User talk:Santasa99/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with Santasa99. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I've gone ahead and created Bosnia and Herzegovina related user boxes and I thought you might be interested. [1] PRODUCER (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have nominated temlate:Untrue for deletion. You may review and participate in the discussion here. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 08:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you say which templates (apart from Template:Hoax and Template:Disputed) were used in the creation of Template:Untrue? I'd like to check them for tone. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Santasa99, thanks for the reply. I think when you combined the bits of text from each template, the language that resulted was far stronger than the originals, and "attempts to mislead..." comes off as particularly harsh and uncivil. As you pointed out in the discussion, it could be toned down, but there's still the problem that the template tries to cover the jobs of several others, and doesn't do it as well. As for the argument that Untrue take up less space, I would argue that if an article is bad enough to have multiple issues, it might be a good thing if the warning template is big and ugly.

I think you're right that it can be hard to find the correct template though. I just don't think this can be it. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done making User page, now you can place boxes you made, etc. Please, don't make it too flashy !--ZmajeviOdBosne (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Pocitelj sa citadele.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.iartcp.org/spip/IMG/jpg/DSC01507.jpg. As a copyright violation, File:Pocitelj sa citadele.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Pocitelj sa citadele.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Pocitelj sa citadele.jpg and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and CC-BY-SA, under CC-BY-SA, or released into the public domain leave a note at File talk:Pocitelj sa citadele.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Pocitelj sa citadele.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Martin H. (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Glavaticevo u Zupi na Neretvi.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:Glavaticevo u Zupi na Neretvi.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Glavaticevo u Zupi na Neretvi.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Glavaticevo u Zupi na Neretvi.jpg and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and CC-BY-SA, under CC-BY-SA, or released into the public domain leave a note at File talk:Glavaticevo u Zupi na Neretvi.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Glavaticevo u Zupi na Neretvi.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to upload inappropriate images, such as File:Glavatica Neretvanska.jpg, & File:Zubatak iz Hutovog.jpg to Wikipedia, you will be blocked. Please do not continue to upload images that are against copyright and image upload policies Nja²⁴⁷ 17:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Mekousna.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:Mekousna.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Mekousna.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Mekousna.jpg and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and CC-BY-SA, under CC-BY-SA, or released into the public domain leave a note at File talk:Mekousna.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Mekousna.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. feydey (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do You need help editing Wikipedia? For more please see what Wikipedia is about. Best, feydey (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the image (File:Mekousna.jpg), please take action so the image can be used in Wikipedia pages in the future. It is now used at http://www.ribe-hrvatske.com/images/S.%20obtusirostris/untitled.htm . Unless a link to a webpage with an explicit permission is provided, or an email from the copyright owner is sent or forwarded to [email protected], the image will be deleted. feydey (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding your post on my talk page. I am off to work and I don't really have time to sort through or consider the lengthy post in detail. If you seek help consider one of our noticeboards, as I'd be sad to see you go if you're actually dedicated and are trying. If you have a specific question feel free to ask. Nja²⁴⁷ 05:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gabela Bosnia and Herzegovina.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Bojan  04:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you moved "Una (Sava)" to "Una River (Bosnia and Herzegovina)". See Talk:Una (Sava) for my reasons, we can discuss there if you disagree. Markussep ^Talk 14:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U čemu je točno problem s tim člankom? Ne kužim o čemu točno želiš znati moje mišljenje.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Napisao sam vam tamo na diskusiji o članku - ne mogu da stignem da odgovorim jer radim istovremeno na četiri jezika (i ne mislim na jezike južnih slovena) u isto vrijeme, oprosti ali jebi ga.

Problem je da ovaj mali privjesak slavi svako blokiranje (bez obzira da li vandal ili ne) ljudi koji se očigledno bore da sastave svoj skrhani identitet - a onda pravi trolovi koji ni slučajno ne daju reči da spadaju u kliku nacionalista seeru po tome. Sve se kriju noge, znaš, kao neutralo ću ti ja reči ono što treba da znaš o Vuku Karađiću, Bosnaskom, Bošnjaštvu itd. Imao sam fakat samo pristojnu namjeru da do pristojne mjere isprovociram on što se krije iza "dobronamjernih" i " neutralnih" editora na ovim Bošnjačkim člancima .

Moram li još jednom reči da sam Hrvat ?

