a member of "meditized" nobility that "crossed then (and modern) established borders", and that "defining them in this way is undesirable" on articles with "contentious history" is just masking this need to make subject of this article Croat or Croatian, and so on. There are no way that anyone can feed-in such narrative into any medieval personality, especailly form Balkans: only certainty is that he was from Bosnian proper, and tied to Bosnian medieval state, thus label "Bosnian magnate", "Bosnian nobleman" in every scholarly work that isn't ideologically loaded, such as Fine's for example. Yes he held possession in what is today Croatia, which is of no consequence for his identity - like it is of no consequences for identity of Ladislaus or Sigismund, nobody tried to make them Croats despite the fact that these men ruled the land ultimately. I never commenced process of arbitrage before, and would like to stay that way, but if you think we should take such a step I will reluctantly accept possibility.--౪ Santa ౪99° 23:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, about categories and being there for "years" - just because these were stable for years doesn't mean they were appropriate - this article was abandoned for years without sources and any kind of discussion anyway - nobody seemed to care to improve it nor to discuss it. Categories were inappropriate, and not based on neutral and reliable sources, actually there was no sources at all for years, so I removed them, and pasted some sources.--౪ Santa ౪99° 23:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So please reference it. I am motivated by the fact that man was a Viceroy (Ban) of Croatia, owned land in Croatia and was extremely influential for his time in the politics of Croatia as he was in Bosnia as well...since he was an extremely powerful person. He even held the title "Duke of Split" and minted his own coins which had the following inscription: "Dux Spaleti, Dalmatie Croatieque regius viceregens ac Bosne supremus voivoda" as he held that land as a vassal to a Croatian and Hungarian king. So he himself clearly identified by his titles. I am no sure what you are doing but while you are claiming I am lead by "ethno-national sense of identity" whatever that may mean it is you who claims he was exclusively "Bosnian" as he was from "Bosnia proper" which BTW is not true as his family's possessions and his own were on the border between Croatia and emerging Bosnian medieval state and often changed borders as did his and his own family allegiance. The sources are quite clear on this, including the mentioned Fine. It has nothing to do with "ethno-national" identity or any other gibberish you are talking about, it has to do with political reality of that era. Shokatz (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to use my own words against me, and I see we have no other solution than to seek outside intervention in this matters as soon as possible, since you are not going to end this obviously.--౪ Santa ౪99° 07:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removing any mention of Croatia in that article (and several others) shows you have an agenda. Furthermore calling upon sources which clearly state he was a Duke of Split (a town in Croatia) and Ban (Viceroy) of Croatia by stating otherwise is a fallacy. Keep removing sourced content without any rationale and discussion, literally vandalizing that article and I'll keep reverting you. Shokatz (talk) 07:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You telling me that I am removing something? Well, all day you are using my words, my info, and so on. OK, just to clarify few things, and maybe we can copy/paste this conversation into article Talk page for others to have some perspective into this dispute? - I don't remove all mention of Croatia, especially in the article body, I do remove when it is used in improper way and/or is unnecessary - for example when editor tries to feed-in ethnicity into medieval personality of the Balkan - this is exactly what you are doing. I am not going to read to you, line by line from books, you have references pasted on most of the statements in article, and you have Internet and library in Croatia. I don't need to prove that Hrvoje and his family aren't Croats, that is up to you, if you want to include him into that ethno-national group. Nobody ever label him Croat, unless it's some ideologically loaded claptrap. I left info on that title on article's Talk page, hoping to give editors some perspective and now you are misinterpreting it and using against me. He was nowhere called "ban" except in older Croatian historiography, parroted from Klajic and Sisic, but this approach is being more and more abandoned by contemporary historians, not all but some - those who use "ban" to translate "Dalmatie Croatieque regius viceregens" into "ban of Croatia" can and should be questioned for their neutrality, simply because others like Fine use "deputy" of Ladislaus of all labels. Your tactics of using "political reality" to turn medieval person from medieval Bosnia into "Croat" via "Croatian people of X & Y century" is transparent and deceptive - nobody calls him "Croat" or part of "Croatian people" of any era, and everyone, even Croatian historians call him "Bosnian". This being