User talk:Serbia123

Welcome!

Hello, Serbia123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mizu onna sango15 Public (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Anatolian Serbs

Hello! I checked the page and what it says is that Serbs were apparently settled in Bithynia. So there you are right. However a) there is no reference to them being the 30,000 of Neboulos at Sebastopolis, since Theophanes never recorded any specific ethnonyms, and b) the revolt of Thomas the Slav carried along almost the entire provincial army and navy of the Empire, not only some thousands of Slavs settled in Bithynia. Thus, to include them in the sentence would give undue weight to their role in the revolt. Regards, Constantine ✍ 07:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

blanking pages

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

How do i delete a page? I dont fucking know how okay, so back off.

How to write a reference

These are typical styles of writing a reference.

• Babinger, Franz, William C. Hickman and Ralph Manheim, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, (Princeton University Press, 1978), 110.
• Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, 110.

[1]
Also, would you care to keep an eye on the Battle of Ankara article? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Skanderbeg. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Please join in the discussion on the talk page as to Skanderbeg's origins. I will revert you for now since you haven't so far done this, but if you add it in once more without discussioon, you are out of here, and for good. Rodhullandemu 21:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalize? Up yours, buddy, I have provided historical sources and my intention is not to vandalize, but to provide relevant information. Anyways, I AM discussing the issue if you would be so kind as to open your Goddamn eyes and look on the discussion page. My God man, cut me some slack.

Thanks for the insult, it's noted, but I don't see a consensus on the talk page yet. It may be that you BOTH need to seek some sort of dispute resolution, but thus far, I don't see it happening. You're the one adding this information, and per WP:BURDEN, it's up to you to justify your sources. I strongly recommend you don't add that information again until there exists a consensus as to wording amongst editors, or WP:DR has been followed. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 21:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, anytime chum. Anyways, I won't make any edits until we reach a consensus.

Two items: (1) Wikipedia has a firm policy against personal attacks, which you are violating. If you continue to engage in personal attacks against other editors, you will wind up being blocked. (2) If someone removes a prod notice from an article, it means they are objecting to the proposed deletion (see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Objecting. When you re-add a deleted prod notice to an article, you are engaging in disruptive behavior, which can also lead to you being blocked. If you still feel that the article should be deleted, your only remaining option is to nominate the article for AfD.

Given your recent behavior, my personal opinion is that the next instance of disruptive behavior by you, be it deleting material without a valid reason, re-entering contested material without consensus on the talk page, attacking other editors, or re-inserting a deleted prod notice, will justify a block on you. -- Donald Albury 13:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I won't engage in personal attacks anymore (although I'm amazed that Rodhullandemu took so personally as to inform you about it). I find it humorous but for the sake of not getting banned, I won't say anything.

Your second point is BS and you know it. Why is the person who removed the prod in the right? Why is their opinion more valid than mine? Personally, I think that removing a deletion tag (which is clearly valid, if you cared to look you'd see I was in the right) with absolutely no explanation, no nothing is far more disruptive than me putting it back. If I'm getting reprimanded for this than it would be hypocritical to not reprimand whoever deleted the tag without an explanation.

Now, Donald, I have a question for you. How was my reason for deleting the article invalid? Its about an event that never took place, check into it yourself.

For the record, I'm happy to fight my own battles, and did not notify Donald Albury of anything, as the history of his talk page will show. We are both administrators and either of us can impose appropriate sanctions here. As for removal of WP:PROD notices, anyone can do this- it just means that the PROD is contested, and the article should be listed at WP:AFD if the proposer wishes to follow it up. Replacing a PROD tag is therefore deprecated. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 22:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbia123 (talk • contribs)

Just to be clear, nobody contacted me about you. I was working through the list of expired prods when I found Operation Albania, and saw that you had twice re-added a prod notice after it had been deleted. I then saw how you were interacting with other editors, and posted the above notice. -- Donald Albury 00:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, buddy, I kinda got that from Rodhullandemu's post. I get it. My question stil stands and I'll repost it just to be clear. How was my reason for deleting the article invalid? Its about an event that never took place, check into it yourself.

Anyways, Rodhullandemu, we clearly won't reach a consensus on the whole Skenderbeg situation, I suggested including both views (with appropriate references), but he won't have anything of it and insists I am wrong and he right. So where do we go from here?

This has nothing to do with your reason for wanting the article deleted. It has to do with the way we handle things on Wikipedia. Wikipedia works by consensus, and certain policies and guidelines have been established by consensus, including that any objection to a prod, which can be signaled by removing the prod notice, cancels the prod. If you still want to see the article deleted, then you need to nominate it for AfD. Just follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you need help completing the nomination, ask here or on my talk page. There you will be able to state your reasons why you think the article should be deleted, and other editors will have a chance to comment on the proposed deletion. After 7 days someone, usually an administrator, will judge the arguments presented for deletion or retention, and make a determination. Note that AfD is not a vote, and decisions should be made on the merit of the arguments presented. -- Donald Albury 21:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Your "edits"

P.S. I looked at your "source" http://books.google.com/books?id=3uJzjatjTL4C&pg=PA190&dq=uskoks+serbia+bosnia&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=uskoks%20serbia%20bosnia&f=false The Ottoman Empire and early modern Europe. Simply going on Google books, typing in "uskoks serbs bosnia" is NOT research. While google books is useful, in this case, it is a terrible way to gather data. I can easily dispel your claim by going on google books and typing "croat uskoks." --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreover let me point out the intentional lie you are trying to propogate. "soldiers whose origins stemmed primarily from the Croats, Serbs". Yet your source does NOT even claim this. Let me quote, since you obviously did not even bother READING your own source: "...Uskoks, a community of destructive yet determined privateers --many of whom were fugitives from Ottoman Bosnia and Serbia.." Tell me, where on earth there does it say "Serbs"? From what I could see, there were many refugees from Bosnia and Serbia. There is already a mention of this in the article, where it rightly belongs. I believe focusing too much on this has become a personal battle more than an encyclopedic one. --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. THAT is your argument? So its all word games then? Alright, I'm gonna rephrase it to fit your little word games.

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Uskoci. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jarkeld (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Your reference

Could you be so kind as to give more information regarding your reference, Norman Davies (1996), p. 561.. The name of the book would be much appreciated. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey man

i think that we may know each other, so just email me at pcela369@hotmail.com when you can. i dont want to give my name on here.FC Toronto (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)