Nit sam imao namjeru da se mješam u pisanje na članku, niti mi je namjera da "tučem" s ludacima. Ako se stvarno trudite da utičete na ishod pisanja tog članka, otkud to da ne mogu da vidim kako se uz čitavu tabelu jezika koje govorite ne nalazi Bosanski - zar to nije čudno. Mislim, ti i ne želiš da pokažeš da priznaješ da uopštee postoji, "znate ja govorim Bosanski jako dobro i evo Babel (tako se valjda zove ovaj box) kao dokaz" !? Mislim da li ti se gadi da staviš box BS i tako pokažeš da ga govoriš - ja mislim da dobronamjeran homo sapiens bilo gdje na planeti bi se udostojijo bar toliko. E onda možeš s autoritetom reči ja sam pošteni editor ovog članka, je tako ?

Mislim ti se sad možeš naljutiti, prijaviti me ali ljudskost iz mpje namjere ne možeš istjerati. Jebiga, lave.

stvarno sam imao najpošteniju namjeru.

Ne znam jesi li primjetio ali DIR i ja samo između ostaloga odagnali popriličan broj nacionalističkih pacijenata sa ovog projekta, specifično na članku o bosanskom korisnika User:Aradic-es koji ima toliki fetiš na pljuvanje po Bošnjacima da su mu čak i na hrv. wiki (koju 0wnaju raznorazni ustašoidi) rekli da smanji doživljaje. Mi smo "good guys" ako nisi primjetio ^_^

Što se tiče babel kutijice - ovo "hrvatski" gledam na isti način na koji Amerikanci stavljaju "American English", Brazilci "Brazillian Portuguese" itd. - regionalna oznaka, ništa više. Stvarno mi je nepojmljivo da te to toliko uzrujava o_O --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A što se tiče jezika - pa ja vodim bitku na jedno 10 wiki-fronti za objedinjavanje ovih "različitih jezika" pod kišobranom srpskohrvatskog. Čak mi je i ime došlo u novine zbog toga (nešto tipa "nacionalni izdajnik" :P). Moje mišljenje o tome postoji li bosanski/bošnjački jezik - da, ali isključivo u standardološkom smislu kao jedan od nacionalnih varijeteta policentričnog standardnog jezika srpskohrvatskog. Uvjeravam te da mi nije ni najmanja namjera obezvrjeđivati Bošnjake ili bošnjaštvo. Ako vidiš nešto problematično u članku ili mojim uređivanjima slobodno mi javi. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesam, sječam se tvojih postova i tvojih stavova od ranije na drugim člancima o Bosni - stvarno se sječam i mislio sam da su više nego uredu. Sječam se tvojih odbijanja čovjeka koji se predstavlja kao AntoAnto i dr.

Ali daj pokušaj sad ovo da shvatiš - nije neki poseban domet reči ja nisam ustašoidni fašist - zar ne ? Zamisli slijedeču situaciju - naiđeš na Bošnjaka bjesnog i ozlojađenog i umjesto da mu kažeš dosta više tog mučeništva ili počneš raspravu ko je kome, sagneš glavu u stidu i potpunom razumjevanju - posebno u razumjevanju.

ZMožda jezični box nije ništa posebno ali to je stvar iskrenog pristupa, a kao što evo vidiš, stvar senzibiliteta.

Posebno mi, koji živimo na Balkanu, a želimo o sebi misliti da smo iznad mentalnih blokada "zakletih neprijatelja", treba da imamo potpuno razumjevanje ne onoliko koliko nas naše privatne kalkulacije navode da (priznamo) razumijemo.

Možda tek onda možwemo početi pričati o faktima (iz istorije, geografije, prirode i društva).

