User talk:Scrosby85

February 2011

Warning!

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Croats. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
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. Work towards wording, and content 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Kostja (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formal notification of ARBMAC

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the Balkans if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Final decision. Your comment here is particularly concerning; edit-warring always leads to blocks, and many Balkans-related articles are under a one-revert restriction. Please be careful to discuss potentially controversial edits with other editors on article talk pages. Where you can demonstrate good-faith efforts to reach consensus and compromise, your edits are less likely to be regarded as problematic (and sanctions less likely to follow). EyeSerene^talk 10:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Scrosby85! Thank you for your contributions. I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Marek.69 ^talk 22:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tomic discussion

Hello, just a note to let you know that there is a discussion at Talk:Bernard Tomic#Let's settle this, which you may be interested in participating in. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING

I have reported you to ARBMAC for edit warring at Croatian language. I would probably be a good idea to reverse yourself. — kwami (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would i reverse myself?What kind of men you are?You are reporting me for what?I have been a member of Wikipedia for almost 5 years and i never had a fight with anyone on wikipedia articles and i have always provded links to proofs and so on and now you will report me because i just want the truth?SerboCroatian is spoken in 4 countries and you just make exception for Croatian..It is simply not fair

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:1RR

You have violated the WP:1RR ruling at Croatian language and are being reported for edit warring here. You have been warned before. --Taivo (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taivo go to Croatian language talk page and see what i wrote..You have moopol over Croatian language!I guarantee you that you will block 5 or 6 more people in the next 5,6 months because you wrote that sentence about Croatian language is unacceptable..And if someone tells something different you report him?If u are changing something in Croatian language section then you must change for bosnian and serbian also...There is no SerboCroatian language...SerboCroatian is political term designed for 4 countries to speak that language..So it would be the best if sentence goes like this "Croatian is part of SerboCroatian" or something like that....Cheers Scrosby85

If you want to leave your nationalistic emotions at the door and engage in a calm, fact-based discussion of the linguistic issues involved, then there might be some possibility of accurate wording that covers the linguistic facts, but the linguistic facts for Croatian differ from those for Bosnian and Serbian. It is a complex situation and one size does not fit all. --Taivo (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not nationalistic at all..Trust me..I don't have anything that Croatian be part of SerboCroatian language...I didn't remove that...I just removed sentence where you say that Croatian "is SerboCroatian language"..I'm sorry but that sentence have no foundation...If Serbian and Bosnian is said too be "standardized register ofSerboCroatian" then Croatian should be also...You are justconfusing people with you new sentences...Complex situation for who?I think just for you...And who are you?Proffesor of Ukrainian language at American institute?With who were you discussing about new sentence?I think nobody agreed to your proposal..And whoever reverts it you report him...I mean what is this?

Why did u agreed on "standardized register of SerboCroatian" at the first place?Lingustic facts differ from those of Serbian and Bosnian?So you just removed "standardized register" and that's it?Where is the difference from "standardized register of serbocroatian" and "is serbocroatian language"?What did u do?Some big difference?My friend think about this..You can't make exception...You will have big problems with wikipedia users because of this...I'm not fighting with you i'm just trying to have conversation.that's all. Scrosby85

You clearly don't understand what the linguistic facts are and haven't read the archived discussions at Talk:Croatian language, Talk:Serbo-Croatian language, Talk:Serbian language, etc. The situation is that while Standard Croatian, Standard Serbian, and Standard Bosnian are sociolinguistic registers of the Shtokavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian, the article Croatian language includes both Kajkavian and Chakavian as part of what Croats label as "Croatian". Therefore it is not parallel to the situation for Serbian and Bosnian. If you have a problem with the actual linguistic situation, then you need to do a little study of it. It's clear that you are a novice on Wikipedia and don't understand WP:CONSENSUS. --Taivo (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, the "register" wording was used to stop several edit wars at all of the articles. It was a broadside solution to a larger problem. But as we consider each of the articles in detail, since the three situations are not exactly parallel, then refinements are necessary. The rewording at Croatian language a couple of months ago was the result of discussions and a consensus in order to make the opening statement more accurately reflect the facts. Read WP:BRD. If you want to make a change, then you are required to enter into a discussion on the Talk Page and build a consensus for that change. Edit warring is not an option open to you. --Taivo (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what did u get if u say that Croatian "is serbocroatian" language...I don't get it...You removed "standardized register of serbocroatian" and just wrote "is serbocroatian language".Answer me this?I'm very interesting what will u answer..

You must think of someething better...Like "shtokavian is official but there is also kajkavian and chakavian" or "Croatian is part of SerboCroatian language"...Not "Croatian IS serbocroatian language"...It sounds confusing for people who are not into that...Tell me if u are for that kind of disscusion...cheers ...

This is not the place for content discussion. This was the notice that you have been reported for edit warring and may be subject to blocks or bans on your editing privileges. --Taivo (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Croatian language

Hello Scrosby85. Please see WP:AN3#User:Scrosby85 reported by User:Taivo (Result: ). You have wandered into an area of hot dispute. If you are new to the issue, please be aware that admin action is likely to be quick and unsympathetic. If you will agree to stop reverting until you can get a consensus on the talk page, no sanctions have to be imposed. The report that I linked above is open for your response if you wish to make one. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your apparent awareness of the warnings. See WP:AN3#User:Scrosby85 reported by User:Taivo (Result: No action) for the closure of the edit warring report. I trust you will wait for consensus on the talk page before making any further edits of this nature. Since this article is a hotbed of nationalist controversy, it is carefully watched by admins. The talk archives will show you some of the background. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source at Croats

I see that for this edit you gave an edit summary saying "Invalid source leads to wikipedia site..." However, it is just a link referring to the publisher that links to a Wikipedia article, not the reference itself, which is to Kovačec's book "Hrvatski opći leksikon", not the Wikipedia article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serbs - reducing numbe rs of population

Interesting how only Croatian editors are carring about the Serbs article and their "too high population" :)... As a Croat i would say you dont understand Serbian Cyrillic script therefore you arent able to read all of the sources on our article. You are claiming they are unrealistic because they arent foreign? .... anything that is a Serbian source is propaganda?... I noticed you keep your "realistic sources" on Croats article and raid Serbs infobox anytime you have time claiming everything is unrealistic, but everything on Croats article is realistic. Sources say 12 million therefore I dont understand your actions can you explain? (Правичност (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

People on the Croat article wrote that there was between 8.5 and 9 million Croats last year..It was me who reduced that number to 7.5 to 8.5(how it is said in the book)..But 12 million is a bit unrealistic and 1 000 000 Serbs is way too much...i mean it's ridiculous..An that link is not proving anything.If that link stated that there are 3 000 000 or million Serbs in Usa you would put that link here ?I'm not saying propaganda at all..somebody removed 500 000 and put 700 000 Serbs in Germany..for me that is also unrealistic but i didn't change that or remove that...but 1 000 000 serbs in usa is just funny sorry to say that

We can leave 12 million ok...But that 1 000 000 number we must do something about that because nowhere you can find that number..In any foreign source

Also i see data for USA is bothering you, if you dont understand wikipedia rules and what reliable sources are, please read them, dont claim Serbian sources are wrong jsut because they are Serbian. That is nationalism. Do you know Serbs through history always counted 1-1,5x more than Croats? Just because your personal opinion is that this is unrealistic it doesnt mean it really is, there are sources that confirm 12 million. The 1 million number for USA also... Alot of sources point out 1 million people of Serbian ancestry in USA. Croats per wikipedia count up to 8,5 million, because the source says so... eventough in infobox i counted hem a meer 6 million... but im not rading your article because of that, bcause i respect what seem to be reliable sources. And for Germany also unrealistic? I could also put a number of 800,000 as that is the highest estimation by ministry of serbian diaspora. SOURCES , reliable sources are something nobody complained about, only croatian editors complained, this is quite sad if you ask me...* If you wanna talk about personal opinions note for example that there were ~20,000 Serbs and 20,000 Norwegians in USA at the end of 19th century and today there are mor ethan 5 million norwegians there, but 1 million Serbs is unrealistic??? Please... just respect the reliable sources, nobody is doing any "pumping up" or manipulating with numbers... (Правичност (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

My point is that Norwegians or whoever don't put Norwegian links about Norwegian ancestry..I can put Croatian link proving that there is around 450 000 Croats in Germany and about 450 000 in Argentina.And would you believe also i can put 1.2 million Croats(by ancestry) in Usa..Should i put that in infobox?Of course not because it is just propaganda so that smaller nations look big..There is no proof in that!It is homemade propaganda...I would remove instantly if someone would put that there is 500 000 Croats in Germany according to Croatian sources..Obviously you have no shame

Ok, ok i agree... there exist propagandal versions, but certain sources are not to be treated as propagandal, i dont input any propaganda sources. Serbian community in the US themselves estimate between 700,000 and 1 million people of Serbian ancestry there. ... Putting sources which are not "home-made sources" for reliability is just your personal theory. According to you even Obama himself could say a more correct figure of Croats than Croats themselves. But have you thought about if you would include those numbers into counting, that then total population of Croats would be more closer to 7,5 or 8,5 million? You cant say an american demographer for example puts a more correct number than the croatian one-because the croatian one is most likely spreading propaganda, that is out of word. If he is a respected demographer it can be counted as a reliable source.

i think most of what you said is quite unreasonable. Why do i not have shame btw? (Правичност (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

You don't get what i'm saying..I said to you that i can find sources on some croatian sites which states that there are 1.2 mil Croats by ancestry like John Malkovich for example in Usa..Should i put 411 000 - 1.2 million and put 9.5 to 10.5 mil Croats?Just answer me that

Are you conflicting or something? Put whatever you want. I wont protest 1,2 million if Malkovich says so. But you have no reliable source saying there are 10,5 million Croats if you think a little better. The existing source says 7,5 - 8,5 million. While figures in infobox sample a total of maximumly 6,5 million. .. Seriously, after all of this, i cant say i take you as a serious editor. (Правичност (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I didn't say that Malkovich is aying tere are more then 1 million Croats in Usa!I said that some Croatian sites say there are even more than that...So if i put that there somebody will delete it because it is not reliable source and it is overestimate the number of Serbs in Usa...It is unreal number said on some Serbian site in one sentence...187 000 Serbs is official number but there are 1 000 000 Serbs out of nowhere now?You can count 6.5 million Croats all day long.But if i put 1.2 million Croats in Usa and 500 000 in Germany and 450 000 in Argentina and son on that number would be higher then 9 million..I don't know are you blind or just slow?

-Actually that would make it ~7,5 million Croats, i counted. (Правичност (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

And also for years there has been number of 10 and maximum 10.5 million Serbs and you came and after all these years all of a sudden 2 million serbs more.Do u get what i'm sayng?From this shitty link you are stating and lying all those people.If i count i will count maximum 10 million also..Also that link is stating that there is 4 million serbs living outside of Serbia including Bosnian Serbs so that would be 10 million...Ok that is link is okay..But where is the link provided for 12 million????

-Actually for years the Serbs figure was 11,12,13 and 14 million, never 10. Links are below. End of discussion with primitive people. (Правичност (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Infobox

Done...I've fixed the link. The new picture also looks good, seems to be from a later period of Mohorovicic's life so it seems appropriate. Cheers. Shokatz (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah you mean who expanded the number of people featured in the infobox? Nope, that wasn't me. I was just fixing links and adding references. We changed the article (well I mostly agreed with the changes and updated some stuff....quite a few references etc.) because the article was too clunky and going too broad into various subjects...especially in the history section. It should be short and concise, containing only the most important things with links to other articles that deal with the subject in a more complete manner. Having almost the entire history of an entire nation on the article that should be providing general info about it is a bit "over the edge". Anyway, for the infobox people I suggest maybe starting a discussion on the talk page? We could use a good discussion who should be featured up there and why....I personally believe some should be removed and some others added like Drazen Petrovic or Ivo Pogorelic who are really well known in the world as opposed to some "obscure" historical persona's like King Petar Svacic and a couple of others who are not really known outside of Croatia. Also, perhaps while you mention the German case, maybe we should put them all in one group photo so that we can avoid constant replacement of certain people as one sees fit....producing quite a few ridiculous and senseless edit wars in the past. Cheers. Shokatz (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^This is how you sign yourself. There is also a line on the lower end of the edit page every time you are editing something saying: "Sign your posts on talk pages:" Click on that when you are finished and want to sign yourself. Shokatz (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Krleža and Serbo-Croatian

Did you read Krleža ? hiljada, savremen, ću da uradim... is not Croatian, this is Serbo-Croatian. Croatian and Serbo-Croatian isn't the same thing, Croatian is a language of Croats, of Croatian literature and history. Serbo-Croatian is an artificial language created in late 19th and early 20th century (by nutjobs) based on some "Novoštokavian dialect", which has nothing to do with Croatian language or Croatian literature. Marulić, Lucić, Držić, Frankopan, Vitezović, Gundulić, Palmotić, Domjanić... they wrote in Croatian. Šenoa, Matoš, Krleža, Ujević, Nazor, Cesarić, Andrić, Tadijanović... they wrote in Serbo-Croatian (or whatever you like to call it, Yugoslavian language perhaps), their language is far from Croatian. Only works written in Kajkavian and Čakavian (Balade Petrice Kerempuha, Nazor's poems, and of course some passages in Krleža's novels and stories) this is Croatian language. Thus it is stupid to call Krleža's language Croatian, hence his language was very far from it. Vila (talk)

Krleža is a Croatian writer and there is no doubt in that, but language in which he wrote was a Yugoslav standard (so called "Serbo-Croatian"), not Croatian! I didn't say that only Čakavian and Kajkavian are Croatian, Štokavian is a Croatian as well, however it is very importand to see difference between Croatian and Serbian and "Serbo-Croatian", something you can't? or can you? All "Štokavian" literature written in periods of Yugoslavias and even today is Serbo-Croatian, and not Croatian! Croatian Štokavian language can be found in Kašić, Relković, Gundulić, Držić... this is Croatian Štokavian (hrvatska štokavica), not some "Serbo-Croatian" bullcrap. What isn't clear here? But if you don't see a difference, pity... what can I tell you. Vila (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More about Ivan Meštrović

I am wondering why you changed the word "great" back to "greatest" in the lede of the article? The reference uses the word "great" and I think that we should too. I am going to remove the Says Who? since there is a source given. I believe that it will behove us to stay as close to that source as we can. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Carptrash...Because the sentence is not great...I put "one of the greatest"...That means he was in the top of sculptors in the 20th century.Probably one of the best if not the best..That's why i put ONE of the greatest...Not "the greatest"--Scrosby85 19:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it is fine the way it is now, thanks for getting to me and don't forget to sign your posts with four of these ~ Also using one or two of these : will indent a discussion. I added one to your post. Carptrash (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure that you are signed into wikipedia to get your signature recognized. In any case, these (::) should work for you. Carptrash (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok(Scrosby85 01:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC))

Croats talk page

I see nobody is responding to me on "Croats" talk page. I just wanted to remind you i left you a message concerning our recent edits and about the already mentioned concensus. If we are to agree to have numbers based on same standards, you cannot expect me to accept double standards. If 10 million is the lowest number for Serbs you cant expect me to make a lower (higher) estimation than 1 mil. + .. concerning your dissagrement about number 12 million as higher est. when you changed no. of Croats from 6,5 - 7,5 to 7-8. Best regards. (Правичност (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Scrosby85, I'm sorry you're not familiar with the dangerous plans of Правичност. I did not participate in discussions on the number of the South Slavs, but I accidentally see what he is doing. Правичност increases the number of Serbs, and reduces the number of Croats, Bulgarians, Bosniaks (this is a small part of bad edits), for him, Yugoslavs and Montenegrins are Serbs. When Klacko reduce the number of Serbs, Правичност started with a vengeance in the article about Croats. It is not well what he is doing.--Sokac121 (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nikola Tesla 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[[File:Nikola Tesla Memorial Center.JPG|thumb|Rebuilt,<ref name="tsbirthplace"/> Tesla's house (

