User talk:Santasa99/Archive 9

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	I appreciate your nice and friendly tone in discussions. Eisfbnore (会話) 18:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Your recent comment

Regarding your edit summary about a possible sock. Do you suspect some editor in particular? EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, EdJohnston, first let me wish you and yours good health, I hope all is well at your end. As for suspicion expressed in my "edit summaries", well, it seems to me that most likely culprit should be sought between at least three possible candidates, all of them closely tied to hr.wikipedia, but I suspect one editor in particular: IP on 27 April, IP on 1 May, and editor "of interest". I hope I have not misinterpreted your query. Stay safe, EdJohnston, and take care.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking at Special:Contributions/188.252.192.0/18 I see a variety of interests, so surely more than one person active. There isn't much reason for a rangeblock. You are hinting that a named editor could be avoiding a restriction but the evidence would have to be specified more clearly. I could see some reason for semiprotections, but only with further study. Thanks for your good wish. EdJohnston (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bosnian genocide denial

The article Bosnian genocide denial you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bosnian genocide denial for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mhare -- Mhare (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations! Great work! The article certainly has potential, and I think we can nudge it even further. Next step would be peer review. Eisfbnore ^(会話) 23:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both, Mhare as a reviewer, and thank you Eisfbnore on your good suggestions and genuine will to help improve the article. I really hope you will retain interest so that we can keep up the good work on everything that follows, with both actual improvements and promotion - I realized that there is still room for that with "A" class, "Featured Article", and so on. I also read the article "The Holocaust in Slovakia" last night, and it is an exquisite job you did there. Also, I hope that Calthinus, Resnjari and others will continue to contribute. Thank you to all - stay safe and take care.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Well that's nice but I think the credit should go to Buidhe wrt the Slovakia article. Eisfbnore ^(会話) 12:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Huh, my apologies to Buidhe, obviously I confused some discussions, somewhere ¯\_(゜-゜)_/¯.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Did you notice the recent Twitter spat between Jasmin Mujanović and Glenn Greenwald? [1] Interesting to watch how certain stuff never seems to settle completely…Eisfbnore ^(会話) 02:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Eisfbnore, this is really interesting, and really unfortunate. There are lots of noise in that thread, but ultimately in one of his answers, and that's my feeling, Greenwald quite exaggerated understanding of how he was regarded and described by Mujanović, aside that he was really over the top with his insult, and that he interpreted Jasmin's point rather poorly. Hey, I want you to know that I'm counting on some of your inputs, sometime in the future, when I return to this article - or, if you decide to work on it yourself, alert me I will help.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, not the most charming aspect of left-wing purity politics/vampire castle…sorta brings out the worst in people. Greenwald is a journalist, and a very good one, so he should be expected to do a quick background check before he tweets out. Tankie twitter accounts are also extremely easy to spot, even if they don't have a ☭ or a cute DPRK flag in their display name. He also at times can be very abrasive and easily triggered, which I don't think is helping anyone.

I hope you liked my recent addition to BGD article – I finally got round to it. There's plenty of stuff on the documentary on the web, although 90 % in Norwegian, of course. Maybe the blurb I wrote was too long, maybe too short. I don't know. It is an interesting case of bothsidesism completely landing on its face, with a legitimate grievance (Orić' looting and murdering) turned into uncritical lip service for genocidal maniacs. It was a decisive turning point in the typical Norwegian "just-asking-questions" type of documentary film making, especially after the outrage it created. Eisfbnore ^(会話) 09:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Just found out you can watch the documentary in its entirety on YouTube (with Italian subs). Eisfbnore ^(会話) 19:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, my thoughts exactly. In context of the Balkan wars in the 1990s, they were often exposed flirting with the most heinous of extreme ideological narratives of the far-right - uninformed or unsuspecting reader would think, a truly freakish deviation among the radical left, but it's nothing new and it's not just radical left [2], unfortunately. The situation today could be even more palpable [3], with rise of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and situation with emigration. But there are also those who have tried, and still do, to save the face of the “left,” just like Weinberg, the Lippman brothers, and others.

Also, you read my mind - I did not have the opportunity to watch the doc. Unfortunately I don't know much of Italian, and I don't understand Norwegian - I'll try to find (any language transcript) on the Internet, if it existed somewhere online, then I could make my own subtitle.

And one more thing, this passage you wrote is great, but it's not the only thing I had in mind - for some reason I convinced myself that you had previously worked on the promotion of articles to "A" and "FA", and that's what I would like you to help me with, when you have the time and energy (or I would help you).--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

If you're able to make it past the vomit-inducing intro (complete with orientalizing string music), you'll find that the dialogue happens to be in Serbo-Croatian, and the narrating voice dubbed into English for this version. No need to worry about the subs. I have toiled a bit in the FAC vineyard, although exclusively as a reviewer. Despite my familiarity with the process, I still find it a bit daunting…I'm also not sure that I'll stick around after the 'rona, as RL will take its demands, leaving little to no time for WP editing. Anyhow, I need to get some sleep now, since it is our Constitution Day on the 17th. Gatherings are officially limited to twenty people, and there'll be no parade downtown, but I hope it'll be joyous and fun nevertheless. Journalists are falling over themselves to compare it to occupation era Norway, as you might imagine…Eisfbnore ^(会話) 23:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Eisfbnore, you're right, it's nauseating to watch this damn documentary, but the good thing is that you are in control on Youtube, so you can alleviate all the pain of listening that ill-willed, distorting narrative by skipping through, coming back if necessary, and watching it section by section. I missed a lot but on first watch, but I wasn’t at all surprised by what I saw and heard, and I probably didn’t miss much by skipping some of the parts. Bottom line, I’m glad I finally managed to see it, and I’ll watch it again to catch those parts I missed. Hey, I hope you had a good time for Statehood Day, and that everything went smoothly.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah 17th was fine, although pretty boring, since we couldn't move around that much. First time I have been clear-headed and not hungover on the 18th. ;-) Anyhow, I'm glad you were able to stomach some parts of the doc, even though most of the talking points delivered will be familiar to you, I guess. I'd recommend running http://srebrenica hyphen genocide.blogspot.com/2011/10/byen-som-kunne-ofres-serbisk-propaganda.html (spam filter prohibits linkage) through Google Translate, for a point-by-point refusal of the ludicrous statements given. Eisfbnore ^(会話) 20:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It's really cool that Norwegian Helsinki Committee reacted this way, they really pressed the issue.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember folks were very satisfied with the final verdict by the Norwegian Press Complaints Commission, which definitely drew a line in the sand. I hope you were able to make som sense of the Google Translate job. A phrase frequently used in the document is "å sette ting på hodet", which translated directly means "to put things on its head", i.e a preposterous claim, not "put matter on your mind". :-) Also, "Vær Varsom Plakaten" is "Be Careful/Considerate/Conscientious Placard", not "Weather Warning Poster". Eisfbnore ^(会話) 02:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Islamophobia in scholarship has been nominated for deletion

Category:Islamophobia in scholarship has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. gnu57 17:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

GA review takeover

Done.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Islamophobia in non-fiction

A tag has been placed on Category:Islamophobia in non-fiction requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello/Salam,

Thanks for your edits :-) VR _talk 21:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Sandstein's idea

