Hi Sorabino! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Osarius (talk).
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eparchy of Banat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turks. 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.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2004 unrest in Kosovo into Persecution of Christians. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Jenks24 (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I should of use the "move" command for that correction.
What are you doing? First, cut-and-paste move is completely disastrous tool (because of the manipluation of page history). Secondly, for instance, there was a successful move request in September 2012. So, if you do not agree with the current title of the article, you should initiate a move request. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ban (title), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Banovina. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Priboj, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lim. 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.
I created that list in its present complete form on Saint Sava as you can see from the history of that page, and I transferred the same list to relevant pages. Why do you think that page Kingdom of Serbia (medieval) should not have information about its main religious institutions. You have some agenda here, thats clear. Sorabino (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is my agenda? I do not think that an article on the Serbian state active in the period of 1217–1346 should have such a detailed list about the 1219–1235 ecclessiastical division of the Serbian Orthodox Church. You copy-pasted the exact same list to 5 articles. Leave that information on the relevant pages.--Zoupan03:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You answer clearly shows that you have no idea what are you talking about. Its not just "1219-1235" ! All of those eparhies existed during entire period 1219-1346 and their existence and entire ecclesiastical order of thet time is very relevant for understanding the history of medieval Kingdom of Serbia, that is clear as day, and you are wrong.Sorabino (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you have no idea what you're talking about. By copy-pasting that same information to five independent articles, it is clear that you yourself don't know what that information should signify. very relevant for understanding the history of medieval Kingdom of Serbia, that is clear as day Eh, no? Here, you pasted it into the Reign of Stefan-section. Here, you pasted it in the middle of the Nemanjić dynasty-section. Are you aware of the fact that the eparchy structures of 1219–1235 and, let's say, 1321, were not the same. Should we past bulleted lists of such ecclessiastical overviews/changes/whatever to every "relevant" (meaning, not-so) articles? Please have some common sense.--Zoupan03:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that during time new eparchies were created or added to Serbian Archbishopric, church structure was developing, but all of the old eparchies remained functioning during entire time. You are now trying to change the subject here because you do not have arguments for your actions. Sorabino (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Summary: You do not have an argument for the inclusion of said list at these broader articles. You are still missing the point.--Zoupan03:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eparchy of Lipljan is a copy of Eparchy of Raška and Prizren. Why create an exact copy instead of adding independent information, if you have such, to the history section? The Eparchy of Lipljan is a defunct (former) eparchy, its jurisdiction part of the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren. The history section at the latter treats the history of the Eparchy of Ras, and Prizren. It would be best to merge these two articles.--Zoupan02:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who is contributing to Wikipedia in good faith would not make those actions you did today regarding page Eparchy of Lipljan]. I created that page today and I am still working on it. And what did you do? Instead of asking me for my intentions with this page, you erased all pictures from the page (and all of them are relevant to history of the eparchy) and then you started the procedure for killing the page! Your agenda is clear as a day! Sorabino (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its not "the exact copy" that is also clear, I am just using the same structure for adding new data - and you are trying to stop me at the very beginning of my work / I started that page today, few hours ago !!! and you are trying to kill it right away, for some reason that is known only to you. Sorabino (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I simply wanted to notice you and initiate a discussion. Creating an article and copy-pasting are not the same. I am not trying to stop you. Good luck with your article.--Zoupan03:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Metropolitanate of Karlovci, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kostajnica. 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.
I just removed a bunch of prod tags that you placed on redirects. At WP:PROD it says the prod policy does not apply to redirects, so please don't place prod tags on redirects. Instead, please use WP:RFD. Thanks. Calathan (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorabino, you aren't nominating those for RFD correctly. You are putting the text that is supposed to go onto the RFD page onto the redirects themselves. Please stop what you are doing and re-read WP:RFD#HOWTO. Part 1 of that section is about what you do on the redirect page itself, while part 2 is for the RFD page. Calathan (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
—==Disambiguation link notification for August 6==
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Archbishopric of Belgrade and Karlovci, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Braničevo. 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.
Could you please take a look at the main page of this website and also this page. Let me know if you encounter any pop-up errors on those pages such as "Error: CustomError: Error in protected function: vb"? (btw, be rest assured that are no viruses or malware). --JackonLee54 (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You notified me in this (diff) comment of yours which violates several principles passed by the Arbitration Committee and at least one wikipedia guideline (WP:TPG). Concerns about another editors' conduct, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 04:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Antidiskriminator: Thank you for your message. I guess that you will also be interested to know that user Zoupan has just accused me of having "conspiracy theories" and he did that on a talk page of user Vanjagenije, who is also an administrator: (diff) So, be free to react on that too. Sorabino (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Autonomy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Church of Rome. 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.
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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eparchy of Niš, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman. 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.
Hello, Sorabino. 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.
Hi, I see that you are a member of the wiki project Serbia. I am working on the Beisfjord massacre. There is a Norwegian user taking issue with the article. The person is vandalizing the article and claiming (without substantiation) that a sockpuppet from July 2016 is still doing stuff to the article. Please discuss with your other members at Serbia project, and evaluate if my version [1] is more acceptable than his version. (Here is the diff from his default version [2], to my present version.) Perhaps you or other users have communication skills that can make him stop his present activities on the article. To my knowledge he has never added anything to the article, from what I can see from the history. 176.11.181.248 (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eastern Catholic Churches, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Croatian Catholic Diocese of Križevci. 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.
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. Boleyn (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I appreciate the spirit and well-meaning intention, but you have fallen into the trap of trying to disambiguate things where there is nothing to disambiguate. If you try to cover all possible variations of "X-denomination Y-diocese of Z-place", you will undoubtedly also invent names that are simply never used. These are not only redundant, but misleading, because once they are on Wikipedia, there is always someone who will consider them to be true and factual. Constantine ✍ 19:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is OK, I understand, but was there a problem with terms "Estern Othodox" - "Greek Orthodox" since eastern-orthodox patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria are in fact predominantly Greek, or something else was not right? Sorabino (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem was not with the denomination. You are right that for all intents and purposes, "Eastern Orthodox" equals "Greek Orthodox". The problem lies elsewhere: One, you have created terms that are simply never used. For instance, nobody refers to the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople as the "Roman Catholic Archbishopric of Constantinople". Whenever one talks of the "Archbishop of Constantinople", that is usually, in Western languages at least, the (Eastern Orthodox) Ecumenical Patriarch. So creating any disambiguation pages and redirects with all of these terms is redundant, and even misleading for those who don't know, but may stumble upon them. Secondly, by creating the disambiguation pages in the first place, you place the Ecumenical Patriarch as "Archbishop of Constantinople" on equal footing in terms of importance with the Latin and Armenian patriarchs. While the latter are important, this is one case where the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the title "Archbishop of Constantinople" is overwhelmingly clear. The situation should be dealt with with a hatnote at the Ecumenical Patriarchate's page. This was missing, for some reason, I have now added it. Constantine ✍ 20:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand your point now. I saw earlier that in various articles term "Archbishop of Constantinople" was used loosely and without proper clarification that it is an eastern orthodox ecclesiastical institution, and therefore I made "Estern Othodox" and "Greek Orthodox" variants. Since patriarchal titles were officially introduced after 451, until then all major sees were just archbishoprics, or metropolitanates. But that is not of crucial importance, for this issue. So, what is yours proposal for the solution? Sorabino (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G'day. You have recently made several edits to articles changing the formatting of references which included deleting the ISBNs, and have also changed the section headings in several articles. Per MOS:FNNR, "Sources" is potentially confusing. Generally, once established, section headings for the References sections of article should be left alone unless there is a consensus to change them. They are not something you change because you prefer them one way or another. And deleting ISBNs isn't useful. I've reverted a few of them, but I suggest you stop this activity, it isn't contributing to the encyclopaedia. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I reverted a couple more. ISBNs should definitely not be deleted, and if you reformat the code into a single line, either do it for entire bibliography or leave it alone. No such user (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw your warnings and I am surprised by your comments since I added just one historical scientific work of late Serbian historian, university professor Sima Ćirković who was a well known scholar and member of several academic institutions in Europe. How can adding such references be qualified in a the way you did? Please, take a look at the source I added: Ćirković, Sima (2004). The Serbs. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help). That is relevant scholarly material, by all standards. Sorabino (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Serbia (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Vanjagenije(talk)21:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalenciaᐐT₳LKᐬ19:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI that I did not realize you were not a native speaker yourself when I posted the clarification of usage of the term rite on WT:CATHOLIC. We've had a decent amount of non-native speakers weighing in on the Catholic naming conventions, some of whom have asked for language clarifications. I was just trying to make sure everyone was aware of the vocabulary being used, not critiquing you :) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
Hello, Sorabino. 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.
You have clearly misunderstood the concept of both redirects (as already pointed out to you) and [now] disambiguation pages. One example is Central Serbia (disambiguation), which lists historical Serbian principalities — how exactly are these identified as Central Serbia? In historiography they are certainly not. The history section at Central Serbia has information on those subjects anyway. So... Please explain how you did come up with Central Serbian Principality of Raška? Please stop these OR edits as they do not help the encyclopaedia whatsoever.--Zoupan23:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is OR and the terminology. More examples are "Vardaskan language" and "Inner Serbian Principality in the Early Middle Ages" (wow.), which is just... terrible. The latter is not used as an identifier in historiography nor is it a plausible search (obviously, "central Serbian principality" and "inner Serbian principality" have 0 hits at Gbooks). It is your own creation (Original Research). Next, the word "regions" is rightly used for geographical regions, but the terminology again is wrong—does it imply historical regions now in Serbia that existed in the Middle Ages (far-fetched) or provinces in the Medieval Serbian state(s)?--Zoupan01:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history 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 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. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Zachlumia. 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.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Hi Sorabino, you keep referencing the official FBI terminology for the article currently at Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians, and I was wondering why that was important. Generally speaking, we should be interested in the common name for this topic across all reliable English sources, not just the name used by a particular source; however, I am curious to know why you specifically single out the FBI as important to this topic. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion nomination of Acacius of of Seleucia-Ctesiphon
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Acacius of of Seleucia-Ctesiphon for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, 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.
@Chris troutman:, its already mentioned in almost all of those articles, in references or sources, I am just adding more complete version, with link to that book on Google Books. Sorabino (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't think that's very helpful. For example, you added the Frazee book to several articles. It's definitely germane to that one article but it's not listed in the citations. When you drop a citation like that across a bunch of articles at once, it looks more like you're advertising for the author than trying to help readers find material. If you really wanted to better the article, you could improve the text using books like that one as in-line citations. I'd prefer you avoid doing what you're doing. Chris Troutman (talk)20:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for canvassing ([4]). You were already warned here that canvassing is not allowed, but you've did it again. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
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).
It is 100 % clear that there was no "canvasing" here, and since I had several disputes earlier with the user who blocked me now using his administrative privileges it obvious what has happened here Also, an open personal attack was made on me on the talk page of Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians - and now I can not respond because I am blocked for "canvasing"! Sorabino (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
It is in fact not 100% clear there was no canvassing. The edit that people are saying constitutes canvassing is this. Please review Wikipedia:Canvassing carefully and evaluate whether your notification of PetarM was neutral and done without the intention of swaying the discussion in a particular way. Because your unblock request does not address these issues, I am declining it. Mz7 (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2018 (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.
Mz7, on what grounds have you refused my request? I was blocked for alleged "canvasing" on another Wikipedia, and it seems that that you do not speak the language of that Wikipedia, so you could not read or understand what I wrote there, but in spite of that you refused my request, on what grounds? You have no clue what I actually wrote there, but you passed your judgement anyway. So, why was I blocked here, on English Wikipedia? Sorabino (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I declined your request because it did not adequately address the reason for your block. I used Google Translate to get a general sense of what was written. Machine translation is obviously not infallible, of course, but it is also insufficient to say "there was no canvassing" when you clearly wrote on the talk page of another user. The question you need to answer in your unblock request is simple: what were your intentions when you wrote on that talk page? If it was to try and sway a discussion a certain way, that is canvassing. Mz7 (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mz7, so it is I who have to prove my innocence here? Man, I was falsely accused of "racism" on two pages by the same user, and in the same time blocked here for "canvasing" that was allegedly made on another Wikipedia! So, that is a coincidence? The alleged "canvasing" was pure and simple continuation of numerous talks I had on that Wikipedia, relating issues on this Wikipedia. So, now talking about issues is "canvasing"? Sorabino (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mz7, take a look at the chronology: first I was accused of "canvasing" by an Albanian user here on 16:24, then I was blocked in on 17:20, and after that I was accused for "racism" by another Albanian user here on 19:06, quite conveniently when I was already blocked and unable to respond to those accusations. And now, when I asked my accuser to explain himself, he is silent on the "racial" question. In the same time, you are keeping me blocked because of an alleged "canvasing" and I have no alternative but to seek help from the community. Sorabino (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, Sorabino, as I have already told you, I am not an "Albanian user". Calling me such is really not helping your case here... Furthermore, drawing a line between my action's and Resnjari's is imaginative but even more so, to include Vanjagenije's block of you in the alleged conspiracy is beyond absurd. Seriously, take a week to cool off and maybe you will be able to contribute constructively (I mean it). --Calthinus (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calthinus, your entire user page is focused on Albania, so if you are not from Albania that is news for me, but according to your user page it seems that you at least are an Albanian-focused user. Maybe albanology is your field of study, I dont know. Sorabino (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, actually my user page has some stuff I have done recently about Albania, but it also has stuff about Greece, the Caucasus, linguistics, secularism, Libya, Syria, need I go on? Yeah, I have various interests, and I am neither Albanian nor in Albanology, just a hobby. I don't even have any Albanian background, I already told you before what my background was actually, because it was relevant [[5]]. --Calthinus (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calthinus, what are you playing here man? First you say that you made some information about your origin, for whatever reason, and then you post message showing that you actually placed that under some pronoun, and therefore it does not show in the message, only in the edit text! Why would you do that? Sorabino (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, just wow. What am I playing at? I said it clearly enough, given the context, where you bizarrely accused me of being "offensive" for saying that Nazi motives for the Holocaust were primarily racist pseudo-science rather than religion (this is kind of an accepted and well-known fact)-- Umm I guess I must be a self-hater then -- it was obvious enough with "self-hater". The reason I didn't say "I'm an Ashkenazi Jew" is because the talk page is about the corresponding mainspace page, not me and my background, and furthermore I dislike bringing my ethnicity into things too much, due to the unfortunate trend on Wikipedia of either attributing an opposing user's actions to their ethnicity or their ethnicity to their actions (I don't speak or act for anyone but myself, most Jews don't know much about the Balkans at all, it's an interest of mine). I think those are all pretty reasonable reasons for saying it hte way I did, but I also made it pretty clear.
Anyhow, it's not just me you called "Albanian" though. In [your canvassing message], you said Наиме, група албанских корисника је недавно на енглеској Википедији покушала да избрише читав тај чланак, па када у томе нису успели онда су кренули да бришу читава поглавља, на пример о страдању СПЦ на Косову и Метохији (Google translate: Namely, a group of Albanian users recently attempted to delete the entire article in English Wikipedia, and when they did not succeed then they started to delete entire chapters, for example, the suffering of the SPC in Kosovo and Metohija). Aside from your inaccurate portrayal of what happened, "group of Albanian editors" would imply that Ktrimi991, Bobfrombrockley and myself are all "Albanians". But only Ktrimi is, you can see quite easily from Bob's user page he is not. Please do not use misrepresentations of other editors' nationalities and ethnicities in your messages ever again -- and preferably don't bring other users' backgrounds into your arguments about content at all. --Calthinus (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calthinus, you are twisting my words here again and that is just one of your several recent attacks on me. Actually, it is very good that you are dong that here also, so that everyone can see. I is absolutely clear that I was never referring to user BobFromBrockley as "Albanian" that is your construction. So, why are you doing that, I wonder? The answer is clear, the group of those three users (BobFromBrockley, Calthinus, Ktrimi991) recently tried to [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Orthodoxy delete] the entire article on negative sentiments and animosities towards Eastern Orthodox Christians! Who would want to do that, and why? In all subsequent discussions we never herd any answer to that question. Not to mention subsequent removal of entire sections from that article by the same users. I was fighting against that, and since then user Calthinus is fixated on me, and his actions here are totally transparent. Sorabino (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again with the personalized accusations about the motives of other users... I won't even bother responding to them, this time as they speak for themselves. However, there is one thing of note. In Serbian, Sorabino, you said "група албанских корисника"-- now as I understand it hte word "group" in English is of the same origin as Serbocroatian "grupa" there, and in English we don't use "group" if we're referring to only two users, we typically say "pair", with "group" meaning three or more. ResnjariByteflushVanjagenije you guys all speak Serbian -- is "grupa" used similarly to English "group"? I would like to know.--Calthinus (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vanjagenije & Mz7, please unblock me so I can report the personal attack, made against me after I was blocked for "canvasing". I was accused here for racism and now unable to defend myself against such serious accusations. I did not make any racial, insulting or derogatory use of the term Shqiptars (in Serbian: Шиптари), as it was implied by my accuser here. And it is not true that any use of that term is by definition a slur, as was also implied by some users. In order to respond to that I need access to pages on community portal. It is clear from the chronology that accuser made his move only when he saw that I was blocked for "canvasing". Sorabino (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the advice at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. As far as I'm concerned, you still have not provided a convincing explanation that you understand either (1) why you were blocked and therefore will not do the same things again, or (2) why your edits were not disruptive (as opposed to just saying "they were not disruptive"). I do not believe anyone here is calling you racist, but some of us are pointing out that while you might not have meant to use the term in a derogatory fashion, it could be interpreted in a derogatory fashion. To illustrate, the article you just linked to (Shqiptars) states: Albanians consider the Serbo-Croatian and Macedonian usage of the term ... Шиптари ... which is a variant of the Albanian ethnonym, as derogatory. ... The official term for Albanians in South Slavic languages is Albanac (Cyrillic: Албанац; plural: Albanci, Албанци). I hope this helps clarify this whole unfortunate situation. If you want to report this incident to other community members, you may do so after your block expires, but please be aware that, if you do so, you can be sanctioned for your own actions as well. Mz7 (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mz7, why are you all so against taking this to the community? This issue must be discussed, because fair use of those terms should not be labeled as racist, insulting and derogatory, and on the other hand - any case of such misuse should be condemned and suppressed. Do you think that all uses of those terms are by definition negative? There are thousands of literary or scholarly works that use those terms fairly, go to the Google Search engines and look for yourself. And in 2015, it was explicitly and officially forbidden in Serbia to use those terms in any negative connotation. Therefore, we should have a discussion regarding the alleged labeling of all uses as racist, insulting of derogatory. I did not use those terms in the bad way and everyone can see what I wrote there. Even my accuser is starting to back up now. So, I will take this to the community ass soon as I regain access to community portals. Sorabino (talk) 08:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vanjagenije & Mz7, it is clear by now that campaign against me is going on here, and I can not react properly because I am blocked for canvasing. It is your duty as administrators to react to this obvious abuse of my current position by some users here, or to let me defend myself. You are holding me hostage here, while I am not able to report attacks. Just look what happened with initial accusations on racial slurs - the accuser is now stating down there that he was not actually accusing anyone for that! So, what is going on here? Sorabino (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one is conspiring against you here. Your block is temporary; if you want to be unblocked early, you must directly address the reason for your block. As it seems I'm just repeating myself here, I don't think I'll be commenting here any further. @Resnjari: I suggest the same for you per WP:STICK. Mz7 (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mz7 Stuff was said about me including on another wiki where I have no ability to reply. WP:STICK refers to debates which have ended. A man has a right to reply to statements about him. But I am seeing what you mean that it is not accomplishing much beyond that so I will cease nevertheless.--Calthinus (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Use of the racist term "Shiptar" -just very disappointed in you.
Sorabino, i am very disappointed here. Apart from the canvassing for votes, why did you have to also make comments like this when doing so [6] "Смејаће нам се Шиптари брате" (The Shiptars will laugh at us)? The word Shiptar is a racist term for Albanians in Serbian with the meaning of Albanian racial and cultural inferiority. I thought you were engaging here within Wikipedia in good faith. Its sad to see that you went down that ugly road.Resnjari (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resnjari, You are totally wrong, and out of line! Word "Shqiptar" is not a racist term in any language! And it is 100 % clear that I did not use that term in racist, or in any other derogatory way. So, are you actually accusing me of racism here? That is a clear personal attack! Sorabino (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resnjari, I just saw that you actually wrote: "The word Shiptar is a racist term for Albanians in Serbian with the meaning of Albanian racial and cultural inferiority" on the talk page of the Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians! That is a complete nonsense - you are defaming Serbian language by inventing non-existent "racial" slurs! Ad above that, Albanians and Serbs are of the same race, so your claims are 100 % nonsense. Sorabino (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between the word Shqiptar and Shiptar. Both have the same etymological foundation (the second derived from the first), but the version without the q has acquired a whole host of negative/racist meanings for over 4 decades now. In your comments (and i read them in the original Serbian) were about canvassing votes and even telling editors how to even vote while citing perceived issues with Albanian editors. Yet when you mentioned Albanians you used the Serbian version of the word. Your use of Shiptar came at the end of one of your comments in jibe about Albanians laughing at Serbs. You are aware of the differing terms in Serbian regarding Albanians. Its very disappointing that you wrote it. Do i really have to bring up the scholarship about what the word Shiptar means?Resnjari (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorabino, Resnjari has calmly explained their reasons for why they feel your use of the term "Shiptar" is inappropriate (it's in fact on List of ethnic slurs), and in my view as an administrator, it does not constitute a personal attack. Accordingly, I would ask that you please drop your accusations against Resnjari and carefully consider whether you really meant to use the term "Shiptar". Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resnjari, I ask you once again, before reporting you, do you still stand behind your accusations against me for alleged racism? If you do, then I will have to report you on that. If you do not, then remove offensive accusations you made against me! Sorabino (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije:, since you can read Serbian you know very well that I did not make any derogatory comments or slurs against any ethnicity! I was openly accused of "racism" not just here but also on the other page, and only after you blocked me here for "canvasing" on another Wikipedia! So, are you accusing me of racism to? And on what grounds? If the accuser does not retract the accusation on racism I will have to report him, and you if you are accusing me to, that would explain why you blocked me for no reason. Sorabino (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it matter if it's a Wikipedia in another language? Just for the heck of it, it could be seen as "off-wiki canvassing". Not allowed. By the way, racist is a commonly used term to refer to xenophobes, ultra-nationalists and such. byteflushTalk23:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Byteflush:, regarding the canvasing, there was non in any form, and obviously that is why Vanjagenije avoided fellow administrators on that Wikipedia and decided to block me here, so that I could be muted and attacked for alleged "racism" with no proof what so ever. And now, he is even warning me not to report false accusations! And yes, xenophobes and ultra-nationalists are also racist, but are you implying that I am one of them? Sorabino (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re: canvassing - why would another Wiki's administrators need to be involved regarding an issue on en.wiki?
