User talk:Mikola22

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Mikola22, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Vlachs in the history of Croatia have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 12:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Original text

Thank you for adding the original non-English text to the note in Banate of Bosnia. Could you please do the same with the rest of the quoted text. --T*U (talk) 12:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Added. Mikola22 (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Good! Also the first part, please. --T*U (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Added. Mikola22 (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

TomStar81 (Talk) 00:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Removing sourced content

Any further removal of sourced content, as seen on Statuta Valachorum will be reason enough for a report and possible blockage. ty Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sadko: Other sources do not mention Serbs so we must respect and those sources as well. So reason for possible blockage it doesn't exist but you can report me. Mikola22 (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

You are cherry picking and searching/favouring sources per your POV, you know why and I as well know why. Any further edits will be closely followed. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sadko: Everything is based on sources and cherry picking is fact i.e. claim that term Vlachs denotes mainly Serbs, where are Croats here, Bulgarians, Balkan Vlachs, Croatian and Bosnian Vlachs, Albanians etc.Mikola22 (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sadko: Sources(boks, historians, historical documents) in Varaždin Generalate and Statuta Valachorum mentione Vlachs without Serbs and with Serbs(in any case mostly are mentioned Vlachs). And I placed Vlachs with the Serbs(I didn't delete anything here). What I needed to do? Otherwise there are mentioned and Hajduks, Uskoks, Croatian serfs etc but I did not place them with Vlachs and Serbs. The only thing I deleted was the term "Vlachs who are mostly Serbs" this requires consensus because this is an area of Varaždin Generalate for wich we have books that speaks about Croatian serfs which cross over to the Vlach side and who become a part of Statuta Valachorum and Vlachs in that area. And also place where it should be spoken about term Vlach is article about Vlachs not in article who talks about Statuta Valachorum. In any case if you find a concrete mistake feel free to expose it on talk page.Mikola22 (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The sea is wet, not matter how many sources do not mention the fact.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I don't know if i need to clarify something? Article talks about Vlachs statuts (Statuta Valachorum) name says who they are. In that area and Vlach community according to some data and books nearly half of them are Croatian serfs (Croatian parliament at that time discussed that problem) but in the records and books are also mentioned and Uskoks, Hajduks, Vlachs, Rascians etc while the name Vlachs is for them all( claim of historian). The article mentions Serbs but they are least mentioned in that part of Croatia although they are found throughout the whole article. We need to synchronize that with sources otherwise we could rename article to Serbian statuts. Mikola22 (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Do any of these source actually say that they were not Serbs? Note it does not matter if they were not serbs in 1800 or 1900 or 2000, do any sources say that the use of the word "Vlachs" in connection with the subject of the article did not include Serbs?Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:I did not delete any information about Serbs but I put Vlachs with them(although I may have put and others which are mentioned in the books) my source does not mention Serbs in that part of Croatia(so they do not specifically say that they are not Serbs, but they say that they are Croats, Hajduks and others). Other source mention Serbs and Vlachs while one Serbian source mentions only Serbs(who allegedly came to Vienna). The most neutral are name Vlach but in the article are mention and Serbs (I do not know how correct is this, considering that and others are mentioned there, Croats etc which are not mentioned in the article. As for the claim that Vlachs in that area are mostly Serbs(slightly older sources) for that must be consensus because they are the least mentioned there, and I deleted those two quotes and left part of those quotes which talking about Vlachs from same sources.Mikola22 (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

So no then, you have no source that says (in this context) Vlachs does not refer to Serbs. You have been told to read wp:or before.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I forgot to say that this 2019 Hungarian source speaks of the influence of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the 19th century on the basis of which the Orthodox became Serbs and on the basis they became Croats(Catholic churche). So it is assumed that they were not Serbs or Croats at that time. Also the sources which mentione Serbs do not mention that they are not Vlachs so I do not know what that should mean? One source mentions Vlachs, second mentione Serbs, third mentione Vlachs and Uskoks, fourth Serbs and Vlachs etc. No source says Vlachs are not Serbs, Serbs are not Uskoks, Vlachs are not Hajduks etc.Mikola22 (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

No, but we need a source defining what Vlachs in the context of the subject of the article, not the 19thC or the 19th. The subejct of the article might have used Vlachs to mean Serbs, Uskocks or just "that bunch of people who live in that hut over there". Now (apparently) there are sources that say this document referred to Serbs. Do you have a source that says the Statuta Valachorum referred to anyone other than Serbs?Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Now (apparently) there are sources that say this document referred to Serbs. You mean exclusively Serbs? The some sources mentione Serbs and Vlachs, my Hungarian source from 2019 does not mention Serbs as part of Statuta Valachorum. In Croatian historiography I didn't notice that Statuta Valachorum refer to Serbs, the name alone says that this document is about Vlachs (it is mentioned in books and original documents). And I brought that fact from that source into the article. There are other sources but they are mostly from Croatia. In this area is the largest crossing of the Croatian serfs to Vlachs area so it doesn't even make sense to write about Serbs in that area at least as far as Croatian historians are concerned.Mikola22 (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I see multiple edit war warnings, a block, I suggest you move into a less controversial topic are that Balkan races before you get a TANB.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I only have one block because one editor reported me but he was blocked too. We didn't agree on something and that's it. Multiple edit war warnings put some of editors so I started to put him such alerts on talk page. It is not warning from the admins etc. So everything is fine and don't worryMikola22 (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Your recent editing history at Rascians shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Rascians. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mikola22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I made an edit because source of citation is RS and explained here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Rascians, and this is stated when I returned citation, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rascians&action=history I think there is no dispute here when everything is clear. Mikola22 (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were blocked for violating WP:EW, yet haven't addressed this in your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Mikola22, I've removed the dialog between you and Slatersteven. While blocked, you are permitted only to discuss your block, not discuss the editing of Wikipedia articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

  I didn't know that and I apologize.Mikola22 (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mikola22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I think that I have not violated WP:EW and three-revert rule which is evident in the article. [[1]] I made edit because source of citation is RS and explained. [[2]] Because that was reason for deleting(no RS) after explanation I returned the article to its original state so i think there is no reason for blook. I do not know procedure and if that is not enough for appeal I respect the punishment and I will no longer complain, happy new year and greeting.Mikola22 (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It appears that the block has expired. SQL^{Query me!} 15:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Hi Mikola22. I have noticed your edits and I appreciate your desire as a new editor to add new content to several Balkan articles that need attention. It is a good thing, and I see much potential if you respect the rules and accept advice from experienced editors. In this case, you have been involved in edit warring. One can be blocked for edit warring even if they do not make 4 or more reverts within 24 hours. Edit warring is a behaviour. It means that one shows they will keep reverting on an article. You reverted several times although your addition of new content needs consensus. If you reflect, understand you could have solved the issue without making several reverts within a short period of time, and promise to not continue edit-warring, almost certainly the blocking admin will unblock you. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
• Mikola22, I warned you above - and you said you understood - that you cannot discuss articles while blocked. I removed the discussion and have revoked your access to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Mikola, as I said in my previous comment that is now removed due to your response that touched the content dispute, such content disputes are best discussed on the relevant article's talk page. I expected you would focus on the reason of the block and promise to not get involved in edit warring again. That would have done things much easier for you. Anyways, I am willing to help you since you are a new editor and have already shown a desire to add new content to controversial articles that need attention. You are one of the very rare editors willing and having the guts to do that. If you want some advice or help from me later, you can leave a note on my talk page or ping me somewhere. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Alleged offence and what not

I do not think that I offended you or anything like that, and that was not my intent. I was talking about the text/possible viewpoint and not you, Mikola22. I am sorry that you feel offended. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko:I wish you no harm but you have to understand that Vlachs are and Croats, Bosniaks etc. We cannot make Serbs of the Vlachs because then we from Croats, Bosniaks etc make Serbs. Article Slavonia I quote: To replace the fleeing Croats, the Habsburgs called on the Orthodox populations of Bosnia and Serbia to provide military service in the Croatian Military Frontier. Serb migration into this region peaked during the Great Serb Migrations of 1690 and 1737–39. Do you see when the masses of Serbs come to Slavonia and more to the eastern part of Slavonia and towards Vojvodina. As far as Varaždin Generalate and Statuta Valachorum is concerned (1630 and earlier) under Vlach name are everyone there(I've talked about it before). The Serbs are the least mentioned there but the whole article talk about them. Hold such a state of the article is not in good faith. When I suggested to another editor that this we must change for the better you did not in good faith discuss Statuta Valachorum article but you started accusing me of being a Nazi follower. Obviously you want that article to be in that state and you don't want changes but that is not good faith. In any case I hope you will improve for the better and start to respect and Croatian etc history. Mikola22 (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Smiljan. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. ——SN54129 15:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I edited the article according to the sources. Another editor adds some clames that are not in the sources. I suggested that everything be discussed on talk page but nothing specific is mentioned as a problem except some word. Eventually it will be according to the sources so I don't know the motive of another editor to RV article, probably vandalism. Mikola22 (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC started

As requested, I have started a RfC at Talk:Josip Runjanin#RfC about ethnicity. --T*U (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.Mikola22 (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Partial block from Croatia

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month from certain areas of the encyclopedia for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 21:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mikola22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

If someone persistently puts information which is not in the source and says that knows that and has no dialogue whatsoever on talk page, how is possible that I was punished who move this information which is not in the source? Wikipedia should reward me. Please reward me for this, cancel this block. Thank you.Mikola22 (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You're blocked for edit warring, not for being wrong. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I was blocked also. Being blocked doesn't mean you are a bad person, or that your prosecutor and judge, who punished you, are good people. Keep the faith! We are survivors! Wallie (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wallie: Thanks for the nice words because it means a lot to me considering I'm here alone and it is raining outside. It is not the end of the world if we are blocked because I will try to improve Wikipedia for the better as I can but there is a lot of work and a little understanding. I hope for better days for you and me.Mikola22 (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your continuous work against POV-pushing and blatant vandalism, congratulations! OyMosby (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Slavonia

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Tuvixer (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Sitewide block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months for edit warring against Nicoljaus while partially blocked (!). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 18:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mikola22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I cant remove clame from article "Statuta Valachorum" which has no evidence in the sources and which violates Wikipedia rule(the proof for this is fact that same claim was deleted from the article Croatia) while editor Nicoljaus deletes some information from article Slavonia although that information is from RS and officially under discussion and editor Nicoljaus was informed that he had provide evidence (Use high quality sources preferably from outside of the Balkans, this applies to both of you (Mikola22 and Nicoljaus). Editor Nicoljaus was ignored this. After that he deletes clame from RS as if nothing was happening. It also deletes data from book of the Croatian academician with reason of "wp:verifiability" although there is a book and the page where writes that clame. I have come across dozens of data where the source cannot be reached as well a lot of data which the not have source at all but we should not delete all this data without discussion and consensus. I was forced to revert that parts. If this is not enough for unblock I respect decision and I will not appeal. See you in the spring, thank you.

Mikola22 (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Edit warring is disruptive whether or not you are right regarding the content, and being right is not an excuse. Wikipedia has dispute resolution processes. You haven't used them. Huon (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mikola22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I reviewed Wiki policies on the 3RR, and I concluded that the viable way to solve the ongoing content disputes I am involved in is opening RfCs. I promise I will not revert again in those articles until everything is solved with RfCs. I understand what I have done, what I should have done, what I should do in the future. I should not get involved in edit warring even when I feel sure I am right. Given that blocks on Wikipedia are to prevent damage rather than to punish, I request getting unblocked. Not to mention that the blocking admin, @El C:, has also imposed a 1R restriction on my account, sth that makes my current block redundant. After all, due to the 1R restriction, if I get involved in edit warring again I will be blocked anyway. If this regret could be taken into account I would be grateful if not I understand. I would like to mention once again that there has been a discussion about source and article should not be edited while source is being discussed, but editor Nicoljaus made edit and here I was wrong, I thought that this edit was not in good faith and I made revert. I didn't use the word apology in my appeal because I thought I was right but I was realistically wrong and now I apologize to Wikipedia administrators and editor Nicoljaus. Mikola22 (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining site-wide unblock, but I'm partially unblocking you so that you can edit all namespaces except articles. In this unblock request, you said you want to solve the content dispute by opening a RfC. So, you can do it now and show us your constructive intent. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• @El C: If you agree, I am willing to partially unblock this user (WP:PB), so that they can edit all namespaces except articles. That way, they can seek dispute resolution without making further disruption to the articles themselves. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• My concern is that the user is on Wikipedia to advance fringe content, but sure, go for it. Still, it does feel slightly off that the one user's unblock request is answered (be it in the affirmative or in the negative), while their counterpart's unblock request remains unanswered. That does not seem right. El_C 14:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Why should the two editors stay blocked for two months for edit warring while a 1RR is imposed on them? The 1RR would be enough to prevent any possible disruption. Mikola22 says that he has understood his mistakes, and hopefully will avoid similar ones in the future. In January I promised to Mikola22 and other editors involved in the content dispute that I will help them find a solution. I was busy for some time, but when the two blocked editors are ready, I am willing to help. There are several RS that discuss the topic. So @Mikola22, when you are ready let me know. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Edit warring can still occur under 1RR. I wanted a sustained period of time when those two editors are indisposed to give other editors a chance to edit the contested articles without interruption. El_C 14:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

That is the point of a 1RR. It makes blocking an editor with a history of disruption easier while giving them the right to make constructive edits. The contested articles are obscure ones. If these two do not find common ground with each other, I doubt anyone will make changes there. Frankly, I have seen many disruptive editors on Balkan articles, but no case when an editor has in the same time a block for two months and revert restriction/topic ban/interaction ban. The block and the 1RR have the same role I think, hence together they turn from a way to prevent disruption into a way to punish. And sanctions on Wiki are supposed to do the former, not the latter. IMO. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The sanctions were not punitive, they were preventative. I considered it to benefit the project that the two users were to go through (and hopefully, succeed) in arguing their case for continuing to edit immediately. I also evaluated 1RR by itself as insufficient — a viewpoint I still hold. But thanks for sharing yours. And thanks for volunteering to help mediate between the two users. I wish you success in that venture. El_C 15:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I have successfully mediated in several disputes on Yugoslavia articles. No doubt I will do it again. Mikola22 actually promised he will accept the proposal I will make as mediator. Both editors are partly right and partly wrong regarding the content dispute. As Mikola22 apologized and says that he now understands that he should not do edit warring even if he is right, and a 1RR is imposed on him (sth that means if he makes more than 1 rv, he gets blocked), what do you seek to prevent? Why do not you remove the block and block him for 2 months if he breaches the 1RR? Or alternatively, why do not you remove the 1RR and warn them with a topic ban in case they repeat edit warring against each other on several articles after the block expires? Anyways, I do not care much about it. The important thing for me is that I have prepared a proposal and when the editors are ready, we can discuss. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The sanctions are in place to prevent further disruption. Both users agreeing to participate in your proposal could prove decisive in seeing their sitewide block appeals succeeding, however. El_C 15:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C:My concern is that the user is on Wikipedia to advance fringe content, but sure, go for it. Please explain me examples wher I do fringe content. In the article "Serbs of Croatia" I found forgeries(which have been deleted or corrected) and there are more. A new example I quote: " After the Ottoman conquests of Serbia and capture of Smederevo fortress in 1459 and fall of Bosnia 1463 different populations of Orthodox Christians moved into Syrmia and by 1483 perhaps 200,000 Orthodox Christians moved into central Slavonia and Syrmia." in the original document is written as follows " Tvrdnja kralja Matije Korvina iz 1461. godine jest da su Turci samo u posljednje tri godine "odveli 200.000 duša u ropstvo.. King Matthew Corvin's claim of 1461 is that in the last three years alone, the Turks "have taken 200,000 souls into slavery. Serbian scientific paper says that this error was transmitted by Serbian historians, and now is transmitted by foreign historians. You can ban me or block for all reverts and you can leave me talking only on talk page but there is so much work to be done( I don't think that just talking on talk page can solve this but I will accept that too). You have in English Wikipedia article about Statuta Valachorum(Vlach Statute(s) and the whole article is about Serbs. What do Serbs have to do with the Vlach Statutes? More editors need to be engaged to keep the articles as accurate as possible and that people don't read fairy tales. I've been gone for a month on Wikipedia and already someone Albanian tribe Bjelopavlići replaced for Serbian tribe. I put three sources that speak of Bjelopavlići as Albanians and someone put that they were Serbian tribe with mine sources saying that they were Albanian tribe With this I wanted to mention that there is a lot of work to make articles better. Normally I apologize to everyone and if you permanently blocked me I will respect it but at least I tried to change something for the better. I have invested my time and effort here, otherwise, when I was reading article about Croatian Serbs I noticed a lot of irregularities and that later turned out to be correct. It is important that I am in good faith tried to change something.Mikola22 (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I am basing that concern on what other editors have said, Mikola22. I'm not interested in getting into the nuances of your content dispute, though. Your lengthy comment is literally wasted on me. El_C 15:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Mikola, I suggest you to not edit the articles where you got involved in edit warring. After we solve the dispute on Statuta Valachorum, it is best for you to stay away from controversies about ethnicities till you gain more experience on Wiki. There are many interesting Yugoslavia articles you can edit without getting involved in messy stuff. Till you gain experience. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

If you(administrators) unblocked me I will accept solutions mediated by Ktrimi991 or I will not edit those articles again. Mikola22 (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Arbitration sanction

Upon your return to editing, you will be subject to a 1RR restriction on all articles that fall under the topic of Eastern Europe or the Balkans, broadly construed. The duration I fixed to this restriction is indefinite, however, you may appeal it no less than six months after it takes effect (2 months from now). El_C 18:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Content disputes

We have discussed and solved several content disputes. I also made some edits that addressed some concerns you had about Statuta Valachorum. Is there any other dispute from those you were got involved in left unresolved? Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

We should all start to change Statuta Valachorum article because that article now looks like a fairy tale. It is most important at this point, I presented dozens of data which should be included in the article, as soon as my block expires I will start adding all that informations to the article with your help and advice. Mikola22 (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I might make a few more edits on that article, though on the ethnic identity of the subject there is really nothing new to add. Only some comments from scholars. Also, can you give me relevant quotes from those two sources you used  ? Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991:

• Already in 1630, the emperor had issued the Statuta Valachorum, which granted certain freedoms to Vlachs fleeing the Ottoman Empire, so they could be resettled and obliged to perform military service. Since then, there had been a steady influx of new refugees.(Marie-Janine Calic, 2019, page 141)
• Meanwhile, in Ottoman lands, the erosion of Vlach tax privileges was a source of hardship. In October 1595, “Bishop Vasilii” traveled from Ottoman territory to the Habsburg border fortress of Križevci. His message was that the Turks had become unbearable: they were treating their Orthodox subjects as if they were spies and informers. Archduke Ferdinand immediately gave the general of Varaždin approval to resettle any Vlachs who came over. A first large group of Vlachs now crossed over and were assigned land by General Herberstein. In June 1597, Vlach leaders proposed that more people would come if Herberstein camped near Virovitica when he did, 1,700 came over. In 1598, Ferdinand approved Herberstein’s plan to attack Pakrac and Velika; he did not in fact lay siege to either fortress, but on his return he brought five hundred more Vlachs. By 1610, some 1,200 men had relocated to Habsburg Slavonia, most between 1597 and 1600; since families were large, Karl Kaser estimates a total of ten thousand migrants.(James D. Tracy, 2016, page 353-354)

You have and Croatian sources which say that a large part of Croatian serfs become Vlachs who also convert to Orthodoxy. Mikola22 (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Template_History of Kosovo

Hello Mikola, thank you for the contribution to public the map of Yugoslavia. Can you help me with the template of the history of Kosovo because I edited it and it was reverted. I checked a lot of information to do it but someone deleted that. It will be a great thing to work on it. :) Kreshnik Prizreni (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kreshnik Prizreni: I'm not familiar with the history of Kosovo, with any editing you must have a quality source, a book or an article of some historian. I suggest that you ask for advice editor @Ktrimi991:. I'm here if you need something. Now I'm in block so I can't edit anything but I can always give a advice. Mikola22 (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kreshnik Prizreni: If you have made edits that have been reverted, the proper way to go forward is to make your suggestions in the talk page of the article in order to get a consensus for some of or all of the changes. See WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD. --T*U (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Hello, thank you for the suggestions. I will check it and discuss the issue. Cheers Kreshnik Prizreni (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Military Frontier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom of Croatia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Corrected. Mikola22 (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

New editor

Hi,

I noticed that you quite skillfully used wikipedia tools since your first edits. Were you new editor back then, or returning old one?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocks taught me. I thought that wikipedia is based on original historical facts but that is not the case. Here the rule of RS rule and I have accept that. It's a little strange to read articles and RS which the do not have confirmation in the original historical documents, but I get used to it. Otherwise in Croatia wikipedia is not considered accurate and I wanted to change that. I have no help from anyone or ask for it because everyone should work together to make wikipedia accurate as possible but unfortunately that is not the case. I hope someone will help me. Cheers. Mikola22 (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Eupedia

Hi Mikola22, I saw your writing on this portal, and I was wondering, considering that you seem to be very interested and well-informed in the topic, do you have some more recent academic works about genetic studies about citizens of Croatia (I'm mostly interested in Dalmatian islands and Istria, but other parts as well)? Has anybody done a comparison between eastern and western parts of the country? Is there any new research done on the connection to White Croatia, at all? This is a really interesting topic. I was not able to see those works on Poreklo portal. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Try asking this on portal Eupedia, cheers. Mikola22 (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Perast

I have the text in front of me, which is mentioning Risan. There is no information in the source that Croats live in the city. Please provide full quote per source or it's ripe for removal. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: I have this source. Maybe I read something wrong so check it out.Mikola22 (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Randomly removing

You CAN'T just randomly remove something and give a diff on the line "I know about this". If the lack of references was the case/concern, than you should have removed other countries as well. Otherwise, it may seem like... Well, you guess it. enjoy [3] [4] ty, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not speak that Diple are traditional woodwind musical instrument in Serbia ie music of Serbia. If this instrument is played in Serbia in recent times this information cannot be in the introductory part because this instrument has no source in Serbia. It has traditional source in the Serb population of Croatia as in the majority population of Croatia ie Croats, Bosnian population etc. If we because of emigrants from Croatia or Bosnia and Herzegovina start enter to the article countries where Diple are played then the introductory part would probably be too long. Mikola22 (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The chanter incorporates two single reeds, one in each bore. The meh or diple is played from Istria to Dalmatia and in Lika, Dalmatian Hinterland and Herzegovina. This is information from RS and these are areas of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina ie traditional woodwind musical instrument in Croatian and Bosnian and Herzegovinan music.Mikola22 (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion is not per sources. Stop pushing personal opinion/s and presentingg your fringe viewpoints (which was discussed with numerous editors and admins.) as facts, please. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Which facts? The first source not mention Diple as traditional musical instrument in Serbian music because if this information exist you would quote this information and you don't doing this. From the source(All bagpipe diple have a double chanter with two separate single reeds. In Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Dalmatia they differ among themselves, page 51-53, https://books.google.com.bz/books?id=7i44AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false), Serbia is not mentioned. Second source speaks about private person with origin from Croatia who plays diple in Serbia and it is not RS. The same instrument is played by Croats in Germany, Austria, etc and it is not traditional musical instrument of music of Germany or music of Austria. Third source (internet portal) talks about an exhibition of different instruments in some Serbian museum, it is not RS. Everything is nicely explained and you can’t vandalize article. Therefore, you cannot replace RS with secondary informations and informations which do not prove stated claim. Mikola22 (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Fringe theories/Noticeboard‎

Your arguments there is getting wp:tenditious You mention a source that does not even contain the names of the people your edit mentions. You have now said you are not even talking about the article in which you made the change. Stop now.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: how does not? Book "Neighbors at War: Anthropological Perspectives on Yugoslav Ethnicity" page 84 [5] Elinor Despalatovic and page 103 Andrei Simić. They wrote their chapters. Informatin from other book (Identity Politics in the Age of Genocide (Routledge Advances in International Relations and Global Politics, page 167) I quote: "The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum gives a figure of between 300,000 and 400,000 victims of Jasenovac alone. It is a completely different book which are listed as a source of additional information and MacDonald's talks about Jasenovac victims as well as the total Serbian victims in WWII, and these two informations are not for one article. So I ask you what about the other data? Mikola22 (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"I thought about article concerning Jasenovac, it is very well grounded information in MacDonalds book.("Genocide in Yugoslavia During the Holocaust, Washington, DC: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 1995"" what do you think that means? As to Despalatovic, page 84 does not contain any mentions of killing that I can see, it seems to be about history.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: very likely the first book or source is (WP:FRINGE) however we have other sources with their numbers. In this case it is a book (Identity Politics in the Age of Genocide (Routledge Advances in International Relations and Global Politics, page 167) and clame I quote: "The numbers of Serbian dead overall, not just as victims of Jasenovac, can never be known for certain. Historians, using a variety of statistics, give a range of between 200,000 and 750,000 deaths. The USHMM gives a figure of between 300,000 and 400,000 victims of Jasenovac alone." I asked you for help and first edit we have "MacDonald gives a figure of between 200,000 and 750,000 deaths" and this is information for article "Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia". What is your suggestion for information(edit) concerning number of victims in Jasenovac, that would be for the article concerning the Jasenovac camp? Mikola22 (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: To whom will you report me? We are talking about number of dead stated by Elinor Despalatovic and Andrei Simić in the RS book. If something is (WP:FRINGE) then we prove with other sources whether this is true or not. By which we would prove it, by looking at one source? Editor GPinkerton proving (WP:FRINGE) with other numbers brings the information from book "The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945, vol. III" and I bring the same data from a book that also uses this institution but with a different conclusion in the book. This is this book(Identity Politics in the Age of Genocide (Routledge Advances in International Relations and Global Politics) and then you coming with your comment "Can you provide the quote where MacDonald supports this edit, as I cannot find it?Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)". And you give an opinion on editing the article of "Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia" What I have to do with your opinion, statements, commenting on anything else etc. Do you want to help me or not? Mikola22 (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I have said all I will have to say on this..Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Quote

Please provide a quote in Serbian/English based on which you have made the following edit. [6] I would also like to point out the archives template which you have "borrowed" from my user page had some previous issues, so you might want to checkt that. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 09:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: "Na interpretaciju Sajmišta i njegove povijesti ranih devedesetih svakako su utjecale i polemike o odnosu Srba i Hrvata prema Židovima koje su u to vrijeme vođene na relaciji Zagreb-Beograd. S hrvatske strane, najaktivniji u ovom svojevrsnom ratu riječima bilisu autori poput Tomislava Vukovića, Ljubice Štefan, Josipa Pečarića, Ante Kneževića i američkog publicista Philipa Cohena. U svojim djelima oni su nastojali predstaviti Srbe kao stvarni “genocidni narod,” čiji su kolaboracionisti za vrijeme Drugog svjetskog rata uz blagoslov Srpske pravoslavne crkve počinili mnogo strašnije zločine od ustaške NDH i očistili Srbiju od Židova. Oni su tvrdili da je u socijalističkoj Jugoslaviji postojala “zavjera šutnje,” ali da je ona prikrivala genocidni karakter srpskog nacionalizma i zataškavala njegove krvave tragove. Dakle, hrvatska strana je u ovoj polemici obilno posuđivala (i okretala) argumente svojih srpskih pandana, koji su prvi pisali o “zavjeri šutnje,” genocidnoj prirodi (hrvatskog) nacionalizma, ulozi (katoličke) crkve u genocidu počinjenom u Drugom svjetskom ratu i slično. Sa srpske strane, glavni sudionici u debati bili su Milan Bulajić,zatim autori knjige Istina o “srpskom antisemitizmu” Andrija Gams i Aleksandar Levi, i Jaša Almuli, u to vrijeme jedan od portparola kontroverznog i nacionalistički orijentiranog Društva srpsko-židovskog prijateljstva. Oni su, kao odgovor na “optužbe” iz Zagreba,uglavnom nastojali u potpunosti negirati postojanje antisemitizma u Srbiji, potencirajući pritom njegovo rašireno prisustvo u Hrvatskoj, kako u prošlosti tako i danas. Iza ove pole-mike vrlo brzo su stala ministarstva (Ministarstvo kulture i informisanja u Srbiji i Mini-starstvo vanjskih poslova u Hrvatskoj), kao i režimski mediji u obje države, što ukazuje da je debata zapravo vođena na nivou državne propagande." "The interpretation of Sajmište and its history in the early 1990s was certainly influenced by the controversies about the attitude of Serbs and Croats towards Jews at that time between Zagreb and Belgrade. On the Croatian side, the most active in this kind of war were authors like Tomislav Vuković, Ljubica Štefan, Josip Pečarić, Ante Knežević and the American publicist Philip Cohen. In their works they sought to present the Serbs as a real “genocidal people,” whose collaborators committed much more horrific crimes than the Ustasha NDH during World War II with the blessing of the Serbian Orthodox Church cleansed Serbia of Jews. They claimed that there was a "conspiracy of silence" in socialist Yugoslavia, but that it covered up the genocidal character of Serbian nationalism and covered up its bloody traces, so the Croatian side borrowed (and turned) the arguments of its Serbs in this controversy pandanus, who first wrote about the “conspiracy of silence,” the genocidal nature of (Croatian) nationalism, the role of the (Catholic) church in the genocide committed in World War II and similar clames. On the Serbian side, the main participants in the debate were Milan Bulajić, then the authors of the book The Truth About "Serbian Anti-Semitism" Andrija Gams and Aleksandar Levi, and Jasa Almuli, at that time one of the spokespersons of the controversial and nationalist Serbian-Jewish Friendship Society. In response to the "accusations" from Zagreb, they generally sought to completely deny the existence of anti-Semitism in Serbia, emphasizing its widespread presence in Croatia, both in the past and today. The ministries (Ministry of Culture and Information in Serbia and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Croatia), as well as the regime media in both countries, quickly became behind this controversy, which indicates that the debate was actually conducted at the level of state propaganda."

• For template, do I have to delete it or what? I not know what it is about.Mikola22 (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Smiljan

Your recent edits on Smiljan are not improvements. We do not take all the sources literary. We have discussed this issue in the past, and this narrative led to your long ban in the first place. Please cooperate with other editors. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

This is edit according to the source. Why is so many Serbian Orthodox facts in the article when we don't take this sources literary? We replaced their Wallachian ethnonym with belonging to a religious community. Why? Mikola22 (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Because, as you have been told repeatedly, that is not the consensus and not the context and it's not NPOV but borders with fringe theories, popular in Croatia and parts of Bosnia per which most Serbs are Vlachs who were turned to Serbs by SOC, which is a big pile of BS. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

That's what the source tells you. Have you read the source? Austrian Historian Karl Kaser: "The name "Vlachs" is used in the 1712 census with two meanings. It was mostly used for marking belonging to the Greek Orthodox religious community. Thus the opposite pair of Catholics-Vlachs or the name "Vlach faith". The name "schismatics" is less common or "schismatic religions." The use of the term Vlach, however, is not constant, as it is sometimes used and to label Vlachs as an ethnic group, for example in the Croat-Vlach opposition." And here we have promotion of Serbian Orthodox throughout the article, I guess it should be the other way around. Half of the article is promotion of belonging to a religious community.

Promotion!? What are you going on about? I see that you have returned the information the same second, very disturbing. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Everything is explained, first information in history section does not mention ethnic Serbs and I edited it according to the source, and second information speak about Roman Catholic Vlachs ie Bunjevci and Serbian Orthodox Vlachs and I edited it according to the source. Why would that be disturbing? From the source which is in the article, "Popis i etnička podjela prema dualnom modelu Vlasi – Hrvati. Iz popisa 1712./14. proizlazi da je na ličko--krbavskom prostoru živjelo oko 87% stanovništva koje je pripadalo vlaškom društvenom i kulturno povijesnom naslijeđu (pravoslavni i katolički Vlasi, tj. Bunjevci).".. "Census and ethnic division according to the dual model Vlachs - Croats. From the census of 1712/14. it follows that in the Lika-Krbava area lived about 87% of the population which belonged to the Vlach social and cultural-historical heritage (Orthodox and Catholic Vlachs, ie Bunjevci)."(page 371).."Popis i etnička podjela prema modelu peterostrukog naroda. Zanimljiva je i prostorna rasprostranjenost ličko-krbavskih etnija. Srpskopravoslavni Vlasi činili su uvjerljivu, dvotrećinsku većinu i bili su prisutni u svim dijelovima Like i Krbave.".. "Census and ethnic divisions according to the model of the fivefold nation. Distribution of the Lika-Krbava ethnic groups is also interesting. Serbian Orthodox Vlachs made up a convincing, two-thirds majority and were present in all parts of Lika and Krbava."(page 374)..

What ethnicity and nation in the present source mean? Serbian Orthodox? I guess it's primarily about the Vlachs. If we have an article about the history of some place I guess we have to emphasize who are inhabitants of that place and area. No, we emphasize their religious affiliation.

Bunjevci article: "In 1788 the first Austrian population census was conducted – it called Bunjevci Illyrians and their language the Illyrian language. It listed 17,043 Illyrians in Subotica. In 1850 the Austrian census listed them under Dalmatians and counted 13,894 Dalmatians in the city. Despite this, they traditionally called themselves Bunjevci. The Austro-Hungarian censuses from 1869 onward to 1910 numbered the Bunjevci distinctly. They were referred to as "bunyevácok" or "dalmátok" (in the 1890 census). In 1880 the Austro-Hungarian authorities listed in Subotica a total of 26,637 Bunjevci and 31,824 in 1892. In 1910, 35.29% of the population of the Subotica city (or 33,390 people) were registered as "others"; these people were mainly Bunjevci." This are historical data and we cannot all information about the Bunjevci, Dalmatians or Illyrians change to Roman Catholics. What would the article after this edit look like? Mikola22 (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Stop ignoring my questions like you always do. People on Wikipedia are not morons, on the contrary. WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS are some of the guidelines which you are ignoring. If this continues, measures shall be taken, because you do not want to cooperate with other editors, which was also the problem in recent past. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Which measures? first information in history section does not mention ethnic Serbs and I edited it according to the source, do you hear me? We cannot put information from a source about ethnic Serbs in the article when this source does not mention ethnic Serbs. If Serbian Orthodox are promoted through the article I suppose we must put information from the source of those who live there and they are according to this census and RS Vlachs . If we talking about the history of some area, then I guess that inhabitants of that area need to know what written sources and RS say about them in the past time. I don't know which purpose is in the article promotion of information throughout the article that they were Serbian Orthodox. Did I tell you that another source (an Austrian historian) calls the population of that area Greek Orthodox Vlachs and Roman Catholics Vlachs ie Bunjevci. This is also RS. Mikola22 (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Potential canvassing

What is this? [7] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Ask the person who wrote it, I'm not in court for committed crime because someone wrote something. Whay you asking me? Mikola22 (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

He clearly implied that there is ongoing conversation outside Wiki about some current "issues", that's why. Considering that Ceha used page/s on hr.wiki for canvassing, one can think that it's happening again. Is that the case? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean? Say concrete. Mikola22 (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)