Frankly, I just wanted to say I disagree. I share your concerns about possible non-encyclopedic interests at play, but it is a mistake to have faith that our topic area will be rescued by some well-meaning Westerners or Koreans or whoever. Whenever non-Balkanians get involved, they either don't make enough effort to actually learn the matters at stake, or they do but then get sucked in -- myself, Taivo, Fut Perf... -- and end up accused of voting in one of the Balkan "blocs" anyways -- which imo should raise questions about whether these "blocs" are actually based on ethnicity or instead based on personalities, who simply assert they are "ethnic blocs" in order to obscure the interpersonal dynamics at play, which are the real reason for much of the allegedly "ethnic" bloc behavior. Hence I (and even Cinadon -- a Greek!) get mistaken for an Albanians (except for that episode my old userpage was defaced by someone who thought I was a Greek...), and Taivo and FP for Macedonians. There is no reason to think it is somehow going to change the game if Sandstein invents this rule. Really, the best thing I have seen happen to Balkan topics is native Balkan editors who are actually conscientious and working to build an encyclopedia, including working with "the other side". Sandstein's non-policy threw out the baby with the bathwater. --Calthinus (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure I have a smart or complete answer, if such exists at all, the whole question is too depressing to contemplate - instead of enjoying editing as a sort of a nice hobby, we all-too-often find ourselves in a situation stressful as if we are friggin' air traffic controllers or something. Far from being the only scope on the project that is infected with the deep problems of non-encyclopedic attitudes, nationalism, bias and pov-pushing, the Balkan scope situation is seriously depressing nevertheless. I must admit I especially agree with your observation about the lack of effort and knowledge on the part of the "outsider" editors, once they decide to engage - I expressed concerns similar to your own occasionally. Ultimately, there are worse things for editors than getting desperate and angry, or getting attracted to unusual propositions and solutions, which is "wiki-retirement", or even worse, "wiki-suicide".--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Petrovo field, Bosnia and Herzegovina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Field (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

List of karst plateaus in Bosnia and Herzegovina moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, List of karst plateaus in Bosnia and Herzegovina, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). 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. buidhe 19:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Potočari, Srebrenica moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Potočari, Srebrenica, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). 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. Celestina007 (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 109.245.37.148 (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Boris Malagurski covered by discretionary sanctions

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.

EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War

Thanks for the dedication and conclusion of the review. I would not pursue it to reach a FA status, though, since I know how exhausting a FA review can be, they fight and scrutinize you for every little word in the article.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Categories for single articles on flags

I have nominated mergers of two categories created by you:

• Category:Flag of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Flags of Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Category:Flag of defunct Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia to Category:Flags of Bosnia and Herzegovina

If you wish to comment, please do so at WP:CFDS. – Fayenatic London 09:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Lakes Category Difference

Hi, I'm running through the categories in WP:LAKES and came across two that you created that seem to describe the same thing. Could you explain the difference or let me know if it makes sense to merge these. Thanks. Category:Subterranean lakes in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Category:Underground lakes of Bosnia and HerzegovinaWolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 25

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to List of Serbian painters, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Neo Ottomanism WP:IR rating

Hi! I've rated nearly 8,000 pages for WP:IR and note you changed my importance rating of Neo-Ottomanism for the project. Given that this page clearly needs to be improved, may I ask why? Johncdraper (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Esad Kurtović

The article Esad Kurtović has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Very accomplished, lots of published material, but very anemic citation count (highest is 35). Can't see where he meets any of the other criteria of WP:NACADEMIC, and definitely doesn't meet WP:GNG.

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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Esad Kurtović for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Esad Kurtović 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/Esad Kurtović 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kotor Castle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ključ.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Glavatičevo has been nominated for deletion

Category:Glavatičevo has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 23:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Kašići

added a link pointing to Settlement

Krupac (Konjic)

added a link pointing to Settlement

Lađanica

added a link pointing to Settlement

Razići

added a link pointing to Settlement

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Your take?

I recall you wanting to add a tag to the Boris Malagurski but were told you need consensus. Yet [Here] a tag is added by those that told you this but don’t seem to follow their own advice?

Seems hypocritical if I am reading this correctly. OyMosby (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry to interrupt this interesting gossip section, but if you will allow me, I shall answer it, in a word - NO. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Well Sadko what are the odds of seeing you here? ;)OyMosby (talk)

Hi. Nice to see you as well. I have this page on my watchlist, from the first moment I was accused of "sneaky reports" (when I wrote to an admin with my concerns) and generally a target of such slurs. After seeing this "conversation", I'll make sure to remove it from my watchlist, it's all for the better. That is all. Good day to you. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You personally being slurred supposedly by Santasa, seems odd in this case as no on mentioned you or slur in particular. Your diff was used to link to a given point into the page particularly. Odd to list someone’s talk page in your watchlist vetting each edit. OyMosby (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 23 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) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Bosnian Genocide deniers has been nominated for deletion

Category:Bosnian Genocide deniers has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. (t · c) buidhe 01:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I want to run a scan of a source by you

Santasa99, could you enable your email function so I can send you a pdf source for you to go through as you speak the language and all? Thank you. OyMosby (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Canvassing

Look who's talking. [4] [5] Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Who's talking? Is there a point in leaving these preview-links (not diffs) on my TP?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

January 2021: Please use the undo button...

When you manually made that photo go away on History of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it did not create the "reverted" tag on the article's history, making it that much harder for other editors to understand the situation with those inappropriate photos and seek a solution. Just a heads up.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Your recent editing history at List of Serb countries and regions and Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina shows that you are currently engaged in an Wikipedia:Hounding; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, while following other editors with whom you disagree and not engaging in Talk Page existing discussions. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others, especially not via WP:Hounding. Instead, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. Being involved in hounding and edit war as a consequence can result in blocking from editing.---Theonewithreason (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC) 18:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

So, now you are joking with policies and guidelines, and you find appropriate to copy/paste my message, which I left you at your TP, here back to my own?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sadko:, I guess leaving these messages without even replying a one word in article's TP, which has grown pretty large pretty rapidly is what you see as constructive contribution to the project? But don't bother.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Propaganda during the Yugoslav Wars

Hello Santasa99, I hope you are doing well. Can the POV template from the NATO and Western media section be removed? The section has been considerably rearranged, references by esteemed and relevant authors have been added (even more than 30 references!), as well as criticism of their opinions. What is disputable and not neutral in this case? What would you like to change and in what way? No one made specific objections to the sources and content on the talk page. I would like to resolve this together and improve the article. I have already initiated a discussion several times. I'm always available for cooperation. Thanks. --WEBDuB (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Likewise WEB, likewise. Issue requires elaborate response, so if you don't mind I will respond tomorrow during the day. What I have glimpsed at this point section would probably need few crucial issues to be resolved.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

Hello, I'm Aeengath. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Battle of Zenta, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Aeengath (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

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

Re-Instated Nomination

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)

Your GA nomination of Stjepan Vukčić Kosača

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?a

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)

Read

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 ౪^99° 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)

Stjepan Vukčić Kosača

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Stjepan Vukčić Kosača has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

I have tagged two sentences in the Struggle for family inheritance with "clarification needed" tags as I was unable to understand what the text was tring to convey. Please be sure to read through the article carefully to make certain that none of the edits I have made have added errors to the text. Best of luck with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Twofingered Typist, you did an outstanding job. I've seen "clarification" tags, and it will actually be easy to fix that/improve those lines. Overall it is exceptionally well done. Thanks again, take care and stay safe.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Santasa99

Here they want to put Bosnia and Herzegovina and other things that have never been Serbian countries, please pay attention to this page and further possible edits [[6]]. Thank you.89.172.66.209 (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Bombaj Štampa songs

A tag has been placed on Category:Bombaj Štampa songs indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stjepan Vukčić Kosača

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 Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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 Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Kosača

Hi, Santasa99. You have done excellent work at Stjepan Vukčić Kosača. I intended to perform the GA review but found that a lot more needs be done. Do you want me to proceed with the review and post suggestions there or would you rather that I take a more active role and edit the article ahead of a review by another editor? Issues include punctuation, spelling, linking, capitalization, clarity, grammar, and internal consistency. Surtsicna (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Please, Surtsicna, by all means, and not just spelling and grammar. It would be great if you are willing to spare some of your time and energy necessary to introduce whatever you find is lacking in terms of substance in current version (key -events, -people, -dates, and so on, which could also add some depth on certain episodes which I didn't dwell on or include at all, improve and make narrative more coherent, and so forth). However, also take into consideration that copyediting was performed, and by one of the project's top copyeditors, who upon finishing copyediting job warned me of the possibility that (s)he may have unwittingly changed some meaning, context, flow, in some sentences/para's - operation could have left behind some awkward phrases, expressions or sentences, which, I suppose, is what usually happens when copyeditors find themselves in uncharted territories of unfamiliar subject. I already checked and remedied few of such mistakes based on the copyeditor's misunderstanding of context and intended meanings, but it could be that some of it still remains. Anyhow, with your grasp of regional medieval history and, I suspect, bibliography on the particular topic and concrete subject, and historiography in general, your involvement will be very beneficial and absolutely appreciated.