@Byteflush:, you avoided my question - it seems that you are brave to insinuate, but not brave to state. And obviously there is nothing derogatory or racist in any of my statements - the section you pointed to does not contain a single racist or derogatory statement of any kind. So, what are you accusing me of? Sorabino (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resnjari, I am not blocked on this, so if you are still calling me racist prepare to explain that to the community. As I understand, you have no intention to revoke your accusations? Sorabino (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You got blocked by an administrator for canvassing in a short space of time, as opposed to it being done through a more time consuming process of lodging a report which would have included a lot of things. I pointed this additional issue out because its not on. Editors may have disagreements and be very passionate about a particular issue (and i am no fan of group think ,in the end its everyone unto themselves), however there is no need to use these kinds of words on Wikipedia. The administrator who blocked you has politely explained not to engage in such terminology in future. You have a week off, reflect and don't do it again or canvassing for that matter.Resnjari (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You used an ethnic slur and the administrator who gave you a block for canvassing has also said not to do that again. Sorabino count yourself lucky that it was a ban for a week as i have read all the recent canvassing comments on Serb Wikipedia you made. Just don't do it again.Resnjari (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resnjari, I did not use any term as an ethnic or racial slur, you made that up! Are you implying that any use of the term Shqiptar (in Serbian: Шиптар) is a slur? Such claim is false, and so are your accusations. It seems now that you are quite reluctant now to repeat your racial accusations. I wonder why? And also, now you are insinuating other things? What comments of mine? Sorabino (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know you personally or what your views are on things or people and hope this is a once off error. That said you wrote this word Shiptar (article in English wikipedia is densely referenced on this) in the context of making a jibe after using the normal word of Albanian/s in your comments. Additionally in your comments, you go on about how Albanian editors are against the scope of the article etc etc (which comes of kind of conspiratorial), the need to do this that or the other regarding voting. Do you want me to translate all your comments word for word? Anyway, combined it does not assist your situation. You have a week off now due to a block, reflect, take the advice of editors and don't do this behavior again.Resnjari (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resnjari, go ahead - do that, please. It is clear that I used both terms, Albanian and Shqiptar, because they are synonyms, and I did not use either of them in any racist or derogatory way. You made that up totally. Are you actually clamming that any use of the second term is racist or derogatory, because that is how your accusations are coming across. And that is why we need to discuss all this in front of the community, because we need some clear policy rules here. Sorabino (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You used the term shiptar at the end of your comment in a jibe made about Albanians ("Shiptars") 'laughing at us'. Yes that term is derogatory. Albanians from areas of the former Yugoslavia are aware of the term due to experience and being at the receiving end. When used it is in a negative way, not positive. Scholarship has traced the evolution of the word and the pejorative meanings it has attained for over 4 decades in south Slavic languages. Administrator Vanjagenije who blocked you for canvassing can also read Serbian and in this thread told you not to do it again. Its not an accusation, you wrote it, its there and taken within its full context about other Albanians supposedly inhibiting the article came of kind of conspiratorial as to what you were alleging. In case you missed it, yes i am of Albanian heritage and with the first pagemove and the second expressed an understanding and even siding with your view point with slight disagreement over technicalities. Many other editors that have disagreed with you are not Albanians. Yet your comments were saying that it was Albanians coming out to block your initiatives and remove content by reducing the scope of the article and that other editors need to vote support to carry the day. I hope in hindsight you see how that all comes off. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You have a week off and consider it lucky (editors in this kind of situation can get harsher sanctions), reflect and don't do it again.Resnjari (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resnjari, finally you revealed the real reasons for accusing me: it was not because I said anything really racial or even insulting, but because you are generally opposed to any use of that term by us Serbs! Man, you accused me of being racist for stating simply to another Serbian user, on Serbian Wikipedia: "Смејаће нам се Шиптари брате" (The Shqiptars will laugh at us, bro)! And that was said, as you could see, in the context of our Serbian internal difficulties to agree on any issue! So, it is clear that I did not say anything bad about your people in any way. By claiming that my statement was racial slur, you are actually derogating and relativizing real racism. Why are you so opposed to fair use of that term? Maybe it is hard for you to believe, but wast majority of Serbs are using that term because we know that you call yourself Shqiptars and we are one of few people who are calling you also by your original national name, with no racial slur. Your denial of the fair use of that term is the real problem here. You dont have the right to accuse people for racism because you have some extreme and exclusive views on any term. Sorabino (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one called you something. I just expressed my disappointment with your use of that term. The word is pejorative with a loaded meaning. In Serbian they don't say Shqiptar, its either Albanac or over a century ago the older word Arbanas. You said shiptar (with no q) and it was part of a larger comment, repeated in threads to various editors that you canvassed about votes being needed to counteract Albanians for this that or the other. This is the last time i say this, reflect, don't do it again and consider a block for a week as a lucky break because editors that have been in a similar situation have fared much worse.Resnjari (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resnjari, everyone can see that I said Шиптари, and that is direct Serbian equivalent for Shqiptars, so what are you talking about some missing letters? And I must tell you again, this question will have to be addressed in front the community because after this we must have a clear policy on the fair and non-fair use of those terms, and information on any final conclusions will have to be placed in relevant articles, so that everyone can see and act accordingly, without misuse and false accusations. If you think that Serbs should be forbidden to use that term in all cases, you will have the opportunity to explain such stand. And dont worry for me, I can defend myself, on my own. Sorabino (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ne znam da li si kao i ja primetio da za brojne srpske teme nemamo propratni tree-category.
Primera radi: Serbian literature (dok većina evropskih ima), Presidents of Serbian Academy of sciences and arts, Presidents of Matica Srpska, Rectors of University of Belgrade itd.
Lično ne znam da pravim ovakve kategorije a želeo bih. Ako znaš, molim te da me uputiš (ukoliko nije kompleksan kod).
Verujem da bi bilo dobro da se nekoliko nas organizuje i da svako pokriju po jednu od kategorija, a ima ih još praznih, naveo sam tek nekolicinu, i da posle proširujemo. Deluje mi kao šteta i minus što manjkamo sa ovakvim kategorijama.
Ovu poruku sam poslao nekolicini naših Wikipedijaša.
Hello, Sorabino. 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.
Hi. Having rethought the matter, I think I would be okay with giving the Croatian classification a more prominent place in the lede. You could go ahead and try proposing something like this, perhaps with improved wording:
"Croatian is a South Slavic lect, used by Croats, principally in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Serbian province of Vojvodina and other neighboring countries. It is the official language of Croatia and one of the official languages of the European Union. Croatian is also one of the official languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a recognized minority language in Serbia, and neighboring countries.
In linguistic literature, Croatian is generally classified as a standardized Shtokavian-based variety of Serbo-Croatian, the common language that covers the non-Slovenian West South Slavic area. In Croatia, Croatian is generally treated as an independent language and the term is used to encompass the South Slavic dialects of Kajkavian, Chakavian and Shtokavian, as spoken by ethnic Croats, with the appellation Serbo-Croatian being reserved for the defunct Yugoslav standardization. This classification has however often been said to be politically-motivated, especially by foreign linguists." Nama.Asal (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 recently shown interest in 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.
Notice. I have recently closed a RfC which you participated in. I am notifying all contributors as a courtesy. Thank you for support for Wikipedia! Please do not reply to this message. ―Matthew J. Long-Talk-☖16:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Help around an article, would be appreciated very much
Hi, I noticed your disccussion on the article called Bosnian nationalism. I'm Bosnian with both Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Muslim a.k.a. Bosniak family members and your observations on the talk page are correct. Bosnian nationalism and Bosniak nationalism are two different concepts alltogether. I've made changes in the article itself, but can't move the article name for whatever reason. I'm not a particularly experienced Wikipedian so I need help :(. I would it appreciate it very much, having incorrect information of this magnitude will leave people outside the Balkan region with a skewered perception of nationalism here. --Killuminator (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Killuminator, you are right, there was much confusion in that article, and your changes have corrected the main problem, thanks. I see that the move proposal is initiated on the talk page, and it seems that the title will be corrected in accordance to the content of the article. Sorabino (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. LizRead!Talk!01:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. LizRead!Talk!02:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Pkbwcgs (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, colleague Sorabino. I have a question for you about your edit. Why did you decide that Christianity forbids the adoration (worship) of icons? Here is the text of the Oros of the Second Council of Nicaea in Serbian: „И да се овима једнако одаје целивање и почасно поклоњење али не и истинско служење по вери нашој, које приличи само Божанској Природи, него да као што знаку Часног и Животворног Крста и Светим Јеванђељима и осталим свештеним посветама (грчки), тако да и у част ових чинимо принос кађења и светлости (свеће и кандила), као што Је то био побожан обичај и у древних (хришћана). Јер част која се одаје икони (лику) прелази на Оригинал (прволик) и ко се поклања икони, поклања се личности онога који је на њој насликан.”. In latin text: «et his osculum et honorariam adorationem tribuendam»
There is such a thing: Eucharistic adoration. As you see, adoration of icons is not prohibited in Christianity.Wlbw68 (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Template:Religion in Asia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes.
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your recent articles, including Jelena Jakšić, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here03:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I kindly ask for your help to keep wikipedia objectiv.
Me personal, or a article I wrote is under attack.
I am not sure why but it seams there is one 1 Guy and maybe some friends of him which try to attack me.
They stalking me and try to throw dirt at me.
This guy seams to do nearly nothing then stalking me. He comes up everywhere.
I am not sure if its against me or someting in my article "they" dont like.
Not sure if it is because I am female, if they dont like the person I wrote about,
if they dont like jews in general or just dont like girls in motorsport.
I have no Idea. Since nearly 2 month they allways try new stuff to say bad stuff about me or the article.
One point is over then they try next.
With this nice anti WP Bio edit without sources everthing started.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michel_von_Tell&diff=980267392&oldid=979733489
Its mainly in this well sourced article Michel von Tell it seams.
clearly notable and every single sentence got 1-2 ref.
Much better and much more then most other records. See for example here.
I dont know why but this guy tryes everything he can to find wild cospiracy theories
for make it bad.
I would need some help.
Can you please have a neutral look on this article so I get some NEUTRAL support against this guys
and against unfair use of wikipedia. So it stays nice, objectiv and on topic.
They start one debate after next. Soon 2 moths now. One didnt work, then they try next thing.
I guess someone just dont like the guy personal or something in the article and
try with some friends to damage it.
Maybe I am wrong but it sure would be a good thing if 10-20 indipendent people will have a neutral short look at this
so there is no manipulation possible and WP stays objectiv.
And there is a fair end of this thing.
Thank you very much for helping me 5 min.
I feel very alone there and very bad treaded.
Whatever I do to solve problems they just come with a new "topic".:(--BIanca617 (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on "Zachulmia" requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ost (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "Muslims by nationality" was redirect to "Muslims (ethnic group)" but now it is a disambiguation page, and therefore links were updated accordingly. Sorabino (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see it still problematic, since i.e. in the Vojvodina article or others 2011 census or by recent censuses this designation is used, which is misleading. Somehow inside the Slavic Muslims article maybe more sections should be made for each type, and better link there, or anything that would resolve this contradiction.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
If I understand you correctly, you are referring to the fact that remaining ethnic Muslims (endonym: Muslimani) are still keeping that designation in some parts of former Yugoslavia? That is why they are still considered as a specific group, since they self-identify as such. Sorabino (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am reffering to that that a link to an article which dicsuss this designation as part of the outdated Yugoslavia, meanwhile mentioning in only one sentence that today some use still Muslimani (infobox is i.e. good, and reflecting present-day situations). So Muslimani should be referred as well in the lead, along with the explanation why an oudated term is still used by some groups today (twice as more if they are the only one).(KIENGIR (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
You are right, additional data could and should be added to the article Muslims (ethnic group), in relation to post-Yugoslav developments. Remaining ethnic Muslims, in Yugoslav successor states, have their own articles in Serbian Wikipedia. Some of that data can be incorporated into this article. Sorabino (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of the Serbs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Slavic.
You've been making edits which remove what bibliography puts forward and then replace that with content which has no source. You can't link to a 300-page book without providing any page or form of citation. I've noticed that you've done that many times and I've already verified that you're using bibliography as support for content which doesn't appear in the sources. This is not how wikipedia functions and you should be more careful.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I present this barnstar to you for working in Syriac topic areas. There is much disruption here, and good-faith editors are greatly appreciated whenever they drop by. Keep up the good work!!! Elizium23 (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Anatolia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ancient Anatolia.
As first great contribution on Syriac christian related topics!
It seems like you have a really big knowledge on these topics and therefore I ask you to help contribute on the page Tur Abdin.
The heartland of Syriac Christianity in nowadays Turkey Reldex (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with @Sorabino:! This is the second time you are reverting Syriac Christian related topics without giving any explanation. Also you stated before that you're in favor of using the term Assyrian instead of Aramean it seems like you're having double standards on these topics. Reldex (talk) 04:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slavic language (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Serbia in the Middle Ages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great Schism.
I was impressed by the knowledge you had about the history of the Arameans.
I've added information about the modern people as well, please feel free to improve and add the information you have to the article :)
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed by your previous edits that you are interested in articles related to Serbia, and would therefore kindly direct you to a talk page discussion with another user about a proposed edit. I am opposed to the edit for various reasons, and would like to hear any input you may have regarding a possible resolution. I feel as though consensus will not be reached through discussion on the article talk page and may need a third-party presence or arbitration. I am a relative beginner here on Wikipedia, and am not familiar with the dispute resolution process. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I will post a link to the discussion in question.
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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!15:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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.
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbians until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Hello, I see that individual Montenegrin tribes on english wikipedia are being wrongly classified as "albanian origin", utilizing albanian literary sources. Can you or someone who is a part of the Serbian Wikipedia project fix these pages so that they reflect the factual Serbian origin and character of these tribes, and protect these pages from abuses? Thanks
This disambiguation is too broad, moreover, wars that have been fought between distinct nations usually have their own disambiguation against the state they’re fighting against and then the battle, not the ethnolinguist group. Thus, I believe it’s judicious to delete this disambiguation.
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ante Pavelić (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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.
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.
Wikipedia has only one article called Croatian nationalism which does not indicate that "Croatian nationalism" is an ambiguous term. There is no need for a disambiguation page.
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.
Wikipedia has only one article called Serbian nationalism which does not indicate that "Serbian nationalism" is an ambiguous term other than in a hatnote to this page. There is no need for a disambiguation page.
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.
I removed a comment you made on the Srebrenica massacre talkpage (diff) as it was put into the middle of another user's signed comment. While there are a number of suboptimally formatted comments on the talk page, yours interrupts convention making it difficult to tell where your comment begins and another user's comment ends. It's also difficult to tell where their comment begins again, as some of your edit came after your signature. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Byzantine Catholic Church of Croatia and Serbia with this edit, without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2004 unrest in Kosovo into Persecution of Christians. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of World Heritage Sites in Serbia#Stećci Medieval Tombstones Graveyards. Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 20:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Bulgar–Serb War (839–842). While well-sourced, objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. What you're doing looks like WP:BOOKSPAM. We welcome you adding references but when you add the same book to a dozen articles as a general reference, it doesn't look constructive. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add badly sourced or unsourced soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Bulgar–Serb War (853), you may be blocked from editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Bulgarian–Serbian wars of 917–924. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Taivo (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
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.--౪ Santa ౪99° 20:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
