User talk:Santasa99

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Bosnian genocide denial into Milorad Dodik. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa, I was sort of aware of this but didn't know that it's required to do something in that regard. So, basically, this copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution would suffice and can be used as a template in edit-summary (if copied text is short or not substantial) and in TP (if there is a lot of copied text). I think that in this case - Bosnian genocide denial > Milorad Dodik - I am a sole contributor of copied text, and it is not particularly intricate narrative it's more of a listing, but if I understood correctly, in case of being sole contributor then, maybe, it could be unnecessary. Please, just to be on the safe side, let me know if I understood this correctly? Thanks again, and stay safe.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Santasa99. The edit summary is mandatory whether you place a template on the talk page or not. The talk page template is optional. You are correct that if you are the sole author, attribution is not required, but it's still helpful for patrolling admins if you do so. — Diannaa (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I know that edit summary is mandatory on its own, that's elemental, and yes, it could be that I have done it before. However I am not sure that I am able to remember where, but if I do I will put this temp to appropriate TP. Also, most likely, when and if i used bits of text from one article for writing in another, then, it was again probably my own. Anyhow, I will be sure to use it every time I am reusing any amount of text from now on. Cheers.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of reliable sources noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is West Herzegovina Canton Symbols. Thank you. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Gazimestan speech

Please be aware that "irredentism" from its own article refers to the doctrine of redeeming lost territories while the speech itself did not allude to irredetmsim, and nor did it advocate redrawing Serbia's borders (which were only internal anyway). The term features only on the "Reception" sector of the article by one or two writers to loosely connect the event with later events that would occur in Bosnia and in Croatia and in particular with the narrative of how events were being portrayed in mainstream media and less so on the ground. That in itself does not insinuate a link between the content of the speech and the ideological doctrine you have sought to include. --Coldtrack (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Two writers are only proper scholars referenced in the entire article, others predominantly being historians. Article itself is underwritten, under-sourced and considerably sanitized of real scholarship. But all that is irrelevant, because category and article categorization is not equal to labeling, and it certainly not intended to "insinuate" anything. It also doesn't matter how much term is featuring within the content, but how it features. Everything else you are trying to explain is your personal opinion. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I've spotted the issue and have remarked myself on at the article talk if anyone wants to respond. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Srebrenica

Where was the consensus in 2019?[1]? --Coldtrack (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Continuing from the above, I would urge you strongly to read the posts of Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Denial (and scepticism?) and provide your proposals and reasoning ther after reading what Pincrete has stated and what I too have adduced. Thank you. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello again Santasa. Your latest edit to Srebrenica massacre demonstrates a fourth revert inside of 24 hours thus breaching WP:3RR. Yes I reverted it (again), but J.O seems very cocksure here. He may be giving you rope, I am not sure, but I would say you have between now and the time he plans to report you "tomorrow" (whatever that means to him) to self-revert and back off. Because frankly, I don't even know what he meant and whether he has seen a violation on your part even graver that edit-warring. The choice is yours. --Coldtrack (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

And your tag-team buddy just misstepped in edit-summary, announcing to entire community that you are messaging each other. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Nothing that is concealed from public, and if you check our history, we're far from "tag team buddies" having sat on opposite benches the last time we commented on an RfC. --Coldtrack (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Is that why he "owes you", and you expect him not to "disappoint" you? If that's what you 2 think collaboration on seeking consensus and NPOV on controversial subjects, and indeed building Wikipedia should look like - I am assuring you it's not. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Look I don't damn well know what he means exactly. I am not in contact wth him off Wiki and I wouldn't know what he looked like if I was stood next to him on a rail platform. But you need to get to grip with your fact-checking as I am sure he was referring to this[2], not that any part of this exonerates your egregious and stiff-necked behaviour to sell a point. --Coldtrack (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not selling anything. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

In that case I suggest getting your eye checked. End of discission here. Bye. --Coldtrack (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)