User talk:Sokac121/Archive

reverting

Please don't revert editor requests on articles until they have been discussed and resolved. Doing so is considered vandalism. Thanks, kwami (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Again with reverting the 'citation needed' tags. If you keep it up, I'll ask to have you blocked. — kwami (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

VOTE

I just wanted to tell you that you, as it seams, didn't understand well. Kosovo will not be just redirect, Kosovo sill be still main page, with history, culture, demographics, geography, economy and society etc. something like China article. All except politics. Please, correct your vote with few other sentences, in order to make this vote better and more useful. :) If you want any help regarding this, you may ask me. I will try to help you. --Tadija^speaks 08:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Notice of WP:ARBMAC

Please note that the article Croatian language and other articles relating to the Balkans fall under the ruling of WP:ARBMAC. Note in particular Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, which states

"Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision."

Repeated blanket reversions, repeatedly and knowingly restoring material with large amounts of poor English and grammatical errors, and repeated introduction of material rejected by consensus all fall below the expected standards of behaviour at this project. Knepflerle (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Croatian language. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Keristrasza (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for further, pursuant to the authority of the Macedonia decision, you are hereby banned from the Croatian language article.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Courcelles 12:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

AN/I

You have been reported for canvassing here. --Taivo (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for violating your article ban at [1].. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Courcelles 12:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

This wasn't a one time thing. You have serially violated the ban no less than ten times in four days. Courcelles 12:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

My Recent RFA

Hello and thank you for your recent support in my last RFA. I have unfortunately had chosen to withdraw my RFA with a Support of 7 and Opposition of 26 and 0 Neutral. I am in good sprites to attempt a possible RFA in a later time with more experience. This seems one of the main concerns expressed by the Wikipedia community as well as fixing my grammatical errors.I hope you support me in my discussion to withdraw and I am looking forward to your support in a future RFA's and other edits made by myself here on Wikipedia.

Thanks Again,

Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} 00:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Ćirilica

Da, vidio sam, vec smo mu to rekli na WT:CRO, pa se vjerojatno vecina toga revertirati. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hi Šokac. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved [2]. Thank you. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sokac121 - Don't forget to notify people when you discuss them at ANI. I've notified User:Timbouctou for you.--v/r - TP 14:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

deletion of names in other languages

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you continue with the behaviour on Trpinja and in similar cases, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you. If not entirely clear what was agreed on talk:WikiProject Croatia, maybe this conversation can be helpful User talk:IvanOS#conflict with MirkoS18 etc. Have a nice day.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion at the WikiProject does not in any way preclude listing of Cyrillic on the remaining pages that had it - and those are the villages that I'm pretty sure have traffic signs in reality that include the same Cyrillic spelling, because they're part of municipalities that legitimately decided to do so. If you wish to dispute the inclusion of these factoids, please explain your specific opposition. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Joint Council of Municipalities

I assume you mean Template:Joint Council of Municipalities topics. You can propose templates for deletion at WP:TFD, it's a fairly simple process. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Use of 'Disputed' template

Please follow [the instruction regarding use of this template outlining exactly what is disputed, preferably under a new heading (wrt this edit) RashersTierney (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Croats of Serbia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Letnica

Croats of Vojvodina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Slavic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Croatia Barnstar of National Merit
		I award you for all works on articles about Croats of Vojvodina and Serbia. Congratulation!--Ivan OS 20:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

Hi. When you recently edited Deni Fiorentini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Split (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: vandalism

Please use {{uw-balkans2}} to warn them yourself first, and then ask at WP:AE if there's no response. --Joy [shallot] (talk)

Odgovor

Ma kakvo je to ponašanje? Jesi li ti neki hrvatski nacionalista ili šta već? Prestani da mi pretiš na mojoj strani za razgovor i da pratiš i vraćaš moje izmene. Ako nastaviš sa nacionalističkim ponašanjem prijaviću te administratorima sajta.

U vezi slika: slika u infoboxu članka o selu treba da predstavlja to selo u generalnom smislu a ne da promoviše religiju koja ne oslikava većinu stanovnika tog sela. Naravno da sam sklonio slike katoličke crkve iz infoboxa članaka o srpskim selima. Nisam ih sklonio iz članaka o mestima kao što su Sonta ili Bikovo gde su većina Hrvati. Sada mi objasni zašto članak o selu u Srbiji u kojem su većinsko stanovništvo Srbi treba da ima sliku katoličke crkve u infoboxu? Zar to nije nacionalističko propagiranje katoličke religije na vikipediji? Zašto ne staviš slike pravoslavnih crkava u infoboxe članaka o Zagrebu, Rijeci, Splitu? Kad staviš slike pravoslavnih crkvi u infoboxe članaka o hrvatskim gradovima onda ćeš imati pravo da meni nešto kažeš. Ja slike katoličkih crkvi nisam uklonio ni iz jednog članka, samo sam ih premestio iz infoboxa i nemaš pravo da me optužiš ni za vandalizam ni za "govor mržnje protiv manjina" ili šta god.Mislim da nije dozvoljeno da vređaš ovde druge na takav način.

U vezi veličine slika: smanjivao sam veličinu slika zbog estetike članaka. Konkretno, članak Bođani ružno izgleda ako su slike duže od teksta, pa sam probao to da smanjim (mada je možda bolje obe te slike pomeriti u galeriju, što ću i da uradim), a smanjio sam samo sliku katoličke crkve jer je očigledno manje važna od ostale dve slike s obzirom da je i to većinski srpsko selo. To što ti misliš da slike katoličkih crkvi treba u člancima o srpskim selima da budu što veće i što istaknutije je samo dokaz koliko si zadojen nacionalizmom i željom da podjebavaš Srbe i pravoslavnu veru, pa mi uopšte nije jasno šta sa jednim takvim čovekom mogu razgovarati.

A u tvojoj verziji članka Srbobran je slika katoličke crkve veće nego slika pravoslavne crkve. Šta to treba da znači? Šta time želiš da propagiraš? 250px na slici koja je duža nego šira nije isto kao na slici koja je šira nego duža. Što se tiče arbitraže administratora kojom mi pretiš, ti si očigledno mnogo pogodniji kandidat za sankcije administratora nego ja i čudi me da neko kao ti nije već odavno blokiran na ovom sajtu (a samo ono što si uradio u članku o Srbobranu je po meni dovoljno da te ovde blokiraju - stavio si da slika katočke crkve bude veća nego slika pravoslavne u članku o gradu u kom su većina pripadnici pravoslavne vere. to je nesporna nacionalistička uvreda za pripadnike pravoslavne vere). CrnoBelo (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Closure of your report at the edit-warring noticeboard

Sokac121, please see the result of WP:AN3#User:CrnoBelo reported by User:Sokac121 (Result: Both warned). Both you and CrnoBelo are warned for edit warring about images of churches in articles on Serbian villages. Be aware that User:WhiteWriter is familiar with the article in dispute and both of you might ask him for suggestions. Your referring to movement of the image of a church as 'hate speech' is taking liberties with the English language, in my opinion. I have asked CrnoBelo to get talk page consensus for any further movement of church images if he intends to use denomination or ethnicity as a criterion. If either of you continues with the edit warring, blocks are possible, or topic bans under WP:ARBMAC. I am logging the warnings to both parties in the arbitration case. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sokac121. You have new messages at WhiteWriter's talk page.
Message added 16:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WhiteWriter^speaks 16:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vrginmost, Sisak-Moslavina County, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kirin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the Balkans. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part, merely to warn you of the Arbitration Committee's decision. Please also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Serbia#WP Serbia tag. Thank you.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

February 2013

Please remove the offensive post on hrWiki. Should you not do so (or respond within a reasonable time span), I'll obviously have to report you. Next time, when you ridicule people behind their back, at least try not to actually inform them of it afterwards. -- Director (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Certainly not, I'm not interested in "trading". The quotation on Talk:Croatian language stays. -- Director (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

bunjevci

Ja nisam vandal a ni Bunjevci nisu Hrvati svako ima pravo da se izjašnjava kako želi i činjenica je da se 20 000 ljudi u Srbiji izjasnilo kao Bunjevci i Srbija ih kao takve priznaje,i ne znam zašto ti to smeta.Takođe ne znam odakle tebi pravo da brišeš moje komentare koji nikoga ne vređaju. Pitam se koliko vas ukupno ima na svim vikipedijima zasluženim za širenje hrvatske propagande?Pretpostavljam da je to tvoj zadatak ovde,pošto ne znam kako drugačije jedna osoba može da doprinese jednoj vikipediji ako jezik te vikipedije poznaje slabo ili osrednje.

24.135.73.223 (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: IP Vandal

You can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:SPI#Submitting an SPI case to have it investigated. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: POV

I suppose you mistakenly said community while you really think IvanOS and you? As I can see, WP Croatia community have nothing against my reasonable proposal-your extreme position clearly is not attitude of majority of editors at our WP so it can not be official position of WP Croatia. Best Regards.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see page 27.>Dvor municipality> source explicitly says "srpski jezik i ćirilićno pismo (cijela općina)" (http://www.nipp.hr/UserDocsImages/Registar%20geografska%20imena%20nacionalnih%20manjina%20RH.pdf).--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

IvanOS

I've had strong words with WhiteWriter too; I wouldn't necessarily trust his requests for blocking. For that reason, I checked Ivan's edits before doing anything else; I would have reverted and blocked anyone who's simply undoing another editor's contributions without explanation, especially when it's in a contentious area. The situation is compounded by Ivan's recent block for the same thing; it demonstrates that at least one other admin thought that this behavior was problematic — this is a major reason that I blocked him. Nyttend (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Prestani da uklanjaš zvanične izvore i smanjuješ brojke srba

Ako ti nešto smeta predlažem ti da ideš rađe na ulične proteste protiv ćirilice za Vukovar, nemoj da bes izražavaš nad wikipedijom i izmišljavaš gluposti te vršiš lažne optužbe na kukavički način. (Правичност (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC))

Edit summaries

Hi Sokac121, nice to see you around.

I noticed that you use edit summaries to communicate a specific view and to address other users, like you did here. As edit summaries and edit histories are not normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period. I kindly propose to you to consider not doing this in future.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history at Serbs shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply

reply--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

:)

Kad je izjava iz novina za oko 100.000 hrvata više u n. zelandu reliable source, iako cenzus pokazuje 2,500 - na croats article. Ne vidim zašto ne bi bile takve izjave reliable source na Serbs article :). (Правичност (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC))