User talk:Zoupan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

WikiProject Serbia collaboration - Serbian monasteries[edit]

In the absence of other editors who would be willing to participate your idea is very good. I will contribute as much as I can.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Its a deal.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I made mistake and started with Bijela which is on your list. Sorry, I will continue with my list. Btw, isn't it better to sort monasteries per eparchies instead per countres?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Правичност applied also. What do you think about suggesting one monastery article for creation to him? Since he is new editor I think that one article about currently redlinked monastery which is covered with lot of sources for the beginning would be enough.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Klisina looks like good idea. As far as I can see, there are plenty of sources on it. I will certainly try to do bring new articles to DYK status. That is not an easy task and it would be very important to have more editors participating. But maybe after/if first couple of articles reach GA status some editors would be tempted to join in.
Another important note: I am not very competent for religious topics so occasional review of my work would be appreciated. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Serb clans[edit]

Hi, Zoupan,

The intro paragraph for 'Serb clans' had multiple issues and a lot of irrelevant information. I removed this irrelevant information. Why did you change this back to the previous version? --Bezvardis (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop changing back to the badly written version of the paragraph. If you have any reasons to suggest that what you have included in the first paragraph, should be included there, please clearly state these in the discussion page. Please also reference your arguments to exact pages and quotes of the sources. Also it would be good to have sources that are less than 100 year old. --Bezvardis (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

UNICEF Ambassadors[edit]

Hi, hope you're well. this is yet another reminder of why WP:SERBIANNAMES needs taking via RfC to guideline status. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Minority rights violations in Kosovo[edit]

A while ago, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo, you said the subject was mentioned in sources, but didn't address the issue of improper synthesis. Would you be interested in working on that subject in a less contentious scope? I noticed we don't have a human rights in Kosovo article yet, and a lot of that content sounds like it might fit there. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, when I have time. You are right.--Zoupan 11:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Jelena Gruba, Bosancica[edit]

Bosnian Cyrillic has existed since the 10th century, 400 years before Jelena (a BOSNIAN queen) lived. The modern Serbian Cyrillic which you are using on her wiki only came into existence 5 centuries AFTER she died. The Serbs on Wikipedia have a tendency to Serbize everything and everybody. and the name Jelena obviously isn't Bosnian - Bosnians were Catholics and Christians before they became Muslims and they were Pagans before all that. So Catholic and Muslim names are used in Bosnia - Jelena Gruba was a Catholic so her name obviously isn't Muslim... which is what I think you meant when you said her name isn't Bosnian.--DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Word. In contrast to the Bosnians, who used a native variant of the Cyrillic script (dubbed "Bosancica") since the 10th/11th century, the Serbs employed the common wider early Cyrillic during the middle ages. Claiming Bosnian Cyrillic did not exist when Gruba ruled is, well quite frankly, preposterous, as is suggesting that Bosnian Cyrillic somehow was a "Serbian" invention "that did not exist on its own". Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 00:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Well yes, of course, it needs improvements. Most articles on wikipedia are unfortunately still far from impeccable. The actual point was that Bosnian Cyrillic, whatever its "academic" categorization as influenced by this or a corruption of that, was a script variant native to Bosnia and Herzegovina and in use at least since the 11th century. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 23:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 16:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Serbia[edit]

When you wrote "Let's bump this collaboration" I thought it meant let us put Montenegrin monasteries on hold. Anyway, I agree there are more important matters for the project, like dealing with articles which needs cleanup and improving the quality of Vital articles. I am willing to collaborate with you or anybody else who might be interested. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you think about improving the class of all stub rated articles with Top importance for WPS?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Serbian Chetniks in Macedonia[edit]

This site says that Isa Boljetinac was Serbian Chetnik СРПСКОТО ЧЕТНИЧКО ДВИЖЕЊЕ ВО ПРИЛЕПСКО Web archived. Have you found other sources which also support Isa Chetnik career?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think that there could be a rational explanation for a little different appearance on older and newer photos. All photos of Isa are post 1912. In that period he was leader of katchaks and member of the government. It was not unusual for people to put on some weight in older ages after being appointed to high position in state. At 1908 image of Chetniks he might look older because he had much more difficult life, fighting all around. Still, without additional sources your position is more likely to be correct. Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

List of Serbs of Croatia[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Zoupan. You have new messages at Talk:List of Serbs of Croatia.
Message added 12:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities and Community of Serbian municipalities, Kosovo[edit]

Hello, I noticed you moved "Association of Serbian municipalities, Kosovo" to "Community of Serbian municipalities, Kosovo". There is a dispute between me and User:Qwerty786 over the content of these articles regarding the Community before and after the Brussels Agreement (2013). This dispute started from our talk pages, then I posted on the articles' talk pages and now has gone on to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I don't ask you to personally get involved in this, as your opinion could be considered to be non-neutral.