Regarding the review process, I am certain that your eventual direct involvement (via prose editing), in pursuing a promotion on the quality-scale while overseeing the review process should not, can not, in any way, impair your role as "GA" reviewer in that process - improving bits of the existing article to achieve standard of the quality-scale required by the review process falls under reviewers' prerogatives (see 4. under WP:GAN/I#R3). On my part, I will be at your disposal all the way and ready to fulfill nominators' obligations.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: what happened, did you change your mind about the intention to review this article?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

No, I am definitely going for it. I just had a sudden burst of inspiration to expand the article about King Baldwin the Leper, so I had to follow that through first :D Surtsicna (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

That's cool, @Surtsicna:, you just ping, then, when you think that you are about to start.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Producer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Meehan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment has been nominated for merging

Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Župas of the medieval Bosnia state

A tag has been placed on Category:Župas of the medieval Bosnia state indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Fly fishing in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been nominated for deletion

Category:Fly fishing in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 05:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Recreation in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been nominated for deletion

Category:Recreation in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 05:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Categorizing areas by fauna

Hello Santasa99,

Is Category:Hucho habitats in Bosnia and Herzegovina really a good idea? There are regions of the world that have tens of thousands of native fauna. This seems like overcategorization (WP:OC) unless hucho are somehow staggeringly rare AND influential. Any thoughts on possibly emptying & deleting the category? If a river is really notable as a place hucho fishers go, it can be added as normal referenced content in prose, rather than as a category. SnowFire (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Snow, I wouldn't let myself go on with it if I didn't believe it will be appropriate. My explanation is that huchen is endemic, endangered, and of huge importance to a world's freshwater ecosystem. In a way it is a "great white" of a rivers, but confined to only handful of rivers in the Danube river basin, and even there it was IUCN-categorized as threatened/endangered several years ago or by now even a critically endangered. Bottom line is that it won't hurt if have those rivers categorized per country (basically, six countries overall), with Bosnia being a country with probably largest number of these rivers (like two dozens at most). Thanks and happy holidays.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll be honest, I still don't really agree, but it sounds like there's at least a case to be made. (The main worry is that if "categorization by fauna" becomes a thing, even if restricted to endangered / unique fauna, then Amazon River should have like 100+ categories drowning out all the more relevant categories. But we'll see, I suppose.) Regardless, nice additions in prose on tourism & recreation - even if the category is deleted some day, it certainly deserves to be mentioned in the article prose. SnowFire (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey, "what happens in Gstaad, stays in Gstaad". ;-) Take care.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (second request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Schutzkorps into Stjepan Vukčić Kosača. 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. — Diannaa (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Diannaa, that's simply impossible, not only that I would know for certain if that's the case, since I rewrote entire Stjepan Vukčić Kosača article, but the Schutzkorps and Stjepan Vukčić Kosača articles and their respective subjects have nothing what-so-ever(!) in common - not only that, move like that would most certainly messed up the article on Stjepan Vukčić Kosača. But, just in case that whole thing somehow simply slipped my mind, would you lead me to a diff where all began?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I put some incorrect article names into the template. Content appears to have been copied from Stjepan Vukčić Kosača into Herzegovina. Diff of Herzegovina. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

That makes more sense. Yes, I am a culprit - I wrote entire Stjepan's article. I used some bits and pieces in more or less changed form in several other articles on the history of Bosnia. Also, I was aware that I can copy/paste my own prose from article to article, and I am following your earlier advice on this matter and trying to have it on my mind when copy/pasting - you can see your earlier post at the top of this page. Anyhow, thanks for the effort, and I wish you a happy holidays.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake, I should have checked more carefully and posted a more accurate notice.— Diannaa (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Nothing to be sorry for, it happens - no doubt in my mind your intentions were in wp:good faith and that you are doing good and needed job vis-a-vis this issue. Take care.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bila (river), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kozica.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Matija Divković

Please note that Graham87 was reverting a bunch of unsourced, unexplained changes--the kind of change one sees all the time in articles in this area. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I understand that it was good faith rv, I checked (and he is admin, after all), but my "summary" is intended for those who are prone to disregard source statements or narrative, under Balkan scope, and who began this series of changes in Divković, driven by less than a good faith intentions.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Graham is one of the best admins around, BTW; he should be on payroll. Take care, Drmies (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Cool, and thank you. Happy holidays!--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stjepan Vukčić Kosača

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 Vacant0 -- Vacant0 (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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 Vacant0 -- Vacant0 (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stjepan Vukčić Kosača

The article Stjepan Vukčić Kosača you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Stjepan Vukčić Kosača for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vacant0 -- Vacant0 (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hasan Kikić small.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hasan Kikić small.png. 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) 18:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring at Zachlumia

Helo Santasa99. You've been warned per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. Either of you may be blocked if you revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Really, well thanks EdJohnston, this sends interesting message, though - it seem that one could fare much better in these edit-Warring AN's if simply let go and force their POV-will until someone makes complaint and then expect that reporting party gets the same treatment as one who obviously ignores arguments and guidelines invocation, and even consensus no matter how low number of editors reached it (Ktrimi and myself in this case for instance - similar situation happened when you threatened to block me and an editor I reported on problems with the article titled Duchy of St Sava while on my side of the argument were several editors including one admin, and on his non). What's bothers me the most is that I can only hope it's not inertia that overtook, to get the job done and close the case back at the AN. A little deeper scratch on the surface would reveal that reported editor is already found his way to a sock investigation, but somehow pulled through with only few days or weeks block, or that he created account a year ago, in the midst of banning of several editors from Serbia, and upon creation immediately plunged himself into most controversial articles and TP discussions with suspiciously adequate Wiki vocabulary. Stay safe and Happy New Year.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Santa

Hi Santa, early parts of the discussion on talk page of the article went a little bit off-topic. Would you mind if I collapsed it with template. Thank you.--John the Janitor (public) (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, you can place it under the template navbox, same as I used in Pushback, but I am not certain that you should do that just on my blessing alone - when I did it, I had real diatribe to put away from the TP, and you would do the same with not that problematic content. You decide.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Re: I was 5 min late

OK :) Then, we subcategorize? Category:Ottoman military personnel of Croatian descent? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I continued this on Category talk:Croatian people of the Ottoman Empire again --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Nuklear bunkers in Bosnia and Herzegovina

A tag has been placed on Category:Nuklear bunkers in Bosnia and Herzegovina indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself.

I created a new category with the correct spelling of "Nuclear" and moved the pages formerly in Category:Nuklear bunkers in Bosnia and Herzegovina to the new category, Category:Nuclear bunkers in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The old category is empty and I have therefore asked for it to be deleted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Dinjčić noble family moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Dinjčić noble family, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

Hello, I'm GenoV84. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from LGBT in Islam. However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. GenoV84 (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at LGBT in Islam. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. And to answer your latest disruptive edit, YES: there is also a Jewish death penalty. GenoV84 (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Stop playing with pipes - it is Capital punishment in Judaism, which doesn't mean Jewish death penalty !--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at LGBT in Islam, you may be blocked from editing. GenoV84 (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring on LGBT in Islam

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on LGBT in Islam. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Manticore 01:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Manticore 06:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Katun (commune) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Katun (commune), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Objecting draftification

Thanks, @Onel5969:, but given that in a very short time you have chosen to review several articles I have created, I would expect that by now you could have assumed that I would object draftification, because I prefer when you handle [it] through other processes, such as deletion, stubbing, tagging, etc. - so, at least three other ways exist (and some more?). This is because the last time you draftified one of my articles (I believe Dinjčić article few days ago, right?), I explained why I prefer other options in these words: If we take into account the fact that the community of editors who are interested in this topic is extremely small, removing the article from the mainspace only further narrows the number of editors who would be willing to improve the article with proper references, thus shifting the weight to the creator alone. Since the subject of this article is notable, and since it's hardly blatant example of an article unsuitable for the mainspace or misguided creation, I am asking you to move the page back to mainspace so that it can be further developed from there.; further, when the time is short for me to ref an article properly, I at least always leave Bibliography with some high profile scholarship for any interested party to use as a starting point.
Now, since deletion (AfD) would be highly prejudicial move, taking that this article is/was linked from dozens of other articles, written on the subject of Balkan history, and whenever those touch the history of Vlach ethnic group and Katun as their socio-political organisation, and probably many more that were left out because different link format, then, probably most collaborative and least controversial way of handling it would be proper tagging. Thanks (and I really hope you won't take this personally, after I contested every single decision you tried to implement wherever I was active as an editor - it's just a fluke, probably).--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

These are few article linking to Katun (commune), while probably many more could potentially link to it if their (red) links were properly formatted :

• Demographic history of Kosovo
• Mikhail Miloradovich
• Katun
• Stjepan Vukčić Kosača
• Obște ‎
• Miloradović noble family ‎
• Vlachs in medieval Bosnia and Herzegovina ‎
• Andrei Miloradovich ‎
• Albanian–Romanian linguistic relationship--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC) ‎

RE: "Channels"

So, if not through behavioural boards (WP:ANI, etc.) and not through content resolution (WP:DRR, etc.), what "channels" do you envision remain? El_C 13:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It was just a comment on your remark that I am complicating posts - in all honesty I perceived your remark as quite friendly, actually, so I tried to responded in a same casual tone.Ok?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Preferably non.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, obviously, preferably none, but since divine intervention (topic pun unintended) is unlikely, a veteran editor is expected to learn how to condense. Writing a report whose length is several orders of magnitude greater than 90 percent of reports on that board (and of the remaining 10 percent, overwhelmingly from new editors who have little concept of the volunteer part in volunteer project), that's just odd, and self-defeating. And time consuming, for naught, lest we forget. The sooner you come to terms with these sort of best practices, the less strain you're likely to face in such venues (in nearly any venue, in fact). El_C 13:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I will take your friendly advice, and hope it won't be an asset. (But you must admit, project is full of contradictory requirements - sometime is less better sometime it isn't. Who can catch up with all those intricate threads)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Best to get to the point with a less is more approach and elaborate upon request. Best not to expect familiarity from outside commentators, because they are unlikely to possess it pretty much by definition. Best to spoon feed the evidence to reviewers. WP:TEXTWALL, WP:TLDR are related essays. El_C 13:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course, we have so many policies and guidelines, but at the end it boils down, always, to a persons' attitudes and mood. (There is one admin that goes under the pseudonym Oswosh, something like that, and for instance, I believe it is "she", she is so considerate and so confident and willing to go to the last detail, to seek and explore every possibility, not to mention her posture and approach in discussions - she is the most helpful, receptive and sensible admin around, but then we have admins who are pretty much disinterested, moody, and sometimes even blocked :-) .)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean Oshwah, the man, the myth, the legend? Yeah, he's great, and a friend. More like him and less like me, I agree! El_C 14:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I apologize to Him, i was on 110% that he is she :-), but you, El_C, judge harshly yourself Ok, it's a modesty thing, and not that it matters, but I find you unusually receptive and willing to get to the bottom of the problem and to discern wiki-rights from wiki-wrongs. I was always politely accepted in Oshwah presence, it's a cool experience when things get heated.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

How to resist the man who welcomes you with a "I am here to help" framed with smiley faces - we all have some usually irrelevant pics or slogans, that guy is really here to help.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

El_C 17:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I have abandoned that page when I started to write ANI earlier today, for now anyway, because there is nothing I can do to remove unreferenced content at this point. It is what it is.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Santasa99, you just posted there after I've given you a final warning, on that article talk page. So, no, you haven't abandoned that page when [you] started to write ANI earlier today, except maybe now. I don't understand why you are committing these really obvious factual errors. Same with the 17 diffs that became 3. I don't know if it's to do with how you read/write it, but there is an objective threshold, which you are failing to meet. Please try to be more cognizant of that. It would be in everybody's best interest, not least your own. El_C 17:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Eh, you are really confusing me now - you asked "Santasa99, I can't make sense of your here–there thing RE: AN3. What is happening?"--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Try reading more closely, Santasa99. What I said above was straight forward, in my view. Anyway, please try to take what I said on-board. El_C 18:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is a known phenomenon - when you are restricted with lingual deficiency, if your second , third language is not exactly good, and you have or need something to say, you then try to substitute it with more explanatory info, in text, verbally whatever. :-)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Santasa99, I understand. English isn't my 1st language, either. But this is the English Wikipedia, so WP:CIR also extends to a sufficient command of the English language. Some missteps are okay, of course, but only to a point. So please keep that in mind and take your time, proofread better, etc. El_C 18:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, should have said an article or content resolution.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't even know what we're talking about anymore. El_C 18:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

:-))) , little monkeys and figs?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I can't wait to eat that monkey. El_C 18:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

:-))) you guessed it on first - you see we are in perfect understanding. Further info in The Man Who Speaks in Anagrams--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement article ban

The following article ban now applies to you:

indefinitely article banned from LGBT in Islam and Talk:LGBT in Islam

You have been sanctioned per this ANI report. I would recommend waiting at least 6 months before appealing.

This article ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_and_sexuality#Final_decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:ABAN to understand what an article ban is. If you do not comply with the article ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. El_C 07:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

PEN Bosnia and Herzegovina moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, PEN Bosnia and Herzegovina, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Marko Vego

When he was alive Bosnia and Herzegovina did not exist. He is described as Yugoslav. Rathfelder (talk) 08:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

When he was active Bosnia and Herzegovina very much existed, as a federal republic, with its nationhood inscribed in birth and citizenship certificate of its citizens, just like nationhood of all six constituent republic in their certificates. Its the same nationhood used as a formal basis to gain independence in 1990s. Not to mention that great majority of these Yugoslav historians are all included in their respective Serbian, Croatian, Slovene, Macedonian, Albanian categories, so there is no reason to single out Bosnian historians and treat them any differently from, say, Serbian and Croatian Yugoslav historians. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The article Bosnia and Herzegovina does not appear to support this. It says: "The establishment of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1929, however, brought the redrawing of administrative regions into banates or banovinas that purposely avoided all historical and ethnic lines, removing any trace of a Bosnian entity." I'm not suggesting that Bosnians should be treated any differently from Serbian and Croatian Yugoslavs, but the general idea is that national categories should be related to the nations as they were when the person was active. That isnt always straightforward. Rathfelder (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you read correctly, but, oh-boy, you really know how to cherry-pick info and / or era. Bosnia like all other Yug. countries was erased as an entity with borders - all of them, Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro and Slovenia, all lost their territorial integrity and borders during Kingdom of Yugoslavia period, however, why would we consider that fact of any significance to Vego?! He was active during SFRJ not Kingdom. Anyhow, in cases of science, philosophy and to some extent art, we use constituent republics as peoples' parent nationality, mostly in regard of existence of national academies (SANU, ANUBiH, ANUCG, JANU/HAZU as Croatian specificum, etc.). Bottom line, Vego specifically is Bosnian / Bosnia and Herzegovnian historian in sources, and these always supersede all and any POV argument. Anyway, you are not that mistaken in general when checking these cases for specific national categorisation within the scope of Yugoslavia, but there are some peculiarities that we, editors editing in Balkans scope, have silently agreed upon - Academy of Science and Arts of the particular republic can provide basis to identify, in this case, historian as belonging to that particular constituent-nation. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Report IP

Hi! According to my research, this range of IPs [[7]] is vandalized every day on sites related to Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Serbia and Macedonia. Please pay attention to the editing of that IP range and if the vandalism continues please report it to someone in charge to block it. Thanks78.3.85.128 (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rade Uhlik, Bosnian romologist.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rade Uhlik, Bosnian romologist.png. 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) 17:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Street of Olives has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Street of Olives. Thanks! asilvering (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Street of Olives (June 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Asilvering was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Street of Olives and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Street of Olives, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

asilvering (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Santasa99! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! asilvering (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rade Uhlik, Bosnian romologist.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rade Uhlik, Bosnian romologist.png. 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) 17:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rade Uhlik, Bosnian romologist.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rade Uhlik, Bosnian romologist.png. 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) 13:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I am Rade Uhlik's grandson. The picture I put up is the right one, it shows my grandfather, while you put up a picture of a man I don't know. Please don't change the image anymore!

Best regards, Brankec81 (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

You can't make such edits and uploads even if you are person in question yourself - you need to prove to administrators of Commons page that you have copyrights on that image or it will be removed, and you can get blocked from the site completely if you continue to revert to a version without copyright information. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Mentioned regarding an edit war at Zachlumia

Hello Santasa99. You've been mentioned at User_talk:EdJohnston#Breaking of a ban on Zachlumia_article. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

They never learn

Seems that not only Theonewithreason is again editing against NPOV on controversial articles or sections dealing with early medieval history, see Višeslav of Serbia: Revision history and Principality of Serbia (early medieval): Revision history where crucial sentence is removed without any valid reasoning and editing policy is exactly against such removal. Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, the edits on various articles and talk page discussions over the years are evidence Theonewithreason doesn't have a basic understanding of WP:NPOV and other policies and is disruptively forcing pro-Serbian viewpoint. They are blatantly WP:NOTHERE to build a neutral Wikipedia. Why are you wasting time discussing with them? They should be dealt with at admin's noticeboard.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rade Uhlik, Bosnian romologist.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rade Uhlik, Bosnian romologist.png. 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) 17:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Songs about the Siege of Sarajevo

A tag has been placed on Category:Songs about the Siege of Sarajevo indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Stjepan Vukčić Kosača

Hello, Santasa99. It is impossible that Ragusa granted Sandalj and Vukac the status of Ragusan nobility because they were dead by 30 October 1435. According to Miklǒsich, Ragusa granted them Ragusan citizenship by charter dated 29 June 1419. Greets Kardam (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll check this thing, and get back to you here, although I assume that was the year when Stjepan received his citizenship grant. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it was referred to Stjepan, although in somewhat awkward manner. I hope it is much more clear now. Thanks.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of International Day Against Fascism and Antisemitism

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 International Day Against Fascism and Antisemitism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://dayagainstfascism.eu/09-november/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969: During NPP Patrol I came across the recreated page. Wondering if you would like to review it, since I have not seen the previous version. International Day Against Fascism and Antisemitism. Bruxton (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi

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 [[8]], history page [[9]]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.140.121 (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

"invented"

Hello Santasa99. Could you please explain to me what do you mean by "it is completely invented by editor who created it"? Are you accusing me of creating hoaxes in Wikipedia? Your behavior and attitude shows a disregard of respect for the work of other editors. I will give you an advice: do not accuse established editors of making up articles and having some kind of POV or bias. It will eventually end up with your name at the administrators' noticeboard. Super Ψ Dro 08:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I am not accusing you of creating hoaxes, and I certainly never claimed any bias on your part. That could be interpreted as spreading WP:aspersions. Also, I would really like to emphasize that I believe my behavior and attitude certainly do not show disregard and lack of respect for the work of other editors - at least I sincerely hope that the AFD discussion is not and cannot be a sufficient sample for such a unwavering conclusion - actually, I really appreciate and admire others good, constructive contribution to our project. But maybe, to avoid any confusion and to avoid giving you any reason to feel that way, I should have said that you "came up" with it without any sources to support it (which is basically POV situation). Simply, I have never heard of such terminology being employed when people researching Bosnia and Herzegovina history, politics and military; I have never heard of genuine research of the phenomenon, which you tried to describe with your article creation, and for which you provided zero sources (except a list of those three book titles included in References). In such a controversial topic, I dare to claim that established editors should know better, not to create such situation. I am really sorry if this is your only concern regarding my AfD, and I'm really sorry if you came up with such an idea only on the basis of that one word of entire AfD. That certainly was not my intention. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jusuf Barčić, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You are not allowed to comment on an AfD after it is closed - something I'm sure you know, and is in any case written quite explicitly at the bottom of the closed discussion. If you think the discussion was closed improperly you should discuss it with the closer on their talk page or open a Wikipedia:Deletion review. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I reported my edit-conflict to a closing clerk immediately and before you jumped to revert, so you can relax and continue to assume a good faith. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it, but your comment came more than an hour after close, so that's drawn-out timing for an edit conflict. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Governor Sheng (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2022 (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. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "West Herzegovina Canton".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Aaron Liu (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Islamophobia in North America has been nominated for deletion

Category:Islamophobia in North America has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice of reliable sources noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is West Herzegovina Canton Symbols. Thank you. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Gazimestan speech

Please be aware that "irredentism" from its own article refers to the doctrine of redeeming lost territories while the speech itself did not allude to irredetmsim, and nor did it advocate redrawing Serbia's borders (which were only internal anyway). The term features only on the "Reception" sector of the article by one or two writers to loosely connect the event with later events that would occur in Bosnia and in Croatia and in particular with the narrative of how events were being portrayed in mainstream media and less so on the ground. That in itself does not insinuate a link between the content of the speech and the ideological doctrine you have sought to include. --Coldtrack (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Two writers are only proper scholars referenced in the entire article, others predominantly being historians. Article itself is underwritten, under-sourced and considerably sanitized of real scholarship. But all that is irrelevant, because category and article categorization is not equal to labeling, and it certainly not intended to "insinuate" anything. It also doesn't matter how much term is featuring within the content, but how it features. Everything else you are trying to explain is your personal opinion. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I've spotted the issue and have remarked myself on at the article talk if anyone wants to respond. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Srebrenica

Where was the consensus in 2019?[10]? --Coldtrack (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Continuing from the above, I would urge you strongly to read the posts of Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Denial (and scepticism?) and provide your proposals and reasoning ther after reading what Pincrete has stated and what I too have adduced. Thank you. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello again Santasa. Your latest edit to Srebrenica massacre demonstrates a fourth revert inside of 24 hours thus breaching WP:3RR. Yes I reverted it (again), but J.O seems very cocksure here. He may be giving you rope, I am not sure, but I would say you have between now and the time he plans to report you "tomorrow" (whatever that means to him) to self-revert and back off. Because frankly, I don't even know what he meant and whether he has seen a violation on your part even graver that edit-warring. The choice is yours. --Coldtrack (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

And your tag-team buddy just misstepped in edit-summary, announcing to entire community that you are messaging each other. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Nothing that is concealed from public, and if you check our history, we're far from "tag team buddies" having sat on opposite benches the last time we commented on an RfC. --Coldtrack (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Is that why he "owes you", and you expect him not to "disappoint" you? If that's what you 2 think collaboration on seeking consensus and NPOV on controversial subjects, and indeed building Wikipedia should look like - I am assuring you it's not. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Look I don't damn well know what he means exactly. I am not in contact wth him off Wiki and I wouldn't know what he looked like if I was stood next to him on a rail platform. But you need to get to grip with your fact-checking as I am sure he was referring to this[11], not that any part of this exonerates your egregious and stiff-necked behaviour to sell a point. --Coldtrack (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not selling anything. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

In that case I suggest getting your eyes checked. End of discission here. Bye. --Coldtrack (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Juicy Oranges (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Santasa99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am sorry that this case was concluded without a chance to offer some reply. I am experienced editor and I rarely fall into a trap like this or bring myself to the brink of being warned let alone blocked for disputes like one we have on genocide denial. I do manage fairly successfully to navigate all our guidelines and policies, I have been editing in Balkan scope under WP:ARBEE, where discussions often get heated, without a log warning let alone blocks (1 logged page ban is due to something of a different nature altogether), and never missed to seek consensus and always looked to avoid being disruptive. And although I have made a mistake and miscalculated timeframe in those reverts, there is more to this case than it was reported by Juicy Oranges. This means that although guideline suggest talking about oneself, I will point to all three of us and the situation which led to this report and block. If it means anything, I actually did try to resolve this whole issue by asking administrator to mediate - I posted at Peacemaker67 user TP (it was badly framed, because hot head needs to cool down before making proper decisions).

The reason for that is that filing editor obviously missed to inform community about not that innocuous way they and Coldtrack participated. We had dispute on the article Gazimestan speech. The moment I left that article and its TP discussion, Juicy Oranges and Coldtrack followed me to article Srebrenica massacre with this edit by Coldtrack, and Juicy Oranges chipped in with this edit,, and started reverting me there, and immediately followed me to another article Bosnian genocide denial with first Coldtrack's edit, and Proposed Croat federal unit in Bosnia and Herzegovina first Coldtrack and first Juicy (they confirm it's them in the next edit here), and again started reverting me there too.