(odgovorio bih ranije ali mi je editing conflict pojeo cijeli jedan post)--Santasa99 (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC) zamalo opet--Santasa99 (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evo ja maknuo hr babel... Ionako se skuži po imenu da sam Hrvat. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vidiš da nije bilo razloga za ono početno "trzanje", znaš ono trkljaš i to. Šalu na stranu, jednu stvar moraš imati na umu, a to je upravo on na što sam mislio (s-h-s-h jezik), predugo je u Bosni Bošnjacima osporavano sve što se ostalim nije osporavalu. Veliki je to luxuz za Bošnjake razumjeti ako neko ponovo želi nešto s čime su se morali identificirati silom prilika jer nisu imali 2. izbora.--Santasa99 (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ja sam do prije 7-8 godina uporno odbijao rači da govorim Bosanski, mislio sam ako moram odustati od SH onda će se moj jezik zvati HR - više ne mislim tako ! Živio sam u splitu prvih 7 g života ali ja sa HR ne mogu da se identificiram, nema ništa HR u mojoj kulturi i jeziku. Iako sam etnički HR ja sam Bošnjak - naravno, nisam musliman a nisam ni vjernik ali nisam zbog toga ne-musliman (?). Buni li te to ? (sad bi bio fol da zbrišeš misleći - bože budale, a ?)--Santasa99 (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mogao si ostavit i HR i postaviti BS, mislim, da ja držim oba - uglavnom to je OK, zar ne, sve što sad napišeš ima legitimitet u vlastitom priznanju (priznanje - recognition), legitimitet pred svima koje zanima tvoj stav.--Santasa99 (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ja sebe držim anacionalnim i aetničkim (nacije/etnije su imaginarni sociološki konstrukti, to uostalom svatko već zna). Rođenjem, odgojem i školovanjem sam vezan sa hrvatski uljudbeni krug i to je nešto što ne mogu izmijeniti. Koncepcija "bosanskog jezika" mi je obična sprdnja, baš kao i koncepcija "hrvatskog jezika", "srpskog jezika" i sad ovog novonastalog "crnogorskog jezika" (koji ima novi pravopis, ne znam je li znaš, uskoro dobiva i rječnik i gramatiku). Mogu kolko-tolko podržati hrvatsku regionalnu i stanadrdiziranu inačicu srpskohrvatskog, ali takozvani "hrvatski jezik" kao sredstvo kanaliziranja nacionalističkih potreba u opreci sa srpskim (praktički svi tuđmanovski zahvati u jezik su bili u samo i isključivo u opreci sa srpskim) nikad ne mogu priznati. Svatko tko išta zna o lingvistici zna da su to gluposti. Najbolji strani Slavisti (američki, britanski, njemački, nizozemski, ruski) se sprdaju sa balkanizacijom srpskohrvatskog, i rado ga analiziraju sa sociolingvističkog stajališta kao primjer neviđene nacionalističke zadrtosti. Što se njih tiče, sve je to jedan jezik - BCS, B/C/S, štokavski, srpskohrvatski...razni nazivi za jednu te istu stvar. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nastavlja se .... (ako se slažeš, sutra u malo prikladnije vrijeme)--Santasa99 (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the template below. Bearian (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Marian Wenzel, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.bosnia.org.uk/bosrep/report_format.cfm?articleid=874&reportid=153. As a copyright violation, Marian Wenzel appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Marian Wenzel has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Marian Wenzel and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Marian Wenzel with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Marian Wenzel.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please source the sentence for which I have asked for a citation, or I will remove the bullet point. -- PBS (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, join the discussion.

Regards, --Wustenfuchs 12:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove {{unreferenced}} from articles if you don't actually fix the problem. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Kravice Trebižat river BiH.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://web.archive.org/web/20081121194123/http://www.comune.fi.it/mostar/it/photo/index.html. As a copyright violation, File:Kravice Trebižat river BiH.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Kravice Trebižat river BiH.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Kravice Trebižat river BiH.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Kravice Trebižat river BiH.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Kravice Trebižat river BiH.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Martin H. (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you plastered a bunch of tags on Srđa Trifković back in October. I add tags too, but I also know that tags alone don't fix articles. I see you've posted to the talk page, without getting any response. I'd encourage you to revisit the article and make the improvement you think are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.   Will Beback  talk  09:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:AntunKnežević.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the Balkans. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice is issued in view of your edits to Antun Knežević. It is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part, merely to warn you of the Arbitration Committee's decision. Thank you.

Please see Talk:Antun Knežević#Bošnjak. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Santasa, I am sorry that you had to wait for this reply to be made. You are of course right, while Bosniaks are typically characterized by their Muslim tradition this does not mean exclusively. Although the Bosniak nation today is predominantly supported by Bosnians of Muslim faith, and much less so by Bosnians of Christian faith who predominantly identify as Bosnian Croats or Serbs, it does not mean that Muslim heritage is a prerequisite for Bosniak ethnicity. Albeit very few, some Catholics and Orthodox Christians in Bosnia may today identify as belonging to a Bosniak nation consisting of three religions. In fact, during the tumultuous establishing of nation states in the Balkans in the 19th century, a unitary Bosniak nation was not only advocated by Muslim intelligentsia of the time but also by a number of Bosnian Catholic Franciscans, most notably Ivo Franjo Jukic and his even more vocal pupil Antun Knezevic. So while the contemporary Bosniak nation predominantly thrives on Muslim Bosnians this is more a twist of fate than anything else, and Islam is a common but not defining feature. I will make sure to elaborate this in the article in the near future. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The documentary hasn't even aired yet. Why not wait a couple weeks so we can judge content, reaction, etc.? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Show was aired two nights ago in Europe under the title "Cycling Greatest Fraud:...." - not sure about USA. I inserted link for Australian NatGeo page without particular reason, and down under show is scheduled for July or something. Also on various Nat Geo sites name vary, possibly date too: "Cycling High”:..." to "Vicious Cycle: The Rise and Fall of Lance Armstrong" to "Cycling Greatest Fraud:...." I tried but my edit was reverted couple of times by some guy, including you, now you do what ever you want with this--Santasa99 (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many features and reports about Armstrong in recent months: there might be a case for including them near the 'Further Reading' section if they have anything substantial to add to our knowledge base. It is not appropriate to simply add it to the body of the article as though it was Armstrong's work, with no explanation as to its significance. Kevin McE (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Van Antwerp Fine Jr., you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Greek and Princeton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you created this article and just wanted to let you know that I appreciate it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome--Santasa99 (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of largest monoliths in the world may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking you didn't notice the criteria "In this list at least one colossal stone over ten tons has been moved". Tombstones obviously don't qualify, and nothing in the article about Daorson shows that it does either, so I've reverted you. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stećaks are tombstones, so are Carnac & some other in the list ! Stećak are megaliths & weigh up to 35 tons, while Daorson is pretty much famous & often compared to Mycenae, except couple of norther foundation megaliths inbuilt in walls & main gate of Daorson are bigger & heavier, rest of the walls, as seen on the photograph (on the right) are all big, and since it's limestone, also as heavy as those of Mycenaean. Just because Stećci and Daorson wikipedia articles are short and lack informations, doesn't mean you should erased those from the list, especially if it's not your area of expertise ! If you are not familiar to the subject there are ways other then wikipedia articles if you wish to check these two inputs.--Santasa99 (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar both with the subject and Wikipedia. Everything in that list should have a source in that list meeting our criteria at WP:RS showing that it has a stone over ten tons in it. Your additions don't (nor do some of the others that are on the list. If there had been sources in the articles I would have added them myself - we don't use articles as sources. My objection was to the lack of sources and adding what looked like tombstones. I have no idea what you call the stones at Carnac tombstones, whereas the stećci are well known medieval tombstones. Having said that, I believe that you can find archaeological sources for these and am asking you to source them.

There is another problem. It seems obvious that we can't add images for all of these, and what is normally the best solution is to both use the largest or most unusual, and no more than one to a country. The obvious one to keep is Daorson. I also think the image for Carnac is poor and would replace it with File:Carnac megalith alignment 1.jpg although I think my brother has a better image. By the way, there's no call to be rude. Unsourced material can always be removed - one of our basic policies, WP:VERIFY, says "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." Are you aware of that? There are several entries on the list that have no sources and need examining. Dougweller (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should write "Stećaks are tombstones, and appears to be small on that photo, and so are Carnac (...)" - appears to be even smaller. I have references in studies, on-line texts but in Bosnian, while I'm unable to find in English. Maybe those figures (up to 35 t) are included into texts hanged on UNESCO Tentative List website regarding Stećaks nomination.--Santasa99 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Carnac picture isn't very good, I'm trying to get a better one. I've removed the stećci- no more than one image per country, and in fact we don't have room for that many. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Skakavac Waterfall, Perućica (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Creek

Sutjeska National Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Creek

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dude where do you get your information from? I am an Ajax supporter and I follow the team very closely. Boban Lazić carries a Serbian flag with him and wears it after games. His facebook page has the Serbian flag in the background, I really REALLY doubt that he will be playing for the Bosnian national team, and I think that it is a bunch of propaganda. Like I said, I see him play at games, and he is proud of his Serbian roots, he is often the only one who is carrying a flag with him, which he wears like a cape after a match, he makes absolutely no secret of it that he wants to play for Serbia, even in interviews here in the Netherlands he says he wants to play for Serbia. If you ever watched him at a game you would know that. Please stop making the article out to make it seem as though he wants to play for Bosnia, because it is simply not true. I will raise this issue on WikiProject Football if you do not revert your changes to the article, and discuss such radical changes first on the talk page. I look forward to your response. Thank you. (Subzzee (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I'm reading a lot of mixed reports on this subject matter, I am really confused at this point. Cheers (Subzzee (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I am really confused at this point, there are so many mixed reports coming out on this subject, that I really don't know what to believe anymore. I have known about Lazic since he was young and playing for the Netherlands youth teams. Even then he used to express his desire to play for Serbia, so all this news about him playing for Bosnia is really new to me. I would like to get to the bottom of this, so we can gain clarity. Because this constant back and forth is really a nuisance. I am also under the understanding that Lazic played in a friendly match for Serbia U-20 against Greece U-20 which you removed. So we really need to get things cleared up. I might ask him personally myself. We have mutual friends, so I will see about getting in touch to ask him personally to please shed light on all of this. (Subzzee (talk) 07:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I really understand what you mean and what you are saying. I choose to believe Bosnia U-21 coach/manager, Vlado Jagodić, who is also Bosnian Serb, and proud of his roots. Of course that Lazic is proud of being Serb, why shouldn't he be proud and still play for Bosnia, like all other Serbs who are who are proud of being Serbs and still playing for Bosnia on all levels. By the way, he isn't Serbian, he isn't Serb from Serbia but Serb from Bosnia. Further, my source of informations, among few other, is world renown daily Oslobođenje, and I already determined that story of Lazic saying those things for Serbian tabloid "Novosti", which also appears on portal of some obscure Searbian local TV, is simply a lie. Lazic himself posted on his Facebook an explanation, the one which I inserted into article (if someone didn't already removed it). He himself claimed via his Facebook profile that Serbian tabloid, invented interview after they learned that he wish to play for Bosnia, or in Lazic own words, after he was asked by some Bosnian guy, which he call "brother", about the article: "It was not me, brother. Some Serb journalist, brother, completely invented interview which never happened, because they probably heard that I said how I want to play for Bosnia" - you don't need more, I would argue !?--Santasa99 (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way he never played for Serbia, simply because that's impossible ! He played for Netherlands and because of that in order to play for any other country, he MUST change his sporting/football citizenship at FIFA and through UEFA, which he never did, no matter what passport and civil citizenship he holds !--Santasa99 (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, today it is announced through official Ajax channels, that he has decided to play for Bosnia, regards (Subzzee (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

If you have link of that announcement, please leave here and I will include it on his article.--Santasa99 (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

◅ PRODUCER (TALK) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of foreign recipients of the Légion d'Honneur may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fish species of the Neretva basin, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Grayling and Autochthonous (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you moved content from Neretva to Fish species of the Neretva basin, but you didn't make a record of it. Please fix it ASAP according to WP:RIA. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this WP:RIA is appropriate way of fixing this, to be honest I never had this situation before. However, I believe it is unnecessary in the first place because this wasn't meant to be "splitting article" issue, anyway.

This new article should be much more comprehensive, while this copy/paste "material" from "Neretva" article should be only a fraction (even rewritten and changed to some extent). Particular subject described in article "Endemic species of fishes in Neretva basin" includes "Endemic species" section/chapter from "Neretva (river)" article as one of several, which means it also covers entire "basin" (not just the Neretva river) with many other aspects regarding habitat, river sections, biology, morphology, as well as other rivers, lakes, etc belongs to the same "basin". But if you think that something should be done anyway, which won't influence this fact that this is not a mere article splitting, then be my guest, do what you see as necessary because I have no idea what is required on WP:RIA basis, and I don't want to make a bigger mess.--Santasa99 (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That the content isn't large doesn't really matter in and of itself - if the chunk of text you copied somewhere is copyrightable, you have to link the origin in order to keep the attribution. At 16 kilobytes of text, it would be very hard to claim that the copied text is too trivial to be copyrightable, so please attribute it. You basically have to add a {{copied}} tag to the two relevant Talk pages. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited FK Sarajevo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Winger. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stjepan Vukčić Kosača, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bosnian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Nikola Jelisić has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL no fully professional appearance.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Safiel (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nikola Jelisić 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/Nikola Jelisić until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John R. Bolton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Bolton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Salmo obtusirostris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Split. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are your sources for the design? The seals of the family members include a fortress, but the rest is unsourced (the composition), and needs to be clarified.--Zoupan 20:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"What are your sources for the design?" - you have three, nothing less, which you can find in references on image file !--Santasa99 (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are your sources for that particular composition? State them at the file description. As for the coat of arms, elaborate on Pavlović noble family (which I began) and not at Pavle Radenović (unneeded ref-bombing).--Zoupan 22:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you are doing all this and you haven't even looked at file page ?--Santasa99 (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even look at references, not to mention reading them, as you started deleting file which is described and referenced on media repository page--Santasa99 (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your behaviour at Pavle Radenović. As for your upload, your references are unclear.

• The shield design is taken from File:Pavlovići.png
• The shield colour is based on Radoslav's palace insignia (?)
• The fleur-de-lis is not used in the seals, but used in your upload.
• The rest of your version is based on the Bukovica insignia (which may not have had the fort in the shield).

I'm removing the coat of arms altogether from Pavle Radenović, since there is a dispute over whether to use the heraldic tradition (Illyrian Armorials) or a new composition.--Zoupan 23:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the actual seal of Pavle Radenović, it is only right that exactly that composition be used in his article.--Zoupan 23:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you persist in using my talk page ? There is more appropriate place for discussion on the article talk page.--Santasa99 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm having a discussion with you directly. I asked for clarification for your image ^. I reverted you as I saw your edit as redundant, you added 3 references which have nothing to do with the actual biography, and put those by an image in the infobox, instead of discussing changing the image, when I commented that you should elaborate at Pavlović noble family, then I did a favour, and moved the references to where they belong, in their own section about the coat of arms.--Zoupan 23:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You see, I somehow knew that someone like you, with ethnic, cultural or political prejudices toward certain other narratives around Balkans, will eventually come along and get very bothered with new shield coloration (and "golden" fleur de lis motives) - old one is dark red, which is false coloration, and it belongs to "Illirian Armoury", fabricated, although not entirely falsified, 19th century product - but will refuse be bothered to look at media file Summery section, where all the proper attributions and references were placed, so I did it again next to image file in proper manner within Infobox. You call that "ref-bombing", I call it unfortunate necessity, but Wikipedia rules demands it - ref-bombing looks like this WP:CITEOVERKILL, and not in case where article have one ref. just before I added three more ! Do you trying to exploit the complex web of Wikipedia rules, or you really think that three ref's on article with only one existing ref. constitute "ref-bombing" ? By the way, three references which I placed next to the coat of arms are primary, secondary and tertiary sources, all properly placed and used to corroborate design of that particular coat of arms of the person in its biographical article - so, that's the significance of these ref's.

Further, you have discussion with me directly, but on the issue of media file, which I placed on certain articles which you removed more then once before even beginning any discussion at all. Only when I objected and undid your deletion you accepted proper discussion, but on my own talk page instead article talk page - all this is the reason discussion should be made on article talk page, and not user talk page.

And then you declare that I am the one who "instead of discussing changing the image, when (you) commented that (I) should elaborate at Pavlović noble family", and then came truly bewildering declaration that "(you) did a favour, and moved the references to where they belong, in their own section about the coat of arms." You did favor to me ? I thought that you are engaging into prolonged edit war with me in favor of truth and encyclopedia accuracy, not to correct me.

Which brings me to the issue of Pavlovic coat of arms, and you being irritated with it. You have no problem with so called "Illirian Armoury" and Pavlovic red and yellow shield, yet this blue-yellow is problematic, despite the fact that experts suggests vice-versa. I will always accept and acknowledge that entire heraldry of Balkan is somewhat problematic, and that particular family isn't exception, but this is the best representation of Pavlovic family emblem, depicted to best of our knowledge, yet, seems to me, you made it your mission to remove it from Wikipedia.

I made my case with three references, which I thought are best to prove authenticity, while you haven't provide one explanation but asked for more elaborations from me, and that only when you concluded that I refuse to give up after you made several reversions. (Same respond is placed on article talk page).--Santasa99 (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is whether to ref-bomb, and whether to have the Pavlović coat of arms based on the Illyrian Armorials, or this new composition, in the article of Pavle Radenović. I do not dispute having the new composition in the Pavlović article, minus the fleurs (though the file description must state how it was customized, which I did for you), besides the traditional red one. The red version is the most (only?) used version of the coat of arms for this family, with or without fleurs (this is Palavestra's version) – should we follow the tradition, or not? My opinion for Radenović's article is a red shield, with the fort in yellow, based on the design of his seal, without the fleurs. I do not think Truhelka's claim of "ideological-propagandic message" in the use of red is the least reliable, judging by the coats of arms found in the Armorials. Interestingly though, the Illyrian Armorials used the fleurs (a "Bosnian" symbol) when none of the family member's seals had them (according to your own sources). I will upload the rest of the Illyrian versions, and scanned seals, so we can discuss further. --Zoupan 03:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]