User talk:WEBDuB

Flagicons

Please do not put Flagicons in succession bars. Flagicons should not be used excessively for decorative purposes. --Falcadore (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

IAAF Continental Cup

Your latest edit to Sandra Perković got me thinking, so I posted some questions here - by all means feel free to join the discussion. GregorB (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

New article

Hi! I noticed you were making edits about the "Best Yugoslav athletes of the year" and realised an athletics one was missing. Thus, we now have Slobodan Branković! SFB 21:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Serbia at the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics

Hi can you link a source that Dženis Avdić will be the flagbearer. Thanks! Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Michael Phelps edit

Hello, it seems your edit is incorrect. USOC award in 1999? The year 200? You might want to double check your dates. Thanks. Philipmj24 (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Your edit is still not correct. He did not win the award in 1999, and you have the individual preceding and succeeding him incorrect. If you have any questions, please ask. 146.7.84.47 (talk) 14:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Serbian alphabet

Hello Aco. Just to ask you to please use the correct language template when creating Serbian biographies. Please see my last edit at Emir Bekrić. The title is already written in Serbian, and not in some other language, as the simple template as you use makes people understand. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo Serbs

See Talk:Kosovo_Serbs#Infobox_profiles.--Zoupan 20:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Musa Hajdari

I don't want to make any "edit-wars" - I just have one simple question - why Kosovan records achieved before IAAF recognition are not recognized here when Croatian records achieved before IAAF recognition (from time when Croatian athletes competed for Yugoslavia - the oldest one from 1956 (!)) are recognized here? I think that this is little inconsistent. Moreover IAAF database isn't perfect - they don't have a lot of results from smaller countries so it isn't a perfect source for their records - national federations mention their national records a lot earlier - especially when this results are far from good and were achieved in local meetings. 99kerob (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Rochestie

Please do not add Montenegrin language to article about Taylor Rochestie...there is no such thing as Montenegrin language, and this guy is American and have nothing with Montenegro and their language (which is actualy called Maternji in schools). This is provocative and no need for that in this article.

Of course there is - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegrin_language - wake up and snort the coffee grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.211.140 (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

1993 world juniors

The 1993 medalists are notated correctly in the appropriate list. I don't really understand what you are doing with table because your edit does not actually show any change.18abruce (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually I get it now, sorry. And thank you for fixing this. Working without my glasses and was looking in the wrong place on the page, sorry.18abruce (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Not controversial

It was an infraction of some sort, but only Serbians find it controversial. Let the references speak for themselves as per WP:NPOV. Also please see WP:OVERREF Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion - List of Serbs?

I would like to hear your opinion on this matter - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Serbians

Thank you.

Mm.srb (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi

Hello. Help copy edit and improvements for article. Thanks you. 58.187.77.36 (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

List of Yugoslav Olympic medalists

Hi. You have made significant contribution to the List of Yugoslav Olympic medalists article, by adding a time period from 1988 to 2002. I wont go into details if the time period should be included or not but your contributions do not match with general article statistics (e.g. medal count). You do understand that if you add medals into paragraph table you should also add them into the article description, correct? For example, the medal count in the article does not match medal count in the table. Look into it and clean up your mess, please. PS: the added 'province' section in the first table is irrelevant. Regards, Ratipok (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia

It is good to enrich the article with new relevant content, but do not remove the following part: The 6 January Dictatorship and later anti-Croat policies by the Serb-dominated Yugoslav government in the 1920's and 1930's following the First World War fueled the rise of nationalist and far-right movements. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Saw your new tag on your home page.

The one about OCD. I can empathize with you as I have the same curse. And it is not pleasant. And can ruin your personal life, I know. And steal time and peace. PortalTwo (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		Thank you for your hard work, new sources, patience and civility in numerous discussion. Happy Victory Day! Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Genocide of Serbs Talk Page

In your edit here [1] You claimed that I was “sockpuppeting” And that it “undermined” any changes made to the intro. Even though none of that happened back in February when there was a previous talk page discussion about the sentence in the intro which you took part in. So you definitely are aware it is in no way related. As for the later conversation in recent weeks on the talk page, yes, I was accidentally not logged in when editing once and so to protect my IP privacy played of the impression it wasn’t me. That was one edit in a sea of other editors. Your claim comes off as exploiting this to push for removal of a sentence in the intro you don’t like. (Of which I don’t see how it is victim blaming as the sentence deals with the Yugoslav government policies and King not the civilians). It also comes a cross as an attack. Which would undermine the RfC itself. I ask that you show good will and remove that part of your comment. Why keep revisiting past conflicts? Also you did not ping Nolanfranyeri or Ktrimi991 or Pincrete who were originally part of the discussion too. Please include them also so as to make sure all participants are aware of the RfC. Thanks. And I hope that we can be fellow editors and not adversaries. OyMosby (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby: I'm not participating in the conflict with anyone, nor have I personally accused you. I didn't emphasize who the sockpuppet was. I stand behind the statement that previous changes and discussions are questionable due to the participation of one user under different names. You discussed in one section using two accounts. I agree, this is behind us. We need to move on. I'm very sorry if you perceive that we are in conflict. I never intended to insult you or anything like that. Speaking of the editors I tagged, I invited only those who have been discussing the disputed part since April. There are many others who took part in the debates and voting. We can ping everyone, of course, it's okay. Honestly, I really wish you all the best. Best regards.--WEBDuB (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Right but what does that have to do with the February discussion initially about the intro in question? It would be wrong to say that that discussion and that part of the intro was compromised or tainted. That was my point. Also at the time I was only using my IP and only in later months this account. So my comments as an IP in February would still be legitimate. Also RS citation was used for the sentence. In that discussion you linked I edited ince as my IP but it was due to not being logged in at the time. To protect my privacy I plyed it off as not me. How does that delegitimize the February discussion? It will make people think that the sentence was added via sock puppets which is absolutely not true as the diffs prove. You can see that in February my OyMosby original account was not in use for a while as I walked away from Wikipedia for a while. Was only editing as my IP on articles here and there. Again I ask that you please show good will and remove that claim. I hope you understand now what I mean.OyMosby (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Chetnik “crimes”

“ There is no equating barbaric crimes with the Ustashas with other war crimes during World War II” How is this productive or accurate? How did my edit “equate” Ustashe and Chetniks as equal in their scale and severity of crimes? Nevermind the insulting insinuation. Multiple editors were fine with the section. Mass murder did happen at the hands of Chetniks as was established by Rs citations. We have to acknowledge all history not some parts. Genocides do not have to be equal in scale and deviousness to be both recognized. It would be a spit in the face of the victims to disregard one. OyMosby (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby: In recent weeks, there has been a synchronized biased campaign by a group of editors, in response to my contribution to the Genocide of Serbs article, with the aim of equating the state-sponsored systematic crimes by one regime with other war crimes during World War II. I've never denied that the Chetniks are fascist collaborators and war criminals. The nature and scale of the crimes are not the same. To compare, no crime (especially commited by secondary and guerrilla organizations) can stand in the same article or paragraph with the same weight as the Holocaust. Also, I noticed that a certain group of editors followed all my contributions and persistently changed those articles. Dear friend OyMosby, I came out in a conciliatory and polite tone, with a desire to remove the parts of my statements that bothered you. I really think it’s time for everyone to start behaving fair, without a lot of emotion and tension. I sincerely hope you understand my good intentions. As I said, we can agree on everything. Kind regards--WEBDuB (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

That is my point. I thought we were understanding of each others intentions on here. We should be respectful. Not accusing people of equalizing or downplaying crimes of Ustashe and Chetniks. Which I still don’t see where I did this. I never equated the severity of the two groups. I didn’t say both were systematic in their crimes. How is that fair and not emotional? Especially consider in the past you had accused me Of downplaying Genocide and the Holocaust. I am strongly against people who try to equate Chetniks crimes as the same scope and level of deviousness as the Ustashe or worse as if worse than Ustashe. Or those how try to downplay crimes. I try to put myself in the shoes of the victims and what it must have felt like. I have also seen historical events used to demonize groups of people two. Hence why I felt offended by the assertion that I was complicit in such behavior. I hope you understand where I am coming from with this. The genocide by the Chetniks (no matter if some factions were not complicit.) happened. Many of the victims were nearly in the wrong place, time and ethnic group. It’s not as if they specifically targetd Axis collaborators. I have seen some some deny it was genocide. Despite RS citations saying otherwise. Made my blood boil. Imagine someone told you they didn’t think the Ustashe didn’t commit genocide. (Again I am not equating their severity but targeting and killing innocent people) The Bosnian genocide was on an even smaller scale yet is considered a genocide. And I see no reason for it not to be mentioned in relevant sections. If it is considered “equating” then it will becomes impossible for readers to see it. And there has been activity recently on Wikipedia to shoehorn historic crimes on various articles not even directly related or within general scope. Either simply to increase traffic to pages or focus on the subject or to spite. Recently an editor got blocked for pushing content I had to revert as they claimed a figure was a Croat but with poor sources. As for your concern about the Genocide of Serbs page, again I don’t see where again crimes are in whole equated. As for this “campaigns” keep in mind many of these highly sensitive articles are on the watch lists of many. As I realized later on. Countless times I have edited articles to only be reverted by the same group of editors. Or see the same group in the edit history of an article. These pages are highly watched and prone to controversy. Originally I thought I was being stalked. Look I can see from your edit history and passion about the topic that the Genocide of Serbs is a very important subject for you. But at times your edits seems to be undue weight on various articles giving the impression to some that there is some alternate motive. For example the list of what seems every massacre that was carried out on the Genocide of Serbs page. Or going in extreme detail about the Ustashe and crimes in articles about towns or cities. I used to be the same but realized it doesn’t come across balanced in articles. I agree there should be acknowledgment. But paragraphs? At the same time my single sentence addition is seen as undue weight? See the discrepancies I am worried about? Again I used to be the same. So I get it. Please don’t get me wrong. I suck at writing what I mean sometimes. Foot in mouth syndrome. So if you feel I am being snide I don’t mean it.

Sorry for the long text. Just wanted to be as clear as possibe to avoid misunderstandings. (also I’m a bit ocd myself). Look, next time you disagree with my edit or vise versa, lets assume good faith and not nefarious intent. Fair enough? More progress is made in calm debate. Sources taking center stage above all else. Also, did you mean “we can’t agree on everything” as the saying goes? Also I want us to be friends. I hate conflicts with people. Just added wear and tear stress. We should be empathetic though hatd given the sterile black and white text on our screens. All in all, I wish you luck in your future editing. Please stay safe during these unprecedented times with this virus and all. Take care. Your wiki friend. OyMosby (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby: I have also seen historical events used to demonize groups of people two. - I totally understand this. For exmaple, My initial idea was to present the crimes of the Ustashas as crimes of fascist regimes and not as crimes of Croats. I wouldn't go down in history long before the invasion of Yugoslavia and the creation of the NDH, but I'm very bothered by the attempt to present genocide as a response to the dictatorship and other Kingdom's policies. That is the reason why I try to balance. This concept of historical background really requires a better choice of information to be included.

For example the list of what seems every massacre that was carried out on the Genocide of Serbs page. Or going in extreme detail about the Ustashe and crimes in articles about towns or cities. - I agree that the list of massacres is too extensive for the article and that it's not in an encyclopedic style. Maybe we should choose the cut-off and keep the biggest massacres, with over 300 or 500 (I've already tried it, but it has been reverted). Or maybe we should divide by areas and briefly describe events in them. Slavonia, Lika, Herzegovina, Drina Valley, Syrmia... On the other hand, numerous large-scale crimes against Serbs are not mentioned anywhere. Many massacres (for example Račak and Ovčara) with fewer victims are very well explained in many articles, including the articles about towns or cities. I think that crimes committed by Serbs during the Yugoslav Wars were overrepresented on Wikipedia. For instance, the Siege of Dubrovnik is the only historical event mentioned in the lead of the article on the city. Is that a key event in the city's history? Are the Yugoslav Wars a more important historical event than the Napoleonic Wars? There are many such examples. World War II is a far more significant historical moment, including war crimes, the existence of concentration camps, etc. At least twice as many victims were in the genocide of Serbs by Ustasha than during the entire Yugoslav Wars. The current situation on Wikipedia cannot be considered balanced and impartial. Most importantly, the history of a country and a city is not just made up of wars.

At the same time my single sentence addition is seen as undue weight? - Zbor was really a marginal organization, not so important for the history of Serbia, especially for the main article.

Look, next time you disagree with my edit or vise versa, lets assume good faith and not nefarious intent. Fair enough? More progress is made in calm debate - Totally agree. Progress is already being seen, and I hope it will be even better. Cheers--WEBDuB (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Aleksandar Vucic reverted edit

Why did you delete an entire sourced section? It sources certainly aren't self-published sources or some f*king blogs. I even know personally, but Wikipedia is not a place for original research, and I'm okay with that. But "Undue weight"? "Minority views"? Just because it sounds harsh it doesn't mean it isn't neutral. There are actual victims. Because majority is brainwashed. There really are few sources, what could you expect?

---

Alright, what can I do to improve the section? N1 is the only media in Serbia that is not controlled by government, barely no international organization has even made an article about this criminal and his crime syndicate politician. I couldn't find any more serious source than N1, and I think it's a trustable enough source for Wikipedia. What can I do? Wait for them to become even worse so these scandals become insignificant? It has to be visible. --LukaAndjelkovic (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
And yeah, I'll note I don't mean any offense, I apologize if it sounded that way. LukaAndjelkovic (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

"Many scholars"

Hi, could you make the same edit you did on here (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump&diff=960206813&oldid=960201320) on the main Donald Trump page? Thanks SmooveMike (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@SmooveMike: That's done. :) --WEBDuB (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks man :) SmooveMike (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

reverted Milutin milankovic page

Hello I changed back an edit made by user notrium on Milutin Milankovic page (he deleted Serbian and wrote Yugoslav), he did it without discussion or previous consensus, since I am not a member of wikipedia community can you please watch over that page since it is obvious that the user does not act in good will https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Milutin_Milanković&action=history thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.9.202.230 (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2020 Serbian parliamentary election

On 24 June 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2020 Serbian parliamentary election, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 01:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Concentration camps in Independent State of Croatia

Template:Concentration camps in Independent State of Croatia has been nominated for merging with Template:Genocide of Serbs. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. buidhe 08:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for helping and editing articles about Serbian politics! Vacant0 (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, WEBDuB

Thank you for creating Denial of genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Article has significant problems and is already tagged for some of those. Also it seems to be a coatrack for other material, some essay-like. IMO the topic meets criteria for existences as a separate article and I'm marking it as reviewed.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@North8000: Thanks for the messages. I would like you to emphasize the specific problems and suggestions for improvement. Many of the previously presented criticism are actually part of controversial changes and POV-pushing, some of which have been used as evidence for sanctions and warnings by Arbitration. I'm always open for cooperation and joint improvement of the articles' quality. All the best.--WEBDuB (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Less talk, more work

I expect your full support in last edit, Dražen Petrović article.[1]

Novak Djokovic article

Greetings, it seems we have a little problem on Novak Djokovic article page, user Mikola22 added the fact that Djokovic is of "half montenegrin,half croat ethnic heritage " according to Chris Bowers biography ,the problem is missuage of the biography since as you can see in the source (of that same book) page 12 Chapter One :https://books.google.de/books?id=NSCtDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT13&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false that even Chris Bowers writes that :"In exploring Djokovic ethnic heritage,its important not to dilute the fact that he is a Serb" after that :"That his paternal ancestors are ethnic Serbs from Montenergro and that almost a half of population of Montenegro are Serbs" and also "that he is a third generation Serb born in Serbia" - User Mikola 22 is definetly not acting in good faith since he is ignoring all realible sources and puting the quote he wants to put, Thank you 178.9.202.230 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Sources and deleting all edits regardless talk page topic

Dear fellow WEBDuB ,

thank you for writing in my Talk page, but you should understand regarding any Talk page including one that motivated you to write on my Talk page - one subject should not be mixed with another related or non related, I opened Talk section on one particular article about one particular subject - using of one word - and you practicality deleted all my edits regardless what subject they are, regardless source I provided.

I am not allowed to change anything on Wikipedia prior discussing something specially when edits are not a topic of of that discussion, would same applies to you in other Wikipedia page, ones you edit and somebody in meantime starts writing something else in Talk page?

I opened possibility to discuss one subject in Talk page by opening new section - subject of discussion is about correctly translating from one language to another and use of single English word "colonization" in article and nothing else. And in same time I must say that all I write about now does not mean that any other subject or topic should not or could not be discussed on Talk page in appropriate new or old sections if they are active and I do not prevent any fellow Wikipedia editor to open new subject on Talk page on any article where he or she would like to discuss something it considers that should be discussed. And again in same time that doesn't means I should be prevented to do edits on article about many other thongs that are not included in Talk page topics section I opened for discussion.

Think a little about it, because according to you if someone opens some subject in Talk page of some article about anything it seams according to you editor has no right to change anything else in that article while discussion is under way about some other subject?

I will give you concrete example of what are you doing now, let say (for example) I open new section on some article in Talk page about topic - cuisine and using a word cuisine in article - and in meantime you start writing and editing that same article and you insert and edit in article (for example) lets say something about driving a car - then I come and say to you - WEBDuB - no, no you are now bad "boy", no editing on that same article about driving while talk page topic exists about cuisine and is under way - so think again about what are you doing regarding advising me "but when there is disagreement among the editors, no one should unilaterally make changes before the consensus on the talk page.". There is no disagreement about driving and that is not even a topic of Talk page section.

I did not change just "colonization" word meaning giving better explanation about real meaning that differs from standard English use of that word in my edits of article, but many other things that are not subject or topic of Talk page section I opened. Again other subjects I edited are not topic in Talk section I opened. And again nobody was preventing you or anybody else to start another topic in talk page if you think you should and then there in such topic discus something else unrelated to topic I opened and maybe in same time related to my other edits.

Regarding: " It is best to use books and peer-reviewed journals in articles for historical events" - I don't mind anybody using them when they are reliable and are available for edits or when author of edits can find them or when author of edits decide to use them, but in same time there is no obligations to use them as it is free will what source we editors use and will be using - some sources maybe somebody does not prefer(I myself for example do not exclude any source automatically until I check content and sometimes recheck it against other sources specially official source if we talk about history and such sources exist) and in same time using sources we don't like doesn't give us automatically right to call all other sources of some author unreliable without even reading them or just reading who publish or written them(and then even incorrectly stating what we have read about it) and then delete all edits of one author regardless of anything, regardless of even talking in some even few details why we delete all that - I do not mind deletes if they are not in accordance of subject of article but some preamble or history regarding some event should or could exist even if not directly related but had something to do with main event latter.

While in same time you provided in discussion on Talk page about "colonization" some sources(thank you) that you are suggesting I should use, nothing has prevented you before my edits or after them to use same sources and make other appropriate edits in article so it makes me wonder why you did not do it yourself...

And you know maybe your fellow editor had already lost a lot of time reading hundreds of page of some written material before using it as a source so you should think if somebody hard work should be disregarded just because you feel it does not meet some of your personal standards without even reading what is written correctly - you deleted edits with academic sources also and let unreliable source and edits that are already denied by official documents already published on same article. So do not just suggest others what should they do, what other sources for same matter they should read if you already read-it - use it - if you are in same time unwilling to do the same why you are suggesting that to others?

And in meantime maybe you should start reading other sources on that same article and with your intelligence about source quality and reliability of sources I am quite sure you will find some of them and edits where they are used even ridiculous and very laughable in some parts. And yet nobody seems to care about many - and that is light thing to say about that article - wrong statement in that article until now when somebody started to read and understand all what is written in them and how sources are intentionally in some places used to give false statements on that very same page where edits I have made. That same ridiculous article got my attention in first place because of so many wrong and ridiculous statements in it. Maybe if it where more accurate and balanced I would have not noticed it in first place while surfing the internet and had quick look on it. Best regards. Loesorion (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Loesorion: Look, buddy. If I hadn't undued your changes, others would have done it. I've already advised you on what to use as reliable sources. Although some claims may seem illogical to you, it is important to change them only if you cite good sources. (WP:NOTTRUTH) You can't cite dictionaries as sources. It is not recommended to combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources (WP:SYNTHESIS).--WEBDuB (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Advise

You're at 3RR WEBDuB. I'm not going to "warn" you about reporting etc. because I find such measures harmful to the project as a whole because they make relations between editors bureaucratic, but just don't do more reverts for now. Also, I've placed the full quotes and I've combined some elements from your edits with some elements which Ktrimi991 has written.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2020 Montenegrin parliamentary election

On 2 September 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2020 Montenegrin parliamentary election, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 03:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)