said, and this is important, in case of medieval Bosnia there is no doubt that label doesn't refer to any ethnicity, while in case of "Croatian people" meaning and intent are unequivocal. It is also deceptive to use title, which I included, for the following reasons: first he became "Dux Spaleti, Dalmatie Croatieque regius viceregens (...)" in the last decade or so of his life; and second "Dalmatie Croatieque" doesn't mean "Croatia", it means Dalmatia of Croatia, let it be Dalmatia and Croatia, but still "Dalmatie Croatieque regius viceregens" doesn't mean "Ban of Croatia" nor "Ban of Dalmatia and Croatia", and we can refer to Fine on this one. These info aren't mentioned or somehow explained when you put this person into categories designated to ethnic Croats of X-Y era, and ultimately can't be used to turn Hrvoje Vukcic into ethnic Croatian by anyone, except maybe those who would like to describe him as such, but that simply is hardly possible - not more than using Angevin title "King of Croatia" and "King of Dalmatia" and makes those who carried titles into "Croatian nobility" and Croatian people" - let's see if King Louis' brother is Croatian since he too was appointed by this king to rule the land as ban of the separate duchy of Croatia and Dalmatia. All his relationships with Split, Dalmatia-Croatia, vassalage, feudal possessions, political positions (those which you trying to underlay as reason for his inclusion into Croatian ethno-national category) are explained in the article, although not by you, since all you did is reverting my contributions or those parts you don't like.--౪ Santa ౪99° 08:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again more gibberish. NO ONE is claiming he is an "ethnic Croat" as applying modern ethnic designations to people in middle ages is anachronistic and wrong. Those categories are there because he was clearly a Croatian magnate who literally ruled parts of Croatia. The fact that he was appointed Ban (or Viceroy, Regent, etc.) of Croatia is well established and is not disputed by Fine to which you constantly refer, it's a fallacious statement on your part. Also claiming something is "older historiography" is falling under the category of WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. For example we have people like Tamás Erdődy and Krsto Ungnad who by their origin were clearly not originally from Croatia but their families settled in Croatia, held lands as feudal lords and held official offices and are thus Croatian historical figures by definition. Shokatz (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. DlohCierekim 17:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Request

In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard also exists as a method of resolving content disputes that aren't easily resolved with talk page discussion.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. Bradv🍁 19:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am allowed to ask willing editor or even admin to assist in situation like this?! I was extremely reluctant in doing exactly that.--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You need to follow WP:DR. First you need to seek WP:consensus on the article talk page, request a WP:3O, etc. Third opinions do not require an admin. Admins work on blocking, protecting and deleting. There are many other highly skilled users who do not have those tools. DlohCierekim 21:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlohcierekim: Hi, thanks for your input, I really appreciate it. Look, I am not completely inexperienced either being part of the project for more than a decade, it's only that I was never in situation like this before, required to go through all this - I literally experienced just few disputes during all this time being around, but those never(!) escalated into edit-war, let a lone process such as this. In this case I encountered really disruptive behavior, user who never contributed one comma to the article in question decade to enter into edit-war based on his preference rather than given sources and arguments, not to mention expression of weird wording by referring to reverts and resulting dispute as his mistaken decision to get involved into "pissing contest" and to my arguments as "gibberish" - and at this point, having in mind particular user's attitude, most important thing is that article in question is neglected piece since its inception 15 years ago, with miserable statistics, and which deals with the subject, for the wider community, quite obscure and obviously irrelevant - my point is that there are no editors there for WP:consensus, there is no community to get involved and give us proper direction - in last three months it was just me and one user who's only intention was/is to gets it his way. Look, I could leave article to rot into oblivion, but that would defeat purpose and a point of being Wikipedian, and I was really enthusiastic in expending on that article, whose subject, despite being obscure for the outsiders, is colorful and important historical personality. At this point I feel that, in a way, Wikipedia guidelines failed me as an editor, specifically 3RR. Without few editors interested in article or subject, or thematics in general, it is the user with disruptive attitude who have his way - and that's quite discouraging.--౪ Santa ౪99° 11:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please...just drop the act already. You were involved in an edit-war on Hrvatinić as well before that and with another user, you even moved that page without any discussion or consensus as well. I am betting if I actually went through your edit history I would find more of these cases. No one is stopping you from inserting sources or improving articles in such a way, but when you delete content and even sources claiming they are saying something else, dismiss it because it doesn't fit your agenda, or specifically claim that a non-ethnic category implies ethnic designation then we have a problem or rather you have a problem. Balkan-related articles (including the Hrvatinic articles) went through this POV-pushing edit warring nonsense in the past and should not go through that again. I would know because I am on Wikipedia long enough to know about it. Now drop the act already... Shokatz (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about you stop with personal accusations on preconceived assumptions, unless you read minds. Wouldn't hurt if you stop with complaints without concrete arguments on article substance and explanation of your POV in relation with references as well. You are repeating yourself and it gets tiresome to read, especially after jumping into conversation in which you are not named - than it's plain rude. You shouldn't feel encouraged either, just because I confused Noticeboard and Arb request which was rightly dismissed, and just because subject is too dull and obscure for others to get involved on article - if that makes you believe you have enough reason now to continue using that tone, because I am getting tired of your personal assaults - you started by accusing me of "having agenda" (you don't need to be a spy, we all have agenda and biases, only unlike you and your Ilk most of us don't have problem with it as we try not to allow it to get the better of us, especially here on Wikipedia), which was followed in the same tone by labeling one of my previous replies as "gibberish", after which you clearly explained how you perceiving edit-war as if it's a "pissing contest", now you are calling me to "drop the act". Enough is enough, people here, as I noticed, try to abstain from such tone. My previous dispute to which you refer was aberration in my behavior which never escalated like this. And just like with you now, I was pushed against the same persisting ethno-nationalist bias in that matter too, but unlike you that editor, for whatever reason, backed down after making just few reverts, and that's all. Article move wasn't me, it was moved needlessly without discussion by User:Gryffindor, and my intention was to undo his unwarranted move, but quite predictably you wouldn't know all that because, clearly, your only concern is me messing with your ethno-national priorities - the only constant in your case, beside your ego and pride, is your sense and attachment to it, with your own edit-history being pretty colorful with few blocks across couple of years on edit-warring and breaking 3RR, always over something you believe should be labeled "Croatian", whether it was ethnic background of some sport-personality, or naming bird with ethic prefix, or Krajina Serb-Croatia relations, or moving entire article based on turning Serbian surname Korenić into ijekavian ("Croatian") Korijenić, not to mention your Talk page which is filled with protests by antagonized editors experiencing your reverts without "summery" explanations, with inserting claims by misinterpreting sources, even edit-warring over claims absolutely non-existent in or unsupported by given source, and so on and so forth - which means you haven't learn much between all those years of Wikipedia editing you are referring to, except maybe how to wage edit-wars more efficiently. So please, you should check my edit-history and maybe learn how to behave while contributing to the project without one problem in more than 10 years.--౪ Santa ౪99° 23:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this issue is bothering you so much then you should try to calm down finally and we can discuss it in a civilized manner or even better you can bring someone else for an alternative opinion. Just stop removing sourced content and pushing your POV when it is clear you have a user who disagrees with you...do you understand that? I can tell you this much though...I will not play this game with you, it is becoming really tiresome... Shokatz (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon 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) 02:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Hrvatinić

Hello Santasa99. You've been warned for edit warring as a result of a complaint at the noticeboard. You may be blocked if you revert the article again unless you have received a prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. See WP:Dispute resolution for steps that are open to you. I'm also leaving you a notice (below) of the discretionary sanctions that apply to the Balkans. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hrvatinić is covered by discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Santasa99/Archive_6&oldid=1145655784"