User talk:Kosmar6314
Welcome!
|
No.
The article Nedić's serbia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Proposing deletion as it is a new article that largely duplicates an existing article (appears to duplicate Territory_of_the_Military_Commander_in_Serbia#Administration) but I'm willing to put it up as PROD rather than CSD in case I'm wrong. I don't see a reason to split the other page, but if there are plans to add a lot more data here then maybe it could be justified.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Nedić's serbia for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nedić's serbia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nedić's serbia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Battle of Vukovar
Please, stop with the disruptive editing on the Battle of Vukovar article. The sources in the article clearly say "Pyrrhic victory", and it stood like that for ten years, it passed a highly detailed Featured article review, so please do not change it now on a whim. Furthermore, It wasn't just the Yugoslav Army that fought in the battle, but also other Serb entities which were clearly outside of Yugoslav stature (Republic of Serbian Krajina was never part of Yugoslavia), so a Yugoslav-Serb adjective is justified. If you have any further complaints, please take it to the talk page of the said article.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- 3E1I5S8B9RF7, I Left a message on your talk page. Kosmar6314 {talk) 21:16, 28 June 2021
- No, it is fine the way it is, and for a reason; SAO Krajina and/or SAO Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia participated in the battle, and were extraneous entities outside of Yugoslavia.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- 3E1I5S8B9RF7, Not true. SAO means "Serbian Autonomous Oblast", a Autonomous Region within SFRY. It was not it's own entity, did not have it's own armed forces. It was a Yugoslav victory. By your logic we can say that it was also a Vojvodian and Kosovar victory because people from those parts also participated Kosmar6314 {talk) 17:27, 30 June 2021
- No, it is fine the way it is, and for a reason; SAO Krajina and/or SAO Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia participated in the battle, and were extraneous entities outside of Yugoslavia.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Reliable sources and tendentious editing
I notice you were edit warring at Serbian Volunteer Corps (World War II). And instead of discussing on talk, as you were urged to in this edit summary, you reverted again, referring to "westerners" (meaning a whole host of academic sources) being unreliable, as opposed to the organization's self-description, which you think ought to rule. This shows ignorance of (or refusal to abide by) basic sourcing principles on Wikipedia. Please read WP:Reliable sources, especially WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Bishonen | tålk 09:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC).
- Hello Bishonen, I did not start the "edit warring", that is what PeaceMaker67 did, all I'm doing is fixing a mistake and then leaving the reason why. Peacemaker67 however keeps reverting. Why don't you go to him and tell him the same thing? No, you will rather target me. And what are you talking about? You say I'm not discussing it on the talk page, that is exactly what I did? Go and check [1]. And of course, as anyone with a brain I recognize that a source directly said by the party in question matters more than a westerner who wrote a book 50 years after. Also you are hypocrite, when PeaceMaker67 put a warning on my page first for "edit warring" which in fact he started and is constantly doing, you didn't do anything. But as soon as I posted the same thing on his talk page, immediately you take it down. Kosmar6314 {talk 09:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Important information
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Bishonen | tålk 09:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC).