Copying within Wikipedia requires attributionEdit

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Bosnian genocide denial into Milorad Dodik. 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. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. 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) 14:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa, I was sort of aware of this but didn't know that it's required to do something in that regard. So, basically, this copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution would suffice and can be used as a template in edit-summary (if copied text is short or not substantial) and in TP (if there is a lot of copied text). I think that in this case - Bosnian genocide denial > Milorad Dodik - I am a sole contributor of copied text, and it is not particularly intricate narrative it's more of a listing, but if I understood correctly, in case of being sole contributor then, maybe, it could be unnecessary. Please, just to be on the safe side, let me know if I understood this correctly? Thanks again, and stay safe.--౪ Santa ౪99° 15:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Santasa99. The edit summary is mandatory whether you place a template on the talk page or not. The talk page template is optional. You are correct that if you are the sole author, attribution is not required, but it's still helpful for patrolling admins if you do so. — Diannaa (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, of course, I know that edit summary is mandatory on its own, that's elemental, and yes, it could be that I have done it before. However I am not sure that I am able to remember where, but if I do I will put this temp to appropriate TP. Also, most likely, when and if i used bits of text from one article for writing in another, then, it was again probably my own. Anyhow, I will be sure to use it every time I am reusing any amount of text from now on. Cheers.--౪ Santa ౪99° 16:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

HiEdit

Vandalism was committed on this page, they put Croatian literature to be Serbian, they just changed Croatian to Serbian, and the sources say Croatian can you fix that, i would but it's semi protected so i can't. Siverije repaired, but vandalism was committed again.Thanks [[1]], history page [[2]]

Your GA nomination of Stjepan Vukčić KosačaEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stjepan Vukčić Kosača you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CommanderWaterford -- CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stjepan Vuk?i? Kosa?aEdit

The article Stjepan Vuk?i? Kosa?a you nominated as a good article has failed  ; see Talk:Stjepan Vuk?i? Kosa?a for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CommanderWaterford -- CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021Edit

  Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Re-Instated NominationEdit

I re-instated the GA Nomination after your complain at GA Review Talk. Good luck for it. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

ReadEdit

Please actually read Ethan Van Sciver. The redundant information you re-added is already in the article.

... Through it, Van Sciver became a central figure in Comicsgate, a movement which objects to certain "political" themes in current mainstream superhero comics,[14] but which has been criticized as a harassment campaign against those who produce them.[15][16]... Magic9Ball (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, actually! It is fixed now. As I pointed in the edit-summary, this example shows exactly why intentional obscuring an information for whitewashing purposes is never good idea - yes, I have read article first time, but being dumbfounded I have managed to miss it. Now it looks easier to distinguish it within article text.--౪ Santa ౪99° 17:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm discussing this on your talk page because I thought it would be more constructive than talking about your behavior on the article talk page. You made a bad edit, and instead of assuming good faith and figuring out what you did wrong, you accused me of lying. That's inappropriate, and you owe me apology for it. And now you just accused previous editors of the article (including me) of "intentional obscuring information for whitewashing purposes" which is exactly the opposite of "assuming good faith".
It is not my fault that you didn't read the article carefully before editing it. And you are not a 10-year-old child, so it is not my responsibility to hold your hand and show you exactly which information you duplicated. You made these mistakes. Take responsibility for them. Magic9Ball (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)