Kosmar6314
Welcome! edit
|
No.
The article Nedić's serbia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Proposing deletion as it is a new article that largely duplicates an existing article (appears to duplicate Territory_of_the_Military_Commander_in_Serbia#Administration) but I'm willing to put it up as PROD rather than CSD in case I'm wrong. I don't see a reason to split the other page, but if there are plans to add a lot more data here then maybe it could be justified.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Nedić's serbia for deletion edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nedić's serbia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nedić's serbia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Battle of Vukovar edit
Please, stop with the disruptive editing on the Battle of Vukovar article. The sources in the article clearly say "Pyrrhic victory", and it stood like that for ten years, it passed a highly detailed Featured article review, so please do not change it now on a whim. Furthermore, It wasn't just the Yugoslav Army that fought in the battle, but also other Serb entities which were clearly outside of Yugoslav stature (Republic of Serbian Krajina was never part of Yugoslavia), so a Yugoslav-Serb adjective is justified. If you have any further complaints, please take it to the talk page of the said article.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- 3E1I5S8B9RF7, I Left a message on your talk page. Kosmar6314 {talk) 21:16, 28 June 2021
- No, it is fine the way it is, and for a reason; SAO Krajina and/or SAO Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia participated in the battle, and were extraneous entities outside of Yugoslavia.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- 3E1I5S8B9RF7, Not true. SAO means "Serbian Autonomous Oblast", a Autonomous Region within SFRY. It was not it's own entity, did not have it's own armed forces. It was a Yugoslav victory. By your logic we can say that it was also a Vojvodian and Kosovar victory because people from those parts also participated Kosmar6314 {talk) 17:27, 30 June 2021
- No, it is fine the way it is, and for a reason; SAO Krajina and/or SAO Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia participated in the battle, and were extraneous entities outside of Yugoslavia.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Reliable sources and tendentious editing edit
I notice you were edit warring at Serbian Volunteer Corps (World War II). And instead of discussing on talk, as you were urged to in this edit summary, you reverted again, referring to "westerners" (meaning a whole host of academic sources) being unreliable, as opposed to the organization's self-description, which you think ought to rule. This shows ignorance of (or refusal to abide by) basic sourcing principles on Wikipedia. Please read WP:Reliable sources, especially WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Bishonen | tålk 09:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC).
- Hello Bishonen, I did not start the "edit warring", that is what PeaceMaker67 did, all I'm doing is fixing a mistake and then leaving the reason why. Peacemaker67 however keeps reverting. Why don't you go to him and tell him the same thing? No, you will rather target me. And what are you talking about? You say I'm not discussing it on the talk page, that is exactly what I did? Go and check [1]. And of course, as anyone with a brain I recognize that a source directly said by the party in question matters more than a westerner who wrote a book 50 years after. Also you are hypocrite, when PeaceMaker67 put a warning on my page first for "edit warring" which in fact he started and is constantly doing, you didn't do anything. But as soon as I posted the same thing on his talk page, immediately you take it down. Kosmar6314 {talk 09:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- No, discuss on talk is exactly what you did not. You reverted, and then you discussed on talk. That's the wrong order. And you discussed after I had posted the above, so your "You say I'm not discussing it on the talk page" makes no sense. Do look at the timestamps. As for "as anyone with a brain I recognize that a source directly said by the party in question matters more than a westerner who wrote a book 50 years after", you didn't take a look at WP:Reliable sources, let alone WP:SCHOLARSHIP, did you? Wikipedia has rules, and according to those rules, what an organization says about itself is not a reliable source. (If it was, all political parties and all companies in the world would be wonderful in their Wikipedia articles.) All right, I won't repeat myself further. My warning stands.
- Nor do I understand how I'm a hypocrite. "Immediately you take it down"..? Who, me? I haven't edited Peacemaker's page. User:Ian Rose took it down.
- It's also pretty disruptive to post a retaliatory edit war warning on the person who warned you. (Obviously Peacemaker is aware of the edit warring rules, as they had already warned you). And also to, rather ridiculously, copypaste another's edit summary, "1. Don't template the regulars; 2. Looking at that page's history, you appear to be edit warring yourself -- just discuss it on the article talk page", as you did here. Peacemaker, unlike you, was already discussing on talk, and is actually a "regular" — do you know what the word you used means? I guess you just thought it amusing to copypaste, however irrelevantly. You need to be less aggressive, and edit less disruptively or you're likely to be sanctioned. Bishonen | tålk 10:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC).
- Hello Bishonen, PeaceMaker67 reverted first, what gives him the authority to do that, if he can revert mine even though I provided sources, why can't I do the same? And discussing it on the talk page is exactly what I did, you're saying I posted it after you typed your message, that is true however, your message is only 2 minutes older, I did not refresh the page before sending my message, as not to lose what I had typed. So while you are right, from my perspective I typed it first, refreshed and saw a notification of your message. No I did not find it amusing to "copypaste" rather I think it's quite hypocritical of him to accuse me of edit warring while he started it first, therefore I put the same warning on his page. As for your claim that the historical party's own words are not a reliable source, I am appalled. I am not citing the party's words on them being great and wonderful, rather their own words clearly showing the difference between ZBOR's ideology and fascism, and them negating being fascist. You cannot claim someone is something that they are not. Fascism is a ideology, a party that is fascist needs to have that word in their description, ZBOR has quite the opposite, they claim they are not fascist. And I apologize if you weren't the one who took the warning down. I got multiple notifications from several people including you and mixed them up. Kosmar6314 {talk 11:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- It's also pretty disruptive to post a retaliatory edit war warning on the person who warned you. (Obviously Peacemaker is aware of the edit warring rules, as they had already warned you). And also to, rather ridiculously, copypaste another's edit summary, "1. Don't template the regulars; 2. Looking at that page's history, you appear to be edit warring yourself -- just discuss it on the article talk page", as you did here. Peacemaker, unlike you, was already discussing on talk, and is actually a "regular" — do you know what the word you used means? I guess you just thought it amusing to copypaste, however irrelevantly. You need to be less aggressive, and edit less disruptively or you're likely to be sanctioned. Bishonen | tålk 10:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC).
Important information edit
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. Bishonen | tålk 09:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC).
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message edit
 | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 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 |
Nomination of Živko Korać for deletion edit
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Živko Korać until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Orphaned non-free image File:Živko Korać.jpg edit
Thanks for uploading File:Živko Korać.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)