However, even though I tried posting on both Wikiproject:Serbia and Wikiproject:Kosovo talk pages in order to somehow get more opinions and reach a consensus, or at least get some suggestions on dispute resolution, I got no replies. Is there some way, in your opinion, to get more opinions on this matter, for example, on whether the articles should be split and, if yes, on how this should be done? Would an RFC help? Is there some way to attract more attention from the Wikiprojects? Any change may also affect other relevant articles. Heracletus (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Kumanovo Uprising[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Kumanovo Uprising at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 97198 (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/El Gran Carlemany[edit]

Your review needs more details per DYK Reviewing guide. Yoninah (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Pinging, in case you forgot. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to the article. However, the need for more details concerns elaborating on the DYK review, not to the article (i.e. please review the DYK again with more details). Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Please, the DYK review is what needs details, not the article! Could you please re-review it, or else I'll have to get someone else to. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Moves of Ottoman grand viziers[edit]

Hey, thanks for moving some of the articles of the Grand Viziers of the Ottoman Empire to more correct names (e.g. "the Bosnian", etc.), but make sure you also change the links in the templates they're included in, specifically the Grand Vizier template. Ithinkicahn (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Kumanovo Uprising[edit]

Last call to supply a valid QPQ review for this nomination, which means doing a full review of another nomination, not merely supplying an ALT hook for one. If you don't reply by the end of the month, the nomination will be closed, so I hope you do respond before then. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Serbs of Croatia[edit]

Hi Zoupan, after seeing some your edits on Morlachs, and similar connected articles, I had to revise them (more Morlachs, minor others), because were written from an nationalistic point of view. Those articles shouldn't have it, at least not obviously, in this case almost exclusive connection with Serbs. However, by what I saw, some sources you edited were alright and interesting, and made me think if would be interested to search for sources (reliable, if possible with original cite) about Serbs, and edit the section "Ottoman conquest and Habsburg Empire" in Serbs of Croatia? For example, the letter of Emperor Ferdinand to ban Keglević, probably is not the only one document from 16th and 17th century directly mentioning Serbs in Dalmatia and whole Croatia. Those centuries were crucial for Serbs ethnicity in Croatia, and should be further expanded and pinpoint issues like migrations, different religious faith, social terms or ethnonyms, lack of national consciousness of people from those centuries, later national revivals etc.--Crovata (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

P. Kone[edit]

Thanks for your contributions. It's sad that Arbxxxx's translation from Albanian was wrong translation by purpose in order to push his pov.Alexikoua (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I've filled a sockpuppet investigation about Arbxxxx, it seems certain that he edited both logged and unlogged in order to avoid 3rr.Alexikoua (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Josif Pančić[edit]

I'm sorry what a re you talking about.Disruptive editing to accoridng to who?To you?You removed all of my edits just because you don't like it?You are Serbian if i'm correct?So you think i will be blocked because i put the links which prove that he converted from Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy and that he was born as Josip Pančić not Josif?Is that right?I've put some foreign sources to prove that and you removed that(because you didn't like the sources) and put just some serbian sources which are questionable..If i may ask you for what i would be banned..Please tell me?How did i vandalise that topic..Did i just remove some sentence and/or did i not pt source in..Or you just didn't like that sources?And then i'm making disruptive edits???!!!You do realize that i could report you and that you are risking a ban if i decide to go to war with you over this matter..Please explain your edits to me! Scrosby85 (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

No i don't have a problem.Because it was not me who removed the sources..You liked the sources for 6 months what's changed?Website pages are not reliable sources?You are joking right?But reliable sources are some questionalbe serbian writers which says he was Bunjevac by origin right?Serbian philological is site is not reliable source?What are you talking about?Do you really want that we go to Administrators? Scrosby85 (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Stop. Stop now. If you want to move an article on a controversial topic, the proper method is WP:RM. You know that. bobrayner (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.


Zoupan, please, why I am writing 'please', because beleive and see You as a good editor, and found several other well written articles edited by You. Yet, the edits you done on article about Morlachs, and as do mostly about Serbian history and culture, I don't see as some suspicious, with possible national or personal intentions, but as lack of knowledge about the subject. The edits were quiet wrong, and it looks incredible for me you're still insisting without seeing your mistakes. You emphasize the term Morlach was from 16th to 17th century used for Serbs or Croats, when it was from Latin documents from 14th century describing Vlachs. You emphasize Morlach connection with Serbs or Croats, or basically saying they were Serbs or Croats in the 16th to 18th centuries, only because some belonged to Orthodox Church or Catholic Church, or with Serbs only because they spoke a South-Slavic language of Shtokavian dialect? Do you understand how delusional and unacademical such claims are? The article is written objectively, in such a way, the public, especially a laic, would follow the term through its history, understand how was used for Vlachs, and afterwards as stated in work Travels in Dalmatia from 18th century by Fortis, they were speaking Slavic language, and because of migrations, people came from various parts of the Balkan, and the name passed to other communities, how they were of the Greek-Orthodox and Roman Catholic faith, and that the name [didn't] belonged to only one ethnic group, i.e. Vlachs who didn't manage to make a national identity, or later Croatian or Serbian, yet according to the religious affiliation, they assimilated to these two ethnic groups.

I pinpointed Mile Dakić because such sources, like his work The Serbian Krayina: Historical Roots and Its Birth from 1994, can't be used as a source, reliable source, sourcing such a claims, when was released at the time of War in Croatia, and especially when Dakić participated in govermental bodies of SAO Krajina. Also, the Croatian Encyclopedia is more than a reliable source, not only because is an encyclopedia, but because of this sentence "Pokušaj srpske historiografije da naziv Morlak uporabi kao istoznačnicu za pravoslavno (a time i srpsko) stanovništvo u zaleđu dalmatinskih gradova nije znanstveno utemeljen" (engl. The try of Serbian historiography to use the term Morlach as synonym for Orthodox (and this with Serbian) population in inland of Dalmatian cities isn't scientifically based). Also, after my mention of Mile Dakić, you commented "Mazuranic is a Franciscan priest. Mažuranić has political motives. Ivan Mužić is a Catholic extremist and nationalist., makes me think if there is more than just a lack of ignorance. Not that there is nothing to makes them unreliable, if yet, their work only sourced one etymological interpretation, and early history of 14th and 15th century, and not some controversial nationalistic claims.--Crovata (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for false accusations, there is no wrong intentions from my side, and it's up to you to see why are you not accepting my warnings for using unreliable sources for controversal or unexplained claims, and writing prone to nationalism. The actual majority of your contribution was copyediting from beforehand edited articles, and the use of sources was sparse, what doesn't matter because you had such sources. The "yours" last revision was on May 7, 607545683, with 9,741 bytes, while rewritten by me, 611797848, with new material on June 6 around 21,202 bytes, yet several times like on June 8, 612031978, you reverted it to your previous revision, removing 11,460 bytes of information, and not with sources which only partially mention Morlachs and the text highlight the connection with Serbs, but from scientific sources specifically studying Morlachs and Vlachs, with citatations found in those books and papers, explaining the etymology, its chronology, and more. To further avoid edit claims which identify the term Morlach, or elsewhere, with specific national identity, religion and vice versa, without understanding, or explaining in the article, the historical circumstances until late 19th century, I highly recommend you to read the work of Zef Mirdita and Ivan Mužić on Vlachs.
I never neglected the term Morlachs was used for the community in the Dalmatian hinterlands of the 17th century, but how it was principally used for that specific period of time is just an subjective opinion, mostly because of time difference, misleading the objective narration of the term. Wikipedia basics for an editor is to primary know about you're editing, and as such there is no need the section "External links" with the link to Morlachs on Croatian Encyclopedia be removed, or as says the "tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion, and it wasn't used for detailed observation.
Also, the sentence "In the summer of 1685, Cosmi, the Archbishop of Split, wrote that Stojan Janković had brought 300 families with him to Dalmatia, and also that around Trogir and Split there were 5000 refugees from Turkish lands, without food - seen as a serious threat to the defense of Dalmatia. Grain sent by the Pope proved insufficient, and the Serbs were forced to launch expeditions into Turkish territory." was removed as there is no mention of Morlachs, and those families and refugees could have nothing to do with them. As Janković is mentioned, I remind you how on his article, 605958038, you identified Morlachs as Serbs.
Then, "In the 1851 census of Dalmatia, the Morlachs, citizens of Ragusa and inhabitants of the Dalmatian coast and islands declared themselves Serbs." as already mentioned, find other source for this census, and when you do, clarify why at the time of Croatian national revival, in the Kingdom of Dalmatia (part of Austrian Empire), only once in history the whole population of Dalmatia was declareed as Serbs and not Croats.
The statement by Boško Desnica, "after analysing Venetian papers, concluded that they always mentioned the script and language of the Morlachs as "Servian"", actually almost whole paragraph followed by "Lovrić made no distinction between the Vlachs/Morlachs and the Dalmatians and Montenegrins that were also mentioned (peoples of Croatia and Slavonia were not mentioned), and was not at all bothered by the fact that the Morlachs were predominantly Orthodox Christian.", is written in such way to mislead how Morlachs were actually Serbs. The original quote doesn't say or note they spoke Serbian language, yet the Venetian ignorance for correct Slavic idioms, as Desnica said, not wrongly sourced on 360-361 page, but pg. 356, "language, idiom, characters/letters are always accompanied by the adjective Serb or Illyrian(...)Undoubtedly the Venetians did not differentiate among [the Slavic-speaking] tribes/peoples, and all these three terms were applied equally to one or another tribe". I constantly remark, for such a vague and complex period of time, it can't be cited only one part of the original citation, and from only one source, twisting the original meaning for personal opinion. We both know that's violation of any criteria. I really wish to continue the discussion, a constructive discussion, and we could go analyzing sentence by sentence, but perhaps somewhere else, like sandboxs talk page about the article.--Crovata (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"Duchy of Pannonia"[edit]

I noticed you moved Braslav of Pannonian Croatia and Ratimir of Pannonian Croatia to Braslav, Prince of Pannonia and Ratimir, Duke of Pannonia, resp. Given the discrepancy, and that the last move of the article Pannonian Croatia or Duchy of Pannonia indicates it wasn't a principality, I think this needs to be resolved properly first. Please see Talk:Duchy of Pannonia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Mahmut's mother[edit]

Regarding your edit for the mother of Mahmut II in the List of the mothers of the Ottoman sultans (Aimée du Buc de Rivéry) please see the previous discussion on the same issue. Thanks Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Gulbahar Hatun[edit]

What are you going to do? Vandalize wikipedia again. Ayse Hatun was nephew of Mukrime Hatun and wife of Bayezid II, that would be incest(first cousins). Mukrime Hatun was married to Mehmed II the Conqueror, two years after the birth of Bayezid II, while Gulbahar Hatun was married one year before the birth of Bayezid II. Wikipedia doesn't allow cites as sources. While Gulbahar Hatun has more sources and reliable ones.What'sUp123 09:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources needed.

What'sUp123 09:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo Serbs[edit]

Thanks for adding references to the article "Kosovo Serbs" however references 3 (Finlay1854)and 7 (Stephenson2000) are broken. When you get some time, could you fix it please? Regards IJA (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

1879-1880 in Plav and Gusinje[edit]

Hi Zoupan,

The sources emphasize that there were two separate battles, in Novsice and Murino. Velika conflict is treated as an integral part of the Battle of Novšiće. Regarding the Battle of Murino, no doubt it was a separate battle which merits a separate article. Since it was a battle subsequent to the Battle of Novsice, I presented it in one section of the article about the Battle of Novisce as some kind of aftermath (which I think is not mistake).

Therefore my answer to your question is that I don't think Murino and Novsice should be merged while Velika does not merit its own article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Montenegrin Cap[edit]

Hi there, I'd like to know your thoughts on Montenegrin cap, and the Herzegovinian-Montenegrin cap differences. Because I was planning on creating a page for the Herzegovnian Cap and do not want to make a redundancy. Critikal1 (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Categories with gender[edit]

I believe this sort of gender-categories: Category talk:Women of the Republic of Venice are unnecessary. The gender is clear from the names any way, and in this way, no consideration is given people with gender-problematic and LGBT-categories, who may not wish to be labeled with a certain gender. Please consider this before you make a category such as this. consideration is not unimportant. In this case, "Category: People of the republic of Venice" is quite enough: we can recognize the gender from the names any way, so it is not necessary to create a gender category. If i remember correctly, Wikipedia actually advises against making gender categories when they can be avoided. I understand that you have no malice what so ever: perhaps you are simply interested in women's history, such as I myself, and therefore find this sort of categories useful and practical, such as I myself do. But; there are more important things to consider, and we must see to it that all groups of people are welcomed and being made to feel they are treated with consideration at Wikipedia. I hop you do not take offence, but may consider this. Perhaps out of consideration, you may decide to think that Category: People of the Republic of Venice are sufficient enough, and not create other categories like this one. My very best wishes--Aciram (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Society Against Serbs for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Society Against Serbs 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/Society Against Serbs until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Disambiguation link notification for January 5[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi! You've done a great job expanding the article about him. I've read it and made a few tweaks, but I would advise you to ask a copyeditor to go through it too. The grammar is slightly off here and there, and the style could be improved as well. Normally it wouldn't be an issue, but I see that you have nominated it for GA status. Surtsicna (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I have requested CE now.--Zoupan 13:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12[edit]

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

Dečani chrysobulls (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Old Serbian
The Life of St. Sava (by Domentijan) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Old Serbian
The Life of St. Sava (by Teodosije) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Old Serbian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19[edit]

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

Mariovo and Prilep Rebellion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ottoman Macedonia
Sporoi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Pliny
Vojislav Tankosić (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Trstenik
Čučer-Sandevo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to St. John

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26[edit]

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

Drobnjaci (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bjelopavlići
Gacko (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bjelopavlići
Nikšić (tribe) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bjelopavlići
Rista Starački (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Kozjak
Serbs of Croatia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Integration

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)