Jump to content

User talk:Surtsicna/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

re: Žitomislić

I acctually wasn't aware I made this edit you just reverted... :O It's fine. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that... happens. It did indeed strike me as a lapsus digitorum of some sort. While we are at it, do you happen to know of a suitably-licensed photograph of the monastery? The article would certainly benefit from one. Surtsicna (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I visit Mostar very often. I'll make a photo, not a problem. :) --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Church of Saint Anthony of Padua, Sarajevo

Thanks for your help with this project Victuallers (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Grace

I never know how to describe Grace and her husband. In situations where she is obviously an actress, I've had her as Kelly, but in royal situations I've had her as Princess. What do you think? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I too often wonder which way would be better and usually find that a combination of both, if possible, works best. If, for example, she is mentioned two (or more) times in a paragraph, and identified as wife of Prince Rainier, we can refer to her as Grace Kelly in the first instance and as Princess Grace in the second. The same usually applies to other deceased consorts. Surtsicna (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Very smart, thank you. Did you see this ridiculously obscure thing? I balanced it all quite well here I think! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
No, you've done a good job hiding it! :D Why did you not nominate it for DYK? Surtsicna (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I forgot, then it expired! It should probably pass an GA now, seeing as I found everything on it. Jackie's film is still up for grabs. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Matilda of Tuscany

Hi Surtsicna! thanks a lot for your help in the correction of the article, I'm still working on it, but when one is in hurry, this caused some problems....sorry about that and thanks again! Aldebaran69 (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, don't apologize for working on an article to improve it! :) Surtsicna (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

noble ladies
Thank you for quality articles on people of European nobility, especially women such as Beatrice of Falkenburg, maintaining articles of the topic, removing trivia, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

A year Two years ago, you were the 464th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Was that not two years ago? Time flies when you're in good company, but I remember the prize very well :) Surtsicna (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
You are right! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

State/entity or whatever

Both are federal units. The wording is different, but materially, those are the same things. Entities in Bosnia and Herzegovina have more powers than the states of Germany, but in Bosnian case, the sensitive wording was used. Regardless, both can be described as federal units, and, therefore, both are equally important. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to such an opinion. Surtsicna (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I would ask you for an explanation - what do you mean by "personal fantasies"? Again, I cannot see why you keep reverting this edit. Like in San Diego, in the first paragraph of the lead, the US wasn't mentioned at all, only California (a federal unit) was mentioned. Similarly, I used the same mantra in Gacko. If you look at other articles, you'll notice that wording goes from lower to a higher level, therefore, in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina it would be: 1) municipality, 2) canton, 3) entity and 4) country. Look at other articles, New York or Edinburgh, needles to say, even though the UK is an unitary, and not a federal state, Scotland came before the United Kingdom. See it as a principle of subsidiarity. I would also ask you to continue discussion. It's not my opinion, but a fact. You would deny that Bosnia-Herzegovina is a federal state composed of federal units (states)? --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
By "personal fantasies", I mean wildly misleading or outright inaccurate claims or phrasing behind which stands an agenda rather than a resolution to achieve neutrality and factual accuracy – quite comparable to a certain user's crusade against the Cyrillic alphabet. If I look at the article about Geneva, for example, I will see the country mentioned first, followed by the historic region and only then (in the third sentence) the canton. It is your opinion that Bosnia and Herzegovina consists of two (or do you imagine more?) states; there is nothing indisputably factual about it. Our article about Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as our article on federal republic, does not mention any "member states" (a term you appear so eager to introduce for one reason or another) of Bosnia and Herzegovina. A federal republic can be composed of various types of subdivisions: states (eg. States of Brazil), provinces (eg. Provinces of Argentina), cantons (eg. Cantons of Switzerland), federal subjects (eg. Federal subjects of Russia), entities (Entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina), etc. So yes, I would indeed deny that Bosnia and Herzegovina is composed of states, much like I would deny that Russia is composed of cantons or that oranges are blue. Surtsicna (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
No agenda at all, whatever your thoughts. I could claim you have "personal fantasies" on your own... and regarding a canton (federated state) "(which may be referred to as a state, a province, a canton, a Land, etc.) is a territorial and constitutional community forming part of a federal union (federation)", or any other federal unit, the article says, cantons are indeed states. The problem in Bosnia-Herzegovina is a sensitive language, because people get crazy of any mention of any sort of state. However, what is the reason for you reverting this edit, if not "hidden agenda"? It's pointless. Federal republics are composed of federal states, any political scientist will say so. You can call those states whatever you like... you can call them candies, it doesn't matter at all, it's just a form, what it matters is the content. Regardless. Another reason for doing this (moving the articles) was to make their linking more simple. For example, it would be easier for me to write say... [[Brod, Republika Srpska]], [[Bosnia and Herzegovina]], than [[Brod, Bosnia and Herzegovina|Brod]], [[Republika Srpska]], [[Bosnia and Herzegovina]]. Also, going from lower to a higher level is much more logical... Mentioning a small town, than the country, and only later the entity, canton etc, isn't so aesthetics. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
If you are going to argue that the milk is black and only appears to be white, I will be better off concentrating on something else. I have stated my reasons for reverting, have I not? Bosnia and Herzegovina is much more recognizable than Republika Srpska or Tuzla Canton. Wikipedia is written for the general public, most of whom will have a hard time placing Bosnia and Herzegovina on a map and none of whom will have any idea what or where Republika Srpska or Tuzla Canton is. You can still link to articles however it pleases you; there is nothing wrong with redirects. Surtsicna (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If I may jump in, seeing how user:FkpCascais jumped on me in defense of Yerevani on her talk page, this user has some exceptionally serious neutrality issues, and it's not a huge secret to which side she swings. I find it especially unsettling that the user in question does not even appear to appreciate the controversial nature of her edits. She just goes on a like a freight train in the middle of the night, seemingly surprised in a genuine way when questioned. In an arbitration involving user:Sabahudin9 the user vented her blatantly Serb nationalist views on the history of Bosnia and Bosniaks, reiterating the old story of how Bosnia is not a "real" country, Bosniaks not a "real" people, and the Bosnian language not a "real" language. Her contribution history is totally packed to the brim with evidence of her flagrant POV agenda, one [small taste thereof being this, an article which she also, not very surprisingly, but singlehandedly, moved from "Dubica, Bosnia and Herzegovina" to "Dubica, Republika Srpska". Examples are abound, such as removing the 1579 Ferhadija mosque from the Banja Luka article gallery, currently only featuring a Catholic and Orthodox church thanks to the lovely work of Yerevani (though reverted by me a few moments ago). 46.239.102.226 (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer if you hadn't jumped in. I am in no need of "saving" as I do not feel threatened or attacked by anyone or anything. In fact, the last thing I need now (and in general) is yet another extremist piling up nonsense on my talk page. Surtsicna (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Huh? Are you okay? I'm an extremist too? Sure you're okay? I don't know about you, but I sure don't fancy Yerevani spreading her POV junk around here with impunity, even having employed a bot to do so. But you know what, never mind. I was under the impression that Wikipedia was a collaborative project based on feedback. I wasn't saving you. 46.239.102.226 (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
What I don't fancy is you summoning other propagandists and advocates to my talk page. I will not have it become a battleground between those pushing one agenda and those pushing another. The intentions of both parties are perfectly clear to me. And yes, I feel perfectly fine, thank you. Surtsicna (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Rest assured that neither propagandism nor promotion is part of my ideology, objectivism is. I am not familiar with user Sabahudin9, my intention was to stimulate a discussion consisting of people that have been in contact with Yerevani's unquestionable, unambiguous, POV. And he, at least, seems not to have been the party at fault in his dispute with Yerevani. As a matter of fact, it was concluded by the independent observer that Yerevani was in fact pushing POV. I'm afraid that you're something of an annihilist, all are equally bad to you. How cynical. Like I said though, never mind. Luckily enough there's an abundance of editors willing to assist here. 46.239.102.226 (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, Surtscina. I'll open a moving discussion at some of the articles in question, and inform you when I do so, so we can discuss the issue at the right place. I won't be doing so in near future, and as far as I'm concerned, the articles may remain so for some time. Though, just to let you know, some of those articles were created with mentioning only RS, and were later redirected to mention only BiH. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"Anne, Princess Royal???"