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Croats

I have seen what Ivan does, and it's wrong. Praxis Icosahedron has removed Ivan edits to articles about Serbs and Bosniaks, I did not see that it was remain in the article about Croats. So far so good and so should remain, the article is about people, not about the language.--Sokac121 (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Nikica Jelavić, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re

In reply to your question I would have to say, yes, that would be desirable. While there is nothing that says population in the infobox should use only the official census' (after all it's a mere orientation tool to give a better sense), I think it would be a good idea to make a clear distinction between what is in the official census' and what is an estimate, etc. For example you can see this in the links and figures I provided for New Zealand where I pointed out that the bigger number is actually an estimate. Actually I was planning of making the distinction even less ambiguous by attributing each reference provided to a specific number in the list, but I was distracted by some other things recently. I'll take a look a bit later and make some of these minor changes, move them a bit around and maybe make some corrections in naming and so on. Shokatz (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Official position of the Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts is - Bokelji and Montenegrins and ethnic Serbs! and what is now the problem? problem is because you are not informed ... or you're misinformed! On the other hand, I am equally Montenegrin and Serb - I guess that gives me the right to know the difference (if it exists).--CarRadovan (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalities

Hey, take it easier with these nationality edits (thinking of ex-yu persons, all of your contributions), otherwise I'll be on the counter side of your edits with good refs. This isn't a threat, just a suggestion to prevent some future eventual mini wars about such things. AirWolf (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is unnecessary to link player nationalities to country as it is common thing. AirWolf (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Please wait, I've called few other opinions from other prominent contributors. AirWolf (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I understand your talk, wikipedia rules, and also we have opinions from other users:

WP:OVERLINK says "the names of major geographic features and locations; languages; religions; common occupations; and pre- and post-nominals" should generally not be linked. A nationality is the same as a country or language. People know what France is, or Croatia, or Kenya. They don't need a link to define it. Rikster2 (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AirWolf asked me to comment on this topic. Without looking into the specifics of each article, generally speaking, WP:OVERLINK applies, and major countries do not need to be linked. Care should be taken with "other stuff exists" arguments, as sometimes existing articles may need to be cleaned up as well.—Bagumba (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

All the arguments may seem valid, but just like in case with less known counties (Serbian, Greek, Lithuanian) players and also of more known countries (German, American, Chinese), I think we should follow this trend of not linking to countries, so it is the case with Croatia. Also, I don't think Croatia, Serbia, etc. countries are unknown in the basketball world, more likely, known by almost everybody. My final suggestion for you is to not link to countries, at least for basketball-related articles. I hope you will be cooperative and respect other and mine opinion and effort on this one. If not, go freely add links, I won't be on counter-side except no good refs are given, but that is other issue we are not talking about now. Goodbye! AirWolf (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Zagreb population

Hi. I reverted your edits because they are not based on sources. The table you referred to and where you modified the figures clearly indicates that the figures pertain to municipality (regardless of how that particular municipality is organised, called or came to be) and the settlement itself. The final line of the table provides sources for the table - the Croatian Bureau of Statistics' published 2011 Census in this particular case (reference #54). You may navigate the ref yourself or see the municipal population data for Zagreb here and both the municipal population and the settlement only population data for Zagreb here.

I fail to see any base in your accusation of appliaction "double standards". One municipality may be defined differently from the other, using different criteria, but the table is there to report exactly what the sources say, not to perform WP:OR and try to equate different definitions of municipalities. Comparison of metropolitan areas is, as you noted, performed in the text, and available to readers. The table does something else. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter whether you feel the number is unrealistic or not. It does not even matter if it is true or not, what matters is that the figure is verifiable, as required by core Wikipedia policy WP:V and elaborated in Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.

The table you keep altering indicates population of Zagreb (settlement) as defined by Croatian Bureau of Statistics and Zagreb (local government unit) as defined by Croatian legislation. Ditto for Belgrade. If authorities in Serbia decide a half of the country belongs to its capital's self-government unit territory, so be it. Unless and until Croatian legislation expands boundaries of the City of Zagreb (self-government unit) to include all of its metropolitan area, the figure you specified is clearly refuted by the sources. Such discrepancies exist in many instances - the City of Rijeka (self-government unit) includes Rijeka itself and virtually no settlement in addition. At the same time the City of Velika Gorica (self-government unit) includes twice as many inhabitants as the settlement of Velika Gorica itself has. The good news is that there's nothing for Wikipedia to do about it except report it as it is. That's why the disputed table has two columns - one for population of the settlement itself, and another for the settlement's self-government unit population. There's nothing unrealistic about those figures, they are reported as provided by applicable censuses.

Let's assume for one second that what you claim is right, i.e. that Belgrade has fewer inhabitants than indicated and take a look what you're doing about that - you're attempting to right one "wrong" by augmenting figures for another city (Zagreb in this case) despite what the reliable sources say. If you think the figure cited for Belgrade is wrong, provide another source to challenge the one already provided in the article (see WP:BURDEN for more info on that). Please revert and provide sources to contrary - if there are any.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I got what you say, but you should read the text more carefully. The text regarding metro areas says "Together with the Zagreb County, largely corresponding to various definitions of the city's metropolitan area,[55] it has a combined population of 1,110,517.[54]" Therefore it says the City of Zagreb (self-govt unit) and the Zagreb County combined have 1,1m inhabitants. There is no source I'm aware of saying "Zagreb metro area has X inhabitants" - therefore claiming that this is population of Zagreb metro area is a violation of WP:OR prohibiting original research. Therefore the table lists verifiable "Municipality" (i.e. self-govt unit) population for each of those. If you look carefully Belgrade self-govt area population and metro population do not match, even though they are similar. That is, just like in Zagreb's case the result of local government boundaries as they are drawn. The text on the metro areas is there to provide context for the table and help explain the figures in the table. If we were to introduce metro population for Belgrade and Zagreb to the table the remaining figures would become meaningless and inaccurate. In the arrangement where the metro population is noted and/or approximated in the prose and verifiable figures presented in the table, the information is presented as complete as can be.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The data are referenced in the article. You have modified the figures because you disliked them, offering zero sources. Now you demand explanations from others. Please read WP:V and WP:BURDEN and explain your own actions before even thinking of posting any demands.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josif Pančić

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Josif Pančić. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

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

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. --Zoupan 16:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Your edits are unconstructive. Website pages are not reliable sources. Do not delete referenced material. Review the revisions — You have the problem, not me.--Zoupan 17:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, you do. You have been edit-warring, removing Sabrana dela Josifa Pančića: Život i delo Josifa Pančića and data on his Bunjevac family origin. All removed sources are reliable. If you had read my revision comments and understood policies you would have continued in a constructive way. I suggest you continue with your issues at the talk page.--Zoupan 18:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

final warning

You've been here long enough to know that blithely removing referenced content is not perceived to be constructive. Doing so in case of an ethnic/national designation in the WP:ARBMAC topic area - doubly so. Please make constructive edits only, integrating the content, and take any issues you have with the references you were trying to remove to the relevant Talk page. If you have secondary sources explicitly disputing the listed references, that would be preferable. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If these conflicting claims are equally credible, please make room for all of them, don't just remove one set in favor of the other. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The job of responsible encyclopedia editors is to reconcile conflicting sources. Reconciling by way of censoring three apparently decent references - is lazy at best. If we weren't talking about tendentious issues, this might be acceptable, but the standard of behavior in this topic area is higher. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peja Stojaković, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Požega. 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) 09:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Scrosby85. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Scrosby85. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Scrosby85. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Scrosby85. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]