Blocking admin probably checked those reverts simply as presented by Juicy in their report, but I would like to direct attention to Juicy and Coldtrack first edits in these three articles, as they never edited there before until they decided to follow me from Gazimestan speech, and for all intents and purposes tag-teamed and used their same POV to take turns on my edits across these three articles, and edit-warred while evading risk of being themself reported for 3RR. Whole this time they were very well aware what they were doing, taking turns, and here's some evidence of their communications: see edit-summary with a message by Juicy Oranges to Coldtrack; soon enough Juicy Oranges informed Coldtrack and leaving him directions what to do or not to do. Sometime in September they were already exchanging these kinds of messages and communication here, which is interesting because now Joicy informed Coldtrack that they owed them for something they missed back then, to which Coldtrack replied like this. After Juciy Oranges filed the report Coldtrack noticed that report was idle for few hours, so in the message to Juciy Oranges they thanked them and they won't take on themself to "exacerbate things" by making more reverts, and to doubling down on if this is not "exacerbate things": Coldtrack left two edit-summaries referred to me with "no consensus is required for reverting a blatant troll", and "Troll, vandalism"; or that I should have my eye checked because I refused to accept his accusation that what I am doing is "egregious and stiff-necked behaviour to sell a point". Later, they were thanking to Juicy.

I actually intended to go straight to ARBCOM, while fully acknowledging my miscalculated 3RR by fully accepting responsibility for that misstep, and file a report on both editors who are showing some clear signs that they are now taking things into their hands to start fixing great wrongs within Balkan scope, skipping consensus and labeling RS as "so-called reliable sources" and referring to sources with "simplistic narrative sold by mainstream media", only to come across of my 36 hours block. At Gazimestan speech TP, just hour(s) earlier I received blunt ad-hominem from Juicy Oranges.

Maybe it's not directly related to this block and my appeal, but all these edits by two editors were done without even seeking a consensus let alone achieving it, they never accepted that they need consensus to include or change something so controversial in such sensitive articles, where nationalistic editing is not only unheard of but in fact is almost natural occurrence.

OK, whether blocking admin remove or leave my block, I am, regardless, fully aware of and accepting my share of responsibility for what happened. Thank you for the attention.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Accept reason:

See below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

FAO any admin who considers this appeal. Santasa99 was (correctly) blocked for violating 3RR at Srebrenica massacre, and then making one more outside of it though in reality, he who prates about "consensus" plainly refuses to get his head around the fact that he has been fighting a one-man battle for four years on this subject and has come up against two dissenting voices (which outnumbers him) and has further failed to sell his POV to one more editor, that being Pincrete at Talk:Srebrenica. In fact, if the admin inspects this very page for contributions inside the last 48 hours, (s)he will find this challenge to Santasa99 over where he obtained his own consensus for his steadfast, unwavering and uncompromising change in January 2019 on a topic title that has changed relatively amicably a good dozen times since its original inception in 2004 (for which I personally needed a good half hour to collate this useful package). Yet here we are two days later, and still Santasa99 continues to play the age-old trick of Wikipedia:ICANTHEARYOU to what he knows is an uncomfortable question that sets one's face against the principles of the project, all in the hope that if he ignores it long enough it will dry up. This is why it is essential that before an admin considers an unblock, that admin must hold Santasa99's feet to the fire for an answer to where his consensus is, or Santasa99 should pluck the integrity to admit that he never had a consensus whereupon he should cease the prevarication of criticising J.O and me for insisting on a revision that frankly speaking sat harmlessly for four years before Santasa99's sarcastic "what sceptisism?" removal in January 2019 (linked already). Yet it was neither J.O nor I who formulated the version we jointly restored but rather an editor seemingly no longer active (Praxis Icosahedron) in 2015[12]. On balance, I'd say Santasa99 is on his own against a clear mini-consensus no less that opposes him. Then there is the logistics behind the opposition to Santasa99's removal which has been explained myriad times by three editors now. With regards Santasa's predictable line about some conspiracy between J.O and me, I believe that J.O beat him to the punch on this one and dismantled Santasa99's myth before Santasa99 even spoke in his ANEW report. So while Santasa99 uses his unblock request as an attempt to drag down two opposing editors by referring to their activities on other articles, I repeat what J.O stated in his report which is that such a claim carries the burden of proof, and Santasa99 fails to produce a sequence of edits whereby J.O and I have - between us - stood at over three reverts inside of 24 hours. Without this, nothing technically forbids either of us making the revert at the time in question, so his TAGTEAM claim is without merit. Meanwhile, I should also stress that I edit almost exclusively on world affairs, history and politics from around the world, so Srebrenica massacre is not off-topic for me, and as for J.O, he originates from the former Yugoslavia and edits exclusively on that part of the world. So nobody "followed" Santasa99 anywhere, and nobody reverted any fresh edit from Santasa99 to the best of my knowledge. To the contrary, the first act of conflict between Santasa99 and either J.O or me these past days was this revert (although the summary doesn't reflect this). As for why it is wrong and how sources have been misinterpreted, Santasa99 has had that too explained to him on the talk page whereupon one other editor also weighed in with problems regarding his sources, that being Melcous. With regards his objection to how I refer to sources in talk space, this has already been explained to him but once again, "I didn't hear that", and it doesn't help his case anyhow because he can offer no evidence of where I have personally inserted an unreliable source, or removed a reliable source (where it has supported the point being claimed). This leaves the final matter which again J.O cited in the report which is that Santasa99 was aware that he was in breach of 3RR(+1 additional) at this stage several hours before J.O drafted his report. Santasa99 was live during this period, and instead of self-reverting, used his opportunity instead to vindicate his campaign. So please would any admin considering an unblock ask Santasa99 why he failed to self-revert when being given hours to do so. Thank you. --Coldtrack (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I have accepted my responsibility, as it happened when I came day after I have made my revert few hours earlier. Most likely my block will expire before this appeal even gets into consideration because there so many of these appeals waiting a review, so I should have removed it and use more appropriate venue in addressing the issue. As far as I know English Wikipedia is not a democracy, sheer number of "dissenting" POV by two editors is not enough, one needs proper argument preferably with proper evidence, properly espoused at TP, to sway consensus toward his POV, something these two editors never even tried. What they have aplenty is this kind of battleground mentality also evident from their rhetoric and vocabulary. From Coldtrck link and article history is obvious that when I removed "skepticism" in 2019 nobody challenged my edit back then - after all, we can see even in this case how Pincrete actually rejected to support these two editors' notion that their change to the article is acceptable (Pincrete rejecting it, Coltrack acknowledged the fact but nevertheless continued with rv's).--౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

You've been told a thousand times there is no POV where you're concerned. Yes two editors are inserting something factual, and you are constantly removing it because precisely the reason that you feel its inclusion frustrates your very POV. And you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel with your argument about Pincrete's "reject to support" anything other than your stiff-necked resolute one-word interjection. The rest of us are all flexible and are happy to go along with over 90% of the revisions that have been on the article these past 18 years, and talk about "democracy" is rich coming from you when you are the one and only editor ever to spew forth your revision. J.O was right. WP:CIR is an issue with you. Your English is not sufficient as you clearly do not know the meaning of some basic words and have difficulty in interpreting the claims of sources. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Santasa99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Santasa99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Santasa99". The reason given for Santasa99's block is: "Violation of the three-revert rule: one additional revert beyond the fourth".

• Blocking administrator: ‪Daniel Case‬ (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: You should be able to edit now. If not, make another unblock request, I guess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - My block has expired on 6 December at 8:22,6 and now I see my IP is still autoblocked with a different timestamp making this block cca 12 hours longer?!

౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

What's your IP? If it's still blocked, use {{unblock-auto}} Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Daniel, it's OK now. NinjaRobot unblocked it as soon as I posted, and everything is going smoothly now. Thanks. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC draft West Heg blahlb

Hey there. It's been a while. I've drafted an RfC to be posted at RSN in my sandbox. It'd be helpful if you gave me some suggestions about it. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Posted. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Santasa99!

Happy New Year!

Santasa99,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Amir Bukvić moved to draftspace

Thanks for creating Amir Bukvić. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Reading Beans (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Edits to Archived Discussion at WP:RSN

There is a prominent banner at the top of the archived page that you edited: {{talk archive navigation}} I have deleted your additional posts to the closed discussion. If you wish to continue the discussion, start a new thread on the RSN page. Banks Irk (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I came through link there and discussion was not closed just archived. I am not sure who gets to delete posts in this situation, though. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Requesting closure

I saw this edit summary, and I think there might be some confusion. Anyone can Wikipedia:Request closure. "Closure" in wiki-jargon means "write a summary of what the discussion already decided". The discussion is supposed to have finished before you request closure.

If your goal was "make them stop talking about this", then we don't really have a process for that, but if it's about an RFC, you can always explain your concern at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks WaId. Yeah, I realized there is no process to stop the RfC on procedural grounds if one believes that the procedure is malformed, so I removed my queries in relation to that matter. Cheers. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Stjepan Vukčić Kosača

Hi Santasa99, this article is quite poorly written in places; please review my edits and make corrections if I misinterpret anything. The text may have been machine-translated at some stage.

On another note; could you please enable section-level editing of your talk page? It's awkward for editors to scroll past every other section. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Baff, I will have more time later today, and will try to do what you requested - is that timeframe ok? In the meantime, I'll try to enable section edit. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem, I'm concerned I may misread some important fact and rewrite it incorrectly, so I feel a review will be useful, so if you note anything wrong please do correct or revert me. I couldn't find any code in your talk page that disables sections so it may be one of the templates causing it... anyway your page is quite short at the moment so it's not much of a problem for me. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I will check the prose during the night [here :-) ], and if something is misread or misconstrued, I will correct it and ask you to double-check it if I'm not sure about my correction. Yeah, I was just thinking to ask you how to enable section-editing button, because I couldn't find any option in Preferences, and I also checked source to see if I introduced some code, but to no avail. I will ask someone tech. savvy at tech.tea-house how to resolve this issue. Thanks, and I'll catch up with you later. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, it's fixed now, I'm seeing the edit link on the sections. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there was some issue with this archive I'm using, :-) ౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

(←) I've now finished my c/e; I've marked a few passages with {{citation needed}} where citations appear to be missing; and {{which}} and {{what}} on some confusing passages where I couldn't decide what or who the pronouns used refer to. I think I've managed to interpret the text correctly, feel free to inform me if I didn't. Anyway, good luck with the article your planned FA nomination. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Superb. Thank you, Baffle, I really appreciate it. I read the article last night, probably before your last session, and will check again later. I will see what can be done with those passages. If it turns out to be necessary, I will ping you, although it seems that everything is quite alright. Thanks, until next time. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Santasa99. Thank you for your work on Bilino Polje abjuration. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article! I encourage you to create more article. Have a good day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@SunDawn: Thanks SunDawn, I really appreciate it. Cheers. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Luka Božičković

The article Luka Božičković has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage can be found

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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Category:Katuns has been nominated for deletion

Category:Katuns has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Estopedist1 (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Bosnian genocide denial

Hi Santasa99, I'll take this since nobody else is game... I'm sure there's no chance at all of biased editing going on here. Any edit wars or other nonsense and I'm out. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978 I can tell from History, with as much certainty as you could, that article is pretty stable, while in regard to "biased editing" I too hope that article has stayed at least within the GA standards for now. Pincrete is said to be copy-editing article for some time (SpookyTwenty), but, although I have full confidence in Pincrete, he is involved, and I think it would be preferable if uninvolved editor with great copy-editing rep to finish the job if we are to ever nominate article for FA. Hopefully you will be up to the task, so thank you, I really appreciate it. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your confidence; I didn't mean to imply any bias on yours or any other editors' behalf. I have checked the history and yes, it is currently stable, but I've previously triggered one or more other editors to pop up and revert for no apparent reason (or because they didn't like or understand my edits), causing edit conflicts. If I do make a silly mistake or misinterpret something and I'm rightfully reverted or corrected, that's fine. Anyway I'll see how it goes; it might go well with no problems. Thanks for your faith in my work; I hope I can live up to it! :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Baff. If that editor was Pincrete, I am certain that he just needs to see what is going on (copy-editing) and he will be easier to work with all the way through. And, yes, just like in any copy-editing case there may be some misunderstandings on what was supposed to stand in a sentence or para, in context, etc., but we will be in touch, hopefully including Pincrete, as you near the end of your sweep and if some things should be rephrased or not. So, good luck, and feel free to ping me for whatever reason. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't referring above to Pincrete, who most likely knows better than to act in that manner. I was referring to multiple editors who I won't name (and can't without trawling the depths of my talk archives). On another note, I've moved some cited text that failed verification to the talk page; feel free to review. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, as soon as I get some spare time, probably later today/tonight. Thanks Baffle, talk to you later. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 05:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

(←) I've now finished my copy-edit; I'll leave a few suggestions for improvements on the article's talk page. Good luck with the article and cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hajdučka Republika Mijata Tomića

I've restored this to the List of micronations page, because (1) there are many more than two people involved, and (2) while its page deletion is under discussion, that has not yet reached any consensus. – _•Raven  ^.talk 21:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Look, I still like the idea, and I tried before to find a way and give article some credence after it barely survived AfD twice, but all boils down to a satire and the family business. It is not a serious local community effort, say, expressed in form of protest against some issue. I know that the hotelier raised the idea as a sort of protest against municipal blunder with providing an electricity, that he gave his best to promote the idea with posters and variety of materials, even printed passports and currency, but it's all for fun and advertising purpose - yes, according to primary source, every person that decide to eat at the restaurant is eligible for "citizenship" and will receive a "passport", but there is a difference between real micronation and this thing (by the way I think that our list-article on micronations is also based on misconception on what constitute "micronation"). What happens, happens. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Žitomislić

I've moved Žitomislić around to allow for the village article to be linked. In the future, don't do a copy&paste move, just ask for help at WP:RM instead. If the village article needs to be renamed, likewise. --Joy (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Crazy - I wanted to contact you this morning but I was distracted so it slipped my mind, completely. Anyway, now it looks as it should. (The whole idea to create this redirect came from a blocked Zoupan without any logic and reason whatsoever behind it.) I hastened my hand in attempt to fix it, but mostly I was confused and wasn't sure how exactly to interpret some parts of WP:RM#CM and WP:SWAP, I did not pay enough attention on copy/paste issues explained. Later I turned my attention on parts where copy/paste is talked about, so I am now a bit more aware of the problem(s) and how to avoid them. Thanks, Joy, I really appreciate it. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:28, 30 April 2023 (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 Bosnia and Herzegovina topic area. Due to past disruption in this topic area is placed under WP:ARBEE and WP:ARBMAC, which means 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.

Johnbod (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Before you pasted this template on my TP you should have read the instructions that come with the template and advise not to do this if you can assume that the editor already knows that they edit in scope under ARBCOM sanctions, and it should have been very clear to you that I am well aware that the topic area in which I contribute is under ARBEE. It is particularly inappropriate to this is in order to kind of retaliate in same manner. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Inquiry

@Daniel Case would you mind giving me few inputs on my 60 hours block, before I consider appeal? I was kind of thinking, maybe, to appeal unless this inquiry dissuade me from it. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, I blocked you for 60 hours because the last time you did it, I blocked you for 36.

I have nothing to say about whether you appeal, per procedure. If another admin thinks that was too much, or that you didn't violate 3RR, they may unblock. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I did violate 3RR; I am fully responsible and regret it for being so reckless, but even more so for being so naive. What interest me is that you proceeded with a block despite reporting editor practically admitting taking me for a ride on those reverts - in his words in 3RR report: "I don't mind your "layout" changes too much" - so, he was edit-warring for nothing, while not actually minding my changes too much, all the while pressuring me on TP with unrelated justification for his unnecessary reverts; why on earth was he reverting them, and why on the pretext of something inconsequential and already dropped (he was reverting my edit constantly explaining it with dispute over non-existant section "See also" and dragging me down to it like this me, him, me, him) !? Before that he never, for instance, considered WP:REVONLY; I initiated TP discussion but he never matched his responses to evoked points, and even completely missed the point in his post in report ("other editor") - it's like went in one ear and out the other. It's not mine to say if he was deliberately avoiding to pinpoint what was actually in dispute or it's maybe how he comprehends the world around him, but either way it was a lost thread every time which never gave a chance to a resolution. So, why those reverts, and then report, why it did not boomeranged under all these circumstances (he had no more reason to make fourth revert even before I did), and so on. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 06:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Santasa99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

G'day to all. I would like to ask for a review of my 60 hours block by Daniel Case. I am not here to persuade you that I don't bear clear and full responsibility for breaking 3RR, but I feel, with all due respect to blocking admin Daniel, that block is too severely imposed and one-sided, without, at least, some consideration for the circumstances. It is priority to assess the risk and 1) the risk that I could continue to engage in edit-warring and/or disrupt the page and the project are literally nonexistent, not only because I usually successfully restrain myself and avoid the trap of edit-warring despite being participant (for more than a 15 long yr. without single sanction) in highly sensitive and controversial topic area, which is Balkans, but also the edits I contributed to the article which ultimately led to reverts between me and the reporting editor and this block, are actually accepted by reporting editor himself now that I am blocked. By reporting editor's own admission my edits were actually never that contentious in his view -as he said, "I don't mind your "layout changes too much", which is strangely interesting because reporting editor too broke the 3RR over these very edits even before me. So, why than all the reverts and edit-warring, meanwhile I get blocked for edits that didn't matter to opposing editor who invested time and effort to remove them while I was on the page, but now, they sit there in article undisturbed and uncontested !? In a way I got into 3RR and received a block over nothing, over edits which actually never bothered editor in the first place; why was I compelled to defend my edits from reverts by reverting myself; why it did not boomeranged under all these circumstances (he had no more reason to make fourth revert than I did). Or in other words reporting editor was practically edit-warred over nothing, while not actually mind my changes too much, all the while pressuring me on TP with unrelated justification for his, at this point, unnecessary reverts; why on earth was he doing all that, and why he used something inconsequential and already dropped on first two of 2x2 reverts as a pretext (here, it must be clarified that reporting editor was reverting my contribution while justifying it with something else, with explaining how he does not accept links in section "See also", which I stopped including after second revert maybe day before, but he continued to remove my contribution on structuring article which was in layout mess - in other words, he was taking me for a ride at that article and its TP, constantly focusing on non-existant and irrelevant - like this me, him, me, him) !? This felt like deliberate avoidance to pinpoint what was actually in dispute or it's maybe how he comprehends the world around him, either way dispute resolution never got a chance. And 2) 3RR was honest mistake, with those two sets of 2x2 reverts coming on two different afternoons Thak you. --౪ Santa ౪^99°
(Inserted) Adendum: Only today, after this block was imposed, did the reporting editor properly approach collaboration by using WP:REVONLY to fix only those parts of my contribution he thought needed fixing, instead unnecessarily and provocatively going full reverts while using our interaction to offer bogus explanations as noted above (see article history for attribution).--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I might have removed the block if this had been your first one, and if it didn't involve a controversial topic area. But by your own admission you failed to restrain yourself (you say "I usually successfully restrain myself and avoid the trap of edit-warring") so I'm not really clear on what will be different with the next editing dispute you get in. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hello 331dot, and thanks for the review. My remark "I usually successfully restrain myself and avoid the trap of edit-warring" means that as long as it is under my control I do not fall into this trap, which in practice means that in my 15 long years of participation in WP:ARBEE scope I have never been blocked once, until some six months ago when the same admin imposed my first-ever block without giving me opportunity to offer any kind of response, but one which was ultimately lifted on my appeal. So, now there is another unknown in this case (to me, at least, because I tried to find similar situation but failed), and that's being the situation where admin uses (their) earlier successfully appealed block to extend on second - is that even proper procedure, and so on. Also, if it doesn't bother you too much, I would really appreciate to hear your opinion on, not exactly boomerang, but the fact that reverting between two of us was not one-sided and that reporting editor breached the 3RR some 20 minutes before I did - if I am not mistaken, in cases such as this, it usually goes both ways, whether it's blocking or a just warning, the sanction is extended to both participants. On closer and fair inspection, what really differentiates us, except that the reporting editor was faster and more motivated to make a report. Anyhow, thanks, I appreciate your review.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I've placed your comment outside the block review; if you used the reply function, that shouldn't be done in such cases. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand, sorry, honest mistake. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I may comment more later, I'm not presently in a position too. 331dot (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

No worries, 331dot, there's no rush. This was always about a principle and a feeling, and maybe it just my own personal feeling, that the case is at least to some extent bizarre and unusual, and it is not pleasant to be seemingly singled out in such a situation - it can be humiliating. In any other situation, I wouldn't even pursue appeals, if it was about me being some kind of edit-warrior and if this was some kind of big edit-war over something extremely sensitive. It's a very bizarre confrontation over a trivial matter, it's wasn't one-sided, and it's completely bewildering. When you get the time and if you are willing, your inputs would of course be greatly appreciated - there are admins who would be unwilling to extend the most basic courtesy of offering any kind of response, let alone an informative comment, so any response is most welcome. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

So I can quickly say that a point in your favor was admitting that you violated 3RR. But when an admin(well, I at least) reviews an unblock request for edit warring, there are usually two things we look for:

1. admitting it occurred (which you did)
2. telling how you will avoid edit warring in the future, usually by describing how you will handle editing disputes. You admitted that you failed to restrain yourself- which is fine, as we're humans and not perfect- but in order to be convinced the disruption of edit warring will end, I need to know what steps you will take to better avoid warring. That could be dispute resolution measures, avoiding topic areas where you might be prone to edit warring, things like that.

There are usually two things that should not happen in a request:

1. giving the entire detailed background. A brief synopsis is sufficient- as the exact details of a dispute do not usually matter. It might if you take further steps(see next point) but not in an unblock request.
2. telling how others edit warred with you and weren't treated the same. Only you can control your actions, and that's all your request should discuss. If you feel other users were not treated the same or you were treated unfairly, that should be discussed at WP:ANI once the block is over/removed.

I hope this helps you. You are welcome to make another request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Nah, this block will expire before anyone tries to review it. My attention was anyway directed on the arbitrariness of how things went through with Daniel twice, which obviously can't be addressed through personal experience, etc. Rather, I owe you a thanks for the effort you put in and the comprehensive explanation, I really appreciate it. Only, I didn't say, or at least it was not my intention to say that I can't refrain from edit-warring, I don't know how you came to understand my remarks in that way, but I can't rule out my English language limitation in that sense perhaps; I wanted to send a message that would say exactly the opposite - my best recipe for handling disputes is my experience going through the pitfalls of the Balkan scope under WP:ARBEE for15 long years without putting myself in a situation to be blocked for edit-warring, and that my first block came in December by the same admin, but it was lifted on my appeal, but not on lenience ground but rather on extreme circumstances (meatpuppetry). Thanks, and take care. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@331dot would you be kind to shed some more light, specifically on this suggestion about ANI you mentioned (last line under 2.above), wouldn't such a discussion necessarily involve a critical assessment of the admin's ruling or even judgement, would that be out of ANI scope, or would that be a proper forum then, and so on? If I would, say, decide to open an ANI, I would certainly like to avoid any unnecessary fuss on mistaken scope and object of ANI. Our guidelines and policies are sometimes one thing and our practices, sometimes, quite another. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

ANI is where issues regarding user behavior- including admins- are discussed. This will involve reviewing the actions of all involved(including you) to see if policies were violated or applied improperly. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I know that we have some separate forum(s) for discussion about admins (WP:XRVPURPOSE), and if I decade to discuss what happened between editors, it would be unavoidable to mention admin's action, so it's better to be safe than sorry. Thanks. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina art history has been nominated for deletion

Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina art history has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Estopedist1 (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rade Uhlik, Bosnian romologist.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rade Uhlik, Bosnian romologist.png. 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) 17:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rade Uhlik, Bosnian romologist.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rade Uhlik, Bosnian romologist.png. 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) 17:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Bosnia in the Middle Ages

Hello, Santasa99. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bosnia in the Middle Ages, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)