User talk:Sadko

Leave me a message.

	The Drama Llama is Watching You
	The owner of this page reserves the right to delete trolling and drama at their discretion.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Stojan Simić

Stojan Simić, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

1292simon (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kirilo I, Serbian Patriarch has been accepted

Kirilo I, Serbian Patriarch, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your revert

I notice you have jumped into conflict again after previously insulting me. You have claimed my edits are not constructive. Can you please explain how they aren't. I clearly explained I added sources and what sources said about April 6 1992 being considered start of Bosnian War. If you don't have any reason then revert yourself, if you do mention it clearly on the talk page. 117.199.83.116 (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again? Not really.

Nobody has insulted you, do not pull that card on me. You are part of an ongoing dispute (nothing wrong with that), take it to TP, come to a joint solution, I am more than happy to give a helping hand.

Another question, it seems that you have not previously edited Wikipedia from the same location/IP range. I am curios to know how and when did you learn the basic rules? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 03:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, don't try to taunt someone and call them out as "Indian". What's with the dear "Indian" editor?

Secondly, the other editor didn't object to my latest edits at all. He objected to previous edits which I allowed him to revert. So please revert your own edits.

Thirdly, I have edited on Wikipedia before, don't worry. It's not something tough once you try to read them. I hope you did.

Lastly, you're yet to provide any real reason for reverting me as I asked. Your latest reason is wrong and you know the other user never reverted my latest edits. 117.199.83.116 (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a taunt, are you kidding? I am a fan of Indian culture and traditions. Now, about the rest, I see no real reason to revert myself, considering that there is an ongoing dispute and you should not edit-war or play a ping-pong edit game but use the TP to come to a mutual agreement. A seasoned editor mush now this. :) That is all and I don't think that my position is that hard to understand. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop kidding yourself and me with such claims. No fan says "dear "Indian" editor" as if to point out who I am. And your absurd English with poor grammar in the middle "mush now this", with a smiley at the end isn't helping your claims either. I know very well you just want to push your non-neutral agenda.

You are claiming there's a dispute where there is none. Can you tell me please where exactly did the other user dispute with me on my latest edits when you reverted me. He only disputed me on earlier edits, that was resolved. So you're making false claims of dispute and if you don't revert, I will revert you. I have deconstructed all your arguments on the article talk page, you don't run the place so I ask you to specify under which reason you're reverting. When no one's disputing any longer, you don't have a right to rverrt anything. 117.199.87.125 (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to “Vandalism” (Sorry for late response)

Sadko, almost forgot to respond to our previous discussion. Firstly, I came here in response to a Vandalism post you made on my page. You came to me initially 5 hours after another editor reverted my edit. However you cleared up you meant to post “unconstructive edits”. I was not “getting back to you” over anything as I made edits on an article you were not even editing at the time. I’m sorry if you got that impression from me or if it looked that way. Not my intention. I used the fascist organization of Ustashe as an example for consistency as it formed in the Yugoslavian territory as well. So seemed like the best example I could use. As for where Zbor operated, it was in historically named area of “Occupied Serbia” during the Holocaust in Serbia. The name of the organization doesn’t negate what it is or can be described as. For example NDH wasn’t independent (it was an illusion of independence) but a German Italian puppet state. I did not coin the phrase “Serbian fascist movement” I cited multiple RS that literaly describe it as such. Otherwise I wouldn’t make the edit. Seems constructive. I think you should kinda think this over (As apposed me doing so) before coming to me or in response. As again you misunderstood me. If the goal is to build better encyclopedia together. Anyway, we should stick to the subject article and discuss on the Yugoslav National Movement Talk page. We have worked well together before so I know we can have a productive discussion their and talk about the sources and if we agree they are valid enough or strong enough to make my suggested change. I will list the sources there if you wish to look them over. I won’t bother you talk page further with this. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits certainty aren't unconstructive in any manner OyMosby. He has nade such baseless assertions against me too, over what actually seems like him not liking my edits. 117.199.92.163 (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OyMosby Calling Zbor exclusively Serbian is a mind-boggling. I was shocked. We know for a fact that the party was: 1) founded and operating in Yugoslavia 2) pro-Yugoslav 3) Yugoslav in their name and party program 4) They won a lot of their votes in Dalmatia and other parts of Yu. I got this from historian Branka Prpa, I can't remember which work it was. 5) Their ideology was not only Based on Serbian traditions/nationalism but it was a "unique" hybrid.

As I have previoulsy stated, we do not always just copy the sources. Context is very much important and "literally" is not always good. Considering that the numerous edits on "Serbian fascist group" (which is very much hated in modern-day Serbia) were reverted by other senior editors, one should wonder If I had a point or not. Agreed, TP discussions are always a good thing. Have a good day, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

You think you are very constructive when you delete Croatian names or change notions into Serbian ones. I don't think so. --[[User:Silverije|<b style="display:inline; color:orange; background:purple; padding:2px 3px 2px 5px;">Silve</b>]][[User talk:Silverije|<b style="display:inline; color:orange; background:blue; padding:2px 3px 2px 3px;">rije</b>]] (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]