That makes no sense. My reasoning makes perfect sense, however, and you should probably look things up before making reverts. In order to be simply "Anne, Princess Royal," she would have to have been a non-royal at birth who later got divorced from a royal prince titled "Prince Royal" (just like Diana and Sarah being simply "Diana, Princess of Wales" and "Sarah, Duchess of York," respectively, after their divorces. Neither of them were royal at birth so could not/cannot call themselves "Princess First Name"). Anne was royal at birth so did not lose "Princess" when she got divorced because it's hers in her own right. "Anne, Princess Royal" is just plain WRONG! Her name/title is: Princess Anne, The Princess Royal.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I came off like a defensive jerk and I apologise. My preceding message could have... (should have)... been worded with a lighter tone to it. However, having said that, "First name comma with no Princess in the beginning" is incorrect for a princess of the blood.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You did not seem like a defensive jerk to me. I must have dealt with so many stronger tones that I hardened up :) Anyway, the convention on Wikipedia is to use "Name, Title" for men and women alike, whether married or divorced. See WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Thus we have Sophie, Countess of Wessex, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Charlene, Princess of Monaco, Stéphanie, Hereditary Grand Duchess of Luxembourg, etc; we also had Letizia, Princess of Asturias. The consensus is that Wikipedia is not bound by court protocol to use awkward article titles. Surtsicna (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I did not know that about wikipedia working around court protocol and such. I guess that does makes sense. Thanks.Cebr1979 (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Cyrillic names

Thanks very much for adding the Cyrillic name to Fort Trašte. Could you possibly do the same for the other Montenegrin fort articles that I've written? - Fort Gorazda, Fort Kosmač and Fort Vrmac. Prioryman (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I thank you for writing such detailed articles. Surtsicna (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
They have an interesting history, and they were also interesting - if rather hazardous - to explore and photograph. Over here, old forts tend to be fenced off for health and safety reasons, so it's refreshing to have free rein to go exploring. Prioryman (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
What's refreshing to you is everyday life to me. I grew up in a city of ruins, too young to remember it as a tourist attraction it once was. Not sure about the health concerns, though - the remnants of museums, showy banks, pretentious malls and Moorish Revival hotels and schools built by Austria-Hungary appear to be perfect ground for urban flora and the ever welcome fig and pomegranate trees. (Dark humor, of course.) Excellent photographs, by the way! Surtsicna (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Philip of Majorca

Harrias talk 00:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bosnia and Herzegovina–Spain relations

Hello! Your submission of Bosnia and Herzegovina–Spain relations at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see new note on DYK nomination template. Yoninah (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Bosnia and Herzegovina–Spain relations

Harrias talk 19:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Royal touch

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Royal touch you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 09:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for James of Majorca (monk)

Thanks for your help Victuallers (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Royal touch

The article Royal touch you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Royal touch for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar for You!

The Good Article Barnstar
For your contributions to bring Royal touch to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work!  — Calvin999 20:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Royal touch

The article Royal touch you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Royal touch for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban

Well, if your read carefully, the BNC is in Serbia (and previously in Montenegro). I appreciate your concern, but I doubt I will violate my topic ban. The article doesn't concern Bosnia and Herzegovina, but Bosniaks in Serbia, or Sandžak, to be precise. But thank your for your note... If I get banned, what can I do... :) I'll ask for unblock, with the same explanation, hoping you'll jump in. If you think I violate my topic ban, you can leave a note to Ed, the administrator. Currently, I'm overoccupied, but I'll leave him a note later during the day. But, still, thx. --AnulBanul (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

An article about a party that promoted/promotes unification with Bosnia and Herzegovina does not concern Bosnia and Herzegovina? Astounding. Then again, that is not even the most bizarre thing you wrote on this talk page. I have already left a note to Ed. Surtsicna (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't really, but thanks for your concerns, again. We will cooperate well in future. --AnulBanul (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Or will we? :) Surtsicna (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sancho of Majorca

Hello! Your submission of Sancho of Majorca at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

AnulBanul

He left editing articles that are obviously within his topic ban up to his IPs. I've reported the ones I found. Keep an eye out for others. [1] --Potočnik (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I've posted the matter on SPI per recommendations. If you think it needs trimming or additions let me know. I've collapsed evidence for easier reading, but mostly left it intact so as to allow people to get the whole picture if they so wish. --Potočnik (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Sancho of Majorca

Gatoclass (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Filip Lastrić

Materialscientist (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Excellent article, just what we need. Keep up the great work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret of Bourbon (1211–1256) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

BRD on Yugoslav articles

G'day Surtsicna. I see you've been editing since 2008, so no doubt you are totally familiar with WP policies on edit-warring and BRD. You seem to have developed a recent interest in editing Yugoslav articles, and those who regularly edit there are always happy to see "new" editors contribute in what can be a highly disputed space. But your wikibehaviour leaves something to be desired, as evidenced by your recent edits re: categorisation and language templates. If you disagree with something that has been a long-term consensus position on an article or categorisation, the appropriate thing to do is start a thread on talk, not revert. Please follow BRD. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I wouldn't describe my interest in editing Yugoslav articles recent. Is it not possible that this is simply the first time we bumped into each other? :) Your edit did not restore a long-term consensus position here, for what it's worth. WP:BRD also requires you to "be specific about your reasons in the edit summary" and you were all but specific here ("I disagree, that is not how it is used."). As it happens, I only reverted you once (here). Anyway, I started a thread shortly before you messaged me. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Vahida Maglajlić at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Treaty of Orléans

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Vahida Maglajlić

Hello! Your submission of Vahida Maglajlić at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ~ RobTalk 02:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Vahida Maglajlić.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Vahida Maglajlić.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Kazandibi

Kazandibi
I would like to present you this tasty, cold and refreshing desert as sign of appreciation for all your contibutions at wikipedia. Keep up the good work.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Macedonian no less! I shall have to put my sugar-free diet on hold for this. Thank you! Surtsicna (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hermann II, Count of Celje DYK

Hi. I just reviewed your DYK for Hermann II, Count of Celje at Template:Did you know nominations/Hermann II, Count of Celje. Although the article and nomination are almost flawless, there is still one small problem with the hook that needs attending to. Please comment there and try to fix the issue. Thanks, G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Do you speak Bosnian ? --Zij —Preceding undated comment added 12:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Blanche of Artois

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

This wiki kitten is here to thank you for the elegant solution (monarch) for the Queen's Jadwiga's lead. Meow!

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It's adorable! Thanks, Piotr! The whole thing seemed like much ado about nothing, but it prompted excellent work on the article (winking at Borsoka). Surtsicna (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Hermann II, Count of Celje

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Vahida Maglajlić

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Margaret of Bourbon (1211–1256)

Hello! Your submission of Margaret of Bourbon (1211–1256) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  —SMALLJIM  21:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Update: thanks for making the changes. I've GTG'ed it with a couple of small reservations.  —SMALLJIM  13:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Maria of Bosnia

Hello! Your submission of Maria of Bosnia at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Still some issues left to address. Please stop by soon. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Berislav Grgić

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Reminder

Orthodoxy in Bosnia and Herzegovina is still at DYK... the required expansion seems to be achievable?? Victuallers (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I'll be on it today. Sorry for the delay! Surtsicna (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Tvrtko, kralj Srba/Srbije

Pozdrav!

Zaista ne shvatam zašto si promijenio/la moje dodatke stranici za kralja Tvrtka, bez ikakve konsultacije. Nijesam li ubacio reference, i to iz knjiga starijih od moderne države Srbije, i od moderne države Bosne? Kralj Tvrtko mi je opsesija još od malena, i ako sam nešto primjetio, to je da se Tvrtko nikada, ali NIKADA nije potpisivao titulom Kralj Srbije (itd.), već Kralj Srba (itd.). Zašto?

Evo, znaš li koliko se puta u srpskim srednjovijekovnim izvorima pominje riječ SRBIJA? Pogodi, slobodno. Nula (0)! Da, riječ Srbija se ne pomijene niti jednom. Srbi su svoju zemlju zvali imjenima: ,,Zemlja, ,,Srpske zemlje, ,,Srpsko kraljevstvo/carstvo/županija, itd. Dakle, NITI JEDNOM se tokom CIJELOG SREDNJEG VIJEKA ne kaže reč SRBIJA, osim u latinskim izvorima, a i tada češće Rascia negoli Servia.

Tvrtko je ostavio mnogo dokumenata - na latinskom su oni počinjali sa titulom Rex Rasciae, a na slovenskom sa Kralj Srba - nikako Srbije! EVO SLIKE. Ne piše li tu (u skraćenicama): STEFAN TVRTKO U HVALU BOGA KRALJ SRBLJEM BOSNI PRIMORJU. To SRBLJEM je združena množina imenice SRBI, i ne znači nikako Kralj Srbije.

Eto, nije li nama na Wikipediji cilj TAČNOST prije svega? Šta, trebam li da nabacaim po tri reference za svaku promijenu koju sam učinio, da bi ona ostala, i da ne bi bila skinuta od strane tebe ili nekog drugog, bez ikakvog pitanja?

Drvobradi (talk) 07:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Margaret of Bourbon, Queen of Navarre

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Vuk, Ban of Bosnia

Harrias talk 15:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Bosnian Crusade

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject assessment tags for talk pages

Thank you for your recent articles, including Poles in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 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 here 09:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I knew (or rather hoped) that you would notice that article :D If only there were suitable images somewhere. Anyway, I did not know I could add those templates. I never liked the red Talk button on the articles I started, but I thought the WikiProject assessment templates were added by members of individual WikiProjects. Thanks for informing me! Surtsicna (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. samtar {t} 17:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, samtar. Could you please elaborate? Surtsicna (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course Surtsicna, I'm referring to your ongoing edit warring which has been going on at Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia. Is that IP a sock? samtar {t} 18:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Note: If so, I apologise - as of just now that IP is not blocked, and seema to be trying to readd legitimate content. Could you help me to understand what's going on? Thanks samtar {t} 18:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is a terribly persistent sock-puppeteer. Half a dozen of his accounts were blocked almost six years ago (see User talk:Bosnipedian), but that hasn't prevented him from regularly rising as a looney zombie to infest Bosnia-related articles with hoaxes (including an entire article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnian Royal Family) and conspiracy theories (such as Wikipedia being run by the agents of the Pope and the Queen of the United Kingdom). He maintains a website, royalfamily.ba, where he claims to be the rightful King of Bosnia, Serbia, Narnia, whatever, dispossesed by the Pope and the Queen. Unfortunatly, he still feels the need to spread his delusions throughout Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Then please accept my apologies - I'll keep the article in my watchlist and assist where I can samtar {t} 19:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again but could I ask the meaning of this edit summary? Namely "Accept that Wikipedia is run by agents of the Holy See and the British monarchy (ever allies!) and go away already."? samtar {t} 19:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
@Samtar: I'm guessing it's sarcasm along the lines of "Wikipedia is censored because it won't let me add that the moon landings were fake!" "Yes, you're right, Wikipedia is run by the NASA cabal." Surtsicna, it'd be helpful for other editors and admins if you could identify the sockmaster in at least one edit summary. --NeilN talk to me 20:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course, @NeilN:. I did not expect this would attract attention of anyone other than people who have already dealt with him. Surtsicna (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN:, these two[2][3] seem to have passed unnoticed. They should probably be protected too. Surtsicna (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Poles in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Hello! Your submission of Poles in Bosnia and Herzegovina at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Smurrayinchester 15:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Mehmet the Conqueror

Exactly so; the IP's other edits to the article exhibit similar non-encyclopedic inflation, repetition and verbosity. The article in general seems to attract grandiose tendencies. I've very little time for editing these days, but thought I'd show my appreciation that at least someone has a grasp of the reins. Haploidavey (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback! I haven't bothered checking who added the content or when. It was an instinctive reaction to too much boldness in the article. That frequently happens in articles such as Maria Theresa, where people add versions of her name in all languages of the Habsburg Empire. Surtsicna (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Poles in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Surtsicna/Archive_9&oldid=1145828326"