Archives ( π)

Archive 1 Archive 2

Hello Mikola22, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Vlachs in the history of Croatia have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 💵Money💵emoji💵 ^{Talk💸 Help out at CCI!} 12:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 19:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Thank you for adding the original non-English text to the note in Banate of Bosnia. Could you please do the same with the rest of the quoted text. -- T*U ( talk) 12:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ TU-nor: Added. Mikola22 ( talk) 14:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Good! Also the first part, please. -- T*U ( talk) 14:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ TU-nor: Added. Mikola22 ( talk) 14:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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

TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Any further removal of sourced content, as seen on Statuta Valachorum will be reason enough for a report and possible blockage. ty Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Sadko: Other sources do not mention Serbs so we must respect and those sources as well. So reason for possible blockage it doesn't exist but you can report me. Mikola22 ( talk) 21:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC) reply

You are cherry picking and searching/favouring sources per your POV, you know why and I as well know why. Any further edits will be closely followed. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Sadko: Everything is based on sources and cherry picking is fact i.e. claim that term Vlachs denotes mainly Serbs, where are Croats here, Bulgarians, Balkan Vlachs, Croatian and Bosnian Vlachs, Albanians etc. Mikola22 ( talk) 21:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Sadko: Sources(boks, historians, historical documents) in Varaždin Generalate and Statuta Valachorum mentione Vlachs without Serbs and with Serbs(in any case mostly are mentioned Vlachs). And I placed Vlachs with the Serbs(I didn't delete anything here). What I needed to do? Otherwise there are mentioned and Hajduks, Uskoks, Croatian serfs etc but I did not place them with Vlachs and Serbs. The only thing I deleted was the term "Vlachs who are mostly Serbs" this requires consensus because this is an area of Varaždin Generalate for wich we have books that speaks about Croatian serfs which cross over to the Vlach side and who become a part of Statuta Valachorum and Vlachs in that area. And also place where it should be spoken about term Vlach is article about Vlachs not in article who talks about Statuta Valachorum. In any case if you find a concrete mistake feel free to expose it on talk page. Mikola22 ( talk) 06:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

The sea is wet, not matter how many sources do not mention the fact. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Slatersteven: I don't know if i need to clarify something? Article talks about Vlachs statuts (Statuta Valachorum) name says who they are. In that area and Vlach community according to some data and books nearly half of them are Croatian serfs (Croatian parliament at that time discussed that problem) but in the records and books are also mentioned and Uskoks, Hajduks, Vlachs, Rascians etc while the name Vlachs is for them all( claim of historian). The article mentions Serbs but they are least mentioned in that part of Croatia although they are found throughout the whole article. We need to synchronize that with sources otherwise we could rename article to Serbian statuts. Mikola22 ( talk) 10:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Do any of these source actually say that they were not Serbs? Note it does not matter if they were not serbs in 1800 or 1900 or 2000, do any sources say that the use of the word "Vlachs" in connection with the subject of the article did not include Serbs? Slatersteven ( talk) 10:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Slatersteven:I did not delete any information about Serbs but I put Vlachs with them(although I may have put and others which are mentioned in the books) my source does not mention Serbs in that part of Croatia(so they do not specifically say that they are not Serbs, but they say that they are Croats, Hajduks and others). Other source mention Serbs and Vlachs while one Serbian source mentions only Serbs(who allegedly came to Vienna). The most neutral are name Vlach but in the article are mention and Serbs (I do not know how correct is this, considering that and others are mentioned there, Croats etc which are not mentioned in the article. As for the claim that Vlachs in that area are mostly Serbs(slightly older sources) for that must be consensus because they are the least mentioned there, and I deleted those two quotes and left part of those quotes which talking about Vlachs from same sources. Mikola22 ( talk) 10:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

So no then, you have no source that says (in this context) Vlachs does not refer to Serbs. You have been told to read wp:or before. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Slatersteven: I forgot to say that this 2019 Hungarian source speaks of the influence of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the 19th century on the basis of which the Orthodox became Serbs and on the basis they became Croats(Catholic churche). So it is assumed that they were not Serbs or Croats at that time. Also the sources which mentione Serbs do not mention that they are not Vlachs so I do not know what that should mean? One source mentions Vlachs, second mentione Serbs, third mentione Vlachs and Uskoks, fourth Serbs and Vlachs etc. No source says Vlachs are not Serbs, Serbs are not Uskoks, Vlachs are not Hajduks etc. Mikola22 ( talk) 11:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

No, but we need a source defining what Vlachs in the context of the subject of the article, not the 19thC or the 19th. The subejct of the article might have used Vlachs to mean Serbs, Uskocks or just "that bunch of people who live in that hut over there". Now (apparently) there are sources that say this document referred to Serbs. Do you have a source that says the Statuta Valachorum referred to anyone other than Serbs? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Slatersteven: Now (apparently) there are sources that say this document referred to Serbs. You mean exclusively Serbs? The some sources mentione Serbs and Vlachs, my Hungarian source from 2019 does not mention Serbs as part of Statuta Valachorum. In Croatian historiography I didn't notice that Statuta Valachorum refer to Serbs, the name alone says that this document is about Vlachs (it is mentioned in books and original documents). And I brought that fact from that source into the article. There are other sources but they are mostly from Croatia. In this area is the largest crossing of the Croatian serfs to Vlachs area so it doesn't even make sense to write about Serbs in that area at least as far as Croatian historians are concerned. Mikola22 ( talk) 11:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

I see multiple edit war warnings, a block, I suggest you move into a less controversial topic are that Balkan races before you get a TANB. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Slatersteven: I only have one block because one editor reported me but he was blocked too. We didn't agree on something and that's it. Multiple edit war warnings put some of editors so I started to put him such alerts on talk page. It is not warning from the admins etc. So everything is fine and don't worry Mikola22 ( talk) 11:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history at Rascians shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. Bbb23 ( talk) 18:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Rascians. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{ unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   Bbb23 ( talk) 15:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

Mikola22 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

I made an edit because source of citation is RS and explained here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Rascians, and this is stated when I returned citation, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rascians&action=history I think there is no dispute here when everything is clear. Mikola22 ( talk) 16:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Decline reason:

You were blocked for violating WP:EW, yet haven't addressed this in your unblock request. Yamla ( talk) 20:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

---

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

• Mikola22, I've removed the dialog between you and Slatersteven. While blocked, you are permitted only to discuss your block, not discuss the editing of Wikipedia articles.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  I didn't know that and I apologize. Mikola22 ( talk) 18:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  Thank you.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

Mikola22 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

I think that I have not violated WP:EW and three-revert rule which is evident in the article. [ [3]] I made edit because source of citation is RS and explained. [ [4]] Because that was reason for deleting(no RS) after explanation I returned the article to its original state so i think there is no reason for blook. I do not know procedure and if that is not enough for appeal I respect the punishment and I will no longer complain, happy new year and greeting. Mikola22 ( talk) 21:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Decline reason:

It appears that the block has expired. SQL ^{Query me!} 15:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC) reply

---

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

• Hi Mikola22. I have noticed your edits and I appreciate your desire as a new editor to add new content to several Balkan articles that need attention. It is a good thing, and I see much potential if you respect the rules and accept advice from experienced editors. In this case, you have been involved in edit warring. One can be blocked for edit warring even if they do not make 4 or more reverts within 24 hours. Edit warring is a behaviour. It means that one shows they will keep reverting on an article. You reverted several times although your addition of new content needs consensus. If you reflect, understand you could have solved the issue without making several reverts within a short period of time, and promise to not continue edit-warring, almost certainly the blocking admin will unblock you. Cheers, Ktrimi991 ( talk) 23:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Mikola22, I warned you above - and you said you understood - that you cannot discuss articles while blocked. I removed the discussion and have revoked your access to this page.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Mikola, as I said in my previous comment that is now removed due to your response that touched the content dispute, such content disputes are best discussed on the relevant article's talk page. I expected you would focus on the reason of the block and promise to not get involved in edit warring again. That would have done things much easier for you. Anyways, I am willing to help you since you are a new editor and have already shown a desire to add new content to controversial articles that need attention. You are one of the very rare editors willing and having the guts to do that. If you want some advice or help from me later, you can leave a note on my talk page or ping me somewhere. Cheers, Ktrimi991 ( talk) 14:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I do not think that I offended you or anything like that, and that was not my intent. I was talking about the text/possible viewpoint and not you, Mikola22. I am sorry that you feel offended. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Sadko:I wish you no harm but you have to understand that Vlachs are and Croats, Bosniaks etc. We cannot make Serbs of the Vlachs because then we from Croats, Bosniaks etc make Serbs. Article Slavonia I quote: To replace the fleeing Croats, the Habsburgs called on the Orthodox populations of Bosnia and Serbia to provide military service in the Croatian Military Frontier. Serb migration into this region peaked during the Great Serb Migrations of 1690 and 1737–39. Do you see when the masses of Serbs come to Slavonia and more to the eastern part of Slavonia and towards Vojvodina. As far as Varaždin Generalate and Statuta Valachorum is concerned (1630 and earlier) under Vlach name are everyone there(I've talked about it before). The Serbs are the least mentioned there but the whole article talk about them. Hold such a state of the article is not in good faith. When I suggested to another editor that this we must change for the better you did not in good faith discuss Statuta Valachorum article but you started accusing me of being a Nazi follower. Obviously you want that article to be in that state and you don't want changes but that is not good faith. In any case I hope you will improve for the better and start to respect and Croatian etc history. Mikola22 ( talk) 08:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Smiljan. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as " edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. —— SN 54129 15:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I edited the article according to the sources. Another editor adds some clames that are not in the sources. I suggested that everything be discussed on talk page but nothing specific is mentioned as a problem except some word. Eventually it will be according to the sources so I don't know the motive of another editor to RV article, probably vandalism. Mikola22 ( talk) 15:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply

As requested, I have started a RfC at Talk:Josip Runjanin#RfC about ethnicity. -- T*U ( talk) 08:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Mikola22 ( talk) 12:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month from certain areas of the encyclopedia for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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

El_C 21:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

Mikola22 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

If someone persistently puts information which is not in the source and says that knows that and has no dialogue whatsoever on talk page, how is possible that I was punished who move this information which is not in the source? Wikipedia should reward me. Please reward me for this, cancel this block. Thank you. Mikola22 ( talk) 21:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Decline reason:

You're blocked for edit warring, not for being wrong. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 10:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply

---

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

I was blocked also. Being blocked doesn't mean you are a bad person, or that your prosecutor and judge, who punished you, are good people. Keep the faith! We are survivors! Wallie ( talk) 14:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Wallie: Thanks for the nice words because it means a lot to me considering I'm here alone and it is raining outside. It is not the end of the world if we are blocked because I will try to improve Wikipedia for the better as I can but there is a lot of work and a little understanding. I hope for better days for you and me. Mikola22 ( talk) 15:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your continuous work against POV-pushing and blatant vandalism, congratulations! OyMosby ( talk) 02:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. -- Tuvixer ( talk) 16:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months for edit warring against Nicoljaus while partially blocked (!). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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

El_C 18:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

Mikola22 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

I cant remove clame from article "Statuta Valachorum" which has no evidence in the sources and which violates Wikipedia rule(the proof for this is fact that same claim was deleted from the article Croatia) while editor Nicoljaus deletes some information from article Slavonia although that information is from RS and officially under discussion and editor Nicoljaus was informed that he had provide evidence (Use high quality sources preferably from outside of the Balkans, this applies to both of you (Mikola22 and Nicoljaus). Editor Nicoljaus was ignored this. After that he deletes clame from RS as if nothing was happening. It also deletes data from book of the Croatian academician with reason of "wp:verifiability" although there is a book and the page where writes that clame. I have come across dozens of data where the source cannot be reached as well a lot of data which the not have source at all but we should not delete all this data without discussion and consensus. I was forced to revert that parts. If this is not enough for unblock I respect decision and I will not appeal. See you in the spring, thank you.

Mikola22 (
talk) 22:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
reply

Decline reason:

Edit warring is disruptive whether or not you are right regarding the content, and being right is not an excuse. Wikipedia has dispute resolution processes. You haven't used them. Huon ( talk) 21:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply

---

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

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

Mikola22 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

I reviewed Wiki policies on the 3RR, and I concluded that the viable way to solve the ongoing content disputes I am involved in is opening RfCs. I promise I will not revert again in those articles until everything is solved with RfCs. I understand what I have done, what I should have done, what I should do in the future. I should not get involved in edit warring even when I feel sure I am right. Given that blocks on Wikipedia are to prevent damage rather than to punish, I request getting unblocked. Not to mention that the blocking admin, @ El C:, has also imposed a 1R restriction on my account, sth that makes my current block redundant. After all, due to the 1R restriction, if I get involved in edit warring again I will be blocked anyway. If this regret could be taken into account I would be grateful if not I understand. I would like to mention once again that there has been a discussion about source ^[1] and article should not be edited while source is being discussed, but editor Nicoljaus made edit and here I was wrong, I thought that this edit was not in good faith and I made revert. I didn't use the word apology in my appeal because I thought I was right but I was realistically wrong and now I apologize to Wikipedia administrators and editor Nicoljaus. Mikola22 ( talk) 09:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Decline reason:

I am declining site-wide unblock, but I'm partially unblocking you so that you can edit all namespaces except articles. In this unblock request, you said you want to solve the content dispute by opening a RfC. So, you can do it now and show us your constructive intent. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

---

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

• @ El C: If you agree, I am willing to partially unblock this user ( WP:PB), so that they can edit all namespaces except articles. That way, they can seek dispute resolution without making further disruption to the articles themselves. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• My concern is that the user is on Wikipedia to advance fringe content, but sure, go for it. Still, it does feel slightly off that the one user's unblock request is answered (be it in the affirmative or in the negative), while their counterpart's unblock request remains unanswered. That does not seem right. El_C 14:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Why should the two editors stay blocked for two months for edit warring while a 1RR is imposed on them? The 1RR would be enough to prevent any possible disruption. Mikola22 says that he has understood his mistakes, and hopefully will avoid similar ones in the future. In January I promised to Mikola22 and other editors involved in the content dispute that I will help them find a solution. I was busy for some time, but when the two blocked editors are ready, I am willing to help. There are several RS that discuss the topic. So @Mikola22, when you are ready let me know. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 14:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Edit warring can still occur under 1RR. I wanted a sustained period of time when those two editors are indisposed to give other editors a chance to edit the contested articles without interruption. El_C 14:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

That is the point of a 1RR. It makes blocking an editor with a history of disruption easier while giving them the right to make constructive edits. The contested articles are obscure ones. If these two do not find common ground with each other, I doubt anyone will make changes there. Frankly, I have seen many disruptive editors on Balkan articles, but no case when an editor has in the same time a block for two months and revert restriction/topic ban/interaction ban. The block and the 1RR have the same role I think, hence together they turn from a way to prevent disruption into a way to punish. And sanctions on Wiki are supposed to do the former, not the latter. IMO. Cheers, Ktrimi991 ( talk) 15:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

The sanctions were not punitive, they were preventative. I considered it to benefit the project that the two users were to go through (and hopefully, succeed) in arguing their case for continuing to edit immediately. I also evaluated 1RR by itself as insufficient — a viewpoint I still hold. But thanks for sharing yours. And thanks for volunteering to help mediate between the two users. I wish you success in that venture. El_C 15:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I have successfully mediated in several disputes on Yugoslavia articles. No doubt I will do it again. Mikola22 actually promised he will accept the proposal I will make as mediator. Both editors are partly right and partly wrong regarding the content dispute. As Mikola22 apologized and says that he now understands that he should not do edit warring even if he is right, and a 1RR is imposed on him (sth that means if he makes more than 1 rv, he gets blocked), what do you seek to prevent? Why do not you remove the block and block him for 2 months if he breaches the 1RR? Or alternatively, why do not you remove the 1RR and warn them with a topic ban in case they repeat edit warring against each other on several articles after the block expires? Anyways, I do not care much about it. The important thing for me is that I have prepared a proposal and when the editors are ready, we can discuss. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 15:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

The sanctions are in place to prevent further disruption. Both users agreeing to participate in your proposal could prove decisive in seeing their sitewide block appeals succeeding, however. El_C 15:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

@ El C:My concern is that the user is on Wikipedia to advance fringe content, but sure, go for it. Please explain me examples wher I do fringe content. In the article "Serbs of Croatia" I found forgeries(which have been deleted or corrected) and there are more. A new example I quote: " After the Ottoman conquests of Serbia and capture of Smederevo fortress in 1459 and fall of Bosnia 1463 different populations of Orthodox Christians moved into Syrmia and by 1483 perhaps 200,000 Orthodox Christians moved into central Slavonia and Syrmia." in the original document is written as follows " Tvrdnja kralja Matije Korvina iz 1461. godine jest da su Turci samo u posljednje tri godine "odveli 200.000 duša u ropstvo.. King Matthew Corvin's claim of 1461 is that in the last three years alone, the Turks "have taken 200,000 souls into slavery. Serbian scientific paper says that this error was transmitted by Serbian historians, and now is transmitted by foreign historians. ^[2] You can ban me or block for all reverts and you can leave me talking only on talk page but there is so much work to be done( I don't think that just talking on talk page can solve this but I will accept that too). You have in English Wikipedia article about Statuta Valachorum(Vlach Statute(s) and the whole article is about Serbs. What do Serbs have to do with the Vlach Statutes? More editors need to be engaged to keep the articles as accurate as possible and that people don't read fairy tales. I've been gone for a month on Wikipedia and already someone Albanian tribe Bjelopavlići replaced for Serbian tribe. I put three sources that speak of Bjelopavlići as Albanians and someone put that they were Serbian tribe with mine sources saying that they were Albanian tribe ^[3] With this I wanted to mention that there is a lot of work to make articles better. Normally I apologize to everyone and if you permanently blocked me I will respect it but at least I tried to change something for the better. I have invested my time and effort here, otherwise, when I was reading article about Croatian Serbs I noticed a lot of irregularities and that later turned out to be correct. It is important that I am in good faith tried to change something. Mikola22 ( talk) 15:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I am basing that concern on what other editors have said, Mikola22. I'm not interested in getting into the nuances of your content dispute, though. Your lengthy comment is literally wasted on me. El_C 15:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Mikola, I suggest you to not edit the articles where you got involved in edit warring. After we solve the dispute on Statuta Valachorum, it is best for you to stay away from controversies about ethnicities till you gain more experience on Wiki. There are many interesting Yugoslavia articles you can edit without getting involved in messy stuff. Till you gain experience. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 15:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

If you(administrators) unblocked me I will accept solutions mediated by Ktrimi991 or I will not edit those articles again. Mikola22 ( talk) 17:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Upon your return to editing, you will be subject to a 1RR restriction on all articles that fall under the topic of Eastern Europe or the Balkans, broadly construed. The duration I fixed to this restriction is indefinite, however, you may appeal it no less than six months after it takes effect (2 months from now). El_C 18:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply

We have discussed and solved several content disputes. I also made some edits that addressed some concerns you had about Statuta Valachorum. Is there any other dispute from those you were got involved in left unresolved? Ktrimi991 ( talk) 14:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC) reply

We should all start to change Statuta Valachorum article because that article now looks like a fairy tale. It is most important at this point, I presented dozens of data which should be included in the article, as soon as my block expires I will start adding all that informations to the article with your help and advice. Mikola22 ( talk) 17:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I might make a few more edits on that article, though on the ethnic identity of the subject there is really nothing new to add. Only some comments from scholars. Also, can you give me relevant quotes from those two sources you used ^{[1] [2]} ? Ktrimi991 ( talk) 11:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Ktrimi991:

• Already in 1630, the emperor had issued the Statuta Valachorum, which granted certain freedoms to Vlachs fleeing the Ottoman Empire, so they could be resettled and obliged to perform military service. Since then, there had been a steady influx of new refugees.(Marie-Janine Calic, 2019, page 141)
• Meanwhile, in Ottoman lands, the erosion of Vlach tax privileges was a source of hardship. In October 1595, “Bishop Vasilii” traveled from Ottoman territory to the Habsburg border fortress of Križevci. His message was that the Turks had become unbearable: they were treating their Orthodox subjects as if they were spies and informers. Archduke Ferdinand immediately gave the general of Varaždin approval to resettle any Vlachs who came over. A first large group of Vlachs now crossed over and were assigned land by General Herberstein. In June 1597, Vlach leaders proposed that more people would come if Herberstein camped near Virovitica when he did, 1,700 came over. In 1598, Ferdinand approved Herberstein’s plan to attack Pakrac and Velika; he did not in fact lay siege to either fortress, but on his return he brought five hundred more Vlachs. By 1610, some 1,200 men had relocated to Habsburg Slavonia, most between 1597 and 1600; since families were large, Karl Kaser estimates a total of ten thousand migrants.(James D. Tracy, 2016, page 353-354)

You have and Croatian sources which say that a large part of Croatian serfs become Vlachs who also convert to Orthodoxy. Mikola22 ( talk) 12:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello Mikola, thank you for the contribution to public the map of Yugoslavia. Can you help me with the template of the history of Kosovo because I edited it and it was reverted. I checked a lot of information to do it but someone deleted that. It will be a great thing to work on it. :) Kreshnik Prizreni ( talk) 17:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Kreshnik Prizreni: I'm not familiar with the history of Kosovo, with any editing you must have a quality source, a book or an article of some historian. I suggest that you ask for advice editor @ Ktrimi991:. I'm here if you need something. Now I'm in block so I can't edit anything but I can always give a advice. Mikola22 ( talk) 18:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Kreshnik Prizreni: If you have made edits that have been reverted, the proper way to go forward is to make your suggestions in the talk page of the article in order to get a consensus for some of or all of the changes. See WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD. -- T*U ( talk) 07:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ TU-nor: Hello, thank you for the suggestions. I will check it and discuss the issue. Cheers Kreshnik Prizreni ( talk) 09:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Military Frontier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom of Croatia ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 10:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Corrected. Mikola22 ( talk) 12:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi,

I noticed that you quite skillfully used wikipedia tools since your first edits. Were you new editor back then, or returning old one?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 23:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Blocks taught me. ^[1] I thought that wikipedia is based on original historical facts but that is not the case. Here the rule of RS rule and I have accept that. It's a little strange to read articles and RS which the do not have confirmation in the original historical documents, but I get used to it. Otherwise in Croatia wikipedia is not considered accurate and I wanted to change that. I have no help from anyone or ask for it because everyone should work together to make wikipedia accurate as possible but unfortunately that is not the case. I hope someone will help me. Cheers. Mikola22 ( talk) 04:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I have the text in front of me, which is mentioning Risan. There is no information in the source that Croats live in the city. Please provide full quote per source or it's ripe for removal. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Sadko: I have this source. ^[2] Maybe I read something wrong so check it out. Mikola22 ( talk) 20:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC) reply

You CAN'T just randomly remove something and give a diff on the line "I know about this". If the lack of references was the case/concern, than you should have removed other countries as well. Otherwise, it may seem like... Well, you guess it. enjoy [5] [6] ty, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Reliable sources do not speak that Diple are traditional woodwind musical instrument in Serbia ie music of Serbia. If this instrument is played in Serbia in recent times this information cannot be in the introductory part because this instrument has no source in Serbia. It has traditional source in the Serb population of Croatia as in the majority population of Croatia ie Croats, Bosnian population etc. If we because of emigrants from Croatia or Bosnia and Herzegovina start enter to the article countries where Diple are played then the introductory part would probably be too long. Mikola22 ( talk) 12:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply

The chanter incorporates two single reeds, one in each bore. The meh or diple is played from Istria to Dalmatia and in Lika, Dalmatian Hinterland and Herzegovina. This is information from RS and these are areas of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina ie traditional woodwind musical instrument in Croatian and Bosnian and Herzegovinan music. Mikola22 ( talk) 12:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Your opinion is not per sources. Stop pushing personal opinion/s and presentingg your fringe viewpoints (which was discussed with numerous editors and admins.) as facts, please. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Which facts? The first source not mention Diple as traditional musical instrument in Serbian music because if this information exist you would quote this information and you don't doing this. From the source(All bagpipe diple have a double chanter with two separate single reeds. In Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Dalmatia they differ among themselves, page 51-53, https://books.google.com.bz/books?id=7i44AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false), Serbia is not mentioned. Second source speaks about private person with origin from Croatia who plays diple in Serbia and it is not RS. The same instrument is played by Croats in Germany, Austria, etc and it is not traditional musical instrument of music of Germany or music of Austria. Third source (internet portal) talks about an exhibition of different instruments in some Serbian museum, it is not RS. Everything is nicely explained and you can’t vandalize article. Therefore, you cannot replace RS with secondary informations and informations which do not prove stated claim. Mikola22 ( talk) 15:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Your arguments there is getting wp:tenditious You mention a source that does not even contain the names of the people your edit mentions. You have now said you are not even talking about the article in which you made the change. Stop now. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Slatersteven: how does not? Book "Neighbors at War: Anthropological Perspectives on Yugoslav Ethnicity" page 84 [7] Elinor Despalatovic and page 103 Andrei Simić. They wrote their chapters. Informatin from other book (Identity Politics in the Age of Genocide (Routledge Advances in International Relations and Global Politics, page 167) I quote: "The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum gives a figure of between 300,000 and 400,000 victims of Jasenovac alone. It is a completely different book which are listed as a source of additional information and MacDonald's talks about Jasenovac victims as well as the total Serbian victims in WWII, and these two informations are not for one article. So I ask you what about the other data? Mikola22 ( talk) 13:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply

"I thought about article concerning Jasenovac, it is very well grounded information in MacDonalds book.("Genocide in Yugoslavia During the Holocaust, Washington, DC: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 1995"" what do you think that means? As to Despalatovic, page 84 does not contain any mentions of killing that I can see, it seems to be about history. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Slatersteven: very likely the first book or source is (WP:FRINGE) however we have other sources with their numbers. In this case it is a book (Identity Politics in the Age of Genocide (Routledge Advances in International Relations and Global Politics, page 167) and clame I quote: "The numbers of Serbian dead overall, not just as victims of Jasenovac, can never be known for certain. Historians, using a variety of statistics, give a range of between 200,000 and 750,000 deaths. The USHMM gives a figure of between 300,000 and 400,000 victims of Jasenovac alone." I asked you for help and first edit we have "MacDonald gives a figure of between 200,000 and 750,000 deaths" and this is information for article "Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia". What is your suggestion for information(edit) concerning number of victims in Jasenovac, that would be for the article concerning the Jasenovac camp? Mikola22 ( talk) 13:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Slatersteven: To whom will you report me? We are talking about number of dead stated by Elinor Despalatovic and Andrei Simić in the RS book. If something is (WP:FRINGE) then we prove with other sources whether this is true or not. By which we would prove it, by looking at one source? Editor GPinkerton proving (WP:FRINGE) with other numbers brings the information from book "The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945, vol. III" and I bring the same data from a book that also uses this institution but with a different conclusion in the book. This is this book(Identity Politics in the Age of Genocide (Routledge Advances in International Relations and Global Politics) and then you coming with your comment "Can you provide the quote where MacDonald supports this edit, as I cannot find it?Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)". And you give an opinion on editing the article of "Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia" What I have to do with your opinion, statements, commenting on anything else etc. Do you want to help me or not? Mikola22 ( talk) 14:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I have said all I will have to say on this.. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Please provide a quote in Serbian/English based on which you have made the following edit. [8] I would also like to point out the archives template which you have "borrowed" from my user page had some previous issues, so you might want to checkt that. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 09:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Sadko: "Na interpretaciju Sajmišta i njegove povijesti ranih devedesetih svakako su utjecale i polemike o odnosu Srba i Hrvata prema Židovima koje su u to vrijeme vođene na relaciji Zagreb-Beograd. S hrvatske strane, najaktivniji u ovom svojevrsnom ratu riječima bilisu autori poput Tomislava Vukovića, Ljubice Štefan, Josipa Pečarića, Ante Kneževića i američkog publicista Philipa Cohena. U svojim djelima oni su nastojali predstaviti Srbe kao stvarni “genocidni narod,” čiji su kolaboracionisti za vrijeme Drugog svjetskog rata uz blagoslov Srpske pravoslavne crkve počinili mnogo strašnije zločine od ustaške NDH i očistili Srbiju od Židova. Oni su tvrdili da je u socijalističkoj Jugoslaviji postojala “zavjera šutnje,” ali da je ona prikrivala genocidni karakter srpskog nacionalizma i zataškavala njegove krvave tragove. Dakle, hrvatska strana je u ovoj polemici obilno posuđivala (i okretala) argumente svojih srpskih pandana, koji su prvi pisali o “zavjeri šutnje,” genocidnoj prirodi (hrvatskog) nacionalizma, ulozi (katoličke) crkve u genocidu počinjenom u Drugom svjetskom ratu i slično. Sa srpske strane, glavni sudionici u debati bili su Milan Bulajić,zatim autori knjige Istina o “srpskom antisemitizmu” Andrija Gams i Aleksandar Levi, i Jaša Almuli, u to vrijeme jedan od portparola kontroverznog i nacionalistički orijentiranog Društva srpsko-židovskog prijateljstva. Oni su, kao odgovor na “optužbe” iz Zagreba,uglavnom nastojali u potpunosti negirati postojanje antisemitizma u Srbiji, potencirajući pritom njegovo rašireno prisustvo u Hrvatskoj, kako u prošlosti tako i danas. Iza ove pole-mike vrlo brzo su stala ministarstva (Ministarstvo kulture i informisanja u Srbiji i Mini-starstvo vanjskih poslova u Hrvatskoj), kao i režimski mediji u obje države, što ukazuje da je debata zapravo vođena na nivou državne propagande." "The interpretation of Sajmište and its history in the early 1990s was certainly influenced by the controversies about the attitude of Serbs and Croats towards Jews at that time between Zagreb and Belgrade. On the Croatian side, the most active in this kind of war were authors like Tomislav Vuković, Ljubica Štefan, Josip Pečarić, Ante Knežević and the American publicist Philip Cohen. In their works they sought to present the Serbs as a real “genocidal people,” whose collaborators committed much more horrific crimes than the Ustasha NDH during World War II with the blessing of the Serbian Orthodox Church cleansed Serbia of Jews. They claimed that there was a "conspiracy of silence" in socialist Yugoslavia, but that it covered up the genocidal character of Serbian nationalism and covered up its bloody traces, so the Croatian side borrowed (and turned) the arguments of its Serbs in this controversy pandanus, who first wrote about the “conspiracy of silence,” the genocidal nature of (Croatian) nationalism, the role of the (Catholic) church in the genocide committed in World War II and similar clames. On the Serbian side, the main participants in the debate were Milan Bulajić, then the authors of the book The Truth About "Serbian Anti-Semitism" Andrija Gams and Aleksandar Levi, and Jasa Almuli, at that time one of the spokespersons of the controversial and nationalist Serbian-Jewish Friendship Society. In response to the "accusations" from Zagreb, they generally sought to completely deny the existence of anti-Semitism in Serbia, emphasizing its widespread presence in Croatia, both in the past and today. The ministries (Ministry of Culture and Information in Serbia and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Croatia), as well as the regime media in both countries, quickly became behind this controversy, which indicates that the debate was actually conducted at the level of state propaganda."

• For template, do I have to delete it or what? I not know what it is about. Mikola22 ( talk) 09:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Your recent edits on Smiljan are not improvements. We do not take all the sources literary. We have discussed this issue in the past, and this narrative led to your long ban in the first place. Please cooperate with other editors. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC) reply

This is edit according to the source. Why is so many Serbian Orthodox facts in the article when we don't take this sources literary? We replaced their Wallachian ethnonym with belonging to a religious community. Why? Mikola22 ( talk) 19:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Because, as you have been told repeatedly, that is not the consensus and not the context and it's not NPOV but borders with fringe theories, popular in Croatia and parts of Bosnia per which most Serbs are Vlachs who were turned to Serbs by SOC, which is a big pile of BS. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC) reply

That's what the source tells you. Have you read the source? Austrian Historian Karl Kaser: "The name "Vlachs" is used in the 1712 census with two meanings. It was mostly used for marking belonging to the Greek Orthodox religious community. Thus the opposite pair of Catholics-Vlachs or the name "Vlach faith". The name "schismatics" is less common or "schismatic religions." The use of the term Vlach, however, is not constant, as it is sometimes used and to label Vlachs as an ethnic group, for example in the Croat-Vlach opposition." And here we have promotion of Serbian Orthodox throughout the article, I guess it should be the other way around. Half of the article is promotion of belonging to a religious community. ^[3]

Promotion!? What are you going on about? I see that you have returned the information the same second, very disturbing. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Everything is explained, first information in history section does not mention ethnic Serbs and I edited it according to the source, and second information speak about Roman Catholic Vlachs ie Bunjevci and Serbian Orthodox Vlachs and I edited it according to the source. Why would that be disturbing? From the source which is in the article, "Popis i etnička podjela prema dualnom modelu Vlasi – Hrvati. Iz popisa 1712./14. proizlazi da je na ličko--krbavskom prostoru živjelo oko 87% stanovništva koje je pripadalo vlaškom društvenom i kulturno povijesnom naslijeđu (pravoslavni i katolički Vlasi, tj. Bunjevci).".. "Census and ethnic division according to the dual model Vlachs - Croats. From the census of 1712/14. it follows that in the Lika-Krbava area lived about 87% of the population which belonged to the Vlach social and cultural-historical heritage (Orthodox and Catholic Vlachs, ie Bunjevci)."(page 371).."Popis i etnička podjela prema modelu peterostrukog naroda. Zanimljiva je i prostorna rasprostranjenost ličko-krbavskih etnija. Srpskopravoslavni Vlasi činili su uvjerljivu, dvotrećinsku većinu i bili su prisutni u svim dijelovima Like i Krbave.".. "Census and ethnic divisions according to the model of the fivefold nation. Distribution of the Lika-Krbava ethnic groups is also interesting. Serbian Orthodox Vlachs made up a convincing, two-thirds majority and were present in all parts of Lika and Krbava."(page 374)..

What ethnicity and nation in the present source mean? Serbian Orthodox? I guess it's primarily about the Vlachs. If we have an article about the history of some place I guess we have to emphasize who are inhabitants of that place and area. No, we emphasize their religious affiliation.

Bunjevci article: "In 1788 the first Austrian population census was conducted – it called Bunjevci Illyrians and their language the Illyrian language. It listed 17,043 Illyrians in Subotica. In 1850 the Austrian census listed them under Dalmatians and counted 13,894 Dalmatians in the city. Despite this, they traditionally called themselves Bunjevci. The Austro-Hungarian censuses from 1869 onward to 1910 numbered the Bunjevci distinctly. They were referred to as "bunyevácok" or "dalmátok" (in the 1890 census). In 1880 the Austro-Hungarian authorities listed in Subotica a total of 26,637 Bunjevci and 31,824 in 1892. In 1910, 35.29% of the population of the Subotica city (or 33,390 people) were registered as "others"; these people were mainly Bunjevci." This are historical data and we cannot all information about the Bunjevci, Dalmatians or Illyrians change to Roman Catholics. What would the article after this edit look like? Mikola22 ( talk) 04:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Stop ignoring my questions like you always do. People on Wikipedia are not morons, on the contrary. WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS are some of the guidelines which you are ignoring. If this continues, measures shall be taken, because you do not want to cooperate with other editors, which was also the problem in recent past. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Which measures? first information in history section does not mention ethnic Serbs and I edited it according to the source, do you hear me? We cannot put information from a source about ethnic Serbs in the article when this source does not mention ethnic Serbs. If Serbian Orthodox are promoted through the article I suppose we must put information from the source of those who live there and they are according to this census and RS Vlachs . If we talking about the history of some area, then I guess that inhabitants of that area need to know what written sources and RS say about them in the past time. I don't know which purpose is in the article promotion of information throughout the article that they were Serbian Orthodox. Did I tell you that another source (an Austrian historian) calls the population of that area Greek Orthodox Vlachs and Roman Catholics Vlachs ie Bunjevci. This is also RS. Mikola22 ( talk) 17:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC) reply

What is this? [9] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Ask the person who wrote it, I'm not in court for committed crime because someone wrote something. Whay you asking me? Mikola22 ( talk) 17:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC) reply

He clearly implied that there is ongoing conversation outside Wiki about some current "issues", that's why. Considering that Ceha used page/s on hr.wiki for canvassing, one can think that it's happening again. Is that the case? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I don't know what you mean? Say concrete. Mikola22 ( talk) 17:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC) reply

This is what I'm talking about [10] which, based on the diff provided above, makes me worry that something similar is starting again. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Ask that question to the specified editor, why you ask me that question? It's as if I asked you some questions about editor Amanuensis Balkanicus, wherever some edit does not pass he coming after you, you send each other private messages, etc. what I have to do with your relationship? You first accused me of being a Nazi(for that the guardian angel from Wikipedia saved you), now you mention this. What do you want from me? Not to edit Wikipedia according to your wishes? We have to present informations from various RS, it's our job here, if you don't like that informations, what do I have to do with it. We are not friends we are editors which work in peace and harmony together. You are constantly reporting someone, warning etc, will you stop please. Focus on Wikipedia and the quality of Wikipedia, cheers. Mikola22 ( talk) 07:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Considering that some of my opinions on the talk page are a problem, and we will see what I specifically violated I did a bit of searching for some of editor Sadko's comments. Given that he diligently follows my work here are some of his comments on Wikipedia which includes a "duty to ancestors" and that playing with Wikipedia is his major lifetime goal. He has a habit to making improper comments. Comments such as accusing other editors of behaving like punks in kafana, saying that other editors have sure sign of corrosion of intellect, accusing other editors of following him around, accusing other editors of attempting to discredit his work, accusing other editors of tag teaming, and "teaming up", accusing other editors of ganging up, making jokes of new editors, comparing a Croatian editor's proposal with sort of edits one would expect to see on shameful POV pushing hr.wikipedia, accusing other editors of petty politician-like sort of behaviour, and in the same time accusing of hounding, "teaming up" and having an "endgame", accusing other editors of "sneaky way of pushhing the POV" with their edits being described as "both ironic and moronic". And finally insulting me as a person that I am a follower of the Nazis, for which, despite the report, nothing happened to him (a guardian angel from Wikipedia protected him). Comment for my proposed changes on Statuta Valachorum article "The current text is a Frankenstein-like creation and I plan to alert various Wiki projects of any problems, bad use of sources and lack of consensus, because this is some new sort of revisionism" and "This is another popular narrative in Croatia, mostly in right-wing and modern Ustaše circles." [11] The curiosity is in this case that we have an article about the law which covers the Vlach Croatian population(17th century) from a small part of Croatia ie Varaždin Generalate. When you read the article, you get the impression that it is about Serbian statutes and not about the Vlachs who are actually another name for Serbs there. Article is simply full of Serbs facts, even though it is a part of Croatia where Croatian peasants (surfs) are moving en masse to that area, many are converting to Orthodoxy and becoming Vlachs. Many Vlachs villages in that area are today 100% Croatian Catholic villages. This informations are not been in the article at all, although the law is part of the history of Croats and Croatia. When I wanted to change that for the better in accordance with reliable sources I got insulted for being a follower of the Nazis. Not to mention preservation of certain Serbian forgeries in some articles by the editor Sadko because "it is based on RS" and when I put the true facts based on RS and historians then it is Nazism. There is also specialty of putting informations from various internet portals as evidence in which it is said that Croats steal something from Serbs etc, and we hardly can remove that sources from the articles, we need five editors to remove political pamphlets from articles because editor Sadko defends it as if it were a book of academician. Here is noble work of editor Sadko just in touch with me and where are his edits which I don’t know about. Mikola22 ( talk) 21:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply

The problem is that I didn't write the answers according to the rules(word limit) but I don't know if you read what I wrote and whether someone has verified that the allegations about my editing are true ?

• Removal of sourced content in the same manner in the same way before the imposed sanctions [5] [6]. I did not move anything from this articles, proof is in those articles. Evidence [12] evidence [13]

• Identical fringe viewpoints which were reported multiple times in the recent past (notice that there are ~10 RS presented on the article) [7] 10 sources speak about Svetozar Borojević as a Croat, he himself says in his statements that he is a Croat, that is a well-known thing. How then I have fringe viewpoints if I say that he is a Croat? evidence "while others regard him as an ethnic Croat or of Croat origin.[15][5][5][16][17][18][19][20][21] Boroević himself stated that he was a Croat[22][23] and that Croatia was his homeland" evidence [14]

• Ignoring other user’s concerns[8] [9].[8] I added 8 RS that talk about Vlachs, that's a well-known thing. Prof is in the Military Frontier article "They were mostly Serbian, Croatian, German, Vlach and other colonists.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. evidence [15] [9] The Serbian academic Sima Ćirković says in his book that information about "200,000 of Serbs or Orthodox Christians who move to central Slavonia and Syrmia" is a lie ie forgery and I have not removed this information from any of the articles, this information is still in various Wikipedia articles. I must not say that on talk page? Evidence ^[4]

• Complaints about prior “lost battles” which led to his/her ban in the fist place[10] [11]. 10 "For Nikola Tesla I exposed 20 sources that he is Croatian-American, evidence ^[5] This is not complaint about “lost battle” this is Wikipedia example presented on talk page. This means that something can enter the article only with consensus. My twenty sources(RS) meant nothing without consensus. [11] January 2020 I'm talking to the editor TU-nor that in my opinion we should give preference to sources which say that Svetozar Borojevic is a Croat because he himself states that he is a Croat, may I have some opinion on talk page?

• Continuing to push questionable notions on the same page where edit-warring was taking place (the other editors involved has been permanently banned, so it seems that the editor think he has carte blanche for his actions) [12] [13] This editor is not permanently banned he got the same penalty as me and the same response from the administrator as me, how come I didn't permanently banned. He says himself "I'm... impressed. Have you already banned anyone who had reverted new edits twice?" [16] We are blocked for violating revert rules for a silly thing. He is not banned, the proof is at his page, but he thought the punishment was too severe but to me this was not a severe punishment, and that is why his comment is like that.(17:46, 14 March 2020 Vanjagenije talk contribs changed block settings for Nicoljaus talk contribs preventing edits on the namespace (Article) with an expiration time of 18:17, 20 April 2020, evidence [17] editor Nicoljaus returned to Wikipedia a few days ago, evidence [18] But if he doesn't want to come here so there are hundreds of editors who can change, remove, etc my edit including editor Sadko and he did not change anything because everything is clean.

• Endless disturbing point-scoring (the intent seemes to be to paint the Serbian role in WW2 as black as possible, using questionable sources and logic): [14] Stjepan Filipović article, added information from 2 RS, to this day no one has questioned my edit. evidence [19] [15] Belgrade article, "Belgrade became the first city in Europe to be declared by the Nazi occupation forces to be Judenfrei."[85][86][87] added information from 3 RS, to this day no one has questioned my edit. evidence [20] [16] The Holocaust in German-occupied Serbia article, added information from RS, to this day no one has questioned my edit. evidence [21] [17] Milan Nedić article, editor Griboski deleted my one source (Lulu.com is a self-publisher) for this information "Nedić implemented Hitler's anti Semitic policies and soon Beograd as first city in Europe and Serbia in August 1942 was declared as Judenfrei ("clean of Jews") and two of my RS are left and there are more of them. To this day no one has questioned my edit, evidence [22] [18] Editor Griboski (Karadjis not RS). One source is has been removed. [19] Added link to article [[]] and information which already exists, evidence [23] [20] Judenfrei article, added information from RS, to this day no one has questioned my edit. evidence [24] [21] Nikolaj Velimirović article, added information from RS, to this day no one has questioned my edit. evidence [25] editor Peacemaker67 confirmed that my source is ( Is a reliable source) [22]Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia article, added information from this RS ^[6] but it is (WP:FRINGE), I started discussion about this information on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, evidence [26] [23]Added link to article, evidence [27]
• blunt removal [24] This is edit of editor TU-nor (He was baptized in the Eastern Orthodox Church) not Serbian Orthodox Church (TU-nor talk contribs‎ Undid revision 946424281 by l:999:1:A291:19C7:D66B:99B5:EB4C (talk) No separate Serbian church at that time. Also template format error.) I returned information according to his explanation, evidence [28] [25] Nikolaj Velimirović article, I deleted this my information because I saw that it is already in the article but editor Peacemaker67 return this information (Is a reliable source), evidence [29] [26] I removed this information from the article because the source does not talk about Denial of genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia, evidence [30] and source of this information, evidence [31] [27] Romani genocide article I didn't remove anything, I added information from RS, evidence [32]
• on the very same article WW2 fascists were used as "RS" [28][29] Explained in 2019, added information from book of Krunoslav Draganović from 1991(Croatian translation) published by the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts in 1938, this book and his work is presented by Croatian Bishops in the present time, in books, etc, in every library is that book, Noel Malcolm in book "Bosnia: A Short History" use this source and I only knew this when I used that source, I was report for use of this source and no one told me anything. [30] Marco Polo was Croatian, I started Rfc that Marco Polo is Venetian, evidence [33] [31] Chetniks article and claim of editor Griboski (Controversial author; would need a RS for this.) and we have RS for this, in the same book of this controversial author and at same page of this author book, this information is from book "The Chetniks (His War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945)" and this information is in the article, to this day no one has questioned this information, Peacemaker67 (wasn't at all hard to find a better source) evidence [34] [35]

• Does anyone read my answers, false accusations of removing something from articles, false accusations me of using questionable sources and in 95% of cases no one deletes my information with that claim, accusations of adding links to the article or deleting mine information which was later returned by another editor which confirmed this RS as reliable, false statements that someone was banned so that I took advantage of it and the editor received the same punishment as me. Therefore I have explained everything and I ask that all his accusations be verified and not that I be punished for false accusations. I don't know how someone could come here and write false accusations without evidence. I thought that authorities of Wikipedia would punish editor Sadko for that. Mikola22 ( talk) 09:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ JzG: @ Seraphimblade: I have no objections to your conclusions I just call you to see if you have read this, if I deserve punishment for this then I have no objections and I respect your will. Mikola22 ( talk) 09:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Mikola22, honestly, I think you'd have been better not writing the above at all. It parses as "so what if I am constantly disruptive, I AM RIGHT!" Guy ( help!) 10:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ JzG: I'm the editor here, I add informations which exist in many sources, I took my time to do it and no one disputed that informations or few, it doesn't say I'm right. Other editors are here to confirm it or delete my informations. Very little has been deleted so far(from last block), so I guess that should say that my edits are correct and in accordance with RS. I’ve added all the essentials informations that can be added to make Wikipedia as accurate as possible and not whether I’m right. That is the problem, I am from Croatia and we learned about Milan Nedić as a war criminal, but until my editing in 2020 he was on english Wikipedia presented as random passerby? I have nothing against it but do I have right to add information from various RS about him and his regime. After that, accusations began that I was writing negatively against Serbia. I don't know if any data from that article has been removed, but almost everything is left and no one has a problem with it except the mentioned editors(from Enforcement). I am not here to write against Serbia, but to present information which exists in various RS. I support everything based on quality RS. I don't think that editor Sadko is against Croatia if he uses sources(internet portals) from historians who say that Croats are Catholic Serbs who are croatized, this is referred in Croatia as the great Serbian ideology, but the source of that historian and editor Sadko has not received any criticism for that, I do not use such sources but I get criticism from him. It doesn’t matter, I respect banning and that’s it, no crying. Mikola22 ( talk) 10:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC) reply

WP:WINNING, WP:PASSIVE, WP:APR. This is going to be my last comment here. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Have a little more patience Sadko. I'm here for day or two and maybe less. It's interesting that you talk about everything but by no means you not dispute my claims for making false accusations. I'm telling the truth but I have nothing from this. This fact is sugar in the end. Cheers. Mikola22 ( talk) 14:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 13:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vlachs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dalmatian ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply

I correct link. Mikola22 ( talk) 08:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Please provide a fi;; quote or additional source/s for [36] The figure of 15K seems to be to large and stinks of WP:FRINGE. Do fix the grammar as well. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 07:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC) reply

You have a book and see on these pages, (Hungary and the Fall of Eastern Europe 1000-1568 (Men-at-Arms) p. 35,37). Writer is David Nicolle (British historian specialising in the military history of the Middle Ages). Mikola22 ( talk) 07:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Where is the link? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Sadko: You have a name of the book so find her somewhere, why should I research where the book is instead of you. I couldn't check dozens of sources from Wikipedia, and no one gives me links to the books. Now you will get a link but don't ask for a link anymore. [37] Mikola22 ( talk) 13:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The book is not online and this is not the full version. It is up to you provide quotes per WP:BURDEN when asked otherwise as it can easily fail verification. Tag will be added. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Sadko: The book has 47 pages and all the pages are there, ask someone to download book for you if you can't do it yourself. There is no basis for any "tags". Mikola22 ( talk) 13:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC) reply

If it's 47 pages only, then it's NOT a book. You added it as it was a book. Please fix that. Considering that I do not have access on my current computer and I'm not in the office, you can go per WP:AGF and do your part per WP:BURDEN, otherwise - it's quite possible that it's out. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Sadko: You have "Reliable sources/Noticeboard" and seek advice there, for now this source is RS. Source is written by expert for military history and for now it is a quality source. Mikola22 ( talk) 13:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Sadko: My tags are not "WP:POINT because of Stefan Dušan!" [38] I've been researching this information for a long time and I haven't found anything about it, when you added that tags to Stefan Dušan article [39] in which source for this information is publicly available and written by an English military history expert then I remembered similar examples where I found nothing further about some informations and sources, and I used your edit(tags) as an example because this is the first time I've seen the use of these tags. This was in good faith so I will return this tags to the article. Mikola22 ( talk) 20:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Your contributions are improvement, but it should be according WP:HOWCITE. All the best.-- WEBDuB ( talk) 11:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply

@ WEBDuB: I don't have much information about the source. [40] "Citations for books typically include", I wrote almost everything which must be in the source. Tell me specifically what I didn't write. ^[1] Mikola22 ( talk) 11:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I've tried to uniform the references in the article. It's always better to use templates.-- WEBDuB ( talk) 13:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I have already pointed out to you that it is better to use a citation template. Believe me, it will be easier. Again, you incorrectly and non-uniformly quoted the book and, probably by accident, you put a link to the site of the fascist organization Zbor. You can use the the Google Books link for the same book.-- WEBDuB ( talk) 14:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply

The book and link is here because people can read it. I personally haven't seen it but this Zbor did not write a book. If this is problem you correct that or I'll do it if I have to. We work together. Mikola22 ( talk) 14:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply

It's not a problem for me to correct it, but I advise you to use a templates in the future. Especially if the rest of the article is already in that way.-- WEBDuB ( talk) 14:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your kinds words Mikola. My father suffered a major heart attack this morning and is in recovery, so far stable. Hvala vam puno. OyMosby ( talk) 20:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I wish your father a fast recovery, @ OyMosby:. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 20:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you Ktrimi. I appreciate the kind words. OyMosby ( talk) 03:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Hope everything goes well @ OyMosby: and may he have a fast recovery.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 12:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much. It means a lot. Sometimes Wikipedia editing helps take my mind off things. Other times I don’t think I should add extra stress that I get from on here. OyMosby ( talk) 15:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC) reply

@ OyMosby: As long as you edit Wikipedia we know everything is fine, just keep it that way. Mikola22 ( talk) 15:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC) reply

It may have been inhabited continuously all that time, although I see no evidence for that, but not as a city. In any case, where has Durman published this? The media often get things wrong. Doug Weller talk 16:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Doug Weller: Book: "The Oldest Town in Europe: Vinkovci from the Neolithic to this Days" [41] Mikola22 ( talk) 17:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

And that matches with the media source I found - "oldest town", he's not claiming it was a city in the Neolithic. That claim would require several reliable sources. It seems to have become a city in the Roman period. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Doug Weller: "Prvi nalazi starčevačke kulture nalaze se na području grada Vinkovaca.. Veliko starčevačko naselje otkriveno je i na lijevoj obali Bosuta, a rasprostiralo se od današnjeg Hotela „Slavonija“ itd..pronađeni su 1993. godine ostaci starčevačke nadzemne kuće. Taj nalaz smatra se prvim nalazom starčevačke nadzemne kuće na području Hrvatske. Kuća je najvjerojatnije bila četverokutnog tlocrta s vertikalno zabijenim kolcima između kojih je bilo isprepleteno šiblje oblijepljeno blatom....The first finds of the Starčevo culture are located in the area of the town of Vinkovci. A large Starčevo settlement was discovered on the left bank of the Bosut, and it stretched from today's Hotel "Slavonija", etc. This finding is considered to be the first find of the Starčevo above-ground house in Croatia. It's a house most likely of a square plan with vertically driven stakes between which was intertwined reeds covered with mud" This is information from Graduation thesis where Durman book is used as a source (page 15). [42] Otherwise when Croatia joined the European Union an exhibition was presented with Vinkovci as the oldest town in Europe. And additional information from newspaper: "Vinkovci is the oldest permanently inhabited European city, with a history of more than 8,200 years, which is confirmed by archaeological finds dated in intervals less than old 50 years”, reveals Aleksandar Durman, professor at the Department of Archeology at the Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb" ^[2] Mikola22 ( talk) 19:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I think you're missing the point that the list is only for cities. Every city was once a town or village. Doug Weller talk 19:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Doug Weller: I guess there are some archaeological characteristic of the city, no one would write a book about the city and talk about the village. First suggestion for title of the book was European Jericho (It is believed to be one of the oldest inhabited cities in the world). They probably had similar archaeological finds for characteristic of the city. Mikola22 ( talk) 19:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. User:Theonewithreason ( talk) 19:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC) reply

The filer, User:Theonewithreason, is now blocked as a sock. EdJohnston. [43] Mikola22 ( talk) 09:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, but I'm confused. Why are you editing using two different accounts (Miki Filigranski and Mikola22)? And on the same articles? I thought the Wikipedia rule was that we could only have one active account at a time. Has that rule been changed or have I misunderstood it? Lilipo25 ( talk) 23:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, but I'm also confused because I don't have two different accounts. Next time you do not get confused, it's healthier. Cheers. Mikola22 ( talk) 06:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Sadko:. I address you here to remain recorded for the younger generations. In article Serbia you had nothing against this information(six months) and now you have? You are always looking for additional editors as support(when something doesn’t pass) who(in case Nicoljaus) is block and because of you. You suport editor Nicoljaus in edit wars with me and he was blocked and you got away with it. You don't feel sorry for him but I feel sorry for him because I respect him as an editor. I learned something from him and I believe he learned something from me. I personally would love for him to come back and edit with us articles in good faith and peace with no blocks. There is information about 200 thousand of Serbs who coming to Slavonia(Croatia) and you support this information from article "Serbs of Croatia" and others articles ("After the Ottoman conquests of Serbia and capture of Smederevo fortress in 1459 and fall of Bosnia 1463 different populations of Orthodox Christians moved into Syrmia and by 1483 perhaps 200,000 Orthodox Christians moved into central Slavonia and Syrmia." [44]) although you know that this information is forgery (words of academic Sima Ćirković in two RS). Therefore in this case it can be seen that you do not edit Wikipedia in good faith. Cheers and good luck to you. Mikola22 ( talk) 08:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC) reply

The source I gave says that many of them are Turks. Why did you delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnl0g 044 ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply

We must respect information from earlier source. Why did you delete it? Mikola22 ( talk) 20:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

I will tell you one last time, because this has gone long enough, please sop abusing "original research" in order to remove information which you do not like and then cherrypick sources in order to push your POV/muddy the waters, as you did on the Yugoslav Partisans page. It's a sad manipulation, not done in good faith, because you added information about SERBIA and other editors have been writing about SERBS and their contribution as a nation. I am sure that to some people (generally speaking) "genocidal greater Serbian occupiers" can't be seen as anti-fascist, but that is completely irrelevant considering that we have WP:RS and that's it. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply

I hope this is not an attempt for false accusation because you have been warned not to do it again. Let go of conspiracy theories and try to work as a editor so that this and other articles be highest quality and that the great sacrifice of anti-fascist Partisan Croats are not reduced to some "minorities" fact. And if that's the case then present the sources which talk about it. According to the source from the article and Tito himself, "by May 1944, the ethnic composition of the Partisans was 44 percent Serb, 30 percent Croat, etc.." Mikola22 ( talk) 13:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Anti-Serb sentiment, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Please stop promoting fringe propaganda. This information "Due to persistent demonization and discrimination, many younger Serbs in Croatia have converted from Orthodox Christianity to Catholicism in order to "become Croats", some changing their names to look more Croatian" is bases on author interview with some anonymous people, information from footnote "("I obtained this information from some Serbs living in Zagreb who did not wish to reveal their identities").

• You have open discussion on WP:FTN [45] and there explain why you are promoting fringe propaganda. This fact has been mentioned several times on talk page(there is no confirmation in the sources for this historical fact) and if this information was told to me I would accept that fact. Thank you for understanding, and try to work in the interest of Wikipedia articles. Mikola22 ( talk) 17:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply

The RS is plain to read in the citation. Your personal belief doesn't matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.1.232 ( talk) 04:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply

So they do exist, they just happen to be Serbian? So strike the claim they do not exist and the user is lying. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Slatersteven: I'm sorry my friend, but whenever I communicate with you I don't understand you anything. Serbian sources say that he is Croat and Croat origin, Croatian sources say that he is Croat. Be more specific if you think the origin should be written as well in Croatian sources. Do you mean that, because I don't know what you really mean? A "Croat from a distinctly Croatian region" information is from Croatian source and "Croat and Croatian origin" is from Serbian sources. I don't know if these are some different terms? Information from article (Some sources claim that he was born as a Croat). Thanks for understanding, but now you can talk to me a little more freely that I understand what you really want to say. Mikola22 ( talk) 17:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC) reply

I thought that undue problem is additional Serbian origin and sources which talk about that(sources which do not exist). That's why I told you to explain to me what undue problem is in this case. Mikola22 ( talk) 17:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC) reply

YOU said no sources had been provided, a user had. Thus you (in effect) called them a liar. You can question the veracity of sources, you can't say they do not exist. " therefore these sources and information do not exist" is what you said, So unless you are claiming the user who said they do exist is a lair you should strike that claim. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Slatersteven: Yes, sources which talk about Serbian origin of Josip Pančić do not exist. Please show me the sources, page and quote where this writes ie quotation. Thank you in advance. Mikola22 ( talk) 17:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC) reply

The other user-posted them on the talk page, are you calling them a liar? Fine have it your way, the next time you accuse a user of falsifying sources I will not ask you not to, I will report you. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC) reply

What is shown to me? You mean Theonewithreason source? This source is political institution of Serbs from Croatia(izabrano je političko, savjetodavno i koordinativno tijelo..is a political, advisory and coordinating body), Who edit this portal etc. They can put anyone there and there are no reviews, etc. I mean information's from RS. We are on Wikipedia and we need RS. Mikola22 ( talk) 18:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Besides the fact that source which editor Theonewithreason exposed on talk page is not RS, information from this source that he is Serb of Croatia is also and fringe information because RS which talk that Josip Pančić is Serb origin do not exist as confirmation. Mikola22 ( talk) 19:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Theonewithreason: Pinging various editors for help it means that you are not sure about your editing and that you want to prove something and you cannot prove it. Article Višeslav of Serbia has this information "According to the DAI, "baptized Serbia", known erroneously in historiography as Raška included the "inhabited cities" (kastra oikoumena) of Destinikon, Tzernabouskeï, Megyretous, Dresneïk, Lesnik and Salines, while the "small land" (chorion) of Bosnia, part of Serbia, had the cities of Katera and Desnik. The other Serb-inhabited lands, or principalities, that were mentioned included the "countries" of Paganija, Zahumlje, Travunija and the "land" of Duklja which was held by the Byzantine empire though it was presumably settled with Serbs as well".

• According to DAI "land of Duklja" is not mention nor in the primary source(DAI) nor in any source(secondary source). On FTN is this explained by neutral editor(non Balkan) [46] also on the talk page [47]. We need non Balkan editors as support in some dispute and not always pinging your editors @ Sadko, Sorabino, and Amanuensis Balkanicus: and others if necessary. I personally don't need Croatian editors for suport, I need neutral editors for suport or clarification of some problem. Once again to understand, if something is fringe or OR you can't with your editors change that. That is, you can, but it is POV pushing and not in good faith. In any case, you must first look at the quality of the article and not promote fringe information at all costs. Mikola22 ( talk) 18:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Mikola22 it is obvious that you hang only on Serbian articles and you are not here to build encyclopaedia, it is very hard to cooperate with you since you are very aggressive person, only problem in this whole section is the word "and" you could have posted "according to Fine" and nobody would tell anything but you are constantly seeking excuses just to erase everything from the articles, please assume good faith, do some constructive work on other articles, we all know you don't like Serbs- but you dont have to show it on daily basis. Once again - only problem in the article is the word "and". Also you are breaking Wikipedia rules on daily basis. Theonewithreason ( talk). 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I've been pinging someone a couple of times(in a year) and editor Sadko warned me that it is not good faith when I do that. I work alone here and I do not have any support from Croatian editors nor do I need it. I check everything which is disputable and act as an editor. Not every edit of mine passes but I do everything in good faith. As for "very aggressive person" claim this is the first time I've heard a compliment like this.

• "according to Fine, Serbs according to DAI setled Duklja". This would be fringe information of fringe information because Fine does not mention "Serbs which according to DAI setled Duklja". He expresses his opinion about peoples of Duklja (outside the DAI) and this information is for the article about Duklja. Mikola22 ( talk) 19:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Griboski ( talk) 20:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC) reply

		The Most Improved Editor's Barnstar
		An editor who had experienced a bumpy start, but striving to learn about inner dynamics and best practices of Wikipedia on the fly, and now shows signs of significant daily improvements in their contribution, fully deserves the Most Improved Editor's Barnstar. ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 13:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Santasa99: Thanks. I hope a cash prize follows :) Mikola22 ( talk) 13:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC) reply

G'day Mikola22, I am aware that you have received this notification before, so this is just a reminder that many of the articles you edit fall under Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions for the Balkans and eastern Europe subject area. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate or what constitutes disruptiive editing in this space, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Peacemaker67: I respect this notification from you and when the day comes and when you see that I am doing something wrong or in bad faith just tell me that and I go from Wikipedia (all I ask is that you give me final block). If this is that day say so and that’s it. I worked in good faith because Serbian and the strongest Croatian source speak about 12 May crime without events in the Glina church and the burning of those Serbs in the church at that 12 May. These events happened but according to these sources and with all the witnesses that event has nothing to do with the burning of Serbs in the church from 12 May. I thought that was an important fact and I thought to improve the situation in the articles also for NPOV. If editing in this sense is problem you can tell me now and if this deserves punishment or block and if you personally can't block me tell me and I will change my Wiki password which I will not be able to memorize and I'll block myself. I respect your decision whatever it is and I wish everyone happiness, there is neither anger nor regret. Mikola22 ( talk) 08:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC) reply

All you need to do is accept that sometimes the reliable sources differ on the details of an event, and when that happens, on Wikipedia we compare and contrast those different versions of the event, we don't choose one that we think is correct and leave out the versions we don't personally accept. But with a controversial and contested subject like an Ustasha massacre, we need to do something else as well, and that is to only use the absolute best sources. What I suggest we do is gather together on the talk page the various versions of what happened at Glina and its surrounds in 1941 regarding Ustasha killing of Serbs, and develop some explanation of the various versions of events to add to the article. I will start looking for sources shortly. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Additional question: are you still on the 1RR restriction on Balkans and Eastern European articles from last year? Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Peacemaker67: Ok. I am interested in your editorial opinion on the context provided by the article. On 12 May the church was burned. This big historical fact should be mentioned in every source because it is the main event (in May) for all Serbs in the area, as alarm, but also for Croats or Partisans in that area. After a few months, the Serbs came to that Church again and were imprisoned there, as if it had not burned down. Source "Ustasha massacres of Serbs in the Glina church" claim and that some Serbs(August) are fled and hid in the church tower. How when the church a few months ago was burn. Also Mrkalj Igor in one source claim that Ustashe after (August) massacre brought out(stole) valuables from it, pictures, furniture, etc. But that church was burned down in May. How you personally as a reader comment this, I know that there are sources which must be respected, but someone outside reads this Wikipedia. As for 1RR, that rule has been lifted to 3RR. Mikola22 ( talk) 09:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC) reply

OK. Let's discuss it on the article talk page. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Do you think that this is WP:OR or based on WP:RS? [48] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Sadko: This is category added and I don't know if this goes under OR as some source. If and category must be based on RS then RS must be presented on talk page, etc. If you think that "Bosnian people" information is the problem(it must be cited in the source) start discussion on talk page and state specifically what you think is the problem. What I know from history is that this whole area(Christian population) was involved in the battle as far Battle of Krbava Field is concerned. Also in fact, Turks or residents of Bosnia are also involved in Battle of Vrpile so it could be a connection. Mikola22 ( talk) 20:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Milan Nedić while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Amanuensis Balkanicus ( talk) 14:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Amanuensis Balkanicus: I didn't edit Milan Nedić article while was logged out. Mikola22 ( talk) 14:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Mikola sue him for lying that I'm you Ha,Ha 93.138.30.160 ( talk) 15:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Don't worry about me. But you be careful not to break the rules of Wikipedia, do everything according to the rules and do not be afraid of anything. Mikola22 ( talk) 15:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Let them block me, I don't care I will not edit anymore,i go watch movie.Goodbye 93.138.30.160 ( talk) 15:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I added 'existence of Ottoman Empire in Croatia (1492-1791)' section in this pace. But, you deleted unfairly. Existence of Republic of Venice in Croatia was limited in western Istria and Dalmatia. Before taking remnant of Hungarian Croatia in 1527, one of Habsburg Monarcy in was limited in eastern Istria. But, they had sections in this page. Existence of Ottoman Empire in Croatia was lasted three hundred years and sometime most of it was part of her. But, she hadn't any section in this page. Why ? As if there was an Anti-Turk sentiment on it. Please, you finish this sentiment and add an Ottoman Empire section in this page, please. Yours sincerely, Cemsentin1 ( talk) 16:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Cemsentin1: Start discussion on talk page for defining this issue, and when you explain your reasons most editors will decide. "and existence of Ottoman Empire in Croatia (1492-1791)", at that time Croatia is under Kingdom of Hungary, later in Habsburg Monarchy so there are more political entities here and I do not know whether Croatia can be independently separated. The best option is talk page. Mikola22 ( talk) 17:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mikola22 reported by User:Amanuensis Balkanicus (Result: ). Thank you. Amanuensis Balkanicus ( talk) 20:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

@Amanuensis Balkanicus, it is enough to see editor Sadko's report against me on WP:AE. Review of that report from administrator Peacemaker67 has shown that there is nothing or very little in report. This was bad faith report. As for the second attempt ANI (2021), and the merging some of my statements from the past(2019) in Nazi context, I have explained that a hundred times. Krunoslav Draganović, which is the biggest Ustasha and Nazi for you, Sadko and others for me in 2019 was a historian esteemed in the Croatian Church, quoted in many Croatian school papers, presented in libraries by leading peoples of the Catholic Church in Croatia, even Noel Malcolm use his sources. I don’t know about his Nazism at that time and I don’t know how you can’t understand that? Regarding "Ustaše on meta.wiki" I didn't mention the Ustashas anywhere. At that time the source which was on Cro wiki in some article, some editor on meta.wiki exposed as a problem of Cro wiki. I thought at that time(2019) that it was RS and since I supported Cro wiki I also supported their decision to use that source because I didn't know at that time what actually mean RS although I never read that source. For me at that time every source is RS. I was also ask for negative reviews of that source and no one, not even you or Sadko who were there exposed this negative reviews.

To summarize, from your answer it is clear that attacks based on artificial facts continue against me and that I am only one on your mind. Anyone who neutrally evaluate your accusations against me, you accuse as my support which clearly shows yours bad faith in relation to me but also disrespect for administrators. I don't think that's right. Mikola22 ( talk) 21:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• @ Joy: You may not have read my answer but report of Sadko against me(here) was very weak and false which I knew right away at first reading, ANI(2021) report was a set of my edits and my statements from past(2019) when I didn't know the rules of wikipedia nor do I know then what wikipedia actually is. @Amanuensis Balkanicus is editor which supports editor Sadko on all occasions no matter what. Do you see that he mentions some Ustashas which I didn't mention, do you see that he keep repeating the same thing even though it was explained to him in good faith what is it about, do you see that he is just continuing the work of editor Sadko, he twice reported me for alleged sockpuppetry, it is constantly somewhere behind me waiting for my mistakes. When I as editor started entering information's in articles for NPOV ond other information's about Vlachs, Milan Nedic, Partisans, Serbian history, various maps etc..they didn't like it. I suggest you read article about Milan Nedić, Statuta Valachorum before my edits and after my edits, see my edits on Yugoslav Partisans article, look at the historical forgeries that have been promoted on Vlachs of Croatia article(talk page) or Serbs of Croatia, take a look at my debates about forgerie (or mistake identified in the sources of Sima Ćirković) which still exist on several articles(Eparchy of Marča etc.., and "200 thousand Serbs who came to Slavonia and Croatia"), etc etc. This is their problem, not my statements from 2019 or the use of some source which is used and by British academic. If various historians and academics say that Serbs or part of Serbs are of Vlach origin, it is not my fault, blame Noel Malcolm and others don't blame me. Therefore when you do an evaluation of the actual situation you have to get to the heart of the problem. When someone promotes primary historical information that "Serbs inhabit the Roman Dalmatia", it would be ok put the NPOV information's which exists in various sources. By the way, we heard this information as one-sided information(just as it has been in various articles) from Greater Serbia ideologues. This is problem. Mikola22 ( talk) 07:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Khirurg:there is evidence that he has a) defended the claim that the number of victims of Jasenovac concentration camp was "probably 1,654" I don’t follow Roman Ljeljak, I just said what I knew in 2019 about this information. As far as I remember, for the entire complex of Jasenovac camps, he found in the Belgrade Communist Archives number of 29 or 26 thousand killed(I don't remember exactly) and just for Jasenovac(inside Jasenovac not for the whole camp complex) he talked about that number which is also found in Belgrade Communist Archives. I am not defending that number nor am I interested in numbers, my answer "Therefore, if no Croatian historian has refute this document, then it is probably correct.", I mean the document(that it is a legitimate primary source) not the numbers. We need to have sources at that point which refute his book(no source for refute is exposed). Context is that Roman Leljak bases his claims on original Yugoslavian documents. And this polemics is about whether his source is RS or not because on Cro Wiki use that source(Roman Ljeljak) in articles and this was exposed as one of the problems for Cro Wiki but at that time we have no RS which refute or negatively evaluates his source and Cro Wiki is not guilty for that. My earlier answer in this context "Considering it is a sensitive issue Leljak chose the way(historical interpretation) in which documents speak instead of him. This is logical because documents he uses speak very differently from official history. I am not defending his claims I say that he "speak very differently" but he uses Yugoslav sources which no one else mentions. And whether or not this source is RS must be told by the sources(I learned that then on the English wikipedia) but at that time this sources do not exist. Mikola22 ( talk) 20:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Rosguill: you know I will respect every decision, but still you have to be aware that I came among them 5 or 6 editors, also I was very inexperienced because I didn't know what wikipedia actually is and they used this situation well. I think that two of these 5 or 6 editors are blocked, the third would be editor Nicoljaus who worked for some period in tandem with Sadko, and Sadko as the fourth is close too. If I were from beginning in interaction only with editor Sadko and not with all of them I certainly wouldn’t have so many reports and edit wars because they all worked together. So we are not completely equal to share common punishment. Also as we hear from them, when I came to wikipedia they all started getting into trouble and slowly disappear from wikipedia? They worked here in good faith for years and then some anonymous(Mikola22) person with hundreds of sources, information's, checking the sources from articles, removing OR information's etc, disrupted their good faith conception? Yes there were mistakes but I think a lot of good has been done. Mikola22 ( talk) 22:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Here is one game play. Editor Amanuensis Balkanicus and Sadko vs Mikola22, article Smiljan. Information from the source "Serbian Orthodox Vlachs lived in the hamlets of Selište" and OR information which are supported by these two editors "which was aligned with ethnicity; in Smiljan the Orthodox, who were ethnic Serbs, lived in the hamlets of Selište". In that moment they know what the source say but they together pushing OR and violate the rule wikipedia. [49] [50] My edit [51] Mikola22 ( talk) 23:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• We have and this game play. Article is Flag of Serbia. Here are together editor WEBDuB and editor Sadko. The source mentions primary information from 1281 that on some canvas(fabric) two colors are mentioned "Red and Blue". Based on that, they support a flag(of some anonymous person ie editor) with this information "Flag of Vladislav I (reigned 1233–1243), as described in 1281." which obviously have today's modern Serbian flag as pattern but with context "from 1281". They continue to promote OR information although the administrator Peacemaker67 tells them that it is OR. They act as if they are alone on wikipedia. [52] [53] [54] Talk page discusion [55]. Mikola22 ( talk) 05:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Promotion of OR map of editor Khirurg and editor Sadko although this has been explained to him several times. Article is Serbia in the Middle Ages. This map is based on primary source De Administrando Imperio. In this case, the area to which Serbs coming includes and parts of Croatia, Montenegro(Duklja), Bosnia, Bulgaria, probably Albanian territory but this fact primary source DAI does not mention ie that Serbs coming to these areas. Despite everything, they promotes this map, even though they knows that this is a violation of wikipedia rules. [56] [57] and map [58] Mikola22 ( talk) 06:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Promotion of OR and fringe information. Article is Višeslav of Serbia and there we have information that According to De Administrando Imperio the other Serb-inhabited lands, or principalities, that were mentioned included the "countries" of Paganija, Zahumlje, Travunija and the "land" of Duklja(Montenegro), but primary source DAI does not mention Duklja which were setled by Serbs. The fact that Serbs appear in that area in a later period has nothing to do with DAI or "according to DAI" fact and this was confirmed by a neutral(Englesh) editor on RSN(which should be respected). [59] But in this case editor Theonewithreason who has support of editor Sadko [60] continue to promote OR information ie context in this article. Mikola22 ( talk) 08:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Promotion of OR and fringe information. In this article Serbia in the Middle Ages we have interesting situation. Participants are editor Khirurg and editor Sadko. Information During the 822 uprising, Serbs supported the rebellion, thus siding against the Frankish Empire and indirectly supporting the Byzantines. This information is from source of some archaeologist. The context is rebellion [61] in Lower Pannonia(810 – 823). In primary source Royal Frankish Annals which speaks of rebellion Serbs are mentioned in one word "Ljudevit escaped to Serbs", and in no rebellion context. Sources or historians which would talk about participation of Serbs in that rebellion do not exist. But that doesn't stop mentioned editors from supportng fringe information even though everything has been explained to them and they know that. [62] [63] [64] Mikola22 ( talk) 09:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Promotion of information from historian who denies the existence of Croats in Montenegro, considering them as Croatianized Serbs and information from some internet portal which is not RS. Article is Andrija Zmajević and information is Zmajević was born to a Serbian family. Editors which support information from these portals and historian are Amanuensis Balkanicus and Sadko. [65] [66] [67] Mikola22 ( talk) 10:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Article is Yugoslav Partisans and giving suport [68] [69] for information in the introductory part of the article ie that "The multi-ethnic resistance movement was majority Serb but had significant minorities of Croats, Slovenes, Montenegrins, Macedonians and Bosniaks."(edit which has not passed because sources do not have such information, and because most editors decided that, talk page [70]) He as editor knows that in article exist this information "According to Tito, by May 1944, the ethnic composition of the Partisans was 44 percent Serb, 30 percent Croat" and this is not minority fact. His right as an editor is to support whatever he wants but at the same time he remove information from strong RS that Serbia’s contribution in Partisan movement until the autumn of 1944 which means the last six months of the war was disproportionately small. [71] [72] Mikola22 ( talk) 06:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Promotion of OR and fringe map. Article is Časlav of Serbia and everything is explained on talk page [73] but despite that editor Sadko with support of block sockpuppet editor John L. Booth and editor Theonewithreason(also used sockpuppet account in some others edits) continue to promote OR and violate wikipedia rules. [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] A simple solution in good faith is correction of irregularities in that map, but it is not an option for them, for them it is better to continue supporting OR and fringe information although they know that in fact they support violation of rules. Mikola22 ( talk) 08:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Article is Croatisation. I am not reverting the article in state before editing of sockpuppet editor John L. Booth, although it is requested by admin Sro23 ("Closing. Also, does anyone want to clean up the sock's contributions?" from 5 March 2021) [79] I only remove edit in which I saw problem in the sources(I didn't research the rest at this time). [80] My edit is reverted by editor Elserbio00 [81] After I exposed problem on talk page [82] editor Sadko returned edit of sockpuppet editor John L. Booth two times [83] [84] After my notification of the editors on talk page and the fact that it is a requirement of admin and that in Uskoks section we have problems, editor Vacant0 as third editor made revert ie restored information's of sockpuppet editor John L. Booth [85]. And then coming and forth IP editor and made revert [86] So they are all aware that it is request of admin(talk page [ [87]]) and that at least in Uskoks section we have problem but they persistently return controversial information to the article and knowingly violate the requirements of the admin and wikipedia procedure ie rules. Mikola22 ( talk) 05:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Removing Croat and Catholic participation in Herzegovina uprising (1875–1877) and leaving information's only for Serb participation. After I entered information's from the sources blocked editor Antidiskriminator and editor Sadko remove my information's with claims I quote: "WP:UNDUE hypothesis in attempt to Croatize this uprising" and "POV pushing, fringe and undue" [88] [89] [90] although they are very well aware of the fact that and Croats and Catholics also live in Herzegovina, they actually make up the majority of Herzegovina population as a whole(it would be logical that some of them also took part in the uprising). After I found more sources including a Serbian author who also talks about Croats as participants in that uprising they stopped their actions. Finally the blocked editor WEBDuB remove information from the introduction part of the article about Croat and Montenegrian participation in that upraising although a strong Serbian source speaks about it. [91]. Since I'm not sure what can go in introduction part of the article I didnt make revert of WEBDuB edit. Later there were attempts to remove my information's and sources(some IP editor) but while I am here these information's must be respected because they are from strong sources, Mikola22 ( talk) 06:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Eight sources challenge. Article is Military Frontier, and I have 8 strong sources for information that in Military Frontier and Vlachs are coming, part of the sources uses context "Vlachs and Serbs, etc" ie that they coming together. But for editor Sadko even 8 sources is not enough because it is, I quote: "Germans and Vlachs were a tiny minority compared to Serbs and Croats, this formulation is not WP:NPOV and looks like WP:SYNTH" [92]. I think that I'm holding the record of wikipedia with this edit, because not 8 non-Croatian sources are enough for punting one information to the article. Eventually I had to add two more sources, "The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics" from Ivo Banac and the best North American book in the field of Russian and Eastern European studies for 1984, and source of Austrian historian Karl Kaser expert for Military Frontier. It is ultimately 10 sources. Mikola22 ( talk) 09:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Article is Serbs. My first edit ie removing of OR and primary information [93]. Editor Sadko has nothing against this edit as can be seen from his later edits. Later comes blocked sockpupet editor John L. Booth and restore this and other information's. [94] After this edit is reverted from editor Pipsally, editor Sadko comes and returns controversial informations to the article(including my information for which the OR and WP:PRIMARY problem was detected) [95]. In the introductory part of the article(which is part of that revert) also exist and historical context information "The territorial distribution of Serbs is affected by the World War II genocide and 1990s Yugoslav Wars, after which Serbia became home to highest number of refugees and internally displaced persons in Europe." which in the sources does not exist as a common context. In this context this information is also WP:OR, very likely and and WP:FRINGE. Given that the editor Sadko knows these facts he still suport OR and posible fringe information's by giving support to the editor John L. Booth. Mikola22 ( talk) 13:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• I fully support the statement of administrator @Peacemaker67. This block will be final for me because I don't follow other parts of wikipedia. What a ride it was. I have been anonymous and alone from the beginning and I managed to learn most of the rules of wikipedia although I didn't even know what wikipedia really is (because I hadn't read it until 2019). The only person I appreciate here is "editor" @Peacemaker67 and his word is commandment. It is very possible that some of my information will start to disappear but let others take care of it(if they are interested in these information's and because they are based on strong sources). I just couldn’t edit differently because there were too many of them. It was simply such a situation. Thanks to everyone who stays. I will edit until this process is complete. Tnx. Mikola22 ( talk) 12:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• The only thing I resent is when editor Sadko report me here all administrators supported his report although in fact nothing was written in it (which I knew immediately) or very little which was later establish and by @Peacemaker67. I blame you(administrators not you @Peacemaker67) for that but I forgive you. Mikola22 ( talk) 19:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi. I don't think I have the time to re-read the entirety of this statement esp. because at least some of it seems to be a copy&paste of stuff I've already seen at the earlier noticeboard discussion. Fundamentally, it's necessary to realize that Wikipedia is not a battleground, and editors need to be able to recognize what is productive collaborative editing, and on the other hand what is just a senseless feud. I suggest you try to edit in some other area of interest and see how that goes instead. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 10:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC) reply

The following sanction now applies to you:

indefinite topic ban from WP:ARBEE

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at EE#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 01:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 04:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi! Here some ip says you must be me. So explain. Thanks 89.172.36.162 ( talk) 04:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply

I don’t edit English Wikipedia so I can’t be you(89.172.36.162) and you can’t be me. Maybe we could be one editor but not on this globe, maybe on Jupiter under anaerobic environment. Greeting. Mikola22 ( talk) 05:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Mikola22 ( talk) 06:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your topic ban on the page Operation Halyard, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{ unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me ( by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

I appeal directly to your email a few days ago, and there is no response to the email or here. As for report of editor Amanuensis Balkanicus, "Operation Halyard" is and American history and Western European history and in this sense I entered information from American historian concerning the rescued Americans. As for information from talk page of "Jure Grando", he is part and Italian history. As for Passengers of the Titanic they are also Western European history considering that the Titanic is a part of Western European history. Maybe I misunderstood mine TBAN for the articles concerning Eastern Europe, in any case I had no intention of violating TBAN. Mikola22 ( talk) 12:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I have no interest in exchanging emails with you. Operation Halyard is clearly within the scope of your topic ban -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I understand, and sorry for writing emails, it won't happen again. Mikola22 ( talk) 18:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

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

. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 04:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Greetings, Mikola22. This maxim cannot be correct. Suppose there's an event in the distant past that has been recorded and reported in one, single document from that time. And further suppose historians and other scientists of the current age study the contents of that original document and conclude that it is impossible for the event to have happened anywhere like the way it is described in it. The only extant original document is reporting an untruth. Do we continue to base our History on it as you suggest? - The Gnome ( talk) 13:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I did not state document ie one single document, I state documents. I meant more primary documents. In that sense, I wrote this maxim. It is possible that this maxim can be interpreted and in the context of one document, but I meant several or more documents. Mikola22 ( talk) 14:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Mikola22, I applaud you for seeking out dispute resolution to help resolve the dispute regarding Christopher Columbus. That said, it appears you've now started three RfCs, a discussion at the OR noticeboard, and a discussion at the Fringe theories noticeboard. You are at your limit of fora to broach this issue. Some would say you have already exceeded it. Please, without bludgeoning, use the currently open venues to pursue resolution, and do not start any further such discussions. I encourage you to read or re-read WP:FORUMSHOP for more info, and I'd be happy to answer clarifying questions. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 15:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Firefangledfeathers Feel free to guide me and warn me if I'm doing something wrong. Wikipedia has the possibility to verify if some information complies with Wikipedia's rules. Can I use this possibility? Regarding the Columbos and RFC question, my question was whether he is Italian or Genoese. Based on sources(which exist on both sides). In no case with RFC did I intend to legitimize any information that is found after Italian in the footnote, which itself is questionable and without no source for confirmation. An RFC or consensus of editors cannot legitimize some information that may violate the rules. (Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.) If some information is let's say OR, then consensus of editors or some RFC cannot make this information not OR. This is my position and you warn me or tell me so that I know where I am wrong. I see the rules that way. The problem is that I don't know who put that information in the article, and no editor wanted to talk about it, so I don't know who to ask for dispute resolution to help resolve the dispute. That's why I use the possibility available to me on Wikipedia. If I violate something, it is not my real intention. Mikola22 ( talk) 16:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I understand that your intentions are good. They have led you toward conduct that is not good. It happens all the time, including to me. This is a warning that you are doing something wrong, or might be soon. Your interpretation is that OR is happening. Others disagree. You have stated your case, and brought the opinions of uninvolved editors. Let those processes play out. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 17:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Firefangledfeathers OK, please explain this to me. The article is Christopher Columbus and one of the editors says they've been debating the Italian/Genoese issue for 20 years? And after 20 years in the article behind the Italian in note or footnote is information which is not based on any source, and right now in the Dante Alighieri article this same information also behind the Italian was removed from the article, and the explanation is possible OR. In this sense, why none of the editors who put that information in the Columbus article and who still keep it, why none of them is in violation? Although they knew or saw for themselves that this information was not based on anything. Otherwise, that information is still part of that Columbus article. I'm asking you this as an administrator who is overseeing the situation. I'm really curious how you see it? Mikola22 ( talk) 17:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I can't—both because I'm an uninvolved admin and because I'm not a subject-matter expert—tell you whether or not you are right about this content dispute. I'm just telling you that your conduct needs to change, or at least not continue down the path it's been on. If you think that other editors have broken some conduct guideline or policy, I encourage you to follow the steps of WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 19:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Firefangledfeathers Thanks for the answer, I asked this because I have never put information in an article without proof in the source. It is strange to me that a group of editors can put information in article without evidence in the sources and without any sanctions. As far as I can see, the consensus in some articles introduces information that is not based on sources at all. They simply agree between themselves that it would be good for some information to be written in the article in this and that way. It is not understandable to me because the consensus is not stronger than the rules of wikipedia. Otherwise all editors on Columbus talk page are invited to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard and not one will come to help solve the problem. So I actually have to act on my own and no one is helping me with that. Mikola22 ( talk) 19:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply

It's been half a day since you posted tat NORN. Give it time. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 19:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Firefangledfeathers I wrote this to you because I know that none of them will come, follow the situation and you will see. The loser pays for the beer. Mikola22 ( talk) 20:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Lol. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 20:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tarl N. ( discuss) 07:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply

In the spirit of the friendly discussion we had previously. The RFC has come down to say Italian not Genoese, sometimes no matter how correct you are the consensus will be against you. If the note about the usage of Italian lacks referencing mark it with {{ citation needed}} and move onto a different article. Trying to plow on at this point seems to be straining the community patience. I suggest you let ANI know you're willing to drop it and find something else to work on, I can't see it working out well otherwise. There are always other articles in need of your precious editting time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 17:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Retain as is, is information: "Italian" with this information: "Though the modern state of Italy had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity; most scholars believe Columbus was born in the Republic of Genoa." But this information is OR. No matter what, we have to stick to the rules. No RFC can legitimize OR. I respect your word, only the RFC can decide this question and if the majority thinks that someone is Spanish, Portuguese, etc. then so be it. The problem is that in area of wikipedia where I am topic-banned, all such persons must be presented in a historical-time context. This part of wikipedia does not respect such a way of editing, how is that possible? Now, if they removed my topic-ban and if I came back and applied this editing method, I would be blocked because of the editing method, which is quite normal here. The situation is surreal. Mikola22 ( talk) 18:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply

"Consensus is the worst way of deciding article content, except for all the others." Ultimately banging your head against a wall isn't going to change the current situation. Find something totally unrelated to edit and let others worry about this particular issue for awhile. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 19:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages ( Christopher Columbus and Talk:Christopher Columbus) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   Star Mississippi 19:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply