Jump to content

User talk:Sadko/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Serbs infobox

Hello Sadko,

Please visit talk page at article "Serbs", so we can discuss about the images, please don't revert my edit because of stability of the article and edit war. We can sort this out ther. ;)

Regards, --Wustenfuchs 14:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

We will discuss this at talk page, so other users can se why some changes happen... --Wustenfuchs 17:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Stefan Lazarević

Hi, Sadko!

Yes, it would be great to expand the article. Currently, I'm not very active on wikipedia (both sr and en), but I'll ask people there about the translation. Pozdrav Vladimir (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Serbs

Zdravo! :) I saw your activity on List of Serbs article, and therefor, i would ask you for some help. As this list is absolutely awful, full of non serbs, povs, and bad style, i started new one that will replace this. My crasy wish is to nominate this new list for FL, so your help is needed. By Art section, you will get the idea how list should look like. So, any comment is good, and any help will be awarded with barn! All best! --WhiteWriter speaks 17:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, its a bit problematic for me to write it down on wiki, send me e-mail with your Skype address, and i will find you, or, enable your e-mail address option! :) --WhiteWriter speaks 21:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Message

Please see this. Thanks.Fainites barleyscribs 16:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Pozdrav!

I left you a message at my talk page. I´m not sure if I can help you the way you would like. Best regards! FkpCascais (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It is good you started the discussion at Serbs article because that discussion was inevitable, it was just a question of time someone to begin it. We already had a similar discussion at Serbs of Croatia and Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina articles, that are still unfinished, although close to be. Take a look at them if you want, and regarding Serbs I already left a comment at the discussion, and I´ll try to see if there are any other important names worth inclusion. FkpCascais (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I see I confused you about the airlines and JAT articles... Sorry, my mistake :) FkpCascais (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ćao

I have responded to you on "Serbs" talk page, under the "2 pictures" section. And i have provided you with some more candidates for new pictures and some other recommendations. Please check it out, im sure you will like most of it! Greetings! (Правичност (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC))

Your suggestions sound fine and I will make few versions as soon as I can. Sadko (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Oh just one more thing; i remembered about adding Ivo Andrić, i think that would be a great idea, because he was a great writer, since "Croats" article claim him, "Serbs" article should claim him too ... as he declared as a croat only in younger years, after that he declared as a serb and as a serban writer all the way till his death. Thank you, greetings! (Правичност (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC))

Hi Sadko, i have seen your image and it is really great. But When can we expect your new image for Serbs infobox to be put there? (Правичност (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC))
I can't really say because I don't have that kind of editing rights. best regards Sadko (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Well i think you do, you might be trying to find a way to edit the infobox just like i was. You can edit it here and please feel free to do so, your new image is very good and it should be inputted. Here you go:
Template:Serbs infobox. Ako ja mogu tu editovat, možeš i ti, tu ti je pravi link. Greetings :) (Правичност (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC))
My bad. Well, the discussion about the infobox image should be finished and we can put the new image later. The problem is that this picture (mosaic) is not used on any other pages beside this one. Sadko (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok i will support it. (Правичност (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC))

I have already inputted it myself and edited the rows, hope you like it. I saw also a similar mosaic look on Dutch people btw. (Правичност (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC))

Concerns about changes

Sadko, we have a slight problem.... somebody replaced ivo andrić with marina abramović pic in your mosaic and also replaced miloš Obrenović with some other person i cant recognize... and idk why ... abramović is already on the serbian american article, i dont think she needs to be on serbs too, atleast not of such importance like nikola tesla or some others by my opinion. I think Ivo Andrić and Miloš obrenović are of greater importance and should be returned back on the picture mosaic. (Правичност (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC))

Znam druže. Anyway, I'm working on a new mosaic and Milla Jovovich will be included. I'll probably make two or three versions and my hopes are to upload everything this very evening. Btw, that person which you can't recognize is our Stojan Novaković. Shame on you. :D Sadko (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Ahh... pa dobro :D hehe.. mada To sa Millom jovovich mi se inače ne sviđa (ionako je već na Serbian American) ... pošto ona nikad nije istakla svoje srpsko poreklo kolko ja znam, možda je samo pomenula nešto kao "jugoslovenskog porekla da je" a ionako je već na Ukrainians article. Ne znam.. kako hoćeš... ali mislim da ivo Andrić kojeg su hrvati makli sa svog articla zbog nas (a ionako sami priznaju da je se izjašnjavao kao srbin do smrti) i sva njegova dela... mislim da zasluuje da bude na slici pogotovo pošto ga i strani čitatelji poznavaju... Meni je ovaj mozaik naj inače.. Aj pa da vidimo šta ćeš da "mejkaš i aploudaš" :P pozdrav druže :). (Правичност (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC))

June 2013

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Абрамовић), {{IPA-sh|marǐːna abrǎːmoʋitɕ}}; born November 30, 1946 in [[Belgrade]], [[Serbia]]) is a [[New York City|New York]]-based [[Serbia|Serbian]]<ref>{{cite book|last=van Gelder|first=

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

pomoć mala

Zdravo druže, možeš li mi molim te kazati ko je osoba između Jovana Dučića i Ive Andrića na tvojim novim slikama ?- osoba izgleda mlada a i ima brkove. veoma mi poznat ali nikako da se setim imena :D (Правичност (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC))

aaa Mlutineeee jao, znači kad je bio mlad, ah kako nisam ukapirao :). Hvala :) I pogledaj na novo , stavio sam novu tvoju sliku gore i uredio imena dole.. pogledaj ako ti se svidi (Правичност (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC))

Pavle Jurišić

Pozdrav druže. Pokušao sam da prenesem jednu od dveh slika sa srpske vikipedije p. jurišića šturma na englesku vikipediju za infobox... ali ne ide nešto... da li bi ti znao nekom metodom preneti sliku s asrpske na englesku vikipediju? ili ako ne... d aje nekako skineš... mislim da je potrebna lepša slika na engleskoj vikipediji za šturma zaista. dve su slike koje bi mogle bit u infoboxu od šturma naći ćeš ih tu: http://sr.wiki.x.io/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B5_%D0%88%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%88%D0%B8%D1%9B_%D0%A8%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%BC (Правичност (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC))

I am not sure. Maybe you could try to download it to your destkop and than upload those pictures like any other. Of course, you would have to higlight in the info that it's tranfered from our wiki. Ask somebody else for a second opinion. Sadko (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Orders and decorations info

For Serbian Vojvodas and Generals i write down form this and this book and for King Alexander I form this page. I will add for King Peter I in future when i get this book. All of those pictures can be moved to commons since are 70 years + old. Snake bgd 20:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Nadežda Petrović photo

Pomaže Bog! ... I was thinking if you could replace Nadežda`s photo on "Serbs" article infobox picture mosaic with rather this photo (it is more original) .. http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Nadezda_Petrovic.jpg ... Could you do this? Pozdrav! (Правичност (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC))

Ova slika je daleko poznatija a ujedno je i njen autoportret... Jednom prilikom ću zameniti ali za sada mislim da je bolje ovako. pozdrav druže Sadko (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Može i kasnije, važi tako, pozdrav majstore! (Правичност (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC))

Branko Čopić

Pozdrav majstore. Gledajući u collage slika poznatih Srba u infoboxu, može se reći da jedva postoji koji bosanski Srbin među drugima, sa obzirom da bosanski Srbi odnosno Srbi poreklom iz BiH broje skoro 1/3 svih Srba u svetu mogli bi dodati još koju osobu. Evo recimo ja predlažem i upravo sam samo na njega i mislio- Branka Čopića... Jovan Dučić svakako jeste poštovanja vredan i omenuća, no mislim da je Branko Čopić ipak nekako dalje posegnuo sa svojim delima i dostignućima i poznatije ime. To je moj predlog samo, a ti reci svoje mišljenje. Pozdrav veliki! (Правичност (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC))

An invitation to join the WikiProject Republika Srpska

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

WikiProject Republika Srpska currently covers a total of 0 articles and 0 other related pages on the English Wikipedia.

We look forward to welcoming you to the project!


--Anulmanul (talk) 21:51, 17 February 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) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sadko. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Karl Nesselrode, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Template:Serbian literature has been accepted

Template:Serbian literature, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Template-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Dan arndt (talk) 08:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Presidents of Serbian Academy of Sciences and arts moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, [[Draft:Presidents of Serbian Academy of Sciences and arts|Presidents of Serbian Academy of Sciences and arts]. Pls clean up the template. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I saw you made contribution on talk page of International recognition of Kosovo in Grenada section. Appropriate amount of time has passed and no counter arguments were given against claim that Grenada revoked its recognition of Kosovo. Therefore I believe Grenada should be moved to the list of countries that have revoked recognition of Kosovo. Could you please move Grenada on that list? 37.1.207.70 (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'll do it these days; I still want to give them four or five days more to answer, if not, the edit will be made. Best regards Sadko (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. 37.1.207.70 (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Done, np. Sadko (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Sadko. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Kosovo Reply

I see you reverted yourself. All I did in my edit was to remove the notes section because somebody removed the Kosovo template from the article, which then created a cite error in the notes section. I see this a lot where Kosovo is mentioned in an article. The note that you added, said do not remove, and I didn't. However, as you can see, the template that you added, does nothing but produce the letter - a - with no information provided. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but I left it because you said not to remove it. If you want to add the Kosovo note back, there was a special template created just for that note, which can be seen here - Template:Kosovo-note - just follow the instructions, or ping me and I will add it back if you want it in the article, I don't care one way or the other. That note is apparently controversial to certain editors, because I see disputes over it all the time, people will remove that template, but then they don't remove the notes section, which then creates that cite error. If you wanted to create a note about something else, then use the Template:Efn and follow the instructions there, or ping me, and I can help you with that as well. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Milan Kašanin has been accepted

Milan Kašanin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 06:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Mihailo Lalić

Brate, video sam sta se desilo. Moram da ti kazem da se nece nista tamo desiti na ANI. Nije ni priblizno nista uradio da bi ga kaznili. Vec sam video slucaje gde cak i psuju pa nista ne bude. On jeste cesto grub, crnogorski je nacionalista, razumem te, ali mislim da si se zaleteo. A druga stvar, nije ti edit dovoljan. Ne znaci da to sto mu je knjiga stampana kod nas da je on srbin. Moras naci izvor gde direktno kaze da je on srbin. Ovim sto imas mozes uvrh glave da kazes da doprinosi srpskoj knjizevnosti. FkpCascais (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Da bi uspeo da ga tuzis, moras da skupis sve kad te je uvredio i stavis linkove. Inace ovako se nece nista desiti. FkpCascais (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

У бити не очекујем никакву акцију, али очекујем макар минималну суздржаност и пристојност као резултат. Плус ово ће бити основа уколико буде још испада, са све прошлим испадима. Он може бити српски писац као црногорски националиста и Црногорац (а тада је то био фришак конструкт), његово дело је штампано као део српске књижевности за његовог живота, што је, мислим, довољно само по себи. Хвала на савету, брате. Sadko (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Skanderbeg

When content is disputed and consensus discussion is ongoing, restoring the disputed state (as you did) is disruptive. BLDM (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sadko, show good faith and revert your edit.Resnjari (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Skanderbeg

Hi, I am planning to open a mediation for the Skanderbeg case, because seems obvious those editors opposing my edits are going to do the best to keep that info out of the article. If we gather sources, we have tons of them, and it needs a mediation to inforce the edit and prevent them to erase perfectly valid sourced information just becausee they don´t like it. Do you think is a good idea or you may suggest something else? Who could also be invited to participate? PS: About Tesla, I apologise, but it had to be that way, I will explain it to you one they when dust settles. FkpCascais (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, it seems like a solid idea. I can't come up with anything better at the moment. I suggest 23 editor, maybe Vanjagenije and No such user. Most of the guys I used to communicate with are now inactive because of various reasons. Good luck with that endeavour, write to me if anything is needed. Np about the Tesla thing. I have also finished my editing - Mihailo Lalić, but that was one uncivil editor and here we have an entire horde on the other side, disregarding anything they don't seem fit. Sadko (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

List of Serbs

The next step would be to follow the conclusions of the consensus reached at the talkpage of that article. I am very busy in real life lately so I am not able to do it myself.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Serbians and Serbs

Hi, could you, please, make some explanation on names for me?

As a non-native speaker I have some difficulty with the difference between English words for Serbians and Serbs – I would think Serbian denotes citizenship (or generally place of living or place of birth) while Serb is a nationality or ethinicity (inherited from parents and more generally from family, but not defined by a place).

However, the redirect List of Serbs → List of people from Serbia seems to translate 'Serbs' to 'people from Serbia', which is opposite to my intuition. Which one is correct? --CiaPan (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi @CiaPan:, first of all, thank you for a quick response and good attitude, I did not get such treatmant from 2 other admins I have talked with.

It is a tricky one when translated in English.

Serbian (in our language Srbijanac) denotes a person from Serbia, mostly Serbs from Serbia but other nation as well (some 16% of Serbian population comes from minority groups). Not all Serbs are Serbians. Serbs from other countries (1.1 million of them in Bosnia and Herzegovina for example) are simply - Serbs.

For example Laslo Đere is a Serbian with Hungarian roots, while Jelena Dokic, Australian citizen, is a Serb.

That redirect is making all the trouble.

This means that we have 2 articles on the same topic, that is List of Serbians and List of people from Serbia, which is not good, if you would agree.

Sadko (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi :) Actually, I am not an admin. I just watch the talkpage of User:Oshwah, sometimes I answer some questions, or comment on requests that appear there. That's why you can see I just explained (as far as I could) some technical background of your problem, but could not offer any help. I hope Oshwah will reply soon to you, he always replies quickly unless the real life takes his attention.
What concerns language, I am familiar with similar difficulties because I belong to a Slavic nation too, and my country was also inhabited by many different nations. There are multiple examples of Jews, Germans, Russians and others, who were Polish citizens, Polish poets, Polish soldiers, Polish sailors, Polish industrialists... On the other hand, there were many Poles who emigrated and were French scientists, Portugal or American generals, Russian musicians or Serbian doctors - although you can sometimes also find those Poles had Jewish, German or other origins.
That's why I was interested in distinguishing what the two words actually mean. I also expected it would help me understand how the two lists are similar, and how they are distinct; and, as a result, whether the difference is big enough to keep them separate.
THANK YOU for your detailed explanation.
If you can't wait for Oshwah to help you get rid of the redirect, you may use this link: Wikipedia:Active administrators to find someone to take care of it. As far as I saw recently, Anna Frodesiak is one of many active admins. --CiaPan (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
NP, thank YOU! I shall wait for him, that is cool. :) Slawa! Sadko (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into List of Serbs. 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, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. 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. 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. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

3RR

You're at WP:3RR. You've been around long enough to know what this warning means. I would discuss with you if I had the time but the issues with what you're doing have already been raised by others it appears. You are inserting your own viewpoint (that such Serbianization is only WP:ALLEGED) in spite of what the cited sources say. You raise your concerns, calmly, on the talk page, and if possible bring forward RS and proposals, rather than condemning the other side. Cheers.--Calthinus (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Zmajević

This is not WP:VANDAL. I see the issue as "Croatian" identity was not sourced, however, it is also problematic to consider him as Serbian instead of Montenegrin as well. The article is not written very well, it lacks citations, reference style, while other Wikipedian articles are not reliable sources for citation/adaptation especially if are from Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias which do not follow basic editing principles and are extremely biased. It does not matter if there is "no doubt" on his identity according to some RS, we follow NPOV, WEIGHT and BALANCE. Very reliable sources, like Croatian encyclopedia ([1]), Hrvatska revija ([2]) among others consider him as a Croatian and as such this information should be included in the article, stating something like he is considered as a Croat in Croatia or Croatian historiography or something. I will rewrite the article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi

Hello. Help copy edit for article. Thanks you. Cheung2 (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Good work on Milutin Garašanin! Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@Willbb234:Thanks a lot! Sadko (talk)

ANI Discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Please see ANI - Vandalism on Ivan Gundulić by Sadko — Maile (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Celebstrendnow.com as a source

Hi Sadko. I noticed that you recently used celebstrendnow.com as a source for biographical information in List of Serbs of Croatia. I am unable to find any evidence or discussion indicating that celebstrendnow.com meets reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks.--Ronz (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Point taken. I have added a different ref. :) Sadko (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey man, thanks for the star. PajaBG (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@PajaBG: My pleasure! By the way, I was doing some autumn cleaning on several articles (Sava Šumanović, Slobodan Jovanović, Vuk Karadžić and so on). I saw that Nemanjić dynasty and Stefan Konstantin have rather poor refs (the first one has the tag for more than 10 years, such a shame!). I was wondering if you could, when you have the time, help in that regard because I know that you are familiar with the subject. Cheers! Sadko (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I can't make any promises as at the moment I both have a major backlog at the subjects I am interested in and wish to do (I am some 90% focused on Belgrade), and I have little spare time to do it. I agree that it is a shame about Nemanjić dynasty, at least it is one of the subjects where you have abundance of sources (not you you, editors in general :-). Konstantin is an interesting subject, completely unknown today, so that would be fun to do at some point. Sorry I don't have better news for now PajaBG (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Serbia Barnstar of National Merit
I have noticed your edits in Serbia related articles and appreciated them greatly. Keep up the good work. Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Hi, thank you for pointing to the lack of sufficient references in those articles. I will try to find time and add some additional scholarly sources. Sorabino (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Čola

Zaustavi ove što sprečavaju da se Čola nazove srpskim pjevačem. Nakon što sam pristao na kompromis da u uvodu stoji kako sad stoji (bez jugoslovenski je ali nema veze, u budućnosti će biti Bosnian-born Yugoslav-Serbian po smrti pjevača jer tada će obje odrednice i jug. i srp. biti jednako bitne), neki opet uklanjaju unapređenja članka odnosno napomene i brišu ćiriličko ime te stavljaju da je bosanski a nije više jer odabrao je da živi u Srbiji (a uz to je i etnički Srbin iz Sarajeva). Hvala. --5.43.77.235 (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Ako možeš revertuj članak o Čoli na ispravnu verziju. --5.43.80.176 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Sadko. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Need help/assistance

Hi, i was just scrolling around on English wikipedia and was reading articles about WW2 and NDH ("Independent state of Croatia"). I have noticed that a lot of these pages have ultra-right and fascist things written in them like lowering the numbers of people killed (lowering the number of people killed in the NDH and in concentration camps), claiming that some people were of different ethnicity even if those same people identified as a specific ethnicity (for example claiming that Serbs in a specific area are not Serbs but Vlachs or Croats instead). I edited a few sentences on this specific page http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Serbs_of_Croatia but there are too many articles and too many things which are incorrect and i alone can not edit them all. So i would like to ask you to help and maybe even outright block access of editing to everyone except administrators since these articles on wikipedia are being used as a propaganda tool to misslead and change opinions of everyone but specifically the young people (since they are the ones who use wikipedia the most). I also notices that a large amount of these edits were being done by the same people over a lengthy period of time which just shows that they have an agenda.

Thanks in advance. -A user from the Balkans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.214.240 (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Branko Dobrosavljević has been accepted

Branko Dobrosavljević, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Missvain (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sava II Branković has been accepted

Sava II Branković, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Missvain (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lazar Arsenijević Batalaka has been accepted

Lazar Arsenijević Batalaka, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Missvain (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Deacon Avakum has been accepted

Deacon Avakum, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Missvain (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Re: What happened?

Well, it's not like I didn't react at all.[3] It's just that having 1/3 of the intro say "A number of his views are considered to be chauvinistic, racist and anti-semitic and remain controversial" - when in fact this carries more like 1/30 of the actual importance for his bio - is not balanced at all. I really dislike whitewashing, but driving a not-so-subtle point home is a flip side of the same coin. GregorB (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing really problematic with the article proper, the sources for that controversial bit are fine. It's just that the intro is really bad IMO, and you are quite correct, it is a matter of what's missing. GregorB (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Long time deserved

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your continous fighting against POV-pushing and blatant vandalism, you deserve this award since long time now, congratulations! FkpCascais (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you kindly, FkpCascais! Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmmm

Find it interesting how MOS doesn't matter when it comes to your articles. Could it possibly be that you are POV pushing? Hmmmmmmmmmm SerVasi (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

No, read: Principality of Serbia. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
As Serbia lacked 1 of the 4 pillars of statehood it wasn't a state until 1878. Peace SerVasi (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Sadko

Thank you for creating Momir Korunović.

User:Insertcleverphrasehere, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice article. I removed some of the styling from the gallery, though the works in the gallery are very nice! We just usually don't have styling like that on articles (although users commonly use stuff like that on user pages)

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

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

— Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback @Insertcleverphrasehere:, and your honest review as well. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Vladimir Nikolić

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Vladimir Nikolić, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

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. Celestina007 (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Đorđe Zografski has been accepted

Đorđe Zografski, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

scope_creepTalk 17:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Old Serbia

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Sadko, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Information

Hi, Sadko. After reading one of your posts at the Admin's incident board I wanted to give you some info that might help you in the future. You stated " it is just that admins are sometimes rather busy and have too much on their plate and so they just count reverts (going by the book) and do not have the time to look at the content and the nature of reverts more deeply". In most instances it's not the job of administrators to judge who is right in an edit war. Of course, all editors engaged in edit warring believe they are doing the right thing. Editorial differences are to be discussed on the article's talk page and the article content is to be determined by consensus. Full stop. Any other course of action is edit warring. You must keep in mind that one can edit war without violating the three revert rule. There are exceptions detailed at WP:Edit warring but they are very few and extremely specific. I'm not commenting on the current discussion at AN/I or any of your past editing. I'm just attempting to make sure you don't run into future problems due to what might be a misunderstanding. Thanks for your time Tiderolls 15:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Laza Kostić


Đura Jakšić

Thank you for your hard work. I really appreciate it. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
No problem; I hope I didn't misinterpret anything in either of these articles. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I have a lot of work these days but I shall read the article several times a bit later. At first glance, everything seems to be in great order. Thank you kindly, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Koča Popović, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Order of the Republic and Order of Freedom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and vandalism

Something tells me the IPs that have suddenly appeared at Smiljan are connected to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikola22. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Good point, I agree. VPN is being (ab)used in this case. +1 [4] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to voice your suspicions at the SPI page. A request for page protection of Smiljan is also advisable. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Runjanin

Hi, Sadko. I reverted your addition of additional sources at Josip Runjanin because it simply isn't needed. First, some of the sources (such as the self-published Vuckevich and a 1992 wartime propaganda book) aren't WP:RS. Moreover, there are sufficient references backing up the statement as it is. Regardless of how many sources you throw at something, Mikola22 and his various sockpuppets won't care either way because they are chauvinist trolls, so there's no point. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I see. I did not know that Vuckevich was self-published. Do you think that a report on IP vandalism should be placed as a new section (I am not quite good with making this sort of reports), or is it okay to post the new suspicions on the old thread? Thank you for your input. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Mikola22 has most definitely used multiple IP addresses to edit en.wiki before, as demonstrated in the SPI, but the admins didn't block him because the IPs weren't used in an abusive way. The outcome of the initial SPI probably emboldened him further. I can initiate a new SPI for the IPs that appeared at Smiljan. On 22 January, Mikola was warned about edit-warring at Smiljan by Serial Number 54129 and told that he risked being blocked. "Coincidentally", the IPs appeared the following day , pushing the same BS that Mikola was the day earlier. The language is almost identical, complaining about "fabrications", as Mikola often does. Interestingly, Mikola22 hasn't edited the article at all since the IPs appeared. I can't see this being anyone other than Mikola22. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Here's the SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikola22. If you notice any further similarities/evidence of sockpuppetry feel free to comment. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

3RR

Think you can revert this chauvinist vandalism here? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Amanuensis Balkanicus Think you read WP:Canvassing? Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
This is a case of blunt disturbing vandalism. You could/should also go with undo. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Read WP:Vandalism to better understand what is considered to be vandalism on Wikipedia and how it should be dealt with. Ktrimi991 (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Take a better look at the edit and than be the judge. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I am not a "judge" here. The other editor added content. No matter how much POV it might be, it is not vandalism. If I am not mistaken, in the past an admin asked you to not call "vandalism" edits merely because you disagree with them. It is a breach of WP:Civility, one that can justify a report there. Ktrimi991 (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I see it differently. Good to know. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 03:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
1) On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose... 2) The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 03:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Ktrimi991, WP:Canvassing pertains almost exclusively to discussions where voting is involved. Wouldn't be the first time you've misinterpreted en.wiki policy to further your own aims or denigrate other users. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Amanuensis Balkanicus If you honestly think that canvassing rules are applied only to voting cases, ask an admin for clarification since in that case you do not understand what you read at WP:Canvassing. I warned you both, whether you want to not repeat what you did or prefer to get reported at AE is up to you. Probably there you would be calmed down a bit and stop writing nonsense about me trying to "denigrate" you, as if I somehow do not have any other way to waste my time except of giving too much importance to you. :) Ktrimi991 (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Archiving

Recently you removed some stuff from your talk page. Though that's your right, it may sometimes be better to archive it. If admins are later trying to follow up on someone who isn't discussing properly, talk page evidence may be helpful. Things may be different if you are getting rid of something defamatory or full of expletives, but that wasn't the case here. Also, if somebody warns you for a silly reason, that reflects badly on them rather than you. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @EdJohnston:, please leave a comment like this if I am doing anything incorrectly in the future. I would also like to ask you about the canvassing comment (if such posts on TP are canvassing or not), which I removed. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Jovan Jovanović Zmaj

It's looking good, thank you for your time and work man. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 06:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Josip Pecaric

I'm editing from a tablet. Someone removed my last comment on this TP which I cannot reverse. Could you please do me favor by putting back the removed comment? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.243.245 (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits. I would suggest that you register on Wikipedia, it would make a lot of things easier for you. I would also suggest that you repost the comment with some minor style tweaks. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Molba za testualnu popravku

Poštovani Sadko,

Možete li pomoći da se ispravi slovna greška u članku o Ratku Janevu.

Potkrala se u biografiji slovna greška u reči "Radko", umesto Ratko (u članku o Ratko Janev-u), pa bi slovo "d" , trebalo zameniti slovom "t" u imenu Ratko.

Unapred zahvalan, 79.101.148.233 (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Done / Готово Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Great Migrations of the Serbs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington Crossing the Delaware (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla page

Could you please revert the article like in it"s original version, there were changes made by user sheldonium without a consensus

We'll see about it tomorrow. No worries. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vasa Pomorišac has been accepted

Vasa Pomorišac, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sulfurboy (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

re Marina Abramović

Hi. You removed Marina Abramović's nationality from the lede, citing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. But Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography says (emphasis added):

MoS guidelines for opening paragraphs should generally be followed, and the opening paragraph of a biographical article should establish notability, neutrally describe the person, and provide context. The opening paragraph should usually state:

  • Name(s) and title(s), if any (see also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)). Handling of the subject's name is covered below in § First mention.

  • Dates of birth and death, if found in secondary sources (do not use primary sources for birth dates of living persons or other private details about them).

  • Context (location or nationality);

  • The noteworthy position(s) the person held, activities they took part in, or roles they played; Why the person is notable.

And I almost always include nationality in articles. It makes sense; it's important. It points to the cultural context in which the person operates. It's as key as the time frame in which they lived (vital dates) which goes right up front.

On the other hand, arguing about the nationality of Balkan people is tedious, time consuming, and often unfruitful. Balkan people especially; I've run into this before. So I wonder if that's really why you deleted the nationality altogether, and I'm not sure that that's not best... but it does degrade the article a bit. Herostratus (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Herostratus, thank you for the comment. I think that the current version is NPOV and that it could be stable in the long run (IP vandalisms and disputes). What do you have in mind? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Rather than continuing here, I continued this conversation over at Talk:Marina Abramović#What is this person's nationality? so that other people can contribut. Herostratus (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

reFill

Hi, I notice you use reFill. This is a useful tool but sometimes introduces errors, most frequently inserting the unsupported parameter "|deadurl=y" instead of "|url-status=dead", such as here. I would ask you to preview your edits and resolve any issues before submitting. Thanks. --John B123 (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Nightenbelle (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Serbian historiography

I see you concern about generalizations. You might use "nationalist" instead of using "some" or "many" Serbian historians as you did in some of your reverted edits. An example [5]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I sincerely do not belive that anything would come out of a TP discussion, just going in circles, which would eat my time. [6] You did very little regarding my worries. The article is full of generalizations, old news and claims made by people who are not experts on the subject, while showing one part/school of the historiography as its main course (you will understand what I am talking about). Serbian historiography is more political in nature and hardly a neutral article (style, amount of chosen i.e. focused content etc.), and by all means, make sure to keep the status quo, that is great for Wikipedia. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Nightenbelle (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:DRN

Regarding your posting at WP:DRN, it will not be considered at all unless and until you give Sideshow Bob a proper notification: Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. ... Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Regards, --T*U (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, my favourite talk page stalker. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Aleksa Šantić

I see you edited this page recently. Should ethnicity not be mentioned in the intro as per Wiki rules? OyMosby (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby:It is not in the first sentence and it's a compromise between users with different viewpoints. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
So why did you allow “Serb-Catholic” ethnicity to remain in the first sentence of the Pero Budmani page? MOS however states that the intro in general should not state the ethnicity. So basically as long as it’s not the first sentence than it is acceptable? If it is a comprise by some editors but not obeying the rules it is allowed? The logic used on that talk page could apply to any Balkan page where the ethnicity is different than the subject’s nationality. Of which Bosnia was not independent at the time but still a nation within an empire so understandable. As was the Kingdom of Croatia within the Austro-Hungarian Empire, though you removed the Croatian nationality for Antun Augustinčić. There seems to be a lack of consistency here. OyMosby (talk) 12:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Lurker here. WP:WHATABOUTX is not an argument. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Pardon? How is consistency in edits not a valid thing to point out? Also nowhere did I argue an article should be deleted or not (as the link you posted states) but the formatting.OyMosby (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Pljeskavica

Hi, I noticed you just undid my revert of an edit in Pljeskavica. The edit was made by an obvious sock of a long-term-abusive user Shingling334, who is prohibited from editing Wikipedia, even if the edits are good. Furthermore, the edit was unsourced, and not supported by the existing source, see WP:HIJACK. I have again reverted it. I have also reverted another recent edit by another user per WP:HIJACK. If you'd like to make further contributions to the article, could I ask you to do so in your own words and properly cited? Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I had no bad faith in mind. The added info. is correct, but considering that it was added by a sock, I say - nuke it. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Cinema of Serbia

Zdravo Sadko, vidim da si mi poslao mejl, ali nažalost, neću moći da ga otvorim dok sam na odmoru (zaboravljena lozinka). Ukoliko želiš, možeš da mi pišeš na perisic.m@yahoo.com. - BoleynSRB (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Ethnicity in Lead

Hi Sadko. I noticed that for a number of Ragusan notable figure pages you removed the ethnicity of the individuals, which is correct as per Wikipedia guidelines and rules. But should the ethnicity be moved to a later sentence in the intro so long as not the first sentence or the body instead of pure removal? Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby: That is alleged ethnicity, as most Ragusans had their own (and quite unique) sense of identity and they were very proud of it. Nations claiming Ragusans were formed in the 19th century (in the modern sense of the term). I am quite busy in RL and have no time to give you references, any general history of Republic of Ragusa would do. There is no agenda here, if that is your concern. Notice that I did not remove or edit articles on figures born in the last 2 centuries. If you are refering to Šantić again, it is an entirely different case, as there is no doubt about his ethnicity (he was a Serb and Yugoslav patriot even). Another thing, take a good look at WP:HOUND. Cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I’m not referring “Šantić” nor am I accusing you of an agenda either. I only ever mentioned lack of consistency before on another topic. Not fowl play. This is an all new subject. I literally said you were right to follow Wikipedia guidelines and rules. I was just asking why not just move it to later in the intro or into the body the ethnicity. I am well aware of Ragusa and it’s own national identity. I don’t get the hostility and accusing me of hounding. I saw your edit on the article and then saw on your contributions that you made a series of the same edit. I don’t see how that is me trying to impede your editing? I was just reaching out to. Whatever conversations or disagreements we had in the past are the past. OyMosby (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@OyMosby:Fair enough. I can have my doubts. Most of my edits have been, for now at least, reverted without any explanation or under dishonest diffs. Would you care to do something about that? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Are you referring to Momčilo Tapavica? I was dishonest? Seems like a personal attack to me. You put his ethnicity in the lead despite his nationality being Hungarian. And the source used to label him the first Serb to get a gold medal does not list him as Serbian. But again Hungarian. OyMosby (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Haha, good to know. I was referring to articles on notable Ragusans. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. As for the editor who went and undid your edits on Regusan figures, perhaps contact them instead. And if they continue to revert with no explanation, reach out to an admin. I reverted the their edits I see so far of Ragusan figures. OyMosby (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Hi, Sadko. Re: this . Is there any reason you can't leave them on my talk page? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Amanuensis Balkanicus: There is indeed one chief reason. I am not willing to elaborate here. The offer/question stands. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Yugoslavia

Hello Sadko, thank you for reverting my work. I am not doing random edits but I am readings a lot of books and maps. I want to make pages even better and not direcred in one side of history. That map was publicated on british news website and was a translation from Serbian/Croatian language. I couldn't find the author so I wrote it as Unknown. If you look at Kosovo's history pages, they are all manipulated and if someone edits it then an administrator will revert it. I am 32 years old and I am really fear and aware of what I am editing. If it continues like this I will write an official letter to Wikipedia asking them to put Kosovo's history under control of people that know have real and clear knowledge of history.

Thank you, best greetings from Germany. Kreshnik Prizreni (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kreshnik Prizreni: The map is controversial, there are no Serbs presented south of Ibar, there are no Gorani presented, Turks, some areas in Bosnia are not presented properly and that is just the tip of the iceberg. The map is not good, at all. A map with a credible author, not some random British newspaper (they have as much garbage medias as we do in the Balkans) would be much better. Claim to be an authority is not relevant for Wikipedia, I am sorry. If you uploaded it, do you have the copyrights? You are free to do whatever you think is good. I would, on the other hand, suggest more collaboration with other fellow editors. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Cheers. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yugoslavia_ethnic_map.jpg

Kreshnik Prizreni (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dobrica Milutinović

The article you submitted to Articles for creation has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Zanimum (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Note, you've been on Wikipedia longer than four days, and made more than 10 edits, so you don't need to use the Articles for creation process anymore, to create articles. You may, but I suspect you would rather not, given the experience you've had so far. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I've also moved Nebojša Mitrić over to the "article space", so it's "live" on Wikipedia. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Notification

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Tuvixer (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Archiving

Sadko, when you perform archiving (like you did here, here and on many other pages), you should always put a link to the archives on the talk page. You can use the {{archivebox}} template, or the {{talkheader}} template which automatically creates links to the archives. Can you, please, go back to all those pages and create links to the archives? Vanjagenije (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll do it Vanja, ty kindly. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije: All done. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Help me!

Please help me with... Are recent edits seen on Croats of Serbia per WP:BLP? I think not? What to do when someone gives diff stating "known information" and - it's not? ty, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure that article falls under WP:BLP as it's not a biography for a start. Just looking at the articles added, they seem fine to add, albeit the edit summary could be better - - RichT|C|E-Mail 13:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Air Serbia

Why, on Earth, did you delete it? PajaBG (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@PajaBG: per WP:COATRACK, WP:CRITICISM, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry, but this is bunch of nonsense. There is no need for you to be more Catholic than the Pope. I will return the text and trim it.PajaBG (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
@PajaBG:Did you take the time to read the guidlines which I have quoted? I was doing you a favour. Articles and material added should not be too detailed, see WP:Too long; didn't read. The tone/style should not resemble investigative journalism pieces, like Insajder. Please do raise a RfC and see what other uninvolved editors think, if you do not want to take it from me, no problem at all. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I believe you think you are doing me a favor, but actually you are the one who caused the problem here. I don’t want to waste time on zillion detailed guidelines and essays whose acronyms you bunched up. Instead of deleting something with the note “WP:ŽLJQĆ“, say specifically what is a problem. So lets see what I can dig from your reactions.
As I told you before, this section is detailed and apears too long because other parts of the article are undeveloped. Since the alleged positive business data is detailed, the data which place it in the right context, should be too. Nevertheless, I agreed to trim it., but you deleted it completely. Same goes for your oppinion that it looks like a journalism piece. Even if it does, so what? Even you used “should”. Unless it is really off, like “dear diary” style for example, you shouldn’t delete texts with valid data cause you dislike the style. Do you know how many crappy styles people use when they edit articles I watch? Some write not as if the English is not their native language, but as if they are not from this planet. If data is OK and If I am particularly annoyed, I fix it myself, I don’t delete it with some acronym note. In general, I never understood the eagerness for deleting stuff which is valid and well referenced.
You also complained abut Krušik. The affair hasn’t its own page, so I have to explain it a bit, like I told you. If I wanted to add full article on the affair, I would do it. I never wanted to say that the government is selling weapons to ISIS and I said I will make that more clear, too. The company is refusing to comment on anything. The state is doing the same, declaring all business surrounding the company a secret. The only one who provide data are investigative journalists. Ruling establishment for sure won’t say, yes we are personally selling guns, earning loads of money and destroying state factory in the process. Marinika Tepić is an important opposition figure, her statements have merit plus I specified that she is from opposition and that it was her personal oppinion.
Why would I request RfC? First, I left a note in edit summary, no one reacted. Second, this article is heavily scrutinized by the aviation-oriented editors. Whenever something is changed, if it’s not correct or whatever, it is being reverted the same day. And yet, in two weeks, no one commented nor complained but you, and no one reverted it untill you did. I don’t know why are you overreacting on this one as I am under the impression that you don’t want this info anywhere, in this article or in a separate one.PajaBG (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I have presented Wiki rules and guidelines which the edit broke directly. Those exist for a reason, style was only secondary. Just because somebody did not remove it earlier does not mean that it's ok; it is not - on several levels. "I don't want this info anywhere" ?! That is WP:ASPERSIONS. The next step would - I support the Progressive party, right? Marinika Tepić is an average political figure, nothing special. Once again, I strongly encourage you to ask other senior editors to give you a comment or two on the content. This is going to be my last message about this problematic edit. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Kingdom of Serbia, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from http://www.balcanica.rs/balcanica/uploaded/balcanica/balcanica%2048/07%20Batakovic.pdf, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Kingdom of Serbia saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! CC-by-NC-ND is not a compatible license. — Diannaa (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello {@Diannaa: I have reworded most of the text as much as I was able in the moment. Could you help out a bit in that regard? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I will have a look when I get back from doing my mother's grocery shopping. In the meantime you could use Earwig's tool to continue work if you have time: link.— Diannaa (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
@Diannaa: Thanks, I had no intention of not going per copyright policy. I believe that the 3 paragraphs can really improve the article and give some interesting data. Thank you kindly, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Croatia Kingdom

Dear Sadko,

Travunija, Neretljanska kneževina and Zahumlje are also hold by Croats nobilties and Kingdom. This reverts means delete part of Croatian history. Thank you for understanding.

Best regards. — Uspjeh je ključ života (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Uspjeh je ključ života: No, that is just another POV. WP:RS are not confirming this particular POV. Do check DAI and do more research, please. Sadkσ (talk is cheap)

Use a proper reason to revert

I don't know whether you think I was being "unconstructive" (in which case it's unacceptable as you doubt me without seeing my edits properly) or whatever, but you should not revert without telling a reason. I've explained clearly in my edit summaries the reason for all my changes: to fot exactly into what the source says. That is an absolutely right thing to do so an article doesn't stray from its original meaning.

I informed about my changes to the user who had added the claim that majority of Bosnian Serbs think the wedding started the shoot or Croats think killing of a Croat civilian started the shooting. Because that's not what the source Deustche Welle he used, said. It said that was what was taught in history books of Serbs or Croats. But wide agreement is that it started with recognition of Bosnian independence (it doesn't say Bosnian Muslims thinking so anywhere).

If you've got an issue, try raising it on the talk page. In case you actually had one. Don't do such unexplained reverts again. If you believe someone's unconstructive don't do it without a good prina facie reason. I will revert it and lodge a complain in future. 117.199.89.113 (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Indian editor, your edit is not construcitve and it's making major tweaks to the text and what the sources say. I shall study it some more in the near future; as it's not ranked very high on my current priority list. You have not explained your edits properly, which is even more of a problem considering that it's a GA. I would also like to invite you to register on Wikipedia. Reverting fundamental changes made by IP editors are quite usual, I'm sure that you know that. Now, please go and raise your concerns and explain your changes on the TP, I'm sure that the main contributor would like to join the debate. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Making a "major change" is not unconstructive. I did explain each edit very clearly, except the one I merely changed EEC to European Community as I thought it was a trivial change. And you especially shouldn't do it without reading the source. In fact, it won't take much time to cross-check my edits and that I have tried to stick to what it said. If you think you can revert freely because I'm an IP, then you should change your mindset.
I've contacted the main contributor, if he has a dispute he'll start a dialogue on the TP himself. If he doesn't start one despite having a dispute, I'll do it. But there is no dispute with anyone right now, I see no requirement. You not bothering to check the source and my edits is a shortcoming and your own fault. I suggest you not do it again and not to mock me for being Indian in future. 117.199.89.113 (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don’t smear

You left a post on my page accusing me of “vandalism” when firstly I was reverted by another users hours before, which they deemed a “good faith edit”. My edit brought multiple sources backing up my edit as well. I suggest you double check the criteria for what vandalism is. Unless you think it is vandalism to use the “ The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos” as a source. Simply not liking my edit doesn’t mean you should smear it. I hope this was simply a misunderstanding. OyMosby (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Unconstructive editing is the one (they are next to one another in TW). And point making, constant reverting... Serbian fascist organisation? And what's their name again, what's the name of the country they were active in? Do you even realise how problematic those edits are on several levels? It looks like (to simplify it) "I'll get back to you for adding information about other fascist organisation, you are not that good yourself". That's what it may seem like. Before coming to me, think it over. We should be here to build an encyclopedia. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Information icon You think you are very constructive when you delete Croatian names or change notions into Serbian ones. I don't think so. --[[User:Silverije|<b style="display:inline; color:orange; background:purple; padding:2px 3px 2px 5px;">Silve</b>]][[User talk:Silverije|<b style="display:inline; color:orange; background:blue; padding:2px 3px 2px 3px;">rije</b>]] (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Please revert your revert

I notice you have jumped into conflict again after previously insulting me. You have claimed my edits are not constructive. Can you please explain how they aren't. I clearly explained I added sources and what sources said about April 6 1992 being considered start of Bosnian War. If you don't have any reason then revert yourself, if you do mention it clearly on the talk page. 117.199.83.116 (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Again? Not really.
Nobody has insulted you, do not pull that card on me. You are part of an ongoing dispute (nothing wrong with that), take it to TP, come to a joint solution, I am more than happy to give a helping hand.
Another question, it seems that you have not previously edited Wikipedia from the same location/IP range. I am curios to know how and when did you learn the basic rules? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 03:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
First of all, don't try to taunt someone and call them out as "Indian". What's with the dear "Indian" editor?
Secondly, the other editor didn't object to my latest edits at all. He objected to previous edits which I allowed him to revert. So please revert your own edits.
Thirdly, I have edited on Wikipedia before, don't worry. It's not something tough once you try to read them. I hope you did.
Lastly, you're yet to provide any real reason for reverting me as I asked. Your latest reason is wrong and you know the other user never reverted my latest edits. 117.199.83.116 (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
That is not a taunt, are you kidding? I am a fan of Indian culture and traditions. Now, about the rest, I see no real reason to revert myself, considering that there is an ongoing dispute and you should not edit-war or play a ping-pong edit game but use the TP to come to a mutual agreement. A seasoned editor mush now this. :) That is all and I don't think that my position is that hard to understand. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Please stop kidding yourself and me with such claims. No fan says "dear "Indian" editor" as if to point out who I am. And your absurd English with poor grammar in the middle "mush now this", with a smiley at the end isn't helping your claims either. I know very well you just want to push your non-neutral agenda.
You are claiming there's a dispute where there is none. Can you tell me please where exactly did the other user dispute with me on my latest edits when you reverted me. He only disputed me on earlier edits, that was resolved. So you're making false claims of dispute and if you don't revert, I will revert you. I have deconstructed all your arguments on the article talk page, you don't run the place so I ask you to specify under which reason you're reverting. When no one's disputing any longer, you don't have a right to rverrt anything. 117.199.87.125 (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Response to claims of me disruptive editing

Please do not make blanket accusations like this one on my talk page where you are claiming that I am doing disruptive editing. It is not acting in good faith, especially since I was the one who originally added the climate table in the first place and have checked this page regularly given that various IP users repeated vandalise the climate table figures and change it to fictitious values. The reason I reverted that IPs edits on Leskovac is because this IP changed the values in the climate table that do not match the values provided by RHMS. For example, the one you reverted my edits introduced factual errors. First of all, the data claims to be from 1987-2017 but the RHMS source only says from 1981-2010. Also, the temperatures and sunshine data did not match the source values. For example, the Jul high on that version was 32.2 but the RHMS source says 29.1 and so on. Secondly, this has nothing to do with a content dispute or disruptive editing, this is simply a matter of vandalism because the various IPS have vandalized the climate table by deliberately introducing factual errors. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

ZERO WP:RS was introduced. Am I right?! Numerous pages have been vandalized with such edits and patrolling them over and over is tiring and time-consuming. Nothing personal. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Response to “Vandalism” (Sorry for late response)

Sadko, almost forgot to respond to our previous discussion. Firstly, I came here in response to a Vandalism post you made on my page. You came to me initially 5 hours after another editor reverted my edit. However you cleared up you meant to post “unconstructive edits”. I was not “getting back to you” over anything as I made edits on an article you were not even editing at the time. I’m sorry if you got that impression from me or if it looked that way. Not my intention. I used the fascist organization of Ustashe as an example for consistency as it formed in the Yugoslavian territory as well. So seemed like the best example I could use. As for where Zbor operated, it was in historically named area of “Occupied Serbia” during the Holocaust in Serbia. The name of the organization doesn’t negate what it is or can be described as. For example NDH wasn’t independent (it was an illusion of independence) but a German Italian puppet state. I did not coin the phrase “Serbian fascist movement” I cited multiple RS that literaly describe it as such. Otherwise I wouldn’t make the edit. Seems constructive. I think you should kinda think this over (As apposed me doing so) before coming to me or in response. As again you misunderstood me. If the goal is to build better encyclopedia together. Anyway, we should stick to the subject article and discuss on the Yugoslav National Movement Talk page. We have worked well together before so I know we can have a productive discussion their and talk about the sources and if we agree they are valid enough or strong enough to make my suggested change. I will list the sources there if you wish to look them over. I won’t bother you talk page further with this. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Your edits certainty aren't unconstructive in any manner OyMosby. He has nade such baseless assertions against me too, over what actually seems like him not liking my edits. 117.199.92.163 (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@OyMosby Calling Zbor exclusively Serbian is a mind-boggling. I was shocked. We know for a fact that the party was: 1) founded and operating in Yugoslavia 2) pro-Yugoslav 3) Yugoslav in their name and party program 4) They won a lot of their votes in Dalmatia and other parts of Yu. I got this from historian Branka Prpa, I can't remember which work it was. 5) Their ideology was not only Based on Serbian traditions/nationalism but it was a "unique" hybrid.
As I have previoulsy stated, we do not always just copy the sources. Context is very much important and "literally" is not always good. Considering that the numerous edits on "Serbian fascist group" (which is very much hated in modern-day Serbia) were reverted by other senior editors, one should wonder If I had a point or not. Agreed, TP discussions are always a good thing. Have a good day, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Air Serbia

Hi. It is important that for two weeks no one changed a comma. We are not talking about some forgotten article that no one pays attention to, it is heavily watched and editors react right away. It doesn’t mean the text is brilliant, but is obviously not problematic. Information is true, well referenced and I said I will condense it. Sorry, but I do have an impression that you have problem with this specific issue. We do stuff and people form impressions on it. Impressions can be wrong, but that’s how people function, no WPs can change that. After all, your overreaction – deleting it and objecting to have it either here or as a separate article - is just the result of your impressions on style or that some WPs, which are arbitrary and non-measurable, are broken. There is no need for rigid enforcement – that way you won’t cause problems and wear out other editors when there is no reason to, especially as Wikipedia itself says that WPs are not laws and may be ignored completely in order to provide information. This is just Wikipedia, relax.

Based on the interraction through articles so far I absolutely have no impression that you support Progressive party so I don’t know why you added that to the mix - another overraction which enhances the impression. Marinika Tepic is vice president of the political party, parliamentary deputy and she gave her theory. That’s enough by itself, but If you take into the account how much effort the regime spends on smearing her on regular basis and even organize their extreme wings to threaten her publicly, the most important people in country obviously think she is not average or nothing special. Cheers. PajaBG (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Please stop undermine the Independence of Kosovo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.100.251.67 (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Following is serious problem

Would you mind stop wiki-hounding me around, and removing my edits, all the time, allover the placee?--౪ Santa ౪99° 11:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I have ~3000 pages on my watchlist, most of which are about Balkan-related topics. Use the TP (!), more than plenty time was available, the edit in question seems to be on the line of WP:IDONTLIKEIT; "genocidal maniacs should not be represented fairly", or at least that is my subjective impression. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, obviously, you have no clue, but it doesn't work that way, you don't get an alert from every single watchlist-page when it's being edited. We all have hundreds or thousands of pages on our watchlists - for example, just for editing here your TP is now on my watchlist, yet I didn't get alert for your reply. In other words, I am able to differentiate with enough accuracy between cases where you may be alerted from those where you are probably not, so I know exactly what I'm talking about when I say that you've been hounding me around for weeks, and jumping out of nowhere on my edits, sometimes minutes apart (the last time was 4 minutes - by the way, these 4 minutes are "plenty time" in your reply, which you claim were enough time for me to write a TP post). That's harassment, because I feel as if I am walking through the minefield, or as if I am being ambushed. Now, that backstabbing complaint of yours to EdJohnston, on his TP without an alert-invitation for me so I can defend myself is probably the best "apology" I could get, after deciding to come here (on 7 June, 11:05) and ask you politely and quietly to stop hounding me instead of going to the board to report harassment.--౪ Santa ౪99° 00:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Sure thing.
Some editors carefully watch all edits made on pages on their watchlist (when there is time) that's not in question. Personal impressions and isolated cases which "make sense" are not good enough. Experienced editors, such as yourself, should know how to use the TP before making major changes. There is no "backstabbing" (Wikipedia is not Game of Thrones), as we are not friends or buddies. I think that you have gotten away with your impolite warmongering behaviour, and editor Ceha was banned. That is my opinion as an uninvolved observer in several cases, and I have stated it quite clearly on admin's TP as I am doing now. TBH, I am sorry if you feel that way. Nonetheless, challenging someone's edits (be it 2 or 2000 minutes later) is NOT harassment and be very careful with your choice of words, as your impressions are not enough to make a valid point. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Or much simpler and more probable, they carefully watch edits and contribution pages of those specifically targeted editors they perceive as an antagonistic to their cause. I ask you again, don't do it, you can't hide something like that, and there are even more experienced and well versed editors who are capable to discern between "watching" edits and "watching" editors. As for my behavior, you need to have evidence and then to convince others that your perception and judgement are the correct one.--౪ Santa ౪99° 01:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:Casting aspersions + sad viewpoint in general, which only reflects something deeper.
Do not pose your opinions as facts, it's not going to pass. I really do not care about any of that. Ample evidence were presented, which can be seen from your TP and final warnings given.
That will be enough of this "the boy who cried hounding wolf" story. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Kosovo 1389

Can you show me any source that includes Serb victory? Crazydude1912 (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Rfc on Nikola Tesla talk page

Greetings , can you please tell me how long is that Rfc suppose to last since it is getting sour, I've noticed that people are getting pinged and attacked

Hello, I would give it a few more days, you can contact potential closing admins after Monday. Those editors and IPs are destroying the RfC, whether they realise it or not. Would you consider to register on Wikipedia? It would give you benefits on the project. Cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I was thimking about it , I have interests in astronomy, geography and sports ,but would like to have a mentor to help me contribute .also could you explain me how to contact closing admins ?
I would be happy to help you and answer any questions you may have. For the sake of easier communication, you can email me this time (See on the left under Tools - Email this user). Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

DRN Notice

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Leopold_Ružička.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Nightenbelle (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

AE comments

I have removed a comment of yours from the arbitration enforcement noticeboard as it was placed in another editor's section. Threaded discussion is not permitted at AE. If you would like to make a statement or reply, please feel free to make a section of your own and place your comments within it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: No problem, I understand, thank you for pointing that out. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Petar Lekovic

I can help, but i can't promise i will have will to translate all. -- Bojan  Talk  20:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Apology

Sadko, thinking it over, I’d like to apologize if I misinterpreted your stance on the RfC. It wasn’t meant to be an attack or offend but rather how things appeared to me at the time. Seeing how you were deeply hurt by it, I am sorry. It was just that the two different stances on the article titles seemed contradictory so I assumed the more negative intentions. I trust that you were simply doing what you thought was for the best of Wikipedia. Take care. OyMosby (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, please slow down

Please Sadko, don't push me into a corner, where I will have to seek protection from this badgering. Simple tools can show "hounding" without much need for explanations.--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Do not play the victim, because you are not one. Nobody is "out to get you". Some recently made edits were disputed and that's it. The choice to ignore and stonewall other editors while giving spicy comments (you this, you that, "gatekeepers" etc.) is not the way to go, which can be seen from the fact that 5 editors have so far disputed the tag bombing on Boris Malagurski. There is no hounding, which you well know, every one of these repeating comments which are made with the idea to build a basis for a future potential report where they would serve as "evedence" of something which took place only in fiction - will not do. Do not post on my TP about this, as it is unfounded and rude. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
You know very well that this particular attempt to reason with you has nothing to do with Malgurski page, other examples show that one, this one is all about your sudden appearance on Trifković's page, where you didn't edit for a very long time, if ever (I didn't check, but you haven't been there since at least 2016), and only to revert my one edit. Posting on editor's talk page is in no way take on your private person or property, and is usual step in resolving problems between editors (see Help on editor's TP).--౪ Santa ౪99° 21:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
And the article has been on my watchlist from 2016 or earlier. Just because somebody is not editing does not mean that he or she is not watching. There is no real problem but an imaginary one, if you have some sort of dispute take it to the TP. And yes, I do have every right to decide what stays on my TP. If this sort of "issues" keep popping on my TP, followed with diffs which have my username included, TP rants, attacks, and what not, I shall be the one making a report for harassment. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

AE result

Hi. The consensus among a quorum of uninvolved admins at AE was that you should be warned for weaponizing AE to eliminate opponents of content disputes. Mikola22 is also warned for failing to be more concise and for bludgeoning discussions.The warning has been logged at WP:AEL. Thanks and good luck. El_C 17:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Reminder about Boris Malagurski

Hello Sadko. This is just a reminder that the article is covered by discretionary sanctions, under WP:ARBEE. You were previously alerted to the sanctions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

serbian propagandist

dont delete my comment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.118.30 (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Great Serbian propagandist Sadko

don't delete my comment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.6.99 (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content and WP:OR changes

It is not the first time you make in the same time removal of sourced content and OR modifications. It has become a common thing. Unless you reflect on my concern, I will file a report at AE. Best. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Translation Barnstar
Thank you. Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Hvala ti, Anti. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Stojan Simić

Stojan Simić, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

1292simon (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kirilo I, Serbian Patriarch has been accepted

Kirilo I, Serbian Patriarch, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Utopes (talk / cont) 16:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Screwed citations... Why?

Hi Sadko, I just ran into an edit where you added screwed-up citations to an article ([7]), in particular this one:

<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.dw.com/sr/protesti-u-republici-srpskoj-protiv-zakona-u-crnoj-gori/a-51833911|title=Protesti u Republici Srpskoj protiv zakona u Crnoj Gori {{!}} DW {{!}} 30.12.2019|last=Welle (www.dw.com)|first=Deutsche|website=DW.COM|language=sr-RS|access-date=2020-02-17}}</ref>

The citation has publisher (Deutsche Welle) and date info in the title, mixes up publisher and author, screws up last and first, omits to mention the actual author (Nikolija Bjelica), etc. Can you please explain how this happened? This is about how it should have looked like:

<ref>{{Cite web |title=Republika srpska: Protesti u Republici Srpskoj protiv zakona u Crnoj Gori |language=sr-RS |trans-title=Protests in Republika Srpska against the law in Montenegro |date=2019-12-30 |author-last=Bjelica |author-first=Nikolija |publisher=[[Deutsche Welle]] |url=https://www.dw.com/sr/protesti-u-republici-srpskoj-protiv-zakona-u-crnoj-gori/a-51833911 |access-date=2020-02-17 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200710195320/https://www.dw.com/sr/protesti-u-republici-srpskoj-protiv-zakona-u-crnoj-gori/a-51833911 |archive-date=2020-07-10}}</ref>

If you use tools to auto-fill citation templates, please check that the values are correct before saving. If you need help in regard to the purpose of the various template parameters, please have a look here: Help:Citation Style 1. And to discuss more difficult cases, please consult the template's talk page. BTW, this related discussion might be insightful as well: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Weird garbage in authors/titles... Hope it helps & greetings, --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Matthiaspaul:, I've been using the auto-fill tool/s for some time now, with different results. This particular result is not good, even though most were okay, sorry about that. Thank you for the input, I appreciate it. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Fringe stuff

If you wish, your defence of fringe nationalist theories can be discussed with admins. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Do not threaten me, that is a two-way street buddy. I did not break any sort of rules or insult anyone and this sort of behaviour (which is getting repeated over and over again) is not looking good for you. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Question

How am I launching “personal attacks” in a diff when in that diff I am telling the person to not make personal jabs and misrepresent my edit? Not to mention I have already come to an agreement with them on their talk page. There is no need to add gas to embers. OyMosby (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gordan Mihić, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kontakt.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

What are you talking about? About revisionism? Look up his devsirme papers, they're easily found online. Ethnic identity wasn't a thing back in the 16th century, let alone being a "Serb" from Bosnia. Classes were based on religion, wealth, feudal position and nobility. Nothing to do with ethnicity. What we do know and what is certain is the fact that he contributed mostly to Bosnia (NOT Serbia, which also had a lot of Muslims, in case you didn't know), and the fact that his devsirme papers stated that he was A BOSNAK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.116.124.18 (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Miss-use of rollback function

Hi! Can you explain how your use of the wp:Rollback function (here, here and here) is compliant with our WP:ROLLBACKUSE guideline? It seams to me that you are using the function contrary to the guideline. Can you explain it? Vanjagenije (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

A mistake on my part, 2 of those should be "reverted in good faith". Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
And the third one? Vanjagenije (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I would go with "undo", but the buttons are near one another and once it's gone there is no going back as it takes only a few seconds for rollbacking to take place. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
We can solve that problem easily by removing the rollback toll from your account. Just say if you want so. Otherwise, please be careful when performing the rollback. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Roger that. 10:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

"Please copy the material to a fitting section."

I fail to grasp that the reasoning to deliberately revert an revert that reverts DELETING of content is in any good faith if I stated in the comment to not edit war and instead continue the discussion to the article's talk page. The material seems to already be in the fitting section as it reflects the current political information and the section seems biased without this particular material in my humble opinion, and in respect to you, an another editor, even while having that opinion in mind I decided to not undo your edit to stop the edit warring. Do you think that the entire section should be moved to contemporary history, or did you reconsider? All the best, LukaAndjelkovic (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The part in question should be moved under "Politics" paragraph. Hvala Luka, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Milutin Milankovic page

Can you please talk with User:Vanjagenije who is now reverting Serbian to Yugoslav part in the sentence without knowing that he is supporting Notrium reverts without reached consensus. I tried to revert it to its original 2 times and I am now risking a Block but I dont see any reached consesus on talk page where it is agreed that it should be changed that MM was a Yugoslav scientist instead of Serbian as it is written in original. I think there is confusion in question — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.9.202.230 (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I did not agree with the removal per se. Ty, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 09:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
In any case my opinion is that you can have consensus and change it from "Serbian" to "Yugoslav" or leave it as it is, that would be the most reasonable thing,this changes on almost daily basis doesnt look good from neutral causal visitor of wikipedia point of view, thank you for responding me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.9.202.230 (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Todorcevic's biography

You are wasting your time. The whole biography is usurped and vandalised by a bunch of American idiots. The "Yugoslavian" is not the only idiocy here. Todorcevic is not notable for "specialising" rather for leading and being a world leader in pure mathematics (see https://web.archive.org/web/20161203170449/https://rsc-src.ca/sites/default/files/candidates/TODORCEVIC%2C%20Stevo.pdf), [1] is not a reference, and he did not attend Kurepa's lectures rather advanced lectures.

In addition this sentence "Todorčević's work involves mathematical logic, set theory, and their applications to pure mathematics. " is pure idiocy - math logic and set theory are the pure mathematics - "their applications to pure mathematics" only demonstrates ignorance of these two you pinged!

The next idiocy, in the current text (the Research section), reads, "In Todorčević's 1978 master’s thesis, he constructed a model of MA + ¬wKH in a way to allow him to make the continuum any regular cardinal, and so derived a variety of topological consequences.". Topological consequences of what? In order to understand what exactly J. Larson wrote, here is the full citation of the relevant statement: In his 1978 Master’s Thesis, Stevo Todorcevic used techniques of [Mitchell, 1972] and [Devlin, 1978] to construct a model of MA+¬wKH and did so in a way that allowed him to make the continuum any regular cardinal (see [Todorcevic, 1981c]). Todorcevic went on to derive a variety of topological consequences of MA+¬wKH. This is a sound proof that @David Eppstein: did not understand the quoted J. Larson's text! The next sentence in Research is incomplete interpretation of the J Larson's statement about Todorcevic's and Abraham's work at the Settop summer school, Toronto Jul-August 1980.

When writing about the books Todorcevic authored, we need the book reviews, not the basic bibliographical data we can see at the MatSciNet. So we need reviews coming from I. Farah (Topics in topology), J. Larson, J. Moore (Walks on ordinals and their characteristics), etc.

Then, how to justify removal of the Todorcevic's list of PhD students from The Mathematical Genealogy Project, his research positions at IAS and Berkeley, his family status (married, one child)? Or removal of the section describing his advisory work?

For more details, see the whole discussion on this talk page and the history of the biography changes.

Yeah, I mostly agreed with you, the overall stance which I have seen about this article and biography on the TP is a bit awkward and strange. I tried to find links/references which would serve as proof that he is Serbian/Canadian citizen, but so far, there is none. Thank you for the input fellow editor. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Gajevicu su srbi u Vojnoj Krajini i Vojvodini poceli prvi da je koriste

... i ne treba da ignorisemo to i prepustimo im je kao "hrvatsko pismo" nikako. Jedan od dokaza, vidi moje zadnje izmene. FkpCascais (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Naravno, dobar posao. Vraćam se polako sa odmora pa ćemo u nove radne pobjede! Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 08:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Vasojevici

Hi Sadko, I'm not an experienced Vikipedist but I think I can spot a POV when I see it. Unfortunately I do not know how to deal with it here... Could you please help me calm down the deleting fervor of Mikola22 at the Vasojevici page? I understand that all info should be sourced but: quite a lot off his deletes (e.g. Slobodan Milosevic being Vasojevic) is sourced well enough and not being disputed at all. Apart from that, isn't Wikipedia providing some less drastic measures for poor sourcing then outright deletion of the whole section that has been put together during so many years? I don't know, like puting a tag about lack of sources or smth... Thank you in advance! Drmiko (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Hahahaha, I just realised that he deleted the whole section listing all the Vasojevici brotherhoods, claiming R-J. V. Vesović, 1935, "Pljeme Vasojevići", Državna Štampa u Sarajevu, Sarajevo - because "this source and informations from it are outdated":))))) Outdated how? Meaning that families that were Vasojevici 100 years ago are not Vasojevici any more? Drmiko (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page. If he is disruptive in any way - report him. I am currently very busy, but I'll look into it. Hvala, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Licence

Hey Sadko, recently, I have been adding screenshots of creative commons Youtube videos to WikiCommons and properly licensing it so I could add them to the infoboxes. However, the mods are asking for more permissions even though it's creative commons. Can you help me on that one? Pozdrav! --Elserbio00 (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC).

Zdravo, I'll take a look, just post the diffs for me. If I do not know what the problem is, I'll ask around and somebody will sure help. Pozdrav, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:Personal attack against you

Hey it appears that you and @WEBDuB: have been attacked on personal level by unsigned IP : 93.142.66.189 on Drazen Petrovic revision history page and on Novak Djokovic talk page. Also there are few broken WP:rules. Thank you. -Theonewithreason (talk) 11:46, 07 August 2020 (UTC)

Kere laju - karavan prolazi. Do not worry. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Literary Barnstar
Thank you for the exceptional work and contribution to the articles on Serbian literature! WEBDuB (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much my friend. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Stefan Konstantin

Hi. You asked me a while ago about adding sources to some articles, including Stefan Konstantin. I got interested into this so I finally did something about it and, since I have found some new sources and included those from Serbian Wikipedia, I also prepared an expansion. However, since I don't know whether you had some plans for this article or just wanted more sources, check it first [8]. If it doesn't mess with any of your plans for the article, I will publish it. PajaBG (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Pajo, great work! I won't have much to contribute at the moment. I think that the article is great. With several small tweaks, you could get a WP:GAN even. Thanks. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. OK then, I will post it. Cheers. PajaBG (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

New message

Check this out. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced additions

Take a look at these unsourced additions. [9] [10] Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Saint Sava

You reverted my edit at Saint Sava's page on the ground that it was wp:primary... OK, I'll back it up with another citation by Noel Malcolm. Do you have any objections on the matter? Edion Petriti (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not see that addition as an improvement. What is the point of it? And having it in that particular paragraph. Malcolm is still based on that primary. Cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
You mean you simply don't like my edit? The point is to shed light on the moral and material state of the time, and Sava's sermons. Your only concerns were WP:AGEMATTERS, old news of little relevance, plus WP:PRIMARY. Which will be fixed. Edion Petriti (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Do not spin, thank you. Stating that a religious figure from the 13th century was opposed to people sleeping outside their marriage and gay population in general is like saying that water is wet. It's of little usage to the article and it seems like the statement is there "out of the blue". Yes, all the sources are problematic. Note that this addition needs to be approved by the community, otherwise we'll simply go back to the WP:STABLE. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry I must be dumb. What are again your objections regarding the insert? I mean on terms of Wikipedia policy. You were against the insertion per:
  • WP:AGEMATTERS
  • WP:PRIMARY
What are you other objections? Edion Petriti (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
+ WP:RELEVANCE Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
You wanted a modern source, and I did add it, Noel Malcolm's book on Kosovo. I can't seem to grasp what is your problem, besides you behaving like a spoiled child. Did you ask for another source? And I gave it to you, see here [11] and here [12]. I am going to revert to my last edit, if you revert back, I will take you to 3RR. Edion Petriti (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Embassies

Please do not change the embassies with the letter A in the diplomatic missions in Macedonia please do not do it, you can do it in the diplomatic missions in Croatia, Slovenia or other countries where Kosovo has an embassy. If you do it again I will restore my version again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shkupi Kumanova 1234 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear fellow editor, that edit is an improvement of the article - disputed territories can't be listed in the same way here as other UN country members, for starters. Everything is done per WP:NPOV. Please respect other editor's work. If this sort of edit-warring continues, I shall indeed request page protection a file a quick report. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Please do not delete the former embassies, the liaison office to open the reality must be accepted. If you do it again I will report to you and block you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shkupi Kumanova 1234 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Serbia

I start discussion at WP:DRN so it would be nice for you to join us to resolve this in good faith, thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Missing cite in Amfilohije Radović

The article cites "Buchenau 2005" but no such source is listed in the bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not think that it was me who added that citation. Thanks Renata, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 08:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Should we remove those claims? @Renata3: Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Investigated further, and it appears it was you who removed the full cite here. I have restored it. Renata (talk) 13:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Cheers. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on User talk:78.1.164.190, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: The next time that you want to warn me, please dig deeper - [13] That is the tenth time that I deal with the same type of slurs and insults from the same IP, from the same IP range. Nobody has done anything about it, and diffs of this type, which I have posted several times on a number of pages have rarely been removed... I have been quite mild compared to the type of uncivil behaviour I deal with over and over again. That aside, I am sorry for my comment. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
If others make inappropriate comments towards you, please report them. I simply addressed the grievance in front of me at the time. Only you can control your behavior. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Sadko there will be no next warning, read what it says again, next time it will block you for your behavior.93.138.67.67 (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
The same warning goes for you as well. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree.93.138.67.67 (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

List of ethnic cleansing campaigns + Kosovo

On the first article you reverted me and wrote: "Why are you removing the picture of children refugees, man?". I have removed the picture you coincidently added when we were discussing them on the Kosovo article, since that article has already a picture of Kosovo there. I sure hope you aren't using the fact that the image included children to advocate for your own POV.

On Kosovo you wrote "numbers are irrelevant", I think some explications are necessary here?? Ahmet Q. (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It's an okay image representing a terrible event in our shared history. All ethnic groups should be respected. I really do not understand how can you remove such an image and have a diff which states "we already have 1"? How is that fair!? Do you have any Wikipedia rule or guideline which would support your deaf??? I am worried but still assuming good faith here... Please, do explain. What POV??? Adding an image of children refugees? Do explain, please. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
There is already one image from each community involved in the broader Yugoslav Wars. Anything beyond that on all sides is WP:UNDUE and WP:POV pushing.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Your pov is adding an abundance of pictures of Serbs when the article is supposed to be about all people of the earth. The fact that you are trying to make it seem as if I have described the children refugee to be the POV is not only bad faith but it's sickening. And no i'm not deaf? Do explain, please. Ahmet Q. (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
How? Do you even read the guidelines you are quoting? Picture of children/refugees is undue, because we have one already, which is representing another ethnic group? Do you even realise how wrong this may seem? Which POV? Provide a better explanation or I shall ask for another opinion, and that will only be the beginning. Is it POV to say that tens of thousands of Serbs (including many children and elderly) were forced to leave the territory of Kosovo in one way or another? Is that "POV"??? It can't be undue because it is 100% on-topic. Do explain, please. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
We have all the parties involved in the Bosnian/Croatian war represented. That is not the case for Kosovo war. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it's WP:UNDUE - now, you know that you don't have consensus about it so further reverts by your or someone else are edit-warring.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
That is not an answer, not at all, just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This conversation will be saved and noticed. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
You still haven't answered, maybe it will be best that an admin be called as you suggested. Ahmet Q. (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

Check this out. [14] Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Greek Genocide

I didn’t delete the Greek genocide section. It was another user. And I disagree with its removal as well. But I would violate 3RR and blocked for edit warring. All genocides big or small should be represented given they carry cited sources. It is not Synth as each cited sources specifics genocide. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint but I am not sure that we should include every terrible event described as genocide. In that case we can include the Genocide of Serbs in WWI (perpetuated by Bulgarian and AU forces), and that would open the door for more and more added info. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
If it is cited as genocide, then Genocide of Serbs by Bulgarian and Austrian forces should be on the list. Lord knows humanity is plagued with genocides in it’s history. OyMosby (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Milo Lompar

Done. Milo Lompar, Elserbio00 (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Goran Jevtić is a convicted felon - sex offender

If you (and native Croat GregorB), continue to delete from the LEDE (GJ is actor, director, convicted sex offender) the fact that Jevtić is a convicted sex offender just like Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, i will demand arbitration from native English speaking editors since you are from the former Yugoslavia just like Croat contributor "GregorB. Moelscene (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

What are you going on about? Where I was born or where I currently live has nothing to do with Wiki guidelines. Behave yourself. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

List of serbs

Hi sadko, I would never put your immaculate knowledge of the subject in question, but during my recent lollygagging on the wiki i stumbled upon a page that you seem to edit quite frequently. Im open to alot of oddities but i found it surprising that there were 2 writers named Petar II. Petrović Njegoš and 2 writers named milica Stojadinović srpkinja (born and died in the same year) so i promptly removed one of each. I was wrong according to your judgement so can you please educate me on the subject. Cheers friend SerVasi (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks SerVasi. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!

To Mr. Sadko. Keep being cool and thank you for your support Theonewithreason (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you kindly. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Paštrovići

Hey @Sadko: I saw your revert today on Pastrovici article and I supported it. After reading materials about them I also could not find any of conformation that they are "Albanian" tribe, not just that I found that lots of members came from old Serbia but we are probably going to have another possible unnecessary edit war. There is this source that describes history of the tribe [[15]] I dont know how much is considered reliable by Wikipedia standards but it does summarise all the info about them. I would also like to read opinions from @Amanuensis Balkanicus: and @Sorabino: about the topic and the source since I consider you 3 the biggest experts about medieval and Serbian history. Thank you. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 06. December 2020 (UTC)

Images

I have explained why using obscure doodles is wrong. Wikipedia should not promote the use of images that academic sources upon which it relies would never consider using in their works. You might be interested in this discussion on the topic. Surtsicna (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@WalterII and Surtsicna: 1) "I have explained it" seems like another way of saying "I'm right". 2) Considering that 2 editors have restored the images, it seems like you have no consensus. 3) You can't possibly link a similar discussion and use it as an argument, that's a full Fallacy if I ever saw one. 4) Academic works do not use it - and so what? There is no Wikipedia guideline or rule based on that notion. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
It's another way of saying that I have made some arguments and you have made none. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, and there is no consensus for inclusion. Yes, I can possibly link to the discussion about the same topic, and so I did. And yes, there are Wikipedia guidelines stating that the content of articles should reflect the content of high-quality reliable sources, images included. In fact, that is the whole gist of the project's most basic policy. Surtsicna (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
"Academic works do not use it - and so what?" To read this on the talk page of an experienced user is simply flabbergasting. This is an encyclopedia. Its editors should look up to the highest quality publications, not blankly dismiss them. Surtsicna (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
No, it's plain refusal to hear other people. It's just a personal preference the way I see it, and other editors as well. The content of high-quality RS is about the sources/text and not the pictures. All in all, two editors are in favour of it (and I'm not in for the pictures used in the infobox, but rest of the article) and you are not. It's pretty clear how to proceed. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Other people have had no arguments to offer so far. In case someone has explained why these anonymous 19th-century doodles are beneficial and I missed it, please point it out to me. Until then, clearly we should proceed in line with the reliable sources and the cited guidelines. Surtsicna (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Mistake?

Was your revert on the HRT page a mistake? I removed what is the same info repeated twice in the same paragraph....OyMosby (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, in fact it was. I shall check the rest. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Serbia

Hello, I have created a map of serbian tourist attractions ( SerbiaOwnMapEN.jpg on wikimedia ). It is something that I missed when planning my holiday in Serbia last year. I thought about linking it to tourism sections of Wikipedia for Serbia, but I have no permissions to edit. Please take it under consideration - I think Serbia has a lot to offer, but is so much unrecognized. Pborys (talk) 09:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Zdravo Pbyoris! Thank you kindly for your hard work. I've added the map to the article. Enjoy your stay in Serbia. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

ANI January 2021

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice

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

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

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

Doug Weller talk 12:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Keep up with the good work both in terms of quality and quantity! Alexikoua (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you kindly. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sadko/Archive_1&oldid